ADVERTISEMENT

For You Anti-Vaxxers...

Now maybe YOU can see some relationship between that chart and adult vaccination rates for measles...but I can't.
I took the infographic references to mean they're shaming and pressuring the public to make them think that all vaccination rates needed to be 95% for all vaccines to achieve herd immunity, basing that off only the 95% rate needed for measles. Then, what he may have been implying could have been "Ms. Pisani's infographic above mentions the 95% threshold needed to achieve herd immunity for measles (which - yes it does), but she fails to mention one thing: the vaccination rate of all the adults (as it relates to the other vaccine preventable diseases, as seen in the chart below).
But before we had a widely available pertussis vaccine in this country nearly 10,000 children a year DIED from it. Today that number barely hits 20. Diptheria vaccination rates in adults ARE low. Guess what could happen when that occurs? Outbreaks of diptheria as were seen in Russia during the 90's when over 150,000 people contracted the disease and over 5,000 died...because vaccination rates dropped. And that's where morons like YOU want the US
First, that's why my proposal was to move back closer to the 80's schedule. Second, once again, nobody is saying we shouldn't vaccinate. Our argument stems from the lack of vaccine safety and, as a result, for informed consent and vaccine choice.
 
No. The argument is quite sound. You, however, get unhinged when presented with facts.
Has that scenario ever been documented to have ever happened? You should post it here if you can find one. As opposed to the 432 deaths of what are probably otherwise perfectly healthy children reported to the VAERS in 2016 alone. Which, again, could be much higher according to an HHS funded report that stated less than 1% of adverse reactions are reported, not to mention the numerous other serious conditions vaccines are responsible for. Nobody cares about those children. But, yes let's force vaccinate everyone to save that immuno-suppressed child, a scenario that's supposedly never happened. Your argument also discounts the possibilities of shedding from the vaccines themselves.
 
I took the infographic references to mean they're shaming and pressuring the public to make them think that all vaccination rates needed to be 95% for all vaccines to achieve herd immunity, basing that off only the 95% rate needed for measles. Then, what he may have been implying could have been "Ms. Pisani's infographic above mentions the 95% threshold needed to achieve herd immunity for measles (which - yes it does), but she fails to mention one thing: the vaccination rate of all the adults (as it relates to the other vaccine preventable diseases, as seen in the chart below).

First, that's why my proposal was to move back closer to the 80's schedule. Second, once again, nobody is saying we shouldn't vaccinate. Our argument stems from the lack of vaccine safety and, as a result, for informed consent and vaccine choice.
How can we have "informed consent" with you spreading lies. Did Wakefield falsify data and perform invasive, unnecessary, unethical procedures on children? Yes or no?
 
How can we have "informed consent" with you spreading lies. Did Wakefield falsify data and perform invasive, unnecessary, unethical procedures on children? Yes or no?
Wakefield? You're absolutely obsessed with Wakefield. This issue, unfortunately goes way above and beyond the Wakefield debate, that's why I don't care to waste my time on it. You have countless issues on your plate all working against you. From whistle blower's serious accusations of fraud, to a dismal passive injury reporting system which by HHS's own report likely captures only 1% of all incidents, to enormous gaps in safety analysis studying the vaccine-autism connection (as they've only researched 1 out of 16 vaccines, 1 out of 40+ ingredients), to the rampant conflicts of interest associated with those and other studies, to no vaccinated/unvaccinated studies indicating the schedule is safe despite the apparent ease of doing so, countless people/groups calling for it to be done, and despite the IOM saying that it is possible to do such a study, to extremely short pre-marketing safety testing (a few days for many vaccines) using no inert placebos, to top scientists in the field of studying aluminum sending letters to the director of HHS expressing their deep concerns about aluminum playing a role in the etiology of autism, to a study that indicated children who received the DTP vaccine (still being used in 3rd world countries) had 10x the rate of death vs. those that did not, to the top regulatory agency in charge of vaccine safety admitting they have not fulfilled their vaccine safety monitoring obligations as set forth by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act for the last 32 YEARS, to all the studies that actually indicate the many dangers associated with vaccines, to regulatory agencies citing only oral aluminum studies to determine the safe injected dosages of aluminum adjuvant despite studies that show injected has free access to the brain, to the completely indefensible decision to give hep B on day one despite a negative mother - despite studies indicating the Hep B appears to be causing neurodevelopmental issues, to the laundry list of diseases paid out for and admitted to on vaccine inserts, to the former head of the NIH saying that "the question has not been answered" (about whether there is a link between vaccines and autism). @shank hawk and @Nat Algren feel free to add to the list since these are just the ones I can think of at this time.

Just look at this list people. The list does nothing but grow over time. Nothing but a Jenny McCarthy-Jim Carey issue my ass.

1 in 6 children in the US has a developmental disability, 54% of children have a chronic illness, 1 in 36 ASD, a 2013 report noted that "About 11,300 newborns die within 24 hours of their birth in the U.S. each year, 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined.", another report earlier this year reported that American kids are 70% more likely to die before adulthood than kids in other rich countries. That could be a lot of things, but why is nobody talking about the fact that our children are dying at alarming rates in a country that is supposed to have one of the most advanced healthcare systems in the world with the best doctors and best scientists? Our children are NOT healthy folks. Nobody cares about those kids though, do they?

Though if you people had your way we'd keep going, bau. Yes, add more vaccines to the schedule. All adults too. As many as pharma/regulatory agencies want, with the same dismal short-term no inert placebo pre-licensing safety testing, with nothing but medical exemptions and let's just see what happens with this grand short-sighted and vastly mis-calculated human experiment. Absolutely ruthless.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: shank hawk
Wakefield? You're absolutely obsessed with Wakefield. This issue, unfortunately goes way above and beyond the Wakefield debate, that's why I don't care to waste my time on it. You have countless issues on your plate all working against you. From whistle blower's serious accusations of fraud....
Full stop. Whether you want to admit it or not, Wakefield is the patron saint of the anti-vax movement. Your continued whining about "fraud" is complete and total bullshit because YOU refuse to address the documented fraud, conflicts of interest, and unbelievably unethical behavior of your saint. There's no "debate" at all about that. N-O-N-E.

Nothing you say has ANY credibility because you blandly accept the very behavior you accuse others of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
Full stop. Whether you want to admit it or not, Wakefield is the patron saint of the anti-vax movement. Your continued whining about "fraud" is complete and total bullshit because YOU refuse to address the documented fraud, conflicts of interest, and unbelievably unethical behavior of your saint. There's no "debate" at all about that. N-O-N-E.

Nothing you say has ANY credibility because you blandly accept the very behavior you accuse others of.
This post just goes to show you just how out of touch with reality and how vacant your brain is in the logic dept. The out of control laundry list above addressing the seriously ridiculous current state of vaccine safety in the US is NOT dependent on the Wakefield happenings.

My accepting of anyone's behavior good or bad has absolutely nothing to do with the truth and validity of the laundry list.

I'd really rather not debate Wakefield because I don't need to AT ALL for the slam dunk case against vaccine safety.

I've got a busy weekend so I probably won't be able to respond much but I'll tell you what. Why don't you clearly identify every single problem you have with Wakefield all in one post and I'll (and others if they want) try to address it as time allows, ok?
 
This post just goes to show you just how out of touch with reality and how vacant your brain is in the logic dept. The out of control laundry list above addressing the seriously ridiculous current state of vaccine safety in the US is NOT dependent on the Wakefield happenings.

My accepting of anyone's behavior good or bad has absolutely nothing to do with the truth and validity of the laundry list.

I'd really rather not debate Wakefield because I don't need to AT ALL for the slam dunk case against vaccine safety.

I've got a busy weekend so I probably won't be able to respond much but I'll tell you what. Why don't you clearly identify every single problem you have with Wakefield all in one post and I'll (and others if they want) try to address it as time allows, ok?
Already done. And it's been ignored multiple times. Like I said...you have no credibility and there's no point in discussing it with you. You'll make excuses for Wakefield and post bullshit like the blog that got ripped apart earlier.
 
This post just goes to show you just how out of touch with reality and how vacant your brain is in the logic dept. The out of control laundry list above addressing the seriously ridiculous current state of vaccine safety in the US is NOT dependent on the Wakefield happenings.

My accepting of anyone's behavior good or bad has absolutely nothing to do with the truth and validity of the laundry list.

I'd really rather not debate Wakefield because I don't need to AT ALL for the slam dunk case against vaccine safety.

I've got a busy weekend so I probably won't be able to respond much but I'll tell you what. Why don't you clearly identify every single problem you have with Wakefield all in one post and I'll (and others if they want) try to address it as time allows, ok?
They don't have a problem with Wakefield*, they're just parroting the company line. How could they have a problem with someone who A) publicly states that they're in favor of vaccinating. B) published a study that says there is NO PROOF that the MMR vaccine causes autism. And C) more research should be done in the interest of vaccine safety.

GASP!!! Oh my gosh, what a radical sumbitch that monster of a man must be.

;)


*Latin for Straw Man
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
there's no point in discussing it with you
Good...
nobody_cares.jpg


Anyway.
 
They don't have a problem with Wakefield*, they're just parroting the company line. How could they have a problem with someone who A) publicly states that they're in favor of vaccinating. B) published a study that says there is NO PROOF that the MMR vaccine causes autism. And C) more research should be done in the interest of vaccine safety.

GASP!!! Oh my gosh, what a radical sumbitch that monster of a man must be.

;)


*Latin for Straw Man
Then explain why he said the MMR vaccine should be split up. I mean - if he couldn't find a problem with it why make that recommendation? Seems odd, huh?

Funny that you won't denounce his totally fraudulent "study". That's not a straw man...that's you worshiping a fraud.

BTW, here is the last paragraph of his piece of crap study:

We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation.

Feel free to argue that he's not trying to create an association but you would be, as is your wont, lying. Also btw, he identified no such chronic enterocolitis. It didn't and doesn't exist. He made it up.
 
Last edited:
They don't have a problem with Wakefield*, they're just parroting the company line. How could they have a problem with someone who A) publicly states that they're in favor of vaccinating. B) published a study that says there is NO PROOF that the MMR vaccine causes autism. And C) more research should be done in the interest of vaccine safety.

GASP!!! Oh my gosh, what a radical sumbitch that monster of a man must be.

;)


*Latin for Straw Man
Yes, and Tarheel is out of control obsessive about it.
 
LOL...you're the dumbass that comes on here spreading lies page after page. Don't even begin to talk about "obsessive".

You may refer to post 568.
 
LOL...you're the dumbass that comes on here spreading lies page after page. Don't even begin to talk about "obsessive".

You may refer to post 568.
Let's talk about post 568.

What I said was: "....to enormous gaps in safety analysis studying the vaccine-autism connection (as they've only researched 1 out of 16 vaccines, 1 out of 40+ ingredients)...."

The 1 out of the 16 is mmr, and the 1 out of the 40+ is thimerosal. Those are the only 2 items that have been extensively (yet poorly) studied for the vaccine-autism connection.

Now, what did you post in response in an apparent attempt to fill that enormous gap? ANOTHER mmr/thimerosal study, and another poor one at that! Wait wait wait let me get this straight. Out of all that dirty laundry above, you chose the one thing that you thought was a "lie" and you apparently were trying to prove it was a lie by posting another mmr/thimerosal study? And a poor one at that. Am I missing something? You are in need some serious help. Did they seriously use mmr uptake data from Quebec City and compare it to Montreal, 250 km away?
Here's a full critique of the study:
https://www.fourteenstudies.org/MMR_3_details.html
Thank you for helping me prove my point. I appreciate it, but I really don't need your help.

They would be able to completely wipe out the enormous gap in one vaccinated/unvaccinated VSD study if they would just do it.
 
Let's talk about post 568.

What I said was: "....to enormous gaps in safety analysis studying the vaccine-autism connection (as they've only researched 1 out of 16 vaccines, 1 out of 40+ ingredients)...."

The 1 out of the 16 is mmr, and the 1 out of the 40+ is thimerosal. Those are the only 2 items that have been extensively (yet poorly) studied for the vaccine-autism connection.

Now, what did you post in response in an apparent attempt to fill that enormous gap? ANOTHER mmr/thimerosal study, and another poor one at that! Wait wait wait let me get this straight. Out of all that dirty laundry above, you chose the one thing that you thought was a "lie" and you apparently were trying to prove it was a lie by posting another mmr/thimerosal study? And a poor one at that. Am I missing something? You are in need some serious help. Did they seriously use mmr uptake data from Quebec City and compare it to Montreal, 250 km away?
Here's a full critique of the study:
https://www.fourteenstudies.org/MMR_3_details.html
Thank you for helping me prove my point. I appreciate it, but I really don't need your help.

They would be able to completely wipe out the enormous gap in one vaccinated/unvaccinated VSD study if they would just do it.

They would be able to completely wipe out the enormous gap in one vaccinated/unvaccinated VSD study if they would just do it
'They' will never do it because 'they' already know the results would not resonate well in the corporate boardrooms that serve as their cathedrals.

Vaccines have been declared safe and effective, therefore any study that leaves a child unvaccinated has been deemed unethical by TPTB. Remember, this is a religion to these people. They don't take kindly to being reminded that the god they worship is in reality nothing but a golden calf. :eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: praguehawk
The 1 out of the 16 is mmr, and the 1 out of the 40+ is thimerosal. Those are the only 2 items that have been extensively (yet poorly) studied for the vaccine-autism connection.
Well dumbass...MMR has never contained thimerosal and they studied both the MMR vaccine AND all the thimerosal-containing vaccines in that one study. That would be more than "1 out of the 16" right there, now wouldn't it? It would also encompass all the nasty brain destroying adjuvents that happened to be along for the ride, now wouldn't it? You've already been shown to not know what the hell you're talking about. Again.

AND it would be safe to say that since they had the vaccine records of all 20,000 plus children, they would know if they were up-to-date on their vaccine schedule. And what DID they see? A "significant" drop in vaccinations aligned with a continued "significant" rise in diagnosed cases of autism. Now try to understand this very simple metric...it really doesn't matter that the hell your "autism causing ingredient" du jour is. If the vaccination rate drops they're getting less of it and the autism rate increase didn't change.

Now toddle along...go dig deep into that study so you can show me where they id'ed children who ONLY got the MMR vaccine or ONLY got thimerosal vaccines without getting all the other vaccines on the schedule. TIA
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
Well dumbass...MMR has never contained thimerosal and they studied both the MMR vaccine AND all the thimerosal-containing vaccines in that one study. That would be more than "1 out of the 16" right there, now wouldn't it? It would also encompass all the nasty brain destroying adjuvents that happened to be along for the ride, now wouldn't it? You've already been shown to not know what the hell you're talking about. Again.

AND it would be safe to say that since they had the vaccine records of all 20,000 plus children, they would know if they were up-to-date on their vaccine schedule. And what DID they see? A "significant" drop in vaccinations aligned with a continued "significant" rise in diagnosed cases of autism. Now try to understand this very simple metric...it really doesn't matter that the hell your "autism causing ingredient" du jour is. If the vaccination rate drops they're getting less of it and the autism rate increase didn't change.

Now toddle along...go dig deep into that study so you can show me where they id'ed children who ONLY got the MMR vaccine or ONLY got thimerosal vaccines without getting all the other vaccines on the schedule. TIA
Maybe next time before you go handing out all these "dumbasses" you should consider giving them to someone who's not kicking your ass in a debate. The rest of that enormous heap of dirty laundry's still sitting there and the longer it sits there untouched the more it stinks. In addition, with this abysmally stupid study that you brought to the table, you're actually wearing it.
The first thing we need to note right off the top is that this was a study that looked at mmr uptake data in Quebec City and compared it to PDD rates in Montreal, 250km away. Who in the hell does that? I'm not sure what planet you're from, but here on earth, scientific method 101 says you can't do that and come away with any data you can have confidence in whatsoever. The link I posted, included critiques by a couple different Doctors, and they noted several extremely damning flaws in this study. The following info I'm about to post came from them. "We strongly believe their failure to detect such an association was related to methodology and design flaws and that they have not adequately demonstrated that a vaccine link can be dismissed." He goes on to write: "Fombonne et al evaluated children enrolled in only one of Montreal’s five school boards in an attempt to estimate the prevalence of PDD in Montreal. The authors appropriately cautioned that PDD rates in Lester B. Pearson School Board (LBPSB) may not have been representative of rates elsewhere and suggested that data from other school boards should be assessed but claimed, "this information was not available in the survey data that we could obtain. One of us (MR) easily obtained this data of all five Montreal school boards from the Ministry of Education of Quebec (MEQ). Our analysis indicates that the enrollment at LBPSB in 2003-04 represented only 14% of all total school board enrollments in Montreal. More unusual, the PDD rates at LBPSB were significantly higher than the other four school boards, separately or combined. In some matched birth cohorts the prevalence of PDD was as much as three times higher among LBPSB students. Therefore, Fombonne’s objective to calculate the PDD prevalence in Montreal could not possibly have been accurately estimated by assessment of this particular school board and any conclusions about a relationship between vaccines and PDD rates in Montreal could be seriously flawed. The authors committed a serious selection bias by choosing to study only a small subset of the children in Montreal’s schools. PDD rates at LBPSB, a Center of Excellence in Autism, are likely influenced by the fact that it is the only totally inclusive school board of the Province and that it has a very high ratio of integration of students with PDD into regular classes. Therefore, many families of children with PDD often seek to enroll their children in LBPSB resulting in an overestimate of true PDD rates in Montreal.

If you'll please excuse me for a moment, I think I'm getting sick.
FFFFRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUD.
Ok I'm back, sorry about that.
Careful, what I have might be contagious to any human being with a functioning brain, especially if you keep reading.

The critique then goes on to talk about how thimerosal exposure was higher, and in some cases much higher than what the author claimed during the "nil" time frame. And if that weren't enough the next thing they expose is just as bad if not worse. Fombonne used 2 different standards for mmr exposure and thimerosal exposure in his analysis, as the good Dr. explains: "We must also protest the manner in which Dr. Fombonne evaluated changes in PDD prevalence following adjustments in the cumulative Thimerosal exposure yet applied an entirely different standard when defining cumulative MMR exposure within the same population. A cumulative exposure is typically calculated by multiplying three independent variables: dose per vaccine, shot frequency and coverage rates for each vaccine. Dr Fombonne defined cumulative Thimerosal exposure by considering only the amount in each vaccine and vaccine frequency but ignored coverage rates. He applied the opposite standard to the MMR exposures and only considered coverage rates. Thus, he ignored the fact that autism rates increased following a doubling of the MMR exposure after 1996 when a second MMR shot was added to the immunization schedule and chose to emphasize that a rise in PDD rates coincided with a decline in MMR coverage rates. Obviously the increased amount of administered viral load to the population was far greater influenced by a doubling of shots administered than by a marginal drop in immunization coverage rates."
Of course none of this amounts to a hill of beans anyway since they made the idiot mistake of comparing two different cities that leads to all the bs cited above to begin with
What would the reason be for such blatant manipulation of data? Well, like pretty much every single study you've ever posted here, the correct answer would be conflicts of interest, of course. The critique states "In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation."
Now, are you going to wisely decide to abandon this unbelievably terrible study or are you going to continue to wear it because
WE4elDy.gif

 
Last edited:
.
AND it would be safe to say that since they had the vaccine records of all 20,000 plus children, they would know if they were up-to-date on their vaccine schedule. And what DID they see? A "significant" drop in vaccinations aligned with a continued "significant" rise in diagnosed cases of autism.
I wonder what were the exposure rates of the other non-mmr vaccines? Everything the same across the board over time, since it was only mmr that they mentioned that decreased?
 
Last edited:
Maybe next time before you go handing out all these "dumbasses" you should consider giving them to someone who's not kicking your ass in a debate. The rest of that enormous heap of dirty laundry's still sitting there and the longer it sits there untouched the more it stinks. In addition, with this abysmally stupid study that you brought to the table, you're actually wearing it.
The first thing we need to note right off the top is that this was a study that looked at mmr uptake data in Quebec City and compared it to PDD rates in Montreal, 250km away. Who in the hell does that? I'm not sure what planet you're from, but here on earth, scientific method 101 says you can't do that and come away with any data you can have confidence in whatsoever. The link I posted, included critiques by a couple different Doctors, and they noted several extremely damning flaws in this study. The following info I'm about to post came from them. "We strongly believe their failure to detect such an association was related to methodology and design flaws and that they have not adequately demonstrated that a vaccine link can be dismissed." He goes on to write: "Fombonne et al evaluated children enrolled in only one of Montreal’s five school boards in an attempt to estimate the prevalence of PDD in Montreal. The authors appropriately cautioned that PDD rates in Lester B. Pearson School Board (LBPSB) may not have been representative of rates elsewhere and suggested that data from other school boards should be assessed but claimed, "this information was not available in the survey data that we could obtain. One of us (MR) easily obtained this data of all five Montreal school boards from the Ministry of Education of Quebec (MEQ). Our analysis indicates that the enrollment at LBPSB in 2003-04 represented only 14% of all total school board enrollments in Montreal. More unusual, the PDD rates at LBPSB were significantly higher than the other four school boards, separately or combined. In some matched birth cohorts the prevalence of PDD was as much as three times higher among LBPSB students. Therefore, Fombonne’s objective to calculate the PDD prevalence in Montreal could not possibly have been accurately estimated by assessment of this particular school board and any conclusions about a relationship between vaccines and PDD rates in Montreal could be seriously flawed. The authors committed a serious selection bias by choosing to study only a small subset of the children in Montreal’s schools. PDD rates at LBPSB, a Center of Excellence in Autism, are likely influenced by the fact that it is the only totally inclusive school board of the Province and that it has a very high ratio of integration of students with PDD into regular classes. Therefore, many families of children with PDD often seek to enroll their children in LBPSB resulting in an overestimate of true PDD rates in Montreal.

If you'll please excuse me for a moment, I think I'm getting sick.
FFFFRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUD.
Ok I'm back, sorry about that.
Careful, what I have might be contagious to any human being with a functioning brain, especially if you keep reading.

