Anti-Vax Memes | Imamother

amother

Lavender

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 1:09 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

1. So why won't the CDC conduct such a study?

2. If it is not 100% vaxed vs 100% unvaxed it is NOT a vax vs unvax study.

When studying if smoking causes cancer the control group was 100% NON-SMOKER

Yet ALL the vaccine-autism studies were comparing children who 15 vaccines to children who got 16 vaccines. That is NOT a Vax vs UnVax study and to say it is is Fraudulent!

And there is ZERO unethical in doing a Retrospective study.

1. I explained this already.

2. Yes it is. It's just not the study you want.

By the way, people are starting to point out that those smoker vs. non-smoker studies you're praising so highly did not control properly for SES and access to healthcare, living in polluted low-class neighborhoods, etc. Just so you know, yeah? But hey, what do I care, cigarettes are toxic and provide zero health benefits, and we know anyways that cancer aside, they cause health problems, so there's no real reason to ditch the studies entirely, even if they were faulty, which they might have been. Plus today's studies point to the same conclusion, so who cares?

3. No, they didn't all compare 15 vs 16. But hey, I guess you're the expert, right?

Retrospective studies aren't unethical, but they also have too many flaws to be conducted on as large a scale as necessary.

Now, because this is just more of the same:

#BestBubby wrote:

As you say Gold21, it is NOT difficult to do a retrospective study on Vax vs UnVax.

You could even do a study comparing organic, gluten free Vax to Unvax.

Gold21, WHY do you think CDC refuses to do such a study - that is NOT difficult, as you say?

Regarding, that the children were not exposed to viruses, We DO KNOW the risks of
measles - per the CDC there was 1:1000 deaths and another 1-2 left with permanent injuries. So all we have to ASSES is the Injury / Death Rate of Vaccines.

Then we will KNOW ABSOLUTELY whether the RISK of Vaccines is greater that the
RISK of Measles and other VPDs.

So WHY won't the CDC conduct such a study????

The organic, gluten-free, health-conscious, breastfeeding, middle-class, etc. poopulation you're talking about isn't large enough to provide a sample on the scale you'd need, that's number one. Number two, the number of vaxxing families in that sample is likely to be very small in comparison to the number of anti-vaxxers in that study. So you're not going to get an even sample. Even if you do cut the number of anti-vaxxers to the number of vaxxers, you're not going to get a study large enough to be meaningful.

You say "all we have to do is assess the injury/ death rate of vaccines" but you still haven't answered how you propose to do that. Your vax vs unvax study isn't going to answer that question unless you start being very strict about what counts as a vaccine-related death - something you aren't willing to do.

#BestBubby wrote:

I answered this already. There is no need to recall anything. It is in the child's MEDICAL RECORDS if the child is 100% Vaccinated or 100% UNVaccinated.

It is in the child's MEDICAL RECORDS if the child has a diagnosis of autism, diabetes, epilepsy, SIDS, allergies or asthma.

Yes, but the rest of the factors influencing the diagnosis are NOT in the child's medical records. Is it on record if grandma smokes and cares for the child every day? Is it on record if the child's parents forgot to de-lead the window in their bedroom? Is it on record if they live in a "cancer valley" where environmental pollution is so high there have been numerous complaints to the city that have been ignored? No. These and way too many others are not on a child's medical records. So how do you propose to control for them?

Quote:

If a child has low functioning autism, it cannot be hidden. While diabetes and other illnesses can be caused by many factors, if there is a HUGE difference in diabetes rate between Vaxxed and UNvaxxed, that proves that vaccines can cause diabetes (or other diseases associated with vaccines and are listed on the vaccine insert such as epilepsy, SIDS)

There are SCIENTISTS who are demanding a Vax vs UnVax Study, so it CAN be done.

It is obvious that the CDC - which takes MILLIONS of $$$ in "Gifts" from pharmaceutical industry and which OWNS Vaccines Patents, and whose directors are hired by pharmaceutical industry for MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR - is COVERING UP THE DANGERS OF VACCINES

Diabetes and obesity have risen proportional to the Western lifestyle becoming more sedentary. Autism has been around for decades, but we never diagnosed it. And you are STILL talking about SIDS and ignoring the other crucial factors involved. Oh, was it a vaccine-related death if a child died from carbon monoxide poisoning a day after receiving the vaccine?

amother

Lavender

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 1:24 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

All your arguments only apply if the difference in autism rate between vax and unvax
is close. If there is a HUGE difference like 1:50 (Vax) vs 1:1,000 (UnVax) then there
would be NO DISPUTE that vaccines cause autism.

And the difference is HUGE. There are many doctors who say they have never or only once or twice seen autism in a 100% unvaccinated child.

In 1970 - when only about FOUR vaccines - the NON-VERBAL Autism rate was 1:10,000. Today the NON-VERBAL Autism rate is 1:150. The NON-VERBAL Autism rate skyrocketed after the CDC QUADRUPLED (4x) the vaccine schedule in 1990.

Hm, I wonder why. Maybe because anti-vaxxers don't trust doctors and turn to "natural practitioners" when their kids are sick?

Wait, so you're saying that four vaccines, like in the 1970s, are okay, that doesn't raise the risk of autism. It's just that the number we have today is too many? Would you then be willing to cut the number of vaccines to just four, and give those?

(Did you know that anti-vaxxers' kids see the doctor less often - INCLUDING for routine check-ups - than other children? Parents simply skip well visits.)

amother

Lavender

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 1:38 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

Here is a vaccine insert stating SIDS and Autism is a common reported adverse even following vaccination

Did you read through that insert, or just skim to find what you wanted?

"Events were included because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting." - Meaning, it could be that an event was reported only three times (out of three million doses) but because it is so serious they included it anyways.

"Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine." - These events are reported voluntarily, and we can safely assume that anyone who suffered such an event and believed it to be connected would report it.
However, we don't know how many people did not suffer any negative effects.
Therefore, we CANNOT estimate frequency OR establish a CAUSAL relationship.

Meaning, we are reporting this just in case, so that you don't sue us, because even if you are proven wrong in court that'll still cost us a lot of money.

BUT this is not causation.

And, about SIDS, did you notice the rates? 0.4 per 1,000 in Germany, 0.8 per 1,000 in the US. However, they note (ps this is given at 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months - meaning ALL of these are given in the peak risk period for SIDS) that some of these deaths may have occurred coincidentally after the vaccine. And you are STILL ignoring the fact that 90% of SIDS deaths have at least one parent who smokes. That means that of those 7 deaths, 6.3 of them probably had a parent who smokes. Maybe it was just 5, because of sample fluke. That's STILL more correlated with smoking than with vaccination.