Dubstepforum.com

hackman wrote:

Mattron wrote:

hackman wrote:
here's an alternative link btw for all the people who will disregard something just because it comes from fox
(they're all as bad as each other)

http://vaccinecentral.wordpress.com/201 ... jury-case/

hackman what are you arguing here? that the vaccine caused the autism? because this clearly states it didn't

ie. Some people are allergic to peanuts; that is an existing condition and it is not known why some people are allergic to peanuts, they can have an allergic reaction and even die if untreated. So a person is allergic to peanuts, he comes in contact with peanuts and he has an allergic reaction. Can we then claim that peanuts cause allergies? No

vaccination has very good science behind it and if you don't get vaccinated you are not only putting yourself at risk but reducing the protection of your community as a whole (herd immunity)

That peanut argument is silly. If you are allergic to peanuts, and you eat a peanut, and you die, the peanut is the cause of your death. If you are allergic (for brevity and clarity) to this vaccine, and you take the vaccine, and you develop autism, the vaccine caused the autism. To argue otherwise reveals your agenda.

shuedet wrote:

hackman wrote:

Mattron wrote:

hackman wrote:
here's an alternative link btw for all the people who will disregard something just because it comes from fox
(they're all as bad as each other)

http://vaccinecentral.wordpress.com/201 ... jury-case/

hackman what are you arguing here? that the vaccine caused the autism? because this clearly states it didn't

ie. Some people are allergic to peanuts; that is an existing condition and it is not known why some people are allergic to peanuts, they can have an allergic reaction and even die if untreated. So a person is allergic to peanuts, he comes in contact with peanuts and he has an allergic reaction. Can we then claim that peanuts cause allergies? No

vaccination has very good science behind it and if you don't get vaccinated you are not only putting yourself at risk but reducing the protection of your community as a whole (herd immunity)

what do you think i'm arguing? the only point that is important here is that a court paid out 1.5 million in compensation to a child who developed autism after an mmr vaccine
AND DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD WAS STRUCK OFF MEDICAL REGISTER AND HUMILIATED FOR POINTING THAT OUT

knell wrote:

hackman wrote:

knell wrote:

wormcode wrote: Yeah that's how they get you into getting more shots

i've only been immunized for hepatitis, and im fine. but either way, im sure you and i both wouldnt want smallpox and polio to still be around

one word, sanitation

two words, Edward Jenner

edward jenner can suck my dick

lot of people who had a lot to say about autism and vaccines in the last thread are being pretty quiet now

Whats wrong with autism?

hackman wrote:AND DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD WAS STRUCK OFF MEDICAL REGISTER AND HUMILIATED FOR POINTING THAT OUT

Can I just check - when a scientist or engineer supports the 'official story' behind 9/11 then, although you have no evidence about their funding or motiviation, you can deduce that a) their funding is coming from teh gubbment and b) hence their evidence is intrinsically unbelievable but when a doctor is known to have been paid large sums of money by solicitors who are preparing a case based on finding a link between MMR and autism to do a study on the possibility of a link between MMR and autism, this has no impact on the reliability of their findings.

Or do you just assess peoples' credibility based on whether or not they agree with your prejudices?

wormcode wrote:

NilsFG wrote:I still don't know what to think about vaccinations.

none for me, thanks

my thoughts as well

hackman wrote:http://vaccinecentral.wordpress.com/201 ... jury-case/

This article is actually making me quite pro-vaccination...

slothrop wrote:

hackman wrote:AND DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD WAS STRUCK OFF MEDICAL REGISTER AND HUMILIATED FOR POINTING THAT OUT

Can I just check - when a scientist or engineer supports the 'official story' behind 9/11 then, although you have no evidence about their funding or motiviation, you can deduce that a) their funding is coming from teh gubbment and b) hence their evidence is intrinsically unbelievable but when a doctor is known to have been paid large sums of money by solicitors who are preparing a case based on finding a link between MMR and autism to do a study on the possibility of a link between MMR and autism, this has no impact on the reliability of their findings.

Or do you just assess peoples' credibility based on whether or not they agree with your prejudices?

haha i see your point
but this is blatant hypocrisy

NilsFG wrote:

hackman wrote:http://vaccinecentral.wordpress.com/201 ... jury-case/

This article is actually making me quite pro-vaccination...

i didn't read it, was first non fox news result that came up on google

hackman wrote:but this is blatant hypocrisy

Not really. Wakefield still chronically misrepresented what his research showed about the risk of MMR - if he'd said "my research is basically irrelevant but I've got a complete guess that certain extremely rare conditions, if known, might be aggravated by the MMR vaccine" then he might be in the clear, if it wasn't for all the other ethically dodgy stuff he did at the time as well. But in fact he took a bunch of research that didn't demonstrate that there was a link between MMR and autism and then went around telling people that it did. And he did this after having been paid by a bunch of lawyers to show that there was a link between MMR and autism (but neglected to mention this at the time). And he did a whole lot of other shady stuff that's not really relevant relating to basic standards of ethical research.

slothrop wrote:Wouldn't it be interesting if a large country stopped using the MMR vaccine, then we could see whether there was any significant change in the incidence of autism.

Zim Zimma! Bingo!

One court case does not a trend make; a study over a whole population is somewhat more useful. This is kids stuff, hackman and not just because it's about paediatrics.

magma wrote:

slothrop wrote:Wouldn't it be interesting if a large country stopped using the MMR vaccine, then we could see whether there was any significant change in the incidence of autism.

Zim Zimma! Bingo!

One court case does not a trend make; a study over a whole population is somewhat more useful. This is kids stuff, hackman and not just because it's about paediatrics.

and yes a fair study over a whole population is completely likely, won't the pharmaceutical companies be so happy at the potential prospect of losing out a massive profit
that's elementary economics, you patronising prat (that's aliteration btw)

i guess the first court case that gave black people equal rights as whites in the usa was different hmm

slothrop wrote:Wouldn't it be interesting if a large country stopped using the MMR vaccine, then we could see whether there was any significant change in the incidence of autism.

Yeah, that would be interesting, too bad nobody would actually read it.

Helix [Delay] wrote:

slothrop wrote:Wouldn't it be interesting if a large country stopped using the MMR vaccine, then we could see whether there was any significant change in the incidence of autism.

Yeah, that would be interesting, too bad nobody would actually read it.

This.

Sadly, the useful but ultimately a bit boring result of that event is just not as exciting as hackman's single example so it can't be true.

I wish I lived in a world filled with cartoon villians. I'd like to think I'd do more than sit on the Internet complaining to people of no consequence if I held those beliefs (nospandex)

it's called cherry picking.

stephisaint wrote:There is, but only apparently if you have an underlying mitochondrial condition: which must be rare considering the amount of people with autism compared to the amount of people who recieved the vaccine.

Fox news hardly ever know what they're talking about though.. Find the court transcripts of the case.

You know too much about law woman!