Home

Vaccines: a future blight in our history
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Children's Health -> Vaccinations


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 10:47 am
southernbubby wrote:
So then why is he the only doctor or maybe one of a handful who have made this observation?
I have only seen news articles in the last week about newly established guidelines for the diagnosis of autism in infants, toddlers, and small children.
One would think that other doctors would observe that too unless very few of their patients were anti-vaxers. He obviously attracted them which put him on the outs with the medical establishment.


Few doctors would dare deviate from the CDC schedule - but Dr. Paulson is not the only one. The article mentions another doctor who also changed the CDC schedule - fewer vaccines, more spaced out. And since that doctor changed her
vaccine schedule, she has not had one patient with autism! - even though per general statistics the doctor would have had six more patients with autism.

There are websites - Physicians against mandatory vaccination in US. And one with the same title in canada.

But most doctors are too afraid of persecution to speak out against the CDC
schedule.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 10:52 am
amother [ Hotpink ] wrote:
Because he wrote the vaccine friendly child and makes millions administering vaccines on his schedule. The reason anti vaccine people cannot believe a drug company sponsored studies applies to all his writing as well. If drug companies profit off the vaccines so you can't trust their studies, then you can't trust the post-hoc analysis of a person who makes millions off of his analysis.


I very much doubt Dr. Paulson made millions on his practice. Per the article,
Dr. Paulson has a regular sized practice.

The government can demand to see Dr. Paulson's patients records - that is
the evidence that fewer vaccines = a 1:440 chance of getting autism - that is
a HUNDRED times LESS risk of autism then the CDC schedule - 1:45 chance of getting autism.

And for 100% Unvaccinated, only ONE case of autism in 715 unvaccinated children!

THIS is why the government refuses to do a Vax vs UnVax Study - government
KNOWS that vaccines can cause autism - and many other conditions: diabetes,
epilepsy, allergies, asthma, tourettes, ADHD.

Neither the CDC nor the Pharmaceutical Industry has ever done even one study
on the safety of the CDC Vaccine Schedule! And there are 200 MORE vaccines in the Pipeline - and the GOVERNMENT will COERCE every child - AND ADULT -
to take 200+ Vaccines.
Unless WE THE PEOPLE wake up and protest. Even if
you are Pro-Vaccine, you should be Anti- MANDATED vaccination.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 11:23 am
gold21 wrote:
Look, I'm all for Dr Thomas offering his patients a slowed down vaccine schedule (not too slow though!), but you know very well that this is not a proper scientific study.

I'm not saying that I doubt Dr Thomas. I'm all about anecdotal evidence. But it cannot be used to PROVE anything. It is not an actual study.

And who's the independent expert- what are his qualifications? Personally, I would consider myself an independent expert. Certainly independent. An expert in my own mind. Well, who is he (or she)? And what are his (or her) qualifications? In any case, a study should be peer-reviewed by more than one "expert".

Anyhow, review by an independent expert does not a study make!

But you KNOW that. We're arguing over something you KNOW already.

Is this study randomized? Double blind?

Nope.

It's literally anecdotal evidence. Not a study.

(By the way, look into this study a bit more, and you'll find that a few of the cases of autism Dr Thomas referred to were actually early signs indicating possible autism, that did not culminate in an eventual diagnosis.)

But. You. Know. All. This. Already.


1. You support a DIFFERENT vaccine schedule than the CDC schedule, but you do NOT support the rights of other parents - who must send their children to daycare to follow a different schedule! Why?

2. How is this less than a study? There were 3,345 patients - that is MORE subjects than some published studies - one of which had only 25 subjects vaxed and 25 subjects unvaxed - another study had only 94 patients unvaxed - and THOSE studies were published in medical journals.

Dr. Paulson compares TWO Large groups: 715 UnVaxed (one ONE case of Autism) and 2,629 PARTIALLY Vaxed (6 cases of autism - rate of 1:440).
This is more ROBUST data than some published studies!

3. Dr. Paulson told the GOVERNMENT they are welcome to look at his data.
Of course that is the last thing the government want to do!

4. The Pro-Vaxxers have declared that a RANDOMIZED DOUBLE BLIND STUDY is UNETHICAL. So the only vax vs unvax study is RETROSPECTIVE. Which is what this data is.

But. You. Know. That. Already.
Back to top

amother




Saddlebrown
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 11:28 am
#BestBubby wrote:
1. You support a DIFFERENT vaccine schedule than the CDC schedule, but you do NOT support the rights of other parents - who must send their children to daycare to follow a different schedule! Why?

