anti-huumanism

nepalnt21 said:

get ready for my spin:

every.

single.

group, institute, etc. dedicated to autism and pediatrics in general...

and i mean every one... in the usa, australia, uk, and any other country i've looked into

is very clear.

the autism-vaccine link is complete and utter bullshit.

autism (and other mental abnormalities) runs in my family, and i was very serious about looking into it.

i guarantee you those 81 studies are gonna be a waste of my time.

if literally any group of health experts or medical centers dedicated to pediatrics and/ or autism had any (even slight) doubts, i would be all over that.

but not a single one i can find.

maybe you could find one... that isn't idiot mcgee and his antivaxxer youtube channel... and please post it if so.

Click to expand...

Hate to break up a silly argument that followed that post, but I just have to comment on autism.

My parents were both autistic, usually it is only men. I am autistic, running the border between Asperger's and savant.
Both my children, one boy one girl, are also autistic, but not their mother.
My youngest does not share my DNA nor is she autistic.

All three were raised together with the same childhood vaccines both I and their mother had. Same discipline, rules, food, organizations, religion. Same dysfunctions and drug use by parents also.

Sigh, my kids did not finish high school while the youngest, without autism, finished college and is two years into a very promising career with Doyon Exploration's geology department.

This all leads me to the conclusion that autism is genetic. I like that it is backed up by every scientific study ever undertaken but I find it quite obvious even without researched proof.

For the record I do not claim to know what causes autism.

I think even the top experts would say that.

But how can one say vaccine absolutely do not cause autism.

Even top expert don't say that.

Saying that is complete misinformation is it not?
Do we know that for sure, No, how can we.
Then how can someone say this and call it the truth.

Then there is this attitude.
i guarantee you those 81 studies are gonna be a waste of my time.
The I am always right attitude, when you can not be sure you are right.

This is what make me speak out.
These folks have no proof they are right.
If so why is there such a strong counter argument?

How can one be soo sure the studies are a waste of time?
Is that not the very definition of a preconceived notion.

I do not claim my argument should be the winner.
I simply suggest we do not have all the answers.

Some folks here seem to suggest we do have all the answers and there should be no discussion.

Presenting non peer reviewed studies and trying to pass them off as useful is the reason very few people want to have a discussion on these threads.

Treating non peer reviewed studies as equal to peer reviewed studies is a lack of knowledge on the individual presenting them.

saying "i know for a fact that something doesn't exist"

might be unscientifacle, might be misinfo, but saying:

"enough data has come in to dismiss said idea as a red herring"

is closer to the mark of what i mean.

forgive me for lacking clarity in that regard.

- Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review.

- Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation.

- Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication.

- Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism.

- Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process.

Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential.

- The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review -

*more here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/

Absolem said:

Presenting non peer reviewed studies and trying to pass them off as useful is the reason very few people want to have a discussion on these threads.

Treating non peer reviewed studies as equal to peer reviewed studies is a lack of knowledge on the individual presenting them.

Click to expand...

Gypsy Nirvana said:

- recently I heard that the U.S.A. military won't hire someone deemed to have less than an 83 I.Q. - below that people are said to be useless for military purposes - and so un-employable - but that's at least 10% of all humans - maybe more! - quite a daunting thought indeed -


*interesting book -
View Image

Click to expand...

depends on what type of military service your going in to , 90% of most the cops we have now are ex Iraq Afghani vets , why so east for them to shoot people , there already precinditioned to shoot first ask questions later ....

The smart and open minded survive , the weak and closed-minded dont , mother natures laws are tough and un forgiving

See for your self ..
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12238650

Hrpuffnkush said:

depends on what type of military service your going in to , 90% of most the cops we have now are ex Iraq Afghani vets , why so east for them to shoot people , there already precinditioned to shoot first ask questions later ....

Click to expand...

am out of rep, but you are right. thanks...

Phaeton said:

This all leads me to the conclusion that autism is genetic. I like that it is backed up by every scientific study ever undertaken but I find it quite obvious even without researched proof.

Click to expand...

I agree with this view and it has been my take as well. Sure do have my fingers crossed that my little dude figures out how to make it work for him or at least can cope.

While its true that you cant 100% say vaccines don't cause autism, by that same token you can't 100% say water doesn't cause it. It isnt possible to prove that anything 100% doesn't do something, from a logic/reason type of perspective. You have to look at what seems the most likely to do whatever.

Like the carona virus, as we increase testing and have a broader understanding, the numbers go up. Aspergers/high functioning autism wasn't even a thing when i was a kid. It was there...but it just wasn't recognized, kids were just called names. It is like saying everyone started to get super gay during the 1980s-today. The number of gay people stayed the same, it was the recognition of it that changed.

99.99% safe, means 0.01% not safe, take 100 million people, 10000 will have severe side-effects... but, guess what, 99900000 wont, and will live disease free, and thats why we use them... in my distant family i have a case of autism developed after vaccine, but we all got all of the vaccine shots, because guess what, they work! they arent bulletproof, but they are best that we got... dont wana vaccine? fine, get the f out of the society... (i stand same with masks and other public health recommendations, altough they are bullshit, who are you to put others health in danger? stay at home), make a choice... my 2 cents on that matter...

pahval said:

in my distant family i have a case of autism developed after vaccine

Click to expand...

Proof for that claim?

Correlation does not equal causation.

The increased ability to recognize and diagnose autism has nothing to do with vaccines.

Jenny McCarthy is not a source of legitimate medical information.

H G Griffin said:

Proof for that claim?

Correlation does not equal causation.

Click to expand...

Yes but when people with fancy degrees use that factoid to defend Falsified Clinical Trials, it simply proves that they can be bought.

People's instincts are often better than the info they get from bought & paid for scientists.

the thing about instinct vs science is that we can use the scientific method to independently verify.

your instinct will never change how many jelly beans are in the jar.

St. Phatty said:

Yes but when people with fancy degrees use that factoid to defend Falsified Clinical Trials, it simply proves that they can be bought.

People's instincts are often better than the info they get from bought & paid for scientists.

Click to expand...

You can keep the endstinks. I’ll stick to science.