Studies on vaccines you might have missed.👨‍🔬💉🚫

Yserbius, YOUR Article “About those RESEARCH PAPERS supporting the Vaccine/Autism Link”
AGREES with Doomsday that there ARE Research Papers supporting a Link between Vaccines and Autism!

The vast majority of them aren’t even about autism and vaccines (the anti vaxxers, including doomsday, LIED about the subject matter).

The few that actually are about vaccines and autism all had serious flaws, such as confusing correlation with causation (which anti-vaxxers do regarding autism but don’t seem to have this issue with the drop in diseases correlating with use of vaccines), using a tiny sample size, misanalyzing data, etc.

If this article supports you, doomsday, then I guess you’re a pro-vaxxer.

Meno: So if I were to start a blog, and on that blog write 1001 articles full of unscientific bogus studies claiming that autism was created by aliens from Jupiter, and then post here that there are over 1000 articles online linking autism to aliens, Doomsday wouldn’t have any problem with that?

If those studies were by real PHd Research SCIENTISTS and MEDICAL DOCTORS, I would be OK with that.

The 100+ Research Studies showing a Link between Vaccines and Autism are by PH.D. SCIENTISTS and
MEDICAL DOCTORS.

And the CDC Studies “Proving” that Vaccines don’t cause Autism have been DEBUNKED by Real Scientists and I have Posted exactly HOW the CDC Studies committed the FRAUD!
And No Pro-Vaxxer on this thread was able to Refute that the CDC Studies showing that Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism ARE FRAUDULENT!!!

The moment this entire discussion shifted away from science and facts I no longer am able to respond.

How is one to respond to made up facts and made up assumptions?

We can discuss a study or piece of science, such as Keej123 attempted to do, However, once he realized that his assertions are statistically insignificant and actually show that statistically the study is very strong and proves that the MMR vaccine plays no role in autism he went silent.

It was funny to see how Dooms jumped along with the study as if this proves that MMR increases autism rates. Dooms will take anything that proves the agenda of anti-medicine, regardless what the actual studies show.

Make no mistake, Dooms and Bais hillel are not interested in a respectful discussion, despite prior attempts to a portray themselves as moderates and educated, they are just copying and pasting stuff from blogs like age of autism. In no way are they are interested in having a meaningful discussion.

I feel bad for these people that the only way they can make their point is by unloading a whole bunch of nonsense, at first I went through what was posted with complete sincerity, I (and others) were surprised to see that the actual studies posted concluded other than what Dooms claimed, instead of acknowledging and responding to these, Dooms just kept on unloading more and more stuff.

At this point, what is the point of this discussion?

“Therefore More SICK People and More people on Prescription Medication = More People Buying Insurance.”

You know that you are sounding a bit insane, insurance companies in no matter benefit from sicker patients, they benefit when healthy people purchase insurance.

Every single sick person usually places a financial burden on the insurance company.

There is a limit to the nonsense one person is allowed to make up.

If Vaccines are so Wonderful, Why does the Vaccine Industry need the GOVERNMENT to FORCE Vaccines
on Everybody?

Because of illogical people like you.

“If Vaccines are so Wonderful, Why does the Vaccine Industry need the GOVERNMENT to FORCE Vaccines
on Everybody?”

First off, in a lot of states, you can still decide not to vaccinate.

Second, because it is the current ESTABLISHED belief, that these diseases are dangerous, the government has always played a role in preventing danger to the public. there are many laws that are based on this.

The government spends a lot of time and resources when it comes to public safety, this would include municipality EMS and other stuff. I am sure you knew this already.

Does that make sense to you?

Dooms – KUP -“Health, You said How many times do I have to tell you – that JAMA study with 95,000 kids included vaxxed – totally unvaxxed?!?”
“WRONG HEALTH! The JAMA Study did NOT include children who were Totally Unvaxxed! Just because
there was a reference to a study asking “WHERE DO UNVAXXED CHILDREN LIVE?” Does not mean there
were any Unvaxxed children in the Study!
OY! Learn to Read a study!”

YES it did! Here is the quote from that study:
“Maternal and paternal educational level, household income, and race/ethnicity were also included as fixed covariates. These sociodemographic factors have been associated with both ASD status23 and vaccine receipt.24”

When a person has NO EDUCATION – they can’t begin to understand the article! That’s why they used #24 as a reference.

DY -“Health (AKA ubiquitin)”

I posted many times – I don’t post on any other SN!

DY -“Health (AKA ubiquitin)”

I posted many times – I don’t post on any other SN!

Heath (AKA doomsday), why should I believe you?

2cents,

We can discuss a study or piece of science, such as Keej123 attempted to do, However, once he realized that his assertions are statistically insignificant and actually show that statistically the study is very strong and proves that the MMR vaccine plays no role in autism he went silent.

i just took the weekend off, but I’m still here.

I personally don’t believe in beating dead horses, so you’ll only hear from me when I have something intelligent to add.

In your latest response to me you introduced a distinction between assessing genetic-autism to assessing MMR as a factor, which I’m still digesting.

Meno,

Ok keej, here’s a hypothetical study. Let’s see what you think:

Thoughts?

You said you’re justified in removing the 10,000 with red socks. I’m not so sure. What if coincidentally, there was a concentration of either Neuro-typical or Autistic children in that group. That would make a very big difference on the resulting ratio.

In my view at this point in time, the only justification of removing anyone is if they weren’t subject to the initial risk.

Doomsday: “even after I show you again and again and again that there are 100+ Research Studies showing a Link between Vaccines and Autism.”

Ubiquiton: Since you’ve shown so many times, would you be so kind as to showing once more . Name ONE STUDY please.

The question is: Is the CDC and News Media LYING to the PUBLIC when CDC and New Media proclaims “There are NO Studies linking Vaccines to Autism EXCEPT for Wakefields?

The question is NOT: Is there a Study linking Vaccines to Autism that ProVaxxers will accept as Valid!!!

Folks, do you NOTICE that the PROVAXXERS are trying to CHANGE THE QUESTION in order to
COVER-UP that CDC and News Media LIE TO THE PUBLIC to HIDE that there ARE Studies showing a
Link between Vaccines and Autism?!?!
I have shown there are 100+ Studies Linking Vaccines to Autism –
ant the ProVaxxers on this Thread continue to LIE: There are NO Studies Linking Vaccines to Autism –
Except Wakefield!

DoomsKUP -“Health, this does NOT mean there were ANY 100% UNVAXXED children in the 95,000 child Study!!!”

Mr/Ms. Uneducated, Not ONLY do you have no knowledge of Science, but you don’t have any comprehesion of English WORDS.

“also included as fixed covariates”
What does this part of the sentence MEAN?!?

MY name is Not Heath!

And doomsday isn’t doomskup.

Doomsday: I have shown there are 100+ Studies Linking Vaccines to Autism –

DaasYochid Yet, you refuse to name a single one.

Because it is IRRELEVANT to the Question:
Are there Research Studies showing a Link between Vaccines and Autism?
The answer is: YES THERE ARE! Just Google it and you will see 100+ Studies linking Vaccines to Autism!

You and other Lying Provaxxers are trying to CHANGE the Question to:

Is there a Study Linking Vaccines to Autism that ProVaxxers will Accept as Valid?

The answer to that is NO! Even if there were a MILLION Studies by Real Scientists and Medical Doctors showing a Link between Vaccines and Autism, the ProVaxxers would say EVERY One of those Million Studies are NOT VALID.

So let’s see if you can HONESTLY Answer the Question I asked and NOT Try to CHANGE the Question:

Are there research studies showing a link between Vaccines and Autism – aside from Wakefield?

Doomsday
Nobody is changing any questions.
“Are there research studies showing a link between Vaccines and Autism – aside from Wakefield?”

Asked and answered.
I’ll answer again no there aren’t.

Your turn.
You keep saying ” I have shown there are 100+ Studies Linking Vaccines to Autism ”
Can you pretty ease with a cherry on top provide even ONE?

DaasYochid,

In my view at this point in time, the only justification of removing anyone is if they weren’t subject to the initial risk.

Then in your view no study can ever be reliable unless every single human being on the planet is included.

This is more of a taunt than a legitimate objection.

So you can then go ahead and say, if we don’t need to look at 7 billion humans, then we don’t need to consider the 95k either.

sorry buddy, it doesn’t work like that.

Because it is IRRELEVANT to the Question:

Of course it’s relevant because the despite the claim of 157, there’s not a single one that actually legitimately shows a link.

You’re afraid to post one because you know whichever you pick will be debunked.

DaasYochid,

At what point do you admit that you have more than enough and randomly removing a few will not make the results inaccurate?

Here, over 86,000 Neuro-typicals were removed, leaving only 8,500.

This is not a “random few”.

To your point: we are studying 95,000, and I understand and accept that. The study even compares the ratio in the 95k to the ratio in the field and finds them within equal range to be considered accurate. So you don’t need the whole world here, because we both “get” that we’re studying 95k.

If it had been a “random few” as in Meno’s example, perhaps that would be a different story.

Keej,

It doesn’t matter how many subjects you remove from group. As long as there is justification for removing each one and you are left with an adequate sample size, it shouldn’t affect the results of the study.

Now I’m going to post about the most Anti-vaxxers’ LIES!
They are discussing the Anti-vaxxer movie called – “Vaxxed”:
From ScienceBasedMedicine.org.
“Yes, VAXXED is a deceptive bit of antivaccine propaganda, but it’s unfortunately become an influential piece of antivaccine propaganda. For example, Wakefield and Bigtree have actually successfully used VAXXED to influence Congressmen.
1.Autism is an epidemic. Nary a mention is made of the effect of changes in diagnostic definitions in the 1990s, better screening, and diagnostic substitution that strongly suggest autism prevalence is likely not increasing.
2. Vaccines are not tested for safety as rigorously as pharmaceutical drugs (and, oh, Vioxxx…). Wrong. They are tested at least as rigorously as than other drugs.
3. The vaccine omnibus hearings were defeated by a single “fraudulent study” from the CDC; that is, DeStefano et al, the very study featured in VAXXED as having been revealed as “fraudulent” by William Thompson. Nope. You can also read more here. I also note that one of the children who was a test case used to establish biological plausibility, William Yates Hazlehurst, was shown in video in VAXXED without the audience being informed that this child was one of the test cases and that his parents’ complaint was denied.
4. There has never been a “vaxxed vs. unvaxxed” study. This is a favorite antivaccine fantasy. First, the question is framed as a randomized study, like a drug study, in which one group receives a placebo. This, of course, would be unethical because one group would be left unprotected. It’s also not true that there hasn’t been a “vaxxed vs. unvaxxed” study. In fact, there have been several. They generally show at least no differences in health and often better health in the vaccinated group. Basically, the claim that there is no “vaxxed vs. unvaxxed” study is a lie, antivaccine propaganda.”

Then there’s no such thing as evidence.

The medical scientific community generally refers to “levels of evidence” rather than just “evidence.” Different types of studies are seen as lending different amounts of weight in support or against a particular clinical question. For example, a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multi-center, controlled trial is generally seen as being the highest level of evidence, and “expert opinion” and case reports are seen as the lowest. There are several other types of studies in between.

Both 90% and 8% could be valid sample sizes depending on the nature of the study, the outcome you are trying to observe, and the effect size of the variables in question. There is a specific area of biostatistics, called sample size analysis and power analysis, that determines what makes up an acceptable sample size.