2. How is this less than a study? There were 3,345 patients - that is MORE subjects than some published studies - one of which had only 25 subjects vaxed and 25 subjects unvaxed - another study had only 94 patients unvaxed - and THOSE studies were published in medical journals.

Dr. Paulson compares TWO Large groups: 715 UnVaxed (one ONE case of Autism) and 2,629 PARTIALLY Vaxed (6 cases of autism - rate of 1:440).
This is more ROBUST data than some published studies!

3. Dr. Paulson told the GOVERNMENT they are welcome to look at his data.
Of course that is the last thing the government want to do!

4. The Pro-Vaxxers have declared that a RANDOMIZED DOUBLE BLIND STUDY is UNETHICAL. So the only vax vs unvax study is RETROSPECTIVE. Which is what this data is.

But. You. Know. That. Already.


Take a stats class. Read a study. Realize that you make conclusions, without evidence, to support your agenda.
Back to top

amother




Lime
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 11:59 am
finally someone that says it as it is:
https://commonwealthmagazine.o.....rxRik

it's fun to argue with an extremist but maybe its time to hear whats actually a concern for many citizens of this country
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 12:09 pm
amother [ Lime ] wrote:
finally someone that says it as it is:
https://commonwealthmagazine.o.....rxRik

it's fun to argue with an extremist but maybe its time to hear whats actually a concern for many citizens of this country


Thank you, Lime for this article written by a DOCTOR opposed to mandatory
vaccination!
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 12:11 pm
amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:
Take a stats class. Read a study. Realize that you make conclusions, without evidence, to support your agenda.


I always give evidence to support my opinion. I have read many studies.
But we all know you lie. You actually deny that the CDC refuses to do
a vax vs unvax study - LOL
Back to top

amother




Saddlebrown
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 1:07 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
I always give evidence to support my opinion. I have read many studies.
But we all know you lie. You actually deny that the CDC refuses to do
a vax vs unvax study - LOL


Really who is "all" that knows I lie. You said I lie. So know we know I lie. This sounds like how you've concluded about the vax vs unvax study refusal. You read it somewhere so it must be true.
Back to top

amother




Saddlebrown
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 1:27 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
Thank you, Lime for this article written by a DOCTOR opposed to mandatory
vaccination!




Quote:
We must retain the religious exemption for vaccination and focus on non-coercive measures to promote vaccination.


Do you agree with her conclusion?
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 1:47 pm
amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:
Do you agree with her conclusion?


I agree with retaining religious exemptions.

I disagree with "promoting vaccination". I think the CDC vaccination schedule (which was QUADRUPLED in 1990) has produced the sickest children in the
history of US!
Back to top

amother




Saddlebrown
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 1:48 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
I agree with retaining religious exemptions.

I disagree with "promoting vaccination". I think the CDC vaccination schedule (which was QUADRUPLED in 1990) has produced the sickest children in the
history of US!


So no. You disagree with her conclusion.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 1:48 pm
amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:
Really who is "all" that knows I lie. You said I lie. So know we know I lie. This sounds like how you've concluded about the vax vs unvax study refusal. You read it somewhere so it must be true.


Even all the pro-vaxxers on this thread don't deny that the CDC refuses to do
a Vax vs UnVax study. Think about it.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 1:50 pm
amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:
So no. You disagree with her conclusion.


The doctor wrote TWO conclusions. I agree with one and disagree with the other.
Why do you keep lying?
Back to top

gold21




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 1:52 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
1. You support a DIFFERENT vaccine schedule than the CDC schedule, but you do NOT support the rights of other parents - who must send their children to daycare to follow a different schedule! Why?

2. How is this less than a study? There were 3,345 patients - that is MORE subjects than some published studies - one of which had only 25 subjects vaxed and 25 subjects unvaxed - another study had only 94 patients unvaxed - and THOSE studies were published in medical journals.

Dr. Paulson compares TWO Large groups: 715 UnVaxed (one ONE case of Autism) and 2,629 PARTIALLY Vaxed (6 cases of autism - rate of 1:440).
This is more ROBUST data than some published studies!

3. Dr. Paulson told the GOVERNMENT they are welcome to look at his data.
Of course that is the last thing the government want to do!

4. The Pro-Vaxxers have declared that a RANDOMIZED DOUBLE BLIND STUDY is UNETHICAL. So the only vax vs unvax study is RETROSPECTIVE. Which is what this data is.

But. You. Know. That. Already.


BestBubby, I don't know anything about you (other than your anti vaxx belief system & that you're a Bubby), so I have no idea what your background is or what sort of education you received growing up, but a good school should have prepared you to understand what comprises a proper study, and that anecdotal evidence is not the same thing as a study.

