Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wow, leib, you should try stating a fact that you can show to be true. You will be shocked at how good it feels to do so.
You are the only one who here who is promoting the quackery of quacks who have stated provable lies. You need to get away from such stuff.
True. And as of 6 years ago, dozens of compensated cases were for encephalopathy and seizure disorder, with symptoms indisquishable from autism: Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury
Lawyers are representing these parents of vaccine-injured children to the best of their ability under the circumstances (e.g., without the right to discovery), and are certainly not overcompensated for their work in these cases. It's the pharmaceutical companies who benefit beyond calculation in the VICP.
Because when you were growing up people didn't take their children to mental health professionals, nor did we understand mental health remotely as well as we do today.
Prove it.
This is a conversation, which you have shown yourself to be incapable of having.
some of what you're saying is false because it's false. Some of what you're saying is gibberish because you can't be bothered to support your assertions.
Actually, I did answer you. You're not paying attention. Which is why this will be my last response to you in this thread.
the answer to your first question, again, is no.
I agree with all of that. I can only hope that if someone challenges you on the issue of medical cannabis, you'll do a better job supporting your statements than you did with the autism issue.
See, that's not what you said initially. You led this whole thing with the claim that America is #1 in Autism. You have yet to support that claim.
I have yet to hear truth from you. Ive asked you to support your claim enough times, and you either can't, or won't. Either way, I'm done with you.
Alright, let's try to be more respectful to each other. I apologize for lashing out, but this is an issue that drives me nuts. Here are the reasons why I find the Mawson study to be completely unreliable and most likely fraudulent. Now, if you would like to point out that this is from a blog, I already know, but the points made are completely valid and alarming. Most alarming is the fact that it was published on a pay-to-publish site, Open Access Text. There is no way to argue that OAT is a valid scientific journal, so it goes further to explain why the study itself is unreliable.
Well done. My apologies likewise.
Journal of Translational Science is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that charges a publication fee in order for the articles to be available to the public free of charge. There is nothing “predatory” about it; lots of scientific journals charge publication fees, and lots of scientists publish in such open-access journals. The reviewers review these articles the same as they do for any other journal.
So you're saying that you don't believe that the reviewer gotten by Frontiers was qualified to reject the paper.
Generation Rescue was not involved in the design of the study, with collecting data, or with analyzing the data.
Frontiers is collection of an open-access journals that charge publication fees.
See above. The funding sources (which apparently included lots of individual contributors) were not involved in the design of the study, in the collection of data, or the analysis of data.
Do you mean funded by pharmaceutical companies? That's every drug study submitted to the FDA and the vast majority of drug studies published in journals.
That statement of the aim of the study does not express an assumption about the outcome. Just the contrary. One of the aims was to determine "if any" association was found between vaccination and NDDs remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors.
What bias? How does that create bias in the results? The homeschooling parents got an email from NHERI saying, "I've sent you a URL where mothers who homeschool their children can take a survey about you and your children's health." The homeschooling mothers had to get word of the survey somehow.
That is precisely how the CDC conducts the National Health Interview Survey. Do you deny the findings of that survey? Do you claim the methods of the NHIS are "flawed"?
That's correct. What you quoted here is just a statement of the lack of assumption and pre-existing prejudice about any association between vaccination and health. As the authors state in the next sentence: "The aim of the study was to determine whether the health outcomes of vaccinated children differed from those of unvaccinated homeschool children . . ." This is why it's called a "pilot study".
Define "rare".
Nonsense. Just the contrary. The process and effect of mutation among pathogens due to the selection pressure of vaccines is no different than the process and effect of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The solution to antibiotic-resistant bacteria is not to give more people antibiotics--that just increases the selection pressure, making the resistant bacteria more available in a population. The same goes for bacteria and viruses that have evolved greater virulence or infectivity due to the selection pressure exerted by vaccines. It is the vaccinated who are the carriers of the mutated bacteria and viruses. For example:
Which paper was this from?
I must apologize. It was Deeje's post, not yours, that contained this link:
