Aratus
Member

Yep.

The only thing I've learned today is that you can take any thread and turn it into multiple stories about yourself. Oh, and you have to have the last word.

It has merit when used to create a hypothesis. The Rockwell paper is using it to create a conclusion. So ....controls?

What a condescending asshat.

I don't believe that for a second. It wasn't intended to be either. You're just reading a tone into everything I post, and DonnaY is going to be your new bestie now. The doctor/patient relationship is supposed to be very intimate. A lot of times people in bad relationships don't realize how bad the relationship actually is until they end it and start a new relationship. If this jerk can't be bothered to answer her questions or suggest alternatives, she should find someone who will.

Agreed but the shutdown will only fuel the Democrats. It's a damned shame the GOP has all 3 houses and still cannot get anything done.

Stolen from Twitter: Clearly this means that Sheila Jackson Lee should step down to avoid offending people.

Seems to me that the reasons for bringing the Mexicans in are the same as bringing in the slaves though. Cheap labor.

Thanks for contributing to the thread.

Deepest sympathies. Popcorn is life.

Because people on TV can't hear the answer? She'd rather talk at us? I almost typed "I am so glad he won," but really it's that I am just glad she lost.

Honestly, the fact that you would prefer to get medical advice from us anonymous miscreants here in a dying political forum rather than your primary care physician tells me you probably should get a different doctor.

Scientific method isn't about data manipulation. Collecting data via VAERS is a tool that can be used to form a hypothesis, but not a conclusion.

Which proves or disproves nothing. Trying really hard to make this simple. Randomly collected anonymous, unverified data is not reliable. Suppose just to prove my point, I just went and reported that a female child had a seizure 6 days after a Gardasil vaccine. We would then know with 100% certainty that the data is flawed. Another flaw? We don't know how many times a doctor and/or a nurse, and/or parent, and/or a grandparent, and/or a daycare provider, and/or a nosy neighbor may have reported a single incident in a child. Based on the passions of the anti-vaxxers, it's not impossible for me to believe that activists intentionally do exactly what I suggested above, which is to file false reports in order to manipulate the data. Also the system literally encourages people to report incidents even if they probably aren't related to the vaccine. Aside from that, use common sense.

That's simply not true.

The reason VAERS isn't accurate is explained above but I will explain it again. The data is random, not verified, not confirmed and even subject to duplication. On the other hand, childhood disease along with mortality rates have dropped dramatically since we started vaccinating the children. Mortality rates didn't start rising again as the vaccine schedule was adjusted, which means there's something incorrect about that author's assumption. There's no evidence that too many vaccines overload the immune system.

I never said I had a medical degree. I said there is no evidence to support the theory that too many vaccines are overloading young immune systems.

government moving toward a digital currency so they can track every dime? nah, can't be.

Scientific data collection includes controls and verification. VAERS has neither. This is a quote from the paper linked in your post:

I think that's a bit of a strawman. All theories are valid theories. But there is no evidence to support the theory that too many vaccines are overloading young immune systems. If you're seriously interested: http://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/PreventionWellness/VaccinesImmunization/VaccineSafety/Documents/SafetyAntigenCount.pdf

dang

He talked about a tight lid on both information and public debates. Keeping Congress out of the loop and/or less informed. Censorship.

omg that's awesome!!!!!

What he said.

The part that wasn't true is the contention that a study that would purposely expose unprotected children to infectious disease is the only way to prove the point.

The point was simply that it is not scientific. It's just unverified data collection.

What's dishonest about it?

VAERS is an open system where literally anybody can report literally anything. There are no controls.

Aside from not being true that there's only one true scotsman experiment, it's horrifying. Intentionally exposing children to diseases is the type of experiment we expect from the Nazi government. Maybe even our own. The fact that the CDC refuses to do an immoral experiment lends credibility to them, not to the people who demand it.