This guy really cuts through the BS.
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
This guy really cuts through the BS.
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
Not sure why the doctor is carrying on about a 16 year old study, or why he is carrying on about thimerosal. The doctor said, "it [autism] has nothing to do with vaccines...there is no link." Perhaps he should look into some of the current research. A two minute search brings up two studies:
"...children from the countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) "the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States..."a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven western countries..."
http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic%202011.pdf
"...the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535
www.fourteenstudies.orgOf all the remarkable frauds that will one day surround the autism epidemic, perhaps one of the most galling is the simple statement that the “science has spoken” and “vaccines don’t cause autism.” Anytime a public health official or other talking head states this, you can be assured that one of two things is true: they have never read the studies they are talking about, or they are lying through their teeth.
Did I miss something?
Admittedly I stopped after about 5 minutes.
Did he mention the results of the study that compared the completely unvaccinated to those receiving vaccines?
I read a study that shows that people that smoke Camels have the same rates of cancer as those that don't. The way they do the study is to get a group of pack a day Marlboro smokers and substitute 1 cigarette per day with a Camel.
You're a kook if you don't believe the study.
Most doctors prefer Camels.
Discusses correlation which is not necessarily causation. The definition of what is autism also expanded during that time which means more people formerly not counted as autistic are now counted. Autism is an opinion- there is not a test which says somebody is definately autistic or not. It is also a "spectrum" which covers a wide range of symptoms which could be something else.Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty
http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2012/...nalysis/15957/
Autism Surge Due To Diagnostic Changes, Analysis Finds
A new study suggests that changes to autism diagnosis criteria may be more to blame for rising rates of the developmental disorder than anything else.
Since the 1960s, autism prevalence rates have skyrocketed from 4 in 10,000 children to a current reported rate of 1 in 88. The reason behind the rise, however, has remained unclear.
Now researchers are shedding new light on the trend by applying current diagnostic criteria to data from a 1980s study on autism prevalence in what’s believed to be a first-of-its-kind analysis.
The original study, published in 1989, looked at hundreds of Utah residents ages 3 to 25 who were suspected to have autism. Clinicians used DSM-III criteria to assess individuals as “diagnosed autistic” or “diagnosed not autistic” and ultimately found an autism prevalence rate of 4 in 10,000 in Utah at that time.The analysis found that 59 percent of those who were “diagnosed not autistic” in the 1980s would qualify as having autism today, while an additional 38 percent of people in this group showed some characteristics of autism.
Meanwhile, those who were found to have autism in the 1980s study continued to qualify for the diagnosis using the current criteria, the study found.
“The results of this study demonstrate a significant effect on ASD case status attributable to changing ASD criteria, particularly with regard to individuals with intellectual impairment,” the researchers said. “An important caveat, however, is that we were unable to determine whether it was the broadening of the criteria themselves, or the interpretation of the criteria, which lead to this effect.”
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 06-02-2014 at 06:13 PM.
Just keep listening to daddy government and the pharmaceutical companies, and everything will be fine. Throw some of their pills down your throat while you're at it, for the sake of 'public health.'
He makes some valid points and he falls down in places as well. For instance, his assertion that people have lost faith in science is not necessarily true. They have lost faith in dishonest/inept scientists.
He also employed some serious fallacy when he said autism grew by XXX% while MMR vaccinations by onlyYY%. He made no mention of the stability of vaccine formulations, save to hint that there have been changes (no Thimerosol since 03). I would add that just because no linkage has been established, it does not follow that it does not exist as he asserts to be the case. That's a pretty serious logic FAIL.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
I was addressing the doctor's claim "there is no link." The studies I posted show correlation, which means "link." Even if you take that into account, the first study still satisfied 8 of the 9 criteria for causality.
This does not apply for the second study I posted. The study is comparing children in a very limited time frame (2001 and 2007).
The expanded definition also does not apply to two of the three conclusions in the first study. Two of those three conclusions were comparing countries or children to one another.
From your source: "...the most galling is the simple statement that the “science has spoken” and “vaccines don’t cause autism.”
This is definitely reflected in the doctor's anti-science statement, "Another study--no matter how many times you ask for one--isn't going to overcome this massive amount of data."
This Youtube video is slickly designed for consumer audiences who never dig deeper. I posted my two studies on the video comments section, and it was deleted within one day. If they are threatened by me or can't even address a simple challenge, then I'd say that is a testament to the weakness of their opinion.
All of the this is not even touching the surface regarding all the studies showing vaccine ingredients linked to or causing neurological pathologies. This will eventually be acknowledged, those ingredients will be removed (ie., thimerosal), and then be substituted with more toxic ingredients. The doctors will claim more paranoia, more conspiracy theories, and more scapegoats.
If there's a list of symptoms and traits for which a person can be diagnosed with, then there is a test. If something is a doctor's opinion that requires a doctor to go through a series of questions, there's a test. The reason there isn't a definite definition is because the same symptoms can be attributed to another disease or disorder, so while you can't say a person is definitely autistic, you can say he/she exhibits the traits of one
pcosmar's lie : There are more votes than registered Voters..
Damn, no alt tag on the hotlinked xkcd image
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us