- This topic has 1,840 replies, 65 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
doomsday
‘But in EVERY Clinical Trial, who gets the Tested Ingredient is ALWAYS RANDOM ”This is absolute nonsense
Of course that is the gold standard, in particular when used to determine efficacy. (and of course RCT’s exist for vaccines eg Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomized and placebo controlled trial. Published in BMJ
Do you accept that one? of course not . how about rotavirus
Randomized placebo-controlled trial of rhesus-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine for prevention of severe rotavirus gastroenteritis published in LAncet. I know I know no good because of “Many many more reasons”Retrospective studies are done all the time you really have to stop guessing at these facts. Particulary when looking at rare r adverse events whcih you would need a large number of enrolees (eg 95,000) to identify which is impossible in a prospective RCT.
“there are MORE Children who developed Autism in the NO MMR Group /partially Vaxxed because the parents refused MMR when they saw SIGNS OF AUTISM.”
So the possibility that they would get the MMR retroactively increased their risk of autism?
Remember this study is looking at specifically MMR, whether IT increases the risk of autism.
I’m happy to go through the study slowly with you, but you have to follow along and not skip[ ahead because you still dont seem to understand this very basic point .
you keep repeating empty buzz words and fake scientific rules that you think make you sound smartDooms,
So your position is that because they got other vaccines, therefore they got autism?
You are making claims that no one else is making, based on what are these claims, being that these are your own (or some radical blogs) claims, why in the world do you think that someone would make the studies that you want?
“2Cents, answer this: Why in EVERY clinical study testing whether a product is safe, is it all RANDOMIZED who gets the product and who does not?”
Not sure what your question is, nor you have not included the source to your claim that the reason the people did not vaccinate were due to seeing signs of autism. If that is the case, what about their other children, why was the MMR vaccine withheld, and since you claim that other vaccines are also to blame for autism, do you claim that these other children were vaccinated and its just the MMR vaccine that was withheld, or was it all vaccines?
the reason for the question, because this group had a higher (or how you would write, HIGHER) rate of autism, not a marginal increase, a dramatic increase!
Based on your theory of correlation regardless of cause and effect, wouldn’t this prove that the MMR vaccine (as well as the other vaccines) actually prevent autism?All your theories as a whole are not just unsubstantiated, they contradict each other.
Instead of twisting the study, the selection was based on groups, not on the diagnosis of autism, autism was the result.
let’s repeat this, groups were selected based on either being related to someone that is autistic or based on getting the MMR vaccine.
Your claim that those that gave the MMR vaccine were healthy, yet those that did not receive it were not healthy, has the following problems.
a. not in line with your position, that autism is genetic and actually has SIGNS (your style of writing) of autism earlier on.
b. Unsubstantiated and not reality, people that withhold vaccinations do it only after they know their child has autism and buy into the false notion that is to blame for this, as they gave their child the MMR vaccine.
c. Their siblings are unlikely to receive ANY vaccines, yet they are more likely to be diagnosed with autism.Dooms
” When a NEW Drug is tested, do they test for safety using another DRUG as a Placebo?
Or do they use a Sugar Pill or Saline Solution?”Don’t answer your questions when they are so easy to disprove
Both it depends on the what phase trial we are talking, what is being looked at
It also depends on the standard of care. for example Cyclophosphamide has been the standard of care in treating ANCA associated vascultis for several decades.
now I think rituximab might be better or as good but with less side effects.
It would be wrong to test rituximab against a placebo, and not give some patients ANY treatment.
This study was done (RAVE ) and is shifting our management. (though granted THIS example wasnt about the safety of rituximab it is just the first example that comes to mind. As for safety look up Phase 4 trial.Drug vs Drug studies are done all the time.
More to the point though, Even if we are developing a new drug for a treatment without a standard of care, adn we are comparing it to a placebo.
We dont stop all drugs the placebo arm is taking, in order to do a “DRUG VS NO DRUG” study
The study arm gets Drug X the control arm gets placebo. And it doesn’t matter if the two groups are also taking Drugs A, B, C.
i’m not sure why you are under the impression that in order to study the effects of MMR the control arm cant have received ANY vaccine.Truth,
Once again when posting what would seem like a study you have not posted who the author is.
The author of that ‘paper’ is Gayle Delong.
Only a site as ageOfAutism would accept Gayle as a credible person and regardless of the lack of credentials or knowledge in medicine she meets the very low criteria that you and radicals have to when it comes to anyone that concludes like your made up religious like radical agenda.
She has much more radical stuff she has come up with, interesting how it just so happens that these same people that are on the radical anti medicine side, just so happen to also have other radical views.
Truth,
would really be nice to provide a source to the stories, from where are you quoting?
Seems like your trying to make the claim that pediatricians make this kind of money, I am sure that the pediatricians you know all drive Rolls Royce cars.
You do realize that you already exposed yourself as not having really researched the topic of vaccines, the quotes you posted are usually from sources with no credibility and from people with already established zero credibility.
It seems that everyone that has lost their credibility is grabbing onto fringe groups that will buy their nonsense and promote them, its a win-win situation, you buy into what they say, they become popular, now you already have a source.
You have done this many times in the past, anyone with a keyboard and internet connection can immediately see how off and not credible these people are.
Dooms -“AntiVaxxers would not let their children participate because they believe vaccines are too dangerous.”
So you would have to use the Anti-vaxxers, that won’t Vax.
For the Vaxxers – you would have to do a retroactive study.
This would be accepted by most normal people on both sides.2cents: the quotes you posted are usually from sources with no credibility and from people with already established zero credibility.
Translation: We don’t accept anything from anti-vax doctors or websites.
But Fraudulent CDC Studies are “Holy” – NOT!ProVaxxers – attack the substance, not the source.
Attacking the Source is what those who cannot refute whine.2cents: So your position is that because they got other vaccines, therefore they got autism?
YES!2cents: You are making claims that no one else is making, based on what are these claims, being that these are your own (or some radical blogs) claims, why in the world do you think that someone would make the studies that you want?
People have been saying that Vaccines are causing Autism (and more) for many years.
CDC makes FAKE Studies to “prove” that Vaccines do not cause Autism – but the Studies are INVALID,
as I pointed out because who gets MMR is NOT RANDOM, the children who are showing signs of Autism
do NOT get MMR and children who appear Normal DO get the MMR. This invalidates the study.“2Cents, answer this: Why in EVERY clinical study testing whether a product is safe, is it all RANDOMIZED who gets the product and who does not?”
Not sure what your question is….blah blah…blah..
2Cents refuses to answer the question.
2cents: Your claim that those that gave the MMR vaccine were healthy, yet those that did not receive it were not healthy, has the following problems.
a. not in line with your position, that autism is genetic and actually has SIGNS (your style of writing) of autism earlier on.
b. Unsubstantiated and not reality, people that withhold vaccinations do it only after they know their child has autism and buy into the false notion that is to blame for this, as they gave their child the MMR vaccine.
c. Their siblings are unlikely to receive ANY vaccines, yet they are more likely to be diagnosed with autism.I am typing S L O W L Y so maybe you will be able to understand. Maybe.
Autism has BOTH genetic and environmental (vaccines) factors.
If a child with a genetic weakness is vaccinated they get Autism.
If the child with the genetic weakness is NOT vaccinated, most likely will NOT get Autism.The older sibling was Vaccinated and got Autism. Doctor denies that it was caused by Vaccines.
Parents vaccinate younger sibling – and younger sibling shows SIGNS OF AUTISM.
Parents STOP Vaccinating the younger sibling – doesn’t get MMR.
But the younger sibling’s Autism was caused by EARLIER Vaccines. Before birth, at birth 2 mo, 4 mo, 6 mo.
The younger sibling is NOT “unvaccinated” but PARTIALLY Vaccinated.You claim that younger siblings did not receive ANY vaccines and got Autism (d).
NOWHERE in the study does it say that the Younger Siblings did not get ANY Vaccines!
It only states that the younger siblings did not get MMR.
