Science and Stupidity:When Opinon replaces facts

[filghy2]

If anything, there is actually a bias towards publishing research results that will gain media publicity, as linking vaccination and autism would. According to the famous paper by John Ionnidas even stringent scientific standards don't prevent a lot of dubious research results from being published. http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/bel...probably-false

The problem is that the standard test will give a false positive 5% of the time, and nobody has much interest in publishing papers that fail to find anything. That means there is an incentive to keep trying different approaches until you get a positive result.

[DaphneCruz]

Why a magical group of people? And what is wrong with scientists, many of whom have a significant personal interest in conclusively identifying the cause of autism, which at this point is thought to involve many genes and a whole host of environmental factors.

Do you honestly think there are not a sufficient number scientists and doctors who would not want to show that the causes of autism are entirely iatrogenic if they were? If an individual or group of individuals could demonstrate this, both by showing an increased incidence of autism among people who have been vaccinated, and positing a reasonable theory to explain why vaccinations would cause autism, would they not be strong candidates for a Nobel Prize in Medicine?

If the general public is stupid, this does not demonstrate why. You on the other hand....

You missed the entire point of my post (not surprsing)

Who will pay a doctor or scientist to simply conduct tests to prove vaccines are bad? Is there some magical group of financiers that will fund this research? Will you pay for it? or should the doctors pay for it? lol And how can this be done?

The bulk of the "research" on vaccines and their effectiveness and testing of vaccines is paid for the pharmaceutical companies as they are the ones trying to get their drugs pushed forward. Naturally it will you know how it will turn out.

and 2. there are studies and papers that do show how vaccines are bad, but it will never be enough until it over powers the tremendous amount of "research" by the pharmaceutical industry that has way more money.

Here's a pdf with hundreds of articles/studies with links etc...

http://vaccine-injury.info/pdf/vaccinepeerreview.pdf

Will you read it? probably not. Can you dismiss them? not if you dont read them which you wont and if you did wouldnt understand it or wouldnt care because again, you are simply influenced by the fact that if vaccines were bad, it would be common knowledge. not taking into account that nobody is funding the research on determining that vaccines are dangerous. Who would? There isnt a company that profits from such tests etc. or the logistics are impossible. How can somebody test that? If you made everybody in the world drink a thimble of bleach it probably would not kill them, most still probably "be okay" some may react very badly, maybe even die, but the majority will probably not suffer too much or show any symptons too our of the ordinary and those that are ill affected will be relatively small. So, does that prove that it is safe or not that bad? or will you admit that drinking bleach may not be really safe or adviseable?

Do you think the FDA or CDC actually tests and monitors this stuff? No, for the most part they study the 'research' submitted by the drug company trying to get a drug approved.



But until it somehow just becomes magically common knowledge you will never accept it.

Also, Autism is not a disease you can get tested for with blood test. Proving a direct link is pretty much impossible. Autism is a measure of brain damage. So you may be able to publish a study that vaccines cause brain damage (maybe small) but it will never be enough. etc.

Youre asking for impossible "proof"

[broncofan]

You missed the entire point of my post (not surprsing)

Also, Autism is not a disease you can get tested for with blood test. Proving a direct link is pretty much impossible. Autism is a measure of brain damage. So you may be able to publish a study that vaccines cause brain damage (maybe small) but it will never be enough. etc.

Youre asking for impossible "proof"

You missed the entire point of my post but I understood what you were saying. Pharmaceutical companies have deep pockets and fund research but they are not the only source of funding. There are independent organizations that research the causes of autism. They have millions of dollars worth of funding which I could link for you. Not only that, but I found a link saying the NIH allocated 169 million dollars to autism research in 2012. I have no reason to doubt that there is a great deal of money spent every year in the U.S. to understand autism and identify both genetic and environmental causes of it.

In the Wikipedia link on autism, valproic acid (an anti-epileptic drug also widely used in bipolar disorder) use during pregnancy is listed as a contributing cause of autism. Is there any money in identifying an anti-seizure drug as a cause of autism? If there is it's not obvious. Yet the fact that prenatal exposure to valproic acid can cause autism is not controversial. Who profits from that?

Your description of autism simply as a measure of brain damage makes you sound like a moron. It is a neurodevelopmental disorder but then again ADHD is classified that way as well. It involves all sorts of functional impairments but one of its characteristics is thought to be overconnectivity of neurons in certain parts of the brain. Without question many people with autism have significant impairments but not all brain damage results in autism. When adults damage their brains they do not develop autism (because it's neurodevelopmental; the hint is in the word developmental) and neither do children who suffer head injuries or hypoxia.

And no I'm not going to read a thousand plus page document that you're unable to summarize.

[broncofan]

In the Wikipedia link on autism, valproic acid (an anti-epileptic drug also widely used in bipolar disorder) use during pregnancy is listed as a contributing cause of autism. Is there any money in identifying an anti-seizure drug as a cause of autism? If there is it's not obvious. Yet the fact that prenatal exposure to valproic acid can cause autism is not controversial. Who profits from that?

I also found a bunch of studies on valproic acid and autism. One such study had even discovered an animal model for autism which makes your argument about the proof being impossible sound less than informed (there are problems I've read with extrapolating results from animal studies to humans but it was probably the statistical data in humans exposed to valproate that led to the animal studies). Again, how is this study of valproic acid profitable to pharmaceutical companies?

[DaphneCruz]

wow... You went through that pdf pretty quick. Im impressed. lol

"I also found a bunch of studies"

lol.

Site one. Explain it. And then I will here you. I doubt you have ever read an actual study. they would be too hard for you to understand. If anything you read reviews of studies. And I hardly doubt you put much time in it.


Site and source one study so we can scrutinize it. You will NEVER find a study that shows test studies of vaccinated vs truly unvaccinated. Ever. Never. Never. Never

[broncofan]

wow... You went through that pdf pretty quick. Im impressed. lol

"I also found a bunch of studies"

lol.

Site one. Explain it. And then I will here you. I doubt you have ever read an actual study. they would be too hard for you to understand. If anything you read reviews of studies. And I hardly doubt you put much time in it.


Site and source one study so we can scrutinize it. You will NEVER find a study that shows test studies of vaccinated vs truly unvaccinated. Ever. Never. Never. Never

1. I read the abstracts of the studies in order to see what the subject matter was. The point I was making is that a potential cause of autism was identified and studied even though there was no financial motive. That was the entire point.

2. If you read my post, you would see that I said I wasn't going to read your pdf, which when I opened it was over 1000 pages. You could summarize what you believe it says, but you seem unable to.

3. The word you're looking for is cite not site. The word you're looking for is hear not here. I think when you say "reviews of studies" you might be talking about the abstracts of the studies. I find conspiracy theorists are often people like yourself without critical faculties who want to pretend they have some secret knowledge. Why is it you pretend to be an expert on all these various subjects but write less clearly than all of the people you argue with?

4. Saying lol doesn't make people think you're laughing out loud. It makes you sound desperate.

[DaphneCruz]

2. If you read my post, you would see that I said I wasn't going to read your pdf, which when I opened it was over 1000 pages. You could summarize what you believe it says, but you seem unable to.

Pretty much sums it up.


You(not you)proof or studies and it is ignored.

I did summarize. They are studies that have shown ill effect of vaccines.


YOU refuse to even look at it. So its funny that you believe they dont exist.

[broncofan]

Pretty much sums it up.

My argument is contained in this link. When you're done with it we can discuss who's right. Deal?
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2600/2600-h/2600-h.htm

[DaphneCruz]

No arguement against vaccines? Didnt think so. Bye

[DaphneCruz]

1000 articles/studies conveniently put in a pdf is not enough. How much simpler do you have to put it to you freaks?


seriously . how much would it take?