The critique then goes on to talk about how thimerosal exposure was higher, and in some cases much higher than what the author claimed during the "nil" time frame. And if that weren't enough the next thing they expose is just as bad if not worse. Fombonne used 2 different standards for mmr exposure and thimerosal exposure in his analysis, as the good Dr. explains: "We must also protest the manner in which Dr. Fombonne evaluated changes in PDD prevalence following adjustments in the cumulative Thimerosal exposure yet applied an entirely different standard when defining cumulative MMR exposure within the same population. A cumulative exposure is typically calculated by multiplying three independent variables: dose per vaccine, shot frequency and coverage rates for each vaccine. Dr Fombonne defined cumulative Thimerosal exposure by considering only the amount in each vaccine and vaccine frequency but ignored coverage rates. He applied the opposite standard to the MMR exposures and only considered coverage rates. Thus, he ignored the fact that autism rates increased following a doubling of the MMR exposure after 1996 when a second MMR shot was added to the immunization schedule and chose to emphasize that a rise in PDD rates coincided with a decline in MMR coverage rates. Obviously the increased amount of administered viral load to the population was far greater influenced by a doubling of shots administered than by a marginal drop in immunization coverage rates."
Of course none of this amounts to a hill of beans anyway since they made the idiot mistake of comparing two different cities that leads to all the bs cited above to begin with
What would the reason be for such blatant manipulation of data? Well, like pretty much every single study you've ever posted here, the correct answer would be conflicts of interest, of course. The critique states "In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation."
Now, are you going to wisely decide to abandon this unbelievably terrible study or are you going to continue to wear it because
WE4elDy.gif
Hmmm...I'm going to use your own rule against you here. Your man has a child with autism that he feels like he has to blame on something whether there's evidence or not. He's conflicted and his analysis is therefore, by your OWN rule, invalid. Following YOUR rule, I can dismiss him out-of-hand and even declare him a liar. You're a hypocrite (as if we didn't already know that) if you claim otherwise. You can't claim bias - even when none exists - and pretend it doesn't clearly exist here.

Now, if there was just some way to let disinterested parties examine the study and voice issues with it. If only there was a way to allow anyone to look at the evidence and point out the problems. Oh...wait...there IS! It's published. So here is YOUR challenge - find one researcher with no conflicts who has spoken out against this study design. Just one. Good luck. Until you produce it, this study stands as a clear refutation of your idiotic claims.

And, just out of curiosity, what is it about vaccines that's causing autism. Is it MMR and/or thimerasol as THIS guy says? Aluminum adjuvants as you are - now - claiming? Something else (your next stop)? Everything else (where you'll end up)?

Until you can answer the previous challenge - I'm done. Either reply on point or be ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
Holy moly. Look at the top left FB post capture from an anti-vaxx nurse saying how miserably sick this kid was and then she wants to intentionally expose her own child.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker1999
Holy moly. Look at the top left FB post capture from an anti-vaxx nurse saying how miserably sick this kid was and then she wants to intentionally expose her own child.


That was the case I referenced earlier. I watched it play out. Really glad she got fired. And I can't believe the hospital only strongly encourages staff to be up to date on vaccines.
 
Maybe next time before you go handing out all these "dumbasses" you should consider giving them to someone who's not kicking your ass in a debate. The rest of that enormous heap of dirty laundry's still sitting there and the longer it sits there untouched the more it stinks. In addition, with this abysmally stupid study that you brought to the table, you're actually wearing it.
The first thing we need to note right off the top is that this was a study that looked at mmr uptake data in Quebec City and compared it to PDD rates in Montreal, 250km away. Who in the hell does that? I'm not sure what planet you're from, but here on earth, scientific method 101 says you can't do that and come away with any data you can have confidence in whatsoever. The link I posted, included critiques by a couple different Doctors, and they noted several extremely damning flaws in this study. The following info I'm about to post came from them. "We strongly believe their failure to detect such an association was related to methodology and design flaws and that they have not adequately demonstrated that a vaccine link can be dismissed." He goes on to write: "Fombonne et al evaluated children enrolled in only one of Montreal’s five school boards in an attempt to estimate the prevalence of PDD in Montreal. The authors appropriately cautioned that PDD rates in Lester B. Pearson School Board (LBPSB) may not have been representative of rates elsewhere and suggested that data from other school boards should be assessed but claimed, "this information was not available in the survey data that we could obtain. One of us (MR) easily obtained this data of all five Montreal school boards from the Ministry of Education of Quebec (MEQ). Our analysis indicates that the enrollment at LBPSB in 2003-04 represented only 14% of all total school board enrollments in Montreal. More unusual, the PDD rates at LBPSB were significantly higher than the other four school boards, separately or combined. In some matched birth cohorts the prevalence of PDD was as much as three times higher among LBPSB students. Therefore, Fombonne’s objective to calculate the PDD prevalence in Montreal could not possibly have been accurately estimated by assessment of this particular school board and any conclusions about a relationship between vaccines and PDD rates in Montreal could be seriously flawed. The authors committed a serious selection bias by choosing to study only a small subset of the children in Montreal’s schools. PDD rates at LBPSB, a Center of Excellence in Autism, are likely influenced by the fact that it is the only totally inclusive school board of the Province and that it has a very high ratio of integration of students with PDD into regular classes. Therefore, many families of children with PDD often seek to enroll their children in LBPSB resulting in an overestimate of true PDD rates in Montreal.

If you'll please excuse me for a moment, I think I'm getting sick.
FFFFRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUD.
Ok I'm back, sorry about that.
Careful, what I have might be contagious to any human being with a functioning brain, especially if you keep reading.

The critique then goes on to talk about how thimerosal exposure was higher, and in some cases much higher than what the author claimed during the "nil" time frame. And if that weren't enough the next thing they expose is just as bad if not worse. Fombonne used 2 different standards for mmr exposure and thimerosal exposure in his analysis, as the good Dr. explains: "We must also protest the manner in which Dr. Fombonne evaluated changes in PDD prevalence following adjustments in the cumulative Thimerosal exposure yet applied an entirely different standard when defining cumulative MMR exposure within the same population. A cumulative exposure is typically calculated by multiplying three independent variables: dose per vaccine, shot frequency and coverage rates for each vaccine. Dr Fombonne defined cumulative Thimerosal exposure by considering only the amount in each vaccine and vaccine frequency but ignored coverage rates. He applied the opposite standard to the MMR exposures and only considered coverage rates. Thus, he ignored the fact that autism rates increased following a doubling of the MMR exposure after 1996 when a second MMR shot was added to the immunization schedule and chose to emphasize that a rise in PDD rates coincided with a decline in MMR coverage rates. Obviously the increased amount of administered viral load to the population was far greater influenced by a doubling of shots administered than by a marginal drop in immunization coverage rates."
Of course none of this amounts to a hill of beans anyway since they made the idiot mistake of comparing two different cities that leads to all the bs cited above to begin with
What would the reason be for such blatant manipulation of data? Well, like pretty much every single study you've ever posted here, the correct answer would be conflicts of interest, of course. The critique states "In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation."
Now, are you going to wisely decide to abandon this unbelievably terrible study or are you going to continue to wear it because
WE4elDy.gif

The many faults I find in this logic from some site called "Fourteen Studies" is mind blowing:
  1. "We strongly believe their failure to detect such an association was related to methodology and design flaws and that they have not adequately demonstrated that a vaccine link can be dismissed."
    1. Okay, let's assume this is completely true..........it still in NO WAY means that there is indeed a link to begin with
  2. "Thus, he ignored the fact that autism rates increased following a doubling of the MMR exposure after 1996 when a second MMR shot was added to the immunization schedule and chose to emphasize that a rise in PDD rates coincided with a decline in MMR coverage rates."
    1. Was the autism rate increase even significant to begin with? What was the p-value? Just because there was an increase in NO WAY means that it's automatically associated with the second MMR shot.
    2. Never mind the fact that the MMR vaccine NEVER contained Thimerosal to begin with, so why the hell would ANY scientist account for said autism increase when looking at Thimerosal
  3. "Well, like pretty much every single study you've ever posted here, the correct answer would be conflicts of interest, of course. The critique states "In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation."
    1. Just because he's been "an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation" does not automatically define a "conflict of interest"
    2. ESPECIALLY considering that (again) the MMR vaccine NEVER contained Thimerosal to begin with
I could go on, but I don't need to.......the authors of that site do not even have a basic understanding of the scientific method, basic statistics, or even basic logic. And then I click the "About Us" link:

This website was compiled by the founders of Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy’s autism organization. Generation Rescue is a parent-founded and parent-led non-profit organization with more than 1,000 parent volunteers all over the world.

That tells me ALL I need to know.
 
How come the idiots at generation rescue, et al. never discuss the diagnoses side of the debate when talking about the "rise" in autism cases? There's plenty of literature that discusses this:

Vaccines and autism: A thorough review of the evidence

According to the CDC, about 1 in 68 children in the US have autism, with other developed countries reporting varying, but largely comparable levels (Elsabbagh et al. 2012). Those numbers have gone up over time, which has led anti-vaccers to refer to the situation as an “autism epidemic,” and they often make dire predictions like, by 2022 autism rates will be 1 in 9. I’m not going to take the time to explain why that math is absurd, but I will point out that there is a large body of evidence showing that most, if not all, of the increase in autism rates is due to changes in how autism is diagnosed (Rutter 2005; Taylor 2006; Bishop et al. 2008; Baxter et al. 2015; Hansen et al. 2015). In other words, autism rates are higher now than they were in 1990 because people who would not have been considered autistic in 1990 are considered autistic today (Dr. Novella wrote a good post on this several years ago that includes some additional sources).

So it's highly probable that it's not that significantly more kids develop autism now days, but that with greater access to health care (specifically mental health care) more significantly more kids are just diagnosed with it.
 
From Fourteen Studies "Quick History" page:

What is actually true?

Like everything in life, the devil is always in the details. This website will demonstrate that:

  • Of 11 vaccines licensed for children (all given multiple times), only a single vaccine -- the MMR -- has been studied for its relationship to autism. This would be like trying to identify the source of a plane crash, suspecting mechanical failure, solely analyzing one of the wings, and then declaring the entire airplane free of culpability.
  • A vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, which is comprised of mercury, has also been studied, but solely in the context of vaccinated children. Often, the studies on thimerosal compare children who received various levels of thimerosal in their vaccines, rather than none.
  • No studies have ever considered unvaccinated children to compare their autism rates to those who receive vaccines.
  • No studies consider the real world and how vaccines are actually given. American children receive 6-7 vaccines simultaneously at their 2, 4, and 6 month "well baby" visits, but no science done comes close to replicating this real world condition.
Um, what?

2002: A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism.

Of the 537,303 children in the cohort (representing 2,129,864 person-years), 440,655 (82.0 percent) had received the MMR vaccine. We identified 316 children with a diagnosis of autistic disorder and 422 with a diagnosis of other autistic-spectrum disorders. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group, was 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24), and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07). There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder. This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.

2015: No MMR-Autism Link in Large Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Kids

In the largest-ever study of its kind, researchers again found that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine did not increase risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This proved true even among children already considered at high risk for the disorder.

In all, the researchers analyzed the health records of 95,727 children, including more than 15,000 children unvaccinated at age 2 and more than 8,000 still unvaccinated at age 5. Nearly 2,000 of these children were considered at risk for autism because they were born into families that already had a child with the disorder.

The report appears today in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“Consistent with studies in other populations, we observed no association between MMR vaccination and increased ASD risk,” the authors write. “We also found no evidence that receipt of either one or two doses of MMR vaccination was associated with an increased risk of ASD among children who had older siblings with ASD.”

The analysis looked at autism rates and MMR vaccination at ages 2, 3, 4 and 5 years. It showed no increased risk of autism with immunization at any age. In fact, autism rates were lower in the vaccinated groups. However, this might be because parents who see early signs of autism were more likely to delay or avoid vaccination, the authors speculate.

There are many, many others..........but one thing this shows is just how ignorant anti-vaxxers are. Going by the Denmark numbers .13% of kids develop autism across the board, but let's say for arguments sake that only the kids that had the MMR vaccine developed autism, which is .16%. Well, death from measles was reported in approximately 0.2% of the cases in the United States from 1985 through 1992 and it was as high as 30% in the pre-vaccine era, so that tells me that they would rather take the death of their child over the possibility that it could develop autism. That logic makes NO sense.
 
"We strongly believe their failure to detect such an association was related to methodology and design flaws and that they have not adequately demonstrated that a vaccine link can be dismissed."
  1. Okay, let's assume this is completely true..........it still in NO WAY means that there is indeed a link to begin with
Is it necessary for an established causal link to preexist in order to conclude that a study does not adequately rule out a link? I think not. Your statement is out-of-scope.

"Thus, he ignored the fact that autism rates increased following a doubling of the MMR exposure after 1996 when a second MMR shot was added to the immunization schedule and chose to emphasize that a rise in PDD rates coincided with a decline in MMR coverage rates."
  1. Was the autism rate increase even significant to begin with? What was the p-value? Just because there was an increase in NO WAY means that it's automatically associated with the second MMR shot.
  2. Never mind the fact that the MMR vaccine NEVER contained Thimerosal to begin with, so why the hell would ANY scientist account for said autism increase when looking at Thimerosal
1. Your quote from the critique focused on the fact that the study ignored the addition of the 2nd dose when analyzing the increases in PDD rates, and did not conclude that the increase was "automatically associated" with the 2nd dose.
2. MMR and thimerosal are separate, and the study looked at both issues, separately. The section you quoted talks about MMR, and you're talking about thimerosal. Why?

"Well, like pretty much every single study you've ever posted here, the correct answer would be conflicts of interest, of course. The critique states "In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation."
  1. Just because he's been "an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation" does not automatically define a "conflict of interest"
  2. ESPECIALLY considering that (again) the MMR vaccine NEVER contained Thimerosal to begin with.
1. Whatever. I'll leave that up for others to think about and decide for themselves.
2. The study looked at both thimerosal and MMR, and compared them to PDD rates, not exclusively at MMR.

I could go on
Yes, please provide me with more out of scope, out of context 3rd rate critique. I love wasting my time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shank hawk
ADVERTISEMENT