[Pants-of-dog]

And I have stated why it is not relevant.

No. The first time I did it, you said you were not Romanian, which is not a rebuttal since measles does not check your kid’s passport before infecting and killing them.

But the second time, I specifically discussed US fatalities, just in case your weird rebuttal made any sense at all.

And you ignored that too.

What feelings?

Your religious ones, obviously.

So what? That wasn't my point. My point was that vaccine law for its citizens is different than vaccine law in Canada, which highlights points of disagreement of scheduling and mandates. Big surprise since they are almost all bunch of non-sense.

Okay, so when I post information abour Romania, it can be dismissed because it assumedly has a different context where different diseases are more prevalent for different reasons.

But if vaccination schedules differ worldwide, assumedly because each has a different context where different diseases are more prevalent for different reasons, then they are obviously wrong.

Your logcial inconsistency is showing.

Yes, and you willfully ignored arguments and charts I presented, and even admitted such. So I will return the favor.

Feel free to show me what I missed.

[Sivad]

If some idiot refuses to get vaccinated because of the academically-withdrawn/debunked bullshit peddled by @Sivad on the previous pages, or some other equally idiotic reason, the rest of society doesn't need to coddle a grown adult deliberately endangering themselves and others. A dangerous idiot is a dangerous idiot.

You mean the paper that passed peer review, got published, and remained in the journal for over a year? The one that was only withdrawn after the hordes of astroturf trolls on big pharma payroll nitpicked every last detail?

According to the Cochrane survey over 90% of the peer reviewed studies on vaccine safety are such poorly designed garbage so riddled with flaws and biases that they should be withdrawn as well. That they are not withdrawn speaks volumes about the integrity and rigor of the academy.

As for dangerous idiocy, I'd say all those respectable types who place full faith and confidence in the fake public health establishment take the cake for most dangerous idiots. The public health establishment is so plagued by scandals due to institutionalized corruption that you'd have to be some kind of massive freak of jackassery to believe one word coming out of it.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I don't think you understand how science works. The peer review process is not guaranteed to always screen out pseudoscience and poorly-conducted studies. There are papers, peer reviewed by some academic circles, that lack sufficient evidence to support their claims, which stay in circulation for a time before other people notice something is wrong. In the case of Shoenfeld's study which I partly elaborated on in simple enough English in this link below, it took some months before enough attention was drawn to his study: viewtopic.php?p=14873742#p14873742

The claims made in the study do not hold up to scrutiny.

[ness31]

@Sivad

You know that truism, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?”, maybe that’s how it is for the CDC. We can’t write them off completely because of isolated incidents.. I guess.. I know it’s hard..

From all my reading into the link of the MMR vaccine to autism, I basically understood it to mean though there isn’t a link from all the analysis carried out they can’t rule one out either..

[Sivad]

@Sivad

You know that truism, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?”, maybe that’s how it is for the CDC. We can’t write them off completely because of isolated incidents.. I guess.. I know it’s hard..

It's widespread institutional corruption, not isolated incidents. It's important to get that straight because there are just too many dangerous idiots who mindlessly worship corrupt authorities and label the victims of this corruption as child abusers. People are right to regard the CDC and the public health establishment as untrustworthy, the idiots who mindlessly subject their children to CDC directives are negligent parents.

From all my reading into the link of the MMR vaccine to autism, I basically understood it to mean though there isn’t a link from all the analysis carried out they can’t rule one out either..

From my reading the safety guarantee is mostly derived from epidemiology, a social science(as opposed to a hard science) that suffers from the same inherent methodological weaknesses as all the soft sciences. I don't know if vaccines cause autism but I do know only an asshole would stake their child's life on the social science of a corrupt establishment.

[Drlee]

From my reading the safety guarantee is mostly derived from epidemiology, a social science(as opposed to a hard science) that suffers from the same inherent methodological weaknesses as all the soft sciences. I don't know if vaccines cause autism but I do know only an asshole would stake their child's life on the social science of a corrupt establishment.

There is nothing of truth in this statement. Nothing at all. Where in God's name did you get such a preposterous idea?

[ness31]

@Sivad I did read your first link.WiseWomen, Coca Cola , kickbacks from vaccine companies yadda yadda yadda..
We could call it institutional corruption, and that might be right. But, (to use another cliche) do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Is nothing that comes out of that institution of value? Or is it an instance of the sane being pushed to the point of denigrating an institution to simply remind it of just how imperfect it is?

Considering the hard line taken with vaccines of late, a bit of push back is more than justified.

[Sivad]

There is nothing of truth in this statement. Nothing at all. Where in God's name did you get such a preposterous idea?

That epidemiology is a soft science?

The ability to create highly controlled conditions is simply nonexistent for many soft sciences. Instead, they rely on observational studies in uncontrolled, often chaotic environments. To tease apart correlation from causation, they apply fancy math – like the regression analysis mentioned above – but this isn’t a sufficient substitute for a highly controlled environment.

Epidemiology often cannot perform controlled experiments, both for reasons of ethics and practicality. Epidemiologists can’t lock 20,000 people in a room for 20 years to determine if force-feeding them hot dogs will cause cancer. Instead, they rely on observational studies.
https://www.realclearscience.com/articl ... 06278.html

[Drlee]

Your post is preposterous. You do not understand what you are saying. Give it up. You are making a fool of yourself.

Appeal to authority? Naaa. I am, though laughing about who you are arguing with as well as what you think you are arguing about. I'll let you figure it out some day. Google DPH.

[Sivad]

“It is not only epidemiology's critics who view its conclusions as second rate,” Parascandola wrote. “Epidemiologists themselves are unduly self-conscious and skeptical about their own methods.”
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/9 ... 14/2606580

many epidemiologists concede that their studies are so plagued with biases, uncertainties, and methodological weaknesses that they may be inherently incapable of accurately disceming such weak associations.
[...]
As a solution, epidemiologists interviewed by Science could suggest only that the press become more skeptical of epidemiologic findings, that epidemiologists become more skeptical about their own findings-or both.
http://www.mwc.com.br/files/Taubes_-_Ep ... limits.pdf

[Drlee]

Thank you for posting that article. I have seen it before. It is instructive in two ways.

First it should demonstrate to you the importance of reading your citations first.

Second it makes my point. From your article:

“These debates have been going on for decades,” said Jonathan Samet, M.D., chairman of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore. “Certainly, these questions are fundamental to all scientific disciplines. Epidemiology is not unique.”

“It is not only epidemiology's critics who view its conclusions as second rate,” Parascandola wrote. “Epidemiologists themselves are unduly self-conscious and skeptical about their own methods.”

“There has been a tremendous amount of debate about epidemiology, especially in the epidemiologic press, but the issue is not whether epidemiology is a weak science,” Spitz said. “I don't think that's even worthy of discussion, because there is no doubt in my mind that epidemiology has contributed enormously to the identification of risk factors for the leading causes of mortality and morbidity in the last half century.”

“There is no question that epidemiology has contributed more toward cancer and the understanding of cancer's causes and its prevention than any other field up to this point,” said Willett, a professor of medicine at the Harvard School of Public Health. “ I think that will continue for a long time, even though molecular biology and laboratory sciences will be contributing increasingly.”

National Cancer Institute epidemiologist Aaron Blair, Ph.D., said that “ many people, maybe even some scientists, have the expectation that science is definitive, that there's never any debate about science.”

Blair, chief of the Occupational Epidemiology Branch at NCI, added that he believes “ that expectation is incorrect in every discipline of science, whether in medicine or hard-line chemistry. There are always issues that are unclear, where the data don't quite fit the theory, or doubts exist as to whether a theory or paradigm is correct.”

Criticism of epidemiology does not reflect a flawed scientific discipline but rather the prominence of findings that emerge from epidemiologic investigations, said Samet.

“Examples [of the prominence] are abundant, but an easy one is the tobacco industry,” said Samet. “For about 50 years the industry has been attacking the credibility of epidemiologic research because that research has told the world that tobacco is killing people.”

“When studies showed that tars and other components of cigarettes caused mutation of the p53 gene, it made front-page headlines and all the TV news shows, which hailed it as the definitive proof,” said Blair. “In fact, the definitive proof had come from epidemiology two decades before. The data were just overwhelming.”

“The idea that you had to have [proof] in some sort of glassware before you could say that [smoking causes cancer] just doesn't make any sense to me,” Blair added. “We have lots of examples of things that happen in the laboratory but appear not to happen in living systems. The real test, obviously, is what happens to us, to humans.”

Thanks again for doing the research for me to prove my point. I will ignore your post from Brazil with only the note that the rules here are that this is an English language forum and you should post your references in English.

I suppose all that needs to be said in rebuttal to the idiots who question the validity of vaccine recommendations (on this forum I mean) is this. There are experts who are questioning them everyday. Some work for industry and some for academe and yet others for the government. If there is a problem with vaccines we will find it. These people are called epidemiologists.

[Sivad]

Thank you for posting that article. I have seen it before. It is instructive in two ways.

First it should demonstrate to you the importance of reading your citations first.

I did read it carefully, you're reading of it is just dense. The take away here isn't that the author is a defender of the faith, what's striking is that he acknowledges that epidemiologists themselves are self-conscious and skeptical about their own methods. There are endless criticisms of epidemiology from within and without and glossing over the fact that many within the discipline are skeptical about its methods is either dishonest or obtuse.

Thanks again for doing the research for me to prove my point.

Thank you for the bullshit hand-wavy analysis, it's almost as discrediting as when you bizarrely claimed that abstracts don't mean what they clearly do mean and then refused to provide your interpretation. You're quite a character.

I suppose all that needs to be said in rebuttal to the idiots who question the validity of vaccine recommendations (on this forum I mean) is this. There are experts who are questioning them everyday. Some work for industry and some for academe and yet others for the government. If there is a problem with vaccines we will find it. These people are called epidemiologists.

In reality the experts have concluded that the science is inadequate but since it's the best they can do given the ethical and methodological limitations it's what we have to go with. That might be good enough for some but I'm afraid I'm gonna need a much stronger guarantee than that.

As far as "experts questioning them everyday", we know that simply isn't true. The IOM recommended a moratorium on further safety research and the research that has been done is admitted to be inadequate. We need hard science on the issue of vaccine safety but so far all we got are weak epidemiological studies which have been heavily criticized for their methodology as well as their integrity.

I don't think you understand how science works. The peer review process is not guaranteed to always screen out pseudoscience and poorly-conducted studies. There are papers, peer reviewed by some academic circles, that lack sufficient evidence to support their claims, which stay in circulation for a time before other people notice something is wrong. In the case of Shoenfeld's study which I partly elaborated on in simple enough English in this link below, it took some months before enough attention was drawn to his study: viewtopic.php?p=14873742#p14873742

The claims made in the study do not hold up to scrutiny.

That study should never have been withdrawn, there are far worse studies in the most prestigious journals that aren't withdrawn. I don't think you know how science works, you have an idealized fantasy about how it works that is nothing like what actually goes on in the real world. In this case you're mistaking corrupt politics for science.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

You do not understand medicine, vaccines, and the science behind either. You have consistently demonstrated a thorough lack of knowledge on the subject of vaccinations. It has been specifically pointed out, in detailed fashion, numerous times throughout this thread. You do not do yourself any favors by continuing to cherry-pick quotations from things you do not understand, because in each case they have backfired every time. Any credibility you think your posts have is fantasy on your part. I'm sorry you are blind to that, but your posts are on record here and speak for themselves.

[Sivad]

You do not do yourself any favors by continuing to cherry-pick quotations from things you do not understand, because in each case they have backfired every time.

So you claim but I have yet to see anyone explain how I've been wrong about anything. These lame bluffs are obviously meant to discredit me somehow but they're so stupid that anyone who can't see through them isn't worth bothering with in the first place. You don't do yourself any favors by resorting to such embarrassingly asinine tactics.

[Sivad]

Controlling for unknown co-causal factors, genetic susceptibility or mutli-step causation is outside the scope of current biostatistical practice. Teasing out the effect of confounding variables is fraught with difficulty and lends to error. See DONA SCHNEIDER AND DAVID E. LILIENFELD, LILIENFELD’S FOUNDATIONS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, Oxford University Press 4th
Edn. (2015) at 63-68.

[Hong Wu]

I think the only thing that can reasonably be said about this issue is that it'll seem crazy if/until a connection is found between vaccines and something bad, after which the people who didn't want to vaccinate their kids would look prescient instead of crazy.

[Sivad]

I don't think prescience is required, you just have to keep a healthy skepticism and look into it for yourself. You can't really rely on internet epidemiologists that appeal to their own authority or scientistic pseudoskeptics that want to pretend that the official line on anything and everything is always the gospel truth. You look into enough of these issues and you'll start to find that the official line is almost always propped up by a hefty amount of bullshit and is mostly just a put-on.

btw, that paper that passed peer review, got published, and was only withdrawn after big pharma leaned on the editor who happens to consult for Merk and other major vaccine manufacturers, it was republished in another major journal. So it passed peer review twice

[ness31]

You know what? I’ve heard about this paper that caused such a stir but I’ve never read it. Who is it by?

[Sivad]

According to an article by the National Post, the study’s lead author, internationally known immunologist Yehuda Shoenfeld, MD of Tel-Aviv University in Israel, has accused Dr. Poland of allowing a conflict of interest with Gardasil manufacturer Merck & Co. to influence his decision to remove the paper from Vaccine. Dr. Shoenfeld, who is Founder and Director of the Zabludowicz Center for Autoimmune Diseases at the Sheba Medical Center in Israel and Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Autoimmunity,5 said:

This reflects an unusually unorthodox and unprofessional conduct from the journal and seems to be part of a pharmaceutical industry push-back to any critique of the Gardasil vaccine. To simply retract a paper which reports a result that one does not like makes a mockery of the whole review process.6

Dr. Poland has chaired a Safety Evaluation Committee for vaccine trials conducted by Merck Research Laboratories. He has provided consulting services on vaccine development to Merck and several other pharmaceutical companies, including CSL Biotherapies, Avianax, Sanofi Pasteur, Dynavax, Novartis Vaccines and Therapeutics, PAXVAX, and Emergent Biosolutions.7
http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2016/ ... e-journal/

[Godstud]

One questionable study does not damn them all. Nice try. Pretty pathetic!