And the vax discussion continues - read and discuss

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Previous 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Think1st

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 9:41 am

amother wrote:

What about the questions I asked you that you chose to ignore?

Which questions do I owe you an answer ?

Think1st

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 9:45 am

amother wrote:

The link you provided about #2 Paul thruson, did not disprove his work. It just stated that he is wanted for pocketing money meant for trials.

So he pocketed the $millions intended for the study, &
A. got the studies done for free ??? or
B. he fabricated them

Then you have another CDC Doc caught on tape admitting that for 10 years he knew there is a link but he deleted the evidence . How may more dirty tricks were not discovered yet ?

Barbara

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 9:57 am

Think1st wrote:

They don't know what causes autism it just happens to effect vaxed kids 100 times more than unvaxed

You can take the stools from the 10 kids in our trial take to a lab & see all the toxins the excreted

You have a "trial lab"? Please tell us more about your "trial lab."

Also please provide the peer-reviewed study that demonstrates that vaccinated children are 100 times more likely to be autistic than non-vaccinated children. The vaccination rate is about 90% these days. So the study would need to demonstrate that for every 1 unvaccinated child who is autistic, there are 900 vaccinated kids who are autistic. When correcting for other factors, of course.

Think1st

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 10:17 am

Barbara wrote:

Get me 10 autistic kids put them on an MD supervised diet, u will c improvement in most within 6 weeks or less, you can send their stool samples to any lab you wish ,& see what comes out when they detox.

http://www.ageofautism.com/201.....lides.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/th.....nd-autism/

http://sharylattkisson.com/whe.....tic-amish/

http://www.rense.com/general85/cant.htm

Think1st

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 10:19 am

http://articles.mercola.com/si.....aspx#!

Barbara

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 10:54 am

Think1st wrote:

No autism among unvaccinated people?

ROFL*.

How about the school for autistic kids someone cited to where MOST students haven't been vaccinated?

The term "autism" was first used in 1943 (20 years before MMR) to describe Donald Triplett. Interestingly,

Quote:

The authors also tracked down Donald, now age 77. Currently, Donald lives independently in Forest, Mississippi in the same house where he grew up. He enjoys playing golf and is a passionate traveler having visited approximately 28 US states, and 38 other countries. Although Donald still displays apparent differences, he has thrived in a community that is completely accepting of him.

http://blog.centerforautism.co.....tism/

But even before that, it was used to describe patients who were said to be schizophrenic.

Frumdoc

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 10:54 am

A study involving just 10 children is vastly, ridiculously underpowered to investigate questions such as the multifactorial causes of a heterogeneous syndrome such as autism.

Sorry, it would answer nothing.

Power in a study means that with the normal variance in humans which confounds the results of studies, and must be allowed for, that the number of study participants must be of sufficient number (usually hundred or thousands) to balance out by use of statistical methodology such as regressing to the mean, to counteract the scatter effect of the variant results.

In terms of a graph, there must be enough points on a graph to eliminate the scatter and demonstrate a general trend. This is how studies are planned and what the meaning of the p value is: the scientific proof that something that seems to match up and correlate actually does so in a way that eliminates chance as a cause.

Of course, correlation does not prove causation, which is lesson number 2.

Is this helping you understand?

So in order to design your study, you would need to identify the various known and proposed causes of autism, define exactly what you mean by autism in terms of study entrants, work out the known associations and how they correlate with the diagnosis, and whether you wish to include or exclude people with those known associations, such as genetic factors, power the study to ensure you are not just measuring the known effects and not the new proposed effect, decide whether you wish to perform a double blind or single blind, case matched or case controlled or open prospective trial or a retrospective review, evaluate the ethical issues and have it approved by the ethical board to ensure you are not endangering or preventing patients from accessing good care or putting them at undue risk through your study. Etc.

I am sure, as you have raised thousands of dollars for healthy living, as you told us, that you would want to raise the same amount and get one of your anti vaccination doctors to consider designing and developing this trial. I would be fascinated by the results.

You would need probably 10,000 children to adequately overcome the statistical variance in such a heterogeneous condition such as autism, and start by recruiting pregnant women so you could ensure that they never had any "toxins" even prenatally.

What a great thing to do. I can't wait for your results.