Why is this not a study, you ask? Because it's anecdotal evidence. Why isn't iced coffee a green juice? Because it's iced coffee.

Sure, two large groups were compared, but again, this is ANECDOTAL evidence, NOT a study. That's just a fact.

Here's an idea- do some research on how a proper scientific study needs to be conducted for the results to be considered reliable. Google is your friend.

This is not a study because it isn't a study.

Moving on- read up on the results of this "study" and you will find that some of the children listed as having autism were merely showing possible signs of it and did not go on to receive an actual diagnosis of autism. This is just one example of how this "study" failed and why it isn't a study.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 1:58 pm
gold21 wrote:

Moving on- read up on the results of this "study" and you will find that some of the children listed as having autism were merely showing possible signs of it and did not go on to receive an actual diagnosis of autism. This is just one example of how this "study" failed and why it isn't a study.


If some of the children did not get autism than that is even stronger evidence
that having Fewer vaccines, more spaced out protects against getting autism -
even with getting some vaccines.

What you just listed on why this evidence "fails" actually strengthens the
conclusion - that the CDC schedule, which QUADRUPLED in 1990 - the same time the autism rate skyrocketed - is responsible for rise in autism.
Back to top

amother




Saddlebrown
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 2:00 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
Even all the pro-vaxxers on this thread don't deny that the CDC refuses to do
a Vax vs UnVax study. Think about it.


All the pro-vaxxers have said "I don't deny that the CDC refuses to do a Vax vs UnVax study" or anything close to that? Or you've just concluded that based on their posts?

Rational people would need evidence of the CDC refusing to do something to accept it as a factual statement. Where did you get your evidence?
Back to top

gold21




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 2:12 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
If some of the children did not get autism than that is even stronger evidence
that having Fewer vaccines, more spaced out protects against getting autism -
even with getting some vaccines.

What you just listed on why this evidence "fails" actually strengthens the
conclusion - that the CDC schedule, which QUADRUPLED in 1990 - the same time the autism rate skyrocketed - is responsible for rise in autism.


You're missing the point (because you don't want to see the point- it threatens your whole belief system)

The evidence presented by this "study", which isn't a study at all, is not accurate. Because it wasn't conducted properly. And therefore the results are meaningless. Which backs up my assertion that it isn't a reliable source of information because it's not an actual study. It's simply anecdotal.

But you'll gloss over that point, because you have only one agenda here, and it is not to seek the truth.
Back to top

amother




Saddlebrown
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 2:23 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
The doctor wrote TWO conclusions. I agree with one and disagree with the other.
Why do you keep lying?


Again - do you understand the definition of the word lie?

I read the conclusion as one fluid statement - its the summary of her article which you earlier seemed to be really excited about.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Dec 18 2019, 3:09 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
Few doctors would dare deviate from the CDC schedule - but Dr. Paulson is not the only one. The article mentions another doctor who also changed the CDC schedule - fewer vaccines, more spaced out. And since that doctor changed her
vaccine schedule, she has not had one patient with autism! - even though per general statistics the doctor would have had six more patients with autism.

There are websites - Physicians against mandatory vaccination in US. And one with the same title in canada.

But most doctors are too afraid of persecution to speak out against the CDC
schedule.


I am not sure how many doctors feel forced to comply and how many believe in what they do but someone was looking on imamother for an anti-vax doctor in Brooklyn and there were maybe 2 or 3 possibilities.
Many chiropractors are anti-vax but may also risk loss of licensure if they tried to publish their statistics on autism.
Probably lack of choice pushes many people into the hands of quacks that can harm them.
Samoa didn't have to become a giant morgue but they badly mishandled the outbreak and that raised the death toll. The same thing with the way that anti-vaxers handled the outbreak which resulted in further obstruction of any pertinent information that could have resulted in better vaccine choices for everyone.
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20 Recent Topics

Page 20 of 20 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Children's Health -> Vaccinations

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Michal for a future baby girl in chasidish community 81 Tue, Feb 25 2020, 7:40 am View last post
Vaccines and MTHFR
by amother
28 Mon, Feb 03 2020, 7:24 pm View last post
Superbowl s/o: football history 0 Mon, Feb 03 2020, 7:05 pm View last post
Preventative measures side effects vaccines
by amother
4 Mon, Feb 03 2020, 3:56 pm View last post
Buying candlesticks for my future daughter in law
by elak
25 Tue, Jan 21 2020, 5:57 am View last post
by elak

Jump to: