Anti-Vax Memes | Imamother

amother

Lavender

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 2:52 am

#BestBubby wrote:

And how many HEALTHY babies die within hours or days of being vaccinated, with no other explanation?

About a 1,000 per year in USA.

According to your inability to correctly analyze the deaths.

I have a question for you. How many of those babies died at daycare? Many daycare neglect or abuse deaths look exactly like SIDS, unless there is footage otherwise. All the caregiver has to do is smother the baby, and call it SIDS.

Now....tell me they died in the care of a loving parent or grandparent, who was not drunk, who was not smoking, who was not an alcoholic, when the baby was perfectly healthy with no fever or virus - and we will have something to discuss - meaning, we will have a case that warrants further investigation.

ONLY those cases even warrant investigation. All daycare deaths warrant autopsies.

#BestBubby

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 2:55 am

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

You. Don't. Get. It.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to argue with you.

There are so many things that need to be controlled for. For example, a less-educated parent may not get her child diagnosed with autism. Diabetes may be caused by other factors. Were the children breastfed or formula feed? Did they have access to healthcare? Did mom drink alcohol or take other medications during pregnancy? How often does the child visit the doctor, if at all? Does the family eat a gluten-free paleo diet, or lots of junk food? Do the parents smoke? Do they live in a polluted area? Is the diagnosis accurate? When was it given, under which circumstances, and when did symptoms appear, and was there anything that might be more of a cause of those symptoms than the vaccine?

The fact that you see only two things here - vaccination status and diagnosis - sort of explains why you're not a scientist yourself, and why you continuously fail to understand what this study entails and why it hasn't yet been done to your taste.

When a new medication is tested, IT IS NOT A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY. It is a controlled trial, conducted in real time, with placebos and under controlled conditions, and there are specific criteria for who can join the study and who cannot, and if one of those criteria disappears the person is dropped from the study. And you are not looking for triggers for symptoms or diagnoses - which you need to control for factors such as diet, exercise, etc. - you are looking to see how the medication affects the status quo - AFTER you have already taken the snapshot you need of the status quo. You are looking FORWARDS not backwards like you do with a retrospective study.

What doesn't make sense AT ALL is why uneducated people who cannot understand, for the life of them, how science works, think themselves smarter and more educated and more informed than expert doctors and scientists who spend YEARS learning how to do proper research and examining the issues at hand in depth. It is mind-boggling.

This is a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I think you've earned your place in that club.

Anti-Vaxxers would LOVE a real time study - but the government claims that would be
"unethical" to deprive children of vaccines.

So Anti-Vaxxers say -So do a RETROSPECTIVE study, so government makes up silly excuses about how a retrospective study would not prove anything. IT IS A LIE.

Just answer ONE question:

If a retrospective test would find that the autism rate of vaccinated children is 1:50 and the autism rate of UNvaccinated children is 1:1,000

Would that prove that vaccines cause autism???

#BestBubby

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 2:57 am

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

I have a question for you. Why did these daycare workers decide to smother these babies within hours or days of a vaccine and not any other time?

Why did these parents or grandparents get drunk or smoke only within hours or days of a vaccine and that killed the baby?

Do you get how ridiculous your arguments are?

amother

Lavender

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 3:22 am

#BestBubby wrote:

Uh, because the babies are kvetchier for the first couple of days after a vaccine than they are usually?

Same goes for parents drinking, though sometimes it really is just coincidence - babies get vaccines often enough during the first year that it's easy to blame anything you want on them.

Smoking probably depends on the dose. And remember that many times the parents don't say the death was within hours or days of a vaccine - they'll say it was 2 weeks or 3 weeks later, but still say it's connected. There is a peak period for SIDS risk and 90% of SIDS deaths are babies whose parents smoke. Sure, that's correlation also, but it's much much stronger correlation than what you've got with vaccines.

amother

Lavender

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 3:28 am

#BestBubby wrote:

Yes. Because in order to do a real-time study you would need to take a proper control group, all of whom have parents who WANT the vaccine (otherwise why would they join), and give them a placebo instead of the vaccine, without letting them know that they are in the control group and not the test group. Of course that's unethical.

If the retrospective study were properly done? Maybe. It would need to be replicated a few more times to ensure that it was accurate. And most of all, it would need to be conducted PROPERLY, in a SCIENTIFIC manner. And by someone who was NOT paid by the parents of autistic children to prove that they deserve reparations.

amother

Emerald

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 8:05 am

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

So how is it that we get so many volunteers for the corona vaccine, half of which aren't getting the actual vaccine, but obviously they WANT the vaccine or else they wouldn't volunteer?

This reasoning is so circular and BS because it's done with every other medication in the world (where the patient is SICK and needs the medication but is possibly being denied for the sake of a study), except vaccines which aren't categorized as pharmaceuticals but as biologics so it's not necessitated by the FDA.

amother

Lavender

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 8:24 am

amother [ Emerald ] wrote:

Uh, first of all I don't think we're at stage 3 trials yet. Second of all, these people all know that there is a possibility they will not develop antibodies and that the vaccine WILL NOT WORK. They are not volunteering to be part of a study that only has the purpose of testing whether or not vaccines cause autism, when they will either receive or be denied protection for their child.

The parents are signing their kids up for protection against VPDs. Denying the children that protection is wrong and unethical. Allowing the children and their parents to believe - forever, because it is written in their medical records - that they received the vaccines and are immune to these diseases, when in fact that is not true, is wrong and unethical. Those children will not know that they are not protected and may well contract the disease, after which they will sue their doctors for lying to them about their vaccination status. How do you see this as okay?

AFAIK the COVID-19 vaccine is not written in your vaccination record. Anyone who is part of the trial is volunteering because they want a safe, effective, reliable vaccine, and it does not exist yet.

Therefore, your comparison has no basis in reality.

With regards to medications for sick people, stage three trials are done not using a placebo, but by giving some patients one medicine and the other patients a new medicine. All patients agree to participate in the trial and agree that they will receive care (often for free, sometimes for a reduced price) but will not know which group they were placed in. So no, no one is being denied treatment for the sake of a trial.

I'm sorry you think science is BS, it's really not. You just don't understand it.

amother

Emerald

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 9:44 am

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

IDK where you live but the Moderna vaccine is in stage 3 and we even have an amother who volunteered. She doesn't know what she got but she wanted the vaccine.

The rest of your post is just apologetics. It boggles my mind that you can't see it.

amother

Lavender

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 9:59 am

amother [ Emerald ] wrote:

So Moderna is doing stage 3, but anyone who signs up for that still doesn't know if they received the vaccine or a placebo. They know they wanted the vaccine but also that even if they receive it it might not be effective, and that if it is effective it's not clear for how long, and they still need to be careful.

It's totally different than the examples you gave.

If you see explanations on why it's not the same as apologetics, that's on your head, not mine. You can't compare apples and oranges and then claim any explanations are apologetics, and expect to be taken seriously.

I really don't understand how you can compare this to, say, the measles vaccine, where 1 out of every 5 measles patients is hospitalized, so there is significant risk in not giving the vaccine and it is really unethical to give a placebo to parents who asked for the (proven) vaccine so that their child would be protected. Or to the pertussis vaccine, which when given to pregnant women has reduced the number of babies under 6 months who get pertussis by 78%. You're talking significant risk when the proven vaccine is withheld from those who ask for it. It's not at all the same as a vaccine which hasn't been proven effective at all and which no one relies on for protection because it is still in diapers, and which is given/ trialed with the full knowledge that EVEN if you get the vaccine and not the placebo you STILL may not end up with antibodies.

amother

Lavender

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 10:51 am

#BestBubby wrote:

Lavender, you still have not answered my question:

If a retrospective study would show that the autism rate in vaccinated is 1:50
and the autism rate is UNvaccinated is 1:1,000 would that prove that vaccines
cause autism?

I answered your question several posts ago.

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

As of yet, such a study does not exist. The only study even linking vaccines and autism could not be replicated, despite multiple attempts by several teams, and was conducted by someone who received payment from parents of autistic children, so that they could win their case and receive money in court.

Instead, we have a multitude of studies proving that the autism rate is similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. They are not your unethical complete-vax vs complete-unvax according-to-today's-vaccine-schedule study. But they exist. And they do not show anything even close to the difference you keep repeating.

#BestBubby

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 11:15 am

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

1. Folks, Lavender did NOT answer my question: If a retrospective study shows that the autism rate in vaccinated children is 1:50 and the autism rate in UNvaccinated children is
1:1,000, does that prove that Autism causes cancer?

The reason Lavender won't answer is that OF COURSE that would prove that vaccines cause autism. And many other diseases (diabetes, epilepsy, SIDS, allergies, asthma).

2. You say you have multitude of studies proving "autism rate is similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations" but then go on to say these studies are NOT 100% vax vs.
100% Unvax. It other words they are NOT vax vs Unvax studies but Vax vs Vax studies.

3. You still never said why the CDC refuses to do a Retrospective Study Vax vs UnVax -
even though parents and Congressmen have requested such a study!

Last edited by #BestBubby on Mon, Aug 17 2020, 11:16 am; edited 1 time in total

#BestBubby

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 11:16 am

Folks, it was SMOKER VS NON SMOKER Studies that PROVED that smoking causes Cancer - which the Tobacco Industry LIED AND DENIED for DECADES, WITH THE HELP OF BRIBED SCIENTISTS.

Today it is the Pharmaceutical Industry that is denying Vaccines cause Autism (and other diseases). But the Pharmaceutical Industry is much more POWERFUL than the Tobacco Industry and can bribe Government CDC to refuse to do VAX VS UNVAX STUDIES.

Pharmaceutical Industry can even bribe Government to ELIMINATE EXEMPTIONS in order to
destroy the control group - 100% unvaccinated children - to make it impossible for a
VAX VS UNVAX STUDY to ever be done.

DOESN'T THAT SEEM SUSPICIOUS TO YOU????

amother

Lavender

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 11:28 am

#BestBubby wrote:

1. I answered your question.

IF such a study were done properly - with all the issues solved, by someone without conflicts of interest, and according to scientific standards - and IF it could be replicated, then yes, it would prove that vaccines can cause autism.

That's a huge IF, and you don't like that, so you claim I didn't answer the question.

2. They ARE vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies, they're just not the exact unethical study that's the only one you're willing to accept. Worse, they weren't all done by the awful CDC, so you have no way to bash them.

3. I did explain why the retrospective study that you seem to think will be G-d's gift to the world, is not a study that the CDC is willing to do. I also said I would not explain it more than once. Please go back and reread the explanation.

gold21

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 12:00 pm

Regarding retrospective vaxx vs unvaxx studies:

Sure, why not.

In order to control for different choices in the home, it is important that similar homes are selected. So let's work only with homes where the gluten free, organic, health concious, life is a priority.

(As it happens, I do personally know a couple of anti vaxxers quite well. They are definitely health concious in that way.)

Retrospective studies shouldn't be particularly difficult. It just requires a one time assessment. There no follow up or follow through required, since it's retrospective to begin with.

The problem with th study is, how can we control for the outcome of the actual viruses on unvaxxed families if they didn't have herd immunity to rely on? So it's a funny premise. You want to see the study done on unvaxxed families where herd immunity is being relied on. I think the fairest way to do it is to have the children exposed to the viruses in areas where there is no immunity and compare the outcome to the outcome in the vaxxed group. Otherwise, assuming the study would show better outcomes in the unvaxxed group (which is totally theoretical), you're basically saying that you should be allowed to take the lowest amount of risk while depending on others taking those risks for you. Or would you say that vaccines should be stopped altogether, giving anti vaxxers no immunity to rely on?

As for babies who were vaxxed, who lo aleinu passed shortly afterwards.... a littl girl I knew very well passed away a day or two after her doc appt for shots..... She passed from SUDS. (She was too old to be categorized as a SIDS death, as she was over 1 at the time)...... Except, she had missed the doc appt. Her mom came 15 min late to the appt and they wouldn't see her. (Had she made the appt, what would people have said about the correlation?)

So, just pointing out how correlation is not always causation.

As for autism and ADHD- many people see genetic links in families. Genetics are powerful stuff.

#BestBubby

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 12:19 pm

amother [ Lavender ] 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.

#BestBubby

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 12:29 pm

gold21 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????

#BestBubby

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 12:33 pm

amother [ Seagreen ] wrote:

Blaming everything on vaccines and ignoring all other factors is very narrowminded.
It's like seeing a pot cooking on the stove and believing that all the food in the kitchen cabinets and refrigerator were cooked in that pot.

Tell me what other factor has:

1. Thousands of Parents with BEFORE and AFTER VIDEOS showing how the child was 100% normal, meeting all developmental milestones, then after vaccination developed high fever and seizures, and after was never normal again - regressed into autism.

2. Has a WARNING on INSERTS that the factor is associated with autism, SIDS, diabetes,
epilepsy, encephalitis (brain inflamation)?

3. Has a COURT that has paid out Billions of $$$ for injury?

#BestBubby

Mon, Aug 17 2020, 12:47 pm

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

Retrospective studies are unreliable. They rely on the parents' memory, which is often biased; they cannot control exposure or assessment; they often suffer from selection bias; there are many important aspects which cannot be accurately measured when you do a retrospective study. You will also have misclassification issues.

It is very hard to get around the selection bias, recall bias, and misclassification, especially on the scale you're referring to. And even if they do manage, retrospective studies are not so accurate as to justify the time and cost involved

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.

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

There are so many things that need to be controlled for. For example, a less-educated parent may not get her child diagnosed with autism. Diabetes may be caused by other factors. Were the children breastfed or formula feed? Did they have access to healthcare? Did mom drink alcohol or take other medications during pregnancy? How often does the child visit the doctor, if at all? Does the family eat a gluten-free paleo diet, or lots of junk food? Do the parents smoke? Do they live in a polluted area? Is the diagnosis accurate? When was it given, under which circumstances, and when did symptoms appear, and was there anything that might be more of a cause of those symptoms than the vaccine?

The fact that you see only two things here - vaccination status and diagnosis - sort of explains why you're not a scientist yourself, and why you continuously fail to understand what this study entails and why it hasn't yet been done to your taste.

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