Shut up and get vaccinated you sheep!

metalman said:
clearly it's an increased dose effect.
as people eat more organic food it causes even more autism
Click to expand...
The rise in autism precedes the organic food sales - even more so if we consider that the child has autism for a certain amount of time before they are diagnosed.
 
Glaucus said:
Sounds like you're romanticizing the past.
Click to expand...
It's just a matter of recognizing that the past is different. We had science based medicines in the past too, like radium for ... everything. Radium was discovered by science so it must be good. People took the stuff as a tonic and when their teeth and hair fell out they took more. Science is wonderful, but once its products move from academia to the market place then different forces take over. It's one thing to have your scientific reputation on the line (and even those arguments got pretty venal) but it's another matter entirely to have millions of dollars of profit on the line but worse even than that, billions of dollars of liabilities.

In the 50s the march of dimes funded polio research - a public project for a true scourge. Measles, mumps, HPV - they are nothing like it. It was very clear that any protection you could get was worth a few complications from time to time. The two principle vaccines were developed by Sabin and Salk and both those scientists did not patent their vaccines but gifted them to humanity. That is immensely different from the situation we have today.

In the market place now, with the low hanging fruit picked, giant corporations are investing millions to try to make billions on diseases that are less and less menacing. We have diseases that, with modern hygiene, are less dangerous, and are more likely to get you after productive adulthood than in childhood. In that sort of situation the equation for benefit virtually requires lower side effects rates than brine injections = and yet the drug companies are now bigger than they have ever been, hungrier for profit than ever and more in control of the government than ever. Hence they can get government policy changed to give them longer patents, give them immunity from prosecution for negative effects, get governments to institute national programs that require procurement of their products and get doctors to prescribe them and rules against direct advertising to the public lifted. These are not the forces that produce good science. This kind of money gives us the kind of science that the tobacco companies had.

Until you take the perverting influence of unlimited profit out of the game and put re-institute the ethic of public service you will continue to get a lot of snake oil in with your science and as long as the pharma industry continues to be a big part of the bodies that monitor and regulate like the CDC and the FDA you won't know which parts are snake oil and which aren't. Vioxx was everywhere for years before the epidemiology became undeniable. Many other things are out there with iffy epidemiology. Watchdog organizations are being starved of funds, shut down or shouted down because the industry doesn't want any more of their golden geese to have their necks wrung, but even Vioxx with it's tens of thousands of users was nothing compared to the potential liability of national vaccination campaigns.

You can't trust the police to police themselves, their patent medicines will always be innocent - but our governments defund the people who could police them and the corporate media (who run big pharma's ads) laugh at the independent researchers. The large pharma corporations own (either directly or through advertising or other funding) the major medical journals and the major medical schools. None of these things were the case back in the 40s and 50s.

Science remains our greatest tool but technology and business and politics are not science . Taking the money out would help. The scientists are happy to do science whether or not there's a CEO getting millions a year off of them. They're happy to do science whether or not the marketing budget is bigger than the R&D. The government could fund the scientists, get the drugs out there for about the same amount but have no profit motive to keep flogging borderline or actually negatively effective drugs and could do it all for much much less - but that's not the modern world.
 
@Redrumloa and @FluffyMcDeath

Questioning how this works, why if works is an important step in if this is real. Political motivations in 'science' is a bad thing. I had to use quotes because that work isn't truly science. One example is that lies that gay curative therapy works caused decades and decades of problems for gays. And more directly to this thread the political and financial motives that caused Andrew Wakefield to create false research so he could market his own cures instead is one we're still fighting today.

With these sorts of items we see science's job of continually readdressing 'knowns' to see if they're actually known. Science found out that these were wrong. The problem comes with society as many people reject anything the Gov. might say. So, these types tend to accept false research because the Gov is speaking to the more correct science.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
The rise in autism precedes the organic food sales - even more so if we consider that the child has autism for a certain amount of time before they are diagnosed.
Click to expand...

Which means that pregnant women should avoid organic foods, the more organic food they eat, the higher their risk of having an autistic child, who then grows up with a addiction to organic food.

It's all a conspiracy of Big Organic to get everyone addicted to organic foods
 
metalman said:
Which means that pregnant women should avoid organic foods, the more organic food they eat, the higher their risk of having an autistic child, who then grows up with a addiction to organic food.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go look at the graph. Autism rates rise first and THEN organic food sales rise. If any causation was going to be inferred from this correlation it is clearly the opposite of what is being implied.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I suggest you go look at the graph. Autism rates rise first and THEN organic food sales rise. If any causation was going to be inferred from this correlation it is clearly the opposite of what is being implied.
Click to expand...

with a slight manipulation of the scales either curve can be made to leed or lag the other
the r value is 0.9971, that means that the data correlation between the curves is nearly perfect.

So if there is a causation link between the two data sets it has to be something like:
Organic foods, have a greater risk of exposure to certain bacterial contamination, due to the natural fertilizer (fecal matter) used, as a result during fetus development in a pregnant women, her exposure to contaminated organic foods is increased, resulting in a increased chance of having an autistic baby.

A non-causation correlation between the data sets would be something like:
  • A) an autism diagnosis in the family results in the mother buying more organic food for her family
  • B) eating organic food results in mothers having their children tested for autism
 
metalman said:
A non-causation correlation between the data sets would be something like:
  • A) an autism diagnosis in the family results in the mother buying more organic food for her family
  • B) eating organic food results in mothers having their children tested for autism
Click to expand...

So, if thing A causes thing B then is causation but if thing B causes thing A then it's non-causation?
 
faethor said:
@Redrumloa and @FluffyMcDeath
And more directly to this thread the political and financial motives that caused Andrew Wakefield to create false research so he could market his own cures instead is one we're still fighting today.
Click to expand...
You know what's funny about Wakefield? I always used to lambaste him as a loon too until something Rebecca Watson said that I had never heard before though she didn't seem to notice that she'd said it.

Wakefield said that he had found the measles strain in the MMR causing persistent infection in kids guts, especially those with autism and that this inflammation was a new and previously unknown phenomenon. Further, he did not see this with the old measles vaccine - so he recommended that instead of taking the MMR, parents take the older measles, mumps and rubella vaccines separately. Wakefield said, don't take the single shot MMR, take three separate shots. That is hardly a position that should be called "anti-vaxx". However, the UK at the time was moving to get rid of the three vaccine schedule all together. Andrew Wakefield may have been wrong, but it's also important to realize that he HAD to be wrong.
 
health science expert politician. Imagine if a clown like this had the power to make his dreams come true! And you can bet the nuclear industry would be right behind him producing all the sciece they need to get their industrial waste added to your drinking water.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Wakefield said that he had found the measles strain in the MMR causing persistent infection in kids guts, especially those with autism and that this inflammation was a new and previously unknown phenomenon. Further, he did not see this with the old measles vaccine - so he recommended that instead of taking the MMR, parents take the older measles, mumps and rubella vaccines separately. Wakefield said, don't take the single shot MMR, take three separate shots. That is hardly a position that should be called "anti-vaxx". However, the UK at the time was moving to get rid of the three vaccine schedule all together. Andrew Wakefield may have been wrong, but it's also important to realize that he HAD to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Right, Wakefield wasn't anti-vaxx. He was anti-competitive because the triple MMR manufacturer had a product whose marketplace was against his own. As a result he tried to fudge the science, claiming results his work didn't show, and claiming a new disease which didn't exist. This shows my point how 'science' can be manipulated by financial and political gains. Specifically in this case by Wakefield.


Did he 'have to be wrong'? That's one of political opinion of the systems and involvement of people and entities. The question really doesn't matter because he was in fact wrong.

Don't forget from the Wakefield research and activity a flurry of research across the world was done to validate, or invalidate, Wakefield's findings. Japan, USA, other European nations, and even Russia. These researchers couldn't verify Wakefield's results. However, this didn't stop the anti-vaccers. For nearly 20 years we've been dealing with the fallout from Wakefield's dishonesty and irresponsibility has impacted the world. Even though Wakefield might not be anti-vacc his research was arguably the lynchpin that set off the anti-vacc movement. Though, Wakefield should have some responsibility in the unintended consequences of his poor work and likely purposeful manipulation. May God have mercy on his soul
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
It's just a matter of recognizing that the past is different.
Click to expand...
There are many differences but not all bad as you wasted who knows how long trying to convince me otherwise. For one, back in the days when Radium was used, there wasn't much science to back it up. Medicine was very loosely based on science and no one really had a good understanding of radiation or cancer back then. And yet, those wild experiments that ended badly planted the seeds for future techniques and we still use radiation to fight cancer today - although very differently and with much greater success. Medicine will always be a pioneering effort and as with all pioneers risk is a huge part of it. And I think most people understand that.

People forget that infant mortality rates and life expectancies were much higher and lower, respectively, not that long ago. Vaccines and antibiotics have been the biggest advancement in human health since cooking food. Hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated for decades and with an outstanding track record. People who spend their efforts convincing people otherwise are not only wrong but a threat to the safety of others and I personally think they should be made to suffer one way or another. No one says vaccines and other drugs are risk free, for