Think1st

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 10:56 am

Scrabble123 wrote:

I felt that it would be appropriate to post a link to the Japanese vaccination schedule since it has been brought up.

http://www.nih.go.jp/niid/imag.....1.pdf

Thank you
1st point is HPV recommendation was withdrawn do to serious safety concerns

USA 2014 http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/sc.....past/2014-child.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/sc.....edule1994s.jpg

It continues to grow
what benefits can it show

Think1st

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 11:10 am

Frumdoc wrote:

A study involving just 10 children is vastly, ridiculously underpowered to investigate questions such as the multifactorial causes of a heterogeneous syndrome such as autism.

Sorry, it would answer nothing.

So if you throw 10 kids down a flight of stairs "only" 7 get injured that is no proof it is unsafe

You want to fund the 10.000 kids I start today

Power in a study means that with the normal variance in humans which confounds the results of studies, and must be allowed for, that the number of study participants must be of sufficient number (usually hundred or thousands) to balance out by use of statistical methodology such as regressing to the mean, to counteract the scatter effect of the variant results.

In terms of a graph, there must be enough points on a graph to eliminate the scatter and demonstrate a general trend. This is how studies are planned and what the meaning of the p value is: the scientific proof that something that seems to match up and correlate actually does so in a way that eliminates chance as a cause.

Of course, correlation does not prove causation, which is lesson number 2.

Is that the name of a one way street, only applying to adverse reaction but to supposed benefits of vaccine

Is this helping you understand?

So in order to design your study, you would need to identify the various known and proposed causes of autism, define exactly what you mean by autism in terms of study entrants, work out the known associations and how they correlate with the diagnosis, and whether you wish to include or exclude people with those known associations, such as genetic factors, power the study to ensure you are not just measuring the known effects and not the new proposed effect, decide whether you wish to perform a double blind or single blind, case matched or case controlled or open prospective trial or a retrospective review, evaluate the ethical issues and have it approved by the ethical board to ensure you are not endangering or preventing patients from accessing good care or putting them at undue risk through your study. Etc.

I am sure, as you have raised thousands of dollars for healthy living, as you told us, that you would want to raise the same amount and get one of your anti vaccination doctors to consider designing and developing this trial. I would be fascinated by the results.

You would need probably 10,000 children to adequately overcome the statistical variance in such a heterogeneous condition such as autism, and start by recruiting pregnant women so you could ensure that they never had any "toxins" even prenatally.

35,000 to 50,000 un-vaxed kids in Chicago homefirst clinic Not even 1 in a thousand Asthma Autism ADD
etc, same with thae un-vaxed Amish http://www.rense.com/general85/cant.htm

What a great thing to do. I can't wait for your results.

Think1st

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 11:25 am

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBl.....6.htm

Pre-marketing (pre-licensure) vaccine clinical trials are typically done in three phases, as is the case for any drug or biologic. Initial human studies, referred to as Phase 1, are safety and immunogenicity studies performed in a small number of closely monitored subjects. Phase 2 studies are dose-ranging studies and may enroll hundreds of subjects. Finally, Phase 3 trials typically enroll thousands of individuals and provide the critical documentation of effectiveness and important additional safety data required for licensing. At any stage of the clinical or animal studies, if data raise significant concerns about either safety or effectiveness, FDA may request additional information or studies, or may halt ongoing clinical studies

Some vaccines are fast tracked with only 50 subjects in phase 2
http://www.zacks.com/stock/new.....ccine

http://www.renewamerica.com/co.....70227

Merck rigged the trail to include aluminum in 90% of "Placebos" , & combined the result to show limited difference in fever nausea & dizziness,,between the vaccine & placeebo

Table 6
Vaccine-related injection-site and Systemic Adverse Experiences*

Last edited by Think1st on Fri, Feb 06 2015, 11:49 am; edited 1 time in total

mille

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 11:46 am

The Amish DO vaccinate. One study cites only 14% have children who have never received a vaccine.

Link to the abstract: http://pediatrics.aappublicati.....tract

Another study for a different Amish community citing a similar rate of vaccination (84% have received a vaccination): http://journals.lww.com/pidj/A......aspx (Google scholar has the full text available, which I highly recommend reading because an Abstract tells you absolutely nothing about the study done)

I would hypothesize that there is a confounding factor as to why the Amish have a lower prevalence of autism than non-Amish communities.

But, you don't want to hear objective facts, right? Because confirmation bias is so much more fun.

Think1st

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 11:57 am

mille wrote:

Results: 37% of the parents responded. Among the 359 respondents, 68% stated that all of their children had received at least 1 immunization, and 17% reported that some of their children had received at

.37*.68=.25 so 25% confirmed they received 1 out of 39 doses ,

You call that 86 % vaccinated, LOL

You bet I am having fun, any anti laughing vax?

Last edited by Think1st on Fri, Feb 06 2015, 3:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

mille

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 12:14 pm

Think1st wrote:

You bet I am having fun, any anti laughing vax?

You really need to learn how to read a scientific study and gain a working knowledge of statistics. First, that's the abstract. I can't really give you my university access to read the article in full. You'll have to find your own access; maybe a library can help you.

Second, nothing what I stated is incorrect. I said around 14% of families have children who have received NO vaccinations. Meaning they are completely unvaccinated. See this quote from the abstract (since that's all you'll read anyway):

Underimmunization in Ohio's Amish wrote:

Only 14% of the parents reported that none of their children had received immunizations.

It is often said as an anecdote that the Amish never vaccinate. This is clearly not true. Only about 15% over two different studies and two different Amish communities have refrained from vaccination entirely.

Your math also shows that you do not have a single grasp of statistics at all. One of the functions of statistics is that it takes a sample size that is representative of the population in order to draw conclusions about the entire population. It is very difficult (probably impossible) to perform a scientific study on an entire population. By the time you begin collecting data, your population will change; babies will be born, people will die, perhaps in a very narrow community such as the Amish, some people will leave their religious community entirely so they no longer count under the criteria of "Amish". This is why we have sample sizes.

If you can get 100% of everyone in a specific population to participate in a study every single time, you would be a science wizard. Alas, I think it's just a failure in knowledge of statistics that has lead to this misconception.

Think1st

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 12:55 pm

Your math is based in the assumption that the respondents are a true sample .However wouldn't it make sense, that the non vaxers would be more likely to ignore the questionnaire.

And again they only confirmed receiving 1out of 40 or so doses. That's how u rig a a"study"

Last edited by Think1st on Fri, Feb 06 2015, 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

mille

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 1:32 pm

Think1st wrote:

Your math is based in the asumption that the resoondants are a true sample .however wouldn't it make sence that the non vaxers would be more likely to ingonre the questionare. And again they only confurmed trying 1out of 40 or so doses. That's how u rig a a"study"

As someone who recruits participants for scientific studies, no, that's not how it works. At all.

Dandelion1

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 3:24 pm

Oy. Anybody remember the Friends episode where Phoebe and Ross were arguing over the fact that Phoebe didn't "believe" in gravity? That's what this is reminding me of....

amother

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 3:49 pm

aleph wrote:

Oy. Anybody remember the Friends episode where Phoebe and Ross were arguing over the fact that Phoebe didn't "believe" in gravity? That's what this is reminding me of....

I agree completely. Not believing that vaccines have risky side-effects is like not believing in gravity.

naturalmom5

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 4:20 pm

http://m.fame10.com/entertainm.....ines/

amother

Fri, Feb 06 2015, 4:50 pm

amother wrote:

I agree completely. Not believing that vaccines have risky side-effects is like not believing in gravity.

No one denies that.

The argument wasn't about whether gravity causes people to fall or not.

This debate isn't whether there are risks, it's about are the risks worth the benefits, and to that there's a clear answer.

Of course, some people want the benefits of no diseases without being willing to take on the risk of being vaccinated.

Thanks to them we are all again at risk of watching our children suffer through illnesses that were on track to be completely eradicated.

Jewishmom8

Sat, Feb 07 2015, 12:51 pm

amother wrote:

No one denies that.

The argument wasn't about whether gravity causes people to fall or not.

This debate isn't whether there are risks, it's about are the risks worth the benefits, and to that there's a clear answer.

Of course, some people want the benefits of no diseases without being willing to take on the risk of being vaccinated.

Thanks to them we are [b]all again at risk of watching our children suffer through illnesses that were on track to be completely eradicated[/b].

very well said!

Page 9 of 11

Previous 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 Next