So YOUR whole theory falls FLAT – it is based on a WRONG Assumption!He has $700,00 – $1.7Million annual lost profit for not following the vaccine schedule
The guy probably makes millions by being an antivax specialist.
Attacking the Source is what those who cannot refute whine
How many times have you called provaxxers, the CDC, and every other medical organization, including all of the journals which have published studies showing the safety of vaccines, LIARS and FRAUDS?
Now you suddenly say attacking the source means you can’t refute them (even though your “sources” have been refuted numerous times)?
Dooms,
You have to prove that the theory regarding withholding vaccines for children that were later diagnosed is true.
In fact the study shows that its nonexistent. Besides for the fact that there would have been a difference in the autism rate. Since if the bias that you claim truly existed, how is it that there is no difference in autism rate. How is it that with such a large group of children, regardless how you splice it the numbers are almost the same?
If this were some littly fuzzy study like the 11 children wakfield claimed had autism from the MMR you could start making these bias claims. Otherwise you have to explain how the autism rate remains the same in all groups.
DaasYochid:How many times have you called provaxxers, the CDC, and every other medical organization, including all of the journals which have published studies showing the safety of vaccines, LIARS and FRAUDS?
Plenty. BUt I SHOWED what the Fraud was very specifically. I didn’t just say “Oh, I don’t accept any
study by CDC” the way the ProVaxxers say “I don’t accept anything from an anti-vax website” or
“That scientist/doctor is an Anti-Vaxxer so I don’t accept anything he/she says”.THAT’S what you do when you cannot refute the FACTS.
Health: So you would have to use the Anti-vaxxers, that won’t Vax.
For the Vaxxers – you would have to do a retroactive study.
This would be accepted by most normal people on both sides.YES! That is what Anti-Vaxxers want – a retrospective study comparing vaxxed vs unvaxxed.
But CDC REFUSES to do the study – because they KNOW it will show that Vaccines Cause Autism
and many other diseases.Glad you finally agree that a vaxxed vs unvaxxed study SHOULD be done.
But “CDC” is not “normal people” but is making MILLIONS from Vaccine Industry so REFUSES
to do Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed and instead makes FRAUDULENT studies that are
vaxxed vs vaxxed and NOT randomized!2Cents: c. Their siblings are unlikely to receive ANY vaccines, yet they are more likely to be diagnosed with autism.
2Cents, Are you going to admit you were WRONG when you claimed the Siblings of Autistic children did not
receive ANY vaccines?2Cents: You have to prove that the theory regarding withholding vaccines for children that were later diagnosed is true.
HERE it is – the STUDY itself acknowledged that children showing Signs of Autism were more likely
not to get MMR (but they got OTHER Vaccines):““this pattern is driven by selective parental decision making around MMR immunization, i.e., parents who notice social or communication delays in their children decide to forestall immunization. Because, as a group, children with recognized delays are likely to be at higher risk of ASD, such selectivity could result in a tendency for some higher-risk children to be “unexposed” (to the MMR). “
Dooms,
Not sure why you claim that i am ignoring your question. Your question is only based on the assumption that the MMR vaccines are only given to children that do not have signs.
This is flawed on so many levels.
A. This is a made up claim.
B. There is no way all children actually have signs that are recognized.
C. Children with siblings, are not likely to bevaccinated
Yet they do not have a lower rate of autism, they have the opposite of healthy user bias that you claim.
D. The occurrence of autism is almost the same in similar groups, the significant size of the study would make it extremely unlikely that one group had factors that would even it out with any other group, unless you cconclude that the MMR plays no factor with regards to autism.Basically. You will never accept any conclusion that shows that the MMR plays nonrole in autism.
You earlier claimed that genetics play zero role. Yet you know claim otherwise. And now say mmr and genetics play a role.
You claimed that unvaccinated children are healthier, only because at the time it made your position look good, yet now you claim that majority of unvaccinated children are because they have signs of autism.
2cents: Not sure why you claim that i am ignoring your question.
