Both these were linked earlier in this thread. The CHD points have been brought up in at least three threads now. The Hooker critique is new to the debate since probably 1/2 way through this thread.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...-rate-of-1-in-100-cdc-should-rush-to-denmark/
A) That is an editorial article, not a peer review of their paper.
To their (alleged) points:
1) The MMR vaccine was THE vaccine all of you antivaxxers were focused on, BECAUSE the timing of that vaccine occurred around when autism typically shows up.
The study debunked EXACTLY what the claims at the time were. 100%
Gish galloping into new territory is irrelevant.
2) Because, rates around different societies and around the globe VARY. There is no indication the rate is statistically different from nominal area rates. NONE. And there is no analysis demonstrating the rate seen it the study is a statistical anomaly
3) See Point #1. YOU guys were the ones all over MMR as the culprit. This study debunked that, 100%. And the same adjuvants are seen in the MMR vaccine as in others. Remember? You just argued their autism rates were "too low". All the other vaccine regimens the kids in both groups got DEBUNKS THAT THEORY TOO!!!
4) Yes, it does. Because that's what goes with the MMR vaccine, and there was NO DIFFERENCE
5) That's not remotely relevant, and another red herring. The kids in this study were TRACKED as part of the study
6) There is ZERO evidence of this in the study. Another red herring.
The study debunked EXACTLY what the claims at the time were. 100%
Gish galloping into new territory is irrelevant.
2) Because, rates around different societies and around the globe VARY. There is no indication the rate is statistically different from nominal area rates. NONE. And there is no analysis demonstrating the rate seen it the study is a statistical anomaly
3) See Point #1. YOU guys were the ones all over MMR as the culprit. This study debunked that, 100%. And the same adjuvants are seen in the MMR vaccine as in others. Remember? You just argued their autism rates were "too low". All the other vaccine regimens the kids in both groups got DEBUNKS THAT THEORY TOO!!!
4) Yes, it does. Because that's what goes with the MMR vaccine, and there was NO DIFFERENCE
5) That's not remotely relevant, and another red herring. The kids in this study were TRACKED as part of the study
6) There is ZERO evidence of this in the study. Another red herring.
If the Op Ed here has any valid complaints about the study, the proper location for those is in another paper submitted to that same journal as a followup, "debunking" it. OR, a letter to the editor calling their alleged points into question, for the journal and authors to address it. THE AUTHORS OF YOUR LINK WILL NOT DO THIS BECAUSE THEIR ALLEGATIONS ARE MERITLESS AND WILL BE TOSSED.
If they have REAL concerns about vaccines, then get a friggin MD or PhD, and publish followup in this same journal. What you have posted is a sad, easily debunked Op Ed.