Because you are. My question is Why does EVERY Clinical Trial use RANDOMIZATION?
2cents:Your question is only based on the assumption that the MMR vaccines are only given to children that do not have signs.
Instead of guessing my motivation, just answer the question.
A. This is a made up claim.
And it is not MY assumption – the AUTHORS of the Study said it as well – that children who are showing signs of Autism are more likely NOT to get MMR. Here is the quote from the study:““this pattern is driven by selective parental decision making around MMR immunization, i.e., parents who notice social or communication delays in their children decide to forestall immunization. Because, as a group, children with recognized delays are likely to be at higher risk of ASD, such selectivity could result in a tendency for some higher-risk children to be “unexposed” (to the MMR). “
B. There is no way all children actually have signs that are recognized.
I NEVER said that all the children who avoided MMR had signs of Autism.
But that children who show signs of Autism are more likely NOT to get MMR.2cents: C. Children with siblings, are not likely to be vaccinated
Yet they do not have a lower rate of autism, they have the opposite of healthy user bias that you claim.The Younger Siblings in the study who got Autism WERE Vaccinated.
The Younger Siblings in the study who got Autism WERE Vaccinated.
The Younger Siblings in the study who got Autism WERE Vaccinated.
The Younger Siblings in the study who got AUtism WERE Vaccinated.How many times do I have to tell you that before you stop LYING that the children who got
Autism were COMPLETELY UNVACCINATED?!?!?!?2cents: You claimed that unvaccinated children are healthier, only because at the time it made your position look good, yet now you claim that majority of unvaccinated children are because they have signs of autism.
Children who are 100% Unvaccinated ARE healthier.
I said that many PARTIALLY unvaccinated are Autistic. The Vaccines MADE them Autistic and then
the Parents Stopped Vaccinating so as not to make the Autism worse.I said over and over and over that the Autistic Children WERE VACCINATED and you keep
repeating that they are Unvaccinated.
Get it through your skull – the Autistic Children WERE Vaccinated.
Some Autistic Children got the MMR. Some Autisic Children did NOT get the MMR.
But ALL the Autistic Children got VACCINES!There was Not ONE 100% Unvaccinated CHild with AUtism out of 95,000 Records! NOT ONE!
2cents: You earlier claimed that genetics play zero role. Yet you know claim otherwise. And now say mmr and genetics play a role.
WRONG! I NEVER EVER Said genetics played zero role.
I said Genetics ALONE cannot be the reason autism went from 1:10,000 to 1:50.And I don’t say mmr and genetics play a role.
I say VACCINES and genetics play a role.
ALL Vaccines can cause Autism – NOT only MMR.2Cents:D. The occurrence of autism is almost the same in similar groups, the significant size of the study would make it extremely unlikely that one group had factors that would even it out with any other group, unless you conclude that the MMR plays no factor with regards to autism.
The FACT that children showing signs of Autism are more likely NOT to get MMR Skews the results!
You Refuse to answer the question – WHY does EVERY clinical trial use RANDOMIZATION?
because then you would admit that the study is INVALID because who got the MMR was not randomized – which means that children showing signs of Autism will be concentrated in the NO MMR Group!dooms
“I said over and over and over that the Autistic Children WERE VACCINATED ”you can repeat it as many times as you want, that wont make it true .
This is a study looking at MMR.
We are talking about MMR.
not oranges
not apples
Not amoxicilinMMR MMR MMR MMR MMR
I’m not sure why this simple point is confusing you.
It doesn’t matter if they ate oranges, or had the TDAP“ALL Vaccines can cause Autism – NOT only MMR.”
Even if true, lets focus on MMR first.
You are easily confused with this one study, can you imagine focusing on “all vaccines” at once?for the time being Lets pretend every last vaccine under the sun causes autism.
What about the MMR, well great news! We have a solid study that answers this very question!
Have you seen it? it was in JAMA in April 2015 (There where other stdusies as well in NEJM and the Lancet There was a Chocrane review* to, but you have trouble with one study so lets put the others aside for now)“You Refuse to answer the question – WHY does EVERY clinical trial use RANDOMIZATION?”
While not directed to me. Please note As I pointed out above this isnt true. NOT every clinical trial uses randomization. In fact I’d venture that most do not. Certainly (almost?) all large trials do not .
Furthermore. There ARE Randomized trials proving vaccine effectiveness. I provided some earlier.
Here are a few more Bloom 1975; Edees 1991; Lerman 1981; Peltola 1986; Schwarz 1975.
you can find the exact references in the cochrane review cited below*Note the Cochrane review looked at “five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case-control studies, five time-series trials, one case cross-over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies involving in all about 14,700,000 children and assessing effectiveness and safety of MMR vaccine”
“2Cents, Are you going to admit you were WRONG when you claimed the Siblings of Autistic children did not
receive ANY vaccines?”I would only be wrong if this is what I stated, I stated that it is likely they have not received any vaccines unless they only believe that the MMR was the cause for their childs autism.
Likely being the keyword.
however, this study was focused on the MMR vaccines role (or lack of) with autism.
Doomsday: “2Cents, Are you going to admit you were WRONG when you claimed the Siblings of Autistic children did not receive ANY vaccines?”
2Cents: I would only be wrong if this is what I stated, I stated that it is likely they have not received any vaccines unless they only believe that the MMR was the cause for their childs autism.
Here is what you actually wrote:
2cents: C. Children with siblings, are not likely to be vaccinated
Yet they do not have a lower rate of autism, they have the opposite of healthy user bias that you claim.So you make a WRONG assumption and then use your WRONG assumption as “Proof”
of your WRONG theory!So you make a WRONG assumption and then use your WRONG assumption as “Proof” of your WRONG theory!
Wow. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Dooms -“YES! That is what Anti-Vaxxers want – a retrospective study comparing vaxxed vs unvaxxed.
But CDC REFUSES to do the study – because they KNOW it will show that Vaccines Cause Autism
and many other diseases.
Glad you finally agree that a vaxxed vs unvaxxed study SHOULD be done”I don’t know why I’m not getting through to you!
I’ll try again. I think it’s at least three times.
No, the CDC should NOT do the study.
YOU, Yourself should! (DO THE STUDY.) You can find a lot of Anti-vaxxers, like yourself.For the Study:
Use the Anti-vaxxers, that won’t Vax.
For the Vaxxers – you would have to do a retrospective study; that’s because people that want to vaxx – you can’t Stop them!YOU, Yourself should! (DO THE STUDY.)
Why not the CDC? And why isn’t the fact that anti-vaxxers are sold selected a confounding factor?
If you’re casting doubt on so many things, prove to me that vaccines exist. And that autism exists. And that the CDC exists (for all we know, the entire CDC could just be a guy in a secret room with a computer, and the rest of the government is covering it up), and for that matter, how am I supposed to be sure that you aren’t a Russian bot?
DY -“And why isn’t the fact that anti-vaxxers are sold selected a confounding factor?”
Which one?
HealthNo, the CDC should NOT do the study.
YOU, Yourself should! (DO THE STUDY.) You can find a lot of Anti-vaxxers, like yourself.a. a proper vaxxed vs unvaxxed study is too expensive for antivaxxers.
CDC is the government and has much more resources.b. any study by antivaxxers is attacked by Government / CDC as invalid.
c. WHY do you say CDC should NOT do the study?
Ubiquiton: *Note the Cochrane review looked at “five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case-control studies, five time-series trials, one case cross-over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies involving in all about 14,700,000 children and assessing effectiveness and safety of MMR vaccine”
Ubiquiton, the source you quoted says that MMR is effective in preventing Measles, LESS so for Mumps.
But YOUR source also says the MMR was NOT ADEQUATELY SAFETY TESTED – see the Conclusion:AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS:
The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.Ubiquiton, YOUR source says that MMR safety tests found SIGNIFICANT RISK of Febrile SEIZURES,
Meningitis and thrombocytopenic purpura!It’s ubiquitin, not ubiquiton.
Oh dooms and your selective quoting ways .
Here is their conclusion ( I see you only looked at the abstract)
“Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine supports current policies of mass immunization aimed at global measles eradication and in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with mumps and rubella.”
And yes, there is always room for more study, and in fact the Jama study I have been discussing added to our knowledge
“YOUR source says that MMR safety tests found SIGNIFICANT RISK of Febrile SEIZURES, Meningitis and thrombocytopenic purpura!”
but we are discussing Autism. It says ” Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with autism, asthma, leukemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn’s disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections.”
you said you wanted randomized trials, it included 5.
Can we move on from MMR and autism?Again not “all vaccines,” We arent discussing that, not “febrile seizures” we arent discussing that. Make no mistake, we can but one thing at a time.
They looked at over 14,000,000 children including in Randomized studies that you claim to want so badly and found that there is unlikely to be a link between MMR and Autism.Satisfied?
Dooms,
Febrile seizures, every time a child has a fever they are at risk for febrile seizure, this is self-limiting and not dangerous. Every small virus or infection that makes a child febrile, they can have a seizure which is associated with the change of temperature.
Being that the MMR vaccine gets the body to reach and generate a response to the antigen that was placed in the body, there is a fever which may cause children to have this otherwise benign seizure.Thrombocytopenic Purpura, (known as ITP), anytime the body reacts to a virus or infection, it creates antibodies that attack the virus, what can happen is that the body should also attack the platelets and temporarily cause a reduction in the platelet count, this is usually self-limited and not treated.
This can happen with any virus even something like the common cold.Below is from the ITP Support Association.
“Children with MMR induced ITP typically have the transient self-limiting form of the disease with moderately low platelet counts and milder symptoms. Generally, no treatment is needed. Importantly, there is clear evidence that those who have already had ITP are at no greater risk of recurrence as a result of the vaccination. There is no evidence that MMR is causally related to chronic, long-lasting childhood ITP.
The risk of ITP developing as a result of the MMR vaccination is now estimated at 1 in 22,300 doses, but this is considerably less than the risk of ITP developing following the illnesses themselves. Measles induced ITP is common, rubella is estimated at 1 in 3000 cases, and even mumps is occasionally associated with ITP. Of course, there are many more serious complications of these diseases than ITP.
Advice from the Association’s medical advisors is that the fear of ITP is no reason to avoid vaccination, either for children who have had ITP before or for those who have never had it. Children are much more likely to come to harm from the diseases the vaccine prevents than from the few and rare side effects (such as ITP) associated with the injection.”
If you were slightly educated and actually understood what is behind your claims, you would have realized that what you posted is ridiculous.
With regards to (aseptic) meningitis, I am sure that you probably meant to say that while some have made the argument that the MMR vaccine can cause aseptic meningitis.
a. it has been proven that there is no link.
b. for sure not a greater risk than the actual virus, even those that claim there is a risk, it is by far lower risk than the actual virus.Deaths Per Year in USA
Measles ZERO
Mumps ZERO
Rubella ZERO
Chickenpox ZERO
Whooping Cough ZERO
Tetanus ZERO
Diptheria ZEROVaccines 168 Deaths reported to VAERS Per Year.
But since only 1-13% of Serious Adverse are reported could be 1,680 to 16,800 deaths after Vaccines –
PER YEAR!!!AND we have SKYROCKETING: Autism, ADHD, Diabetes, Epilepsy (Seizures), Cancer, Allergies & Asthma
in our children – the SICKEST CHILDREN in the History of USA!ubiquitin: you said you wanted randomized trials, it included 5.
Can we move on from MMR and autism?NO! Autism is diagnosed months to years after vaccination, and your randomized trials only
followed adverse events for six weeks.The study did find increased risk of Febrile (high fever) Seizures and Meningitis after Vaccines.
And Febrile Seizures and Meningitis have been linked to Autism,
so NO, we cannot move on from MMR and Autism.Ubiquitin “Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine supports current policies of mass immunization aimed at global measles eradication and in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with mumps and rubella.”
There is virtually ZERO deaths from Mumps and Measles (Rubella) in First World Countries!
So ONLY in THIRD WORLD Countries is vaccination worth the risk – although a
Third World Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed Study would be needed to be sure.There is virtually ZERO deaths from Mumps and Measles (Rubella) in First World Countries!
I’ll give you three guesses why (the first two don’t count).
I’ll even give you a hint. It rhymes with “Maxine’s”.
Doomsday: There is virtually ZERO deaths from Mumps and Measles (Rubella) in First World Countries!
DaasYochid: I’ll give you three guesses why (the first two don’t count).
I’ll even give you a hint. It rhymes with “Maxine’s”.Nice try. But Historical Charts prove that the Death rate from Measles and other infectious diseases
declined 90% BEFORE Vaccines were Invented!Doomsday
“There is virtually ZERO deaths from Mumps and Measles (Rubella) in First World Countries!”
B”H!!and I will continue to do my best to keep it that way in spite of the evil people trying to eradicate vaccines ,
“and your randomized trials only followed adverse events for six weeks.”
well yes, I’ts hard to follow RCT for too long.
Thats why we also have “one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case-control studies, five time-series trials, one case cross-over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies”
At that was only by 2012, there are more since.
several of these looked over a decadedon’t worry I didn’t actually expect you to accept that there was no link. As I have told you time and time again when you keep asking “why no studies were done”
Ubiquitin: don’t worry I didn’t actually expect you to accept that there was no link. As I have told you time and time again when you keep asking “why no studies were done”
CDC only designs FRAUDULENT studies where they can manipulate the outcome.
CDC cannot manipulate the outcome of Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed so refuses to do
THAT particular study – with No Explanation!
V’Hameivin Yavin.“CDC cannot manipulate the outcome of Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed”
why not?
Doomsday:“CDC cannot manipulate the outcome of Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed”
Ubiquitin: why not?
CDC studies are DESIGNED with design flaws to produce fake outcomes, such as healthy user bias hiding
the autism caused by MMR. Or changing the parameters of study in the middle as in the Danish study – counting only Autistic Children in HOSPITALS before Thimerosal was removed and then INCLUDING Autistic Children living at Home AFTER Thimerosal was removed in order to fraudulently claim that Autism went UP after Thimerosal was removed.These tricks cannot be played on a vaxxed vs unvaxxed study.
dooms
Healthy user bias is a known bias, while you misapply it as I tried to explain earleir in the study you cleary don’t understand), it is a real well-known bias It isnt a manipulation.
Its cute that you think that “tricks cannot be played in vaxxed vs unvaxxed study”
You believe the CDC is deliberately misleading the pubic and are all liars trying to trick us into giving children autism, so that they can make a buck. (IS this your belief? I dont recall if you’ve said it outright )
Why can’t they completely falsify a study?
UbiquitinHealthy user bias is a known bias, while you misapply it as I tried to explain earleir in the study you cleary don’t understand),
Are you a PhD Scientist? Because real PhD Scientists have said that the CDC studies are
invalid because of Healthy User Bias / Lack of Randomization which hides the vaccine-autism Link.Lol
you love changing the subject. I love ow you dont answer questions posed to you“Are you a PhD Scientist?”
No” Because real PhD Scientists have said that the CDC studies are invalid because of Healthy User Bias ”
source pleaseDooms -“a. a proper vaxxed vs unvaxxed study is too expensive for antivaxxers.
CDC is the government and has much more resources.”Do 100 unvaxxed. Use your own computer. Email it to a Publisher.
DIRT CHEAP!“b. any study by antivaxxers is attacked by Government / CDC as invalid.”
If they have a good reason; but if it’s a scientific paper they won’t say it’s invalid!
“c. WHY do you say CDC should NOT do the study?”
YOU gotta start reading My whole Post.
I answered this a few times – IT’s Unethical!
“You would have to do a retrospective study; that’s because people that want to vaxx – you can’t Stop them!”
- The topic ‘Studies on vaccines you might have missed.👨🔬💉🚫’ is closed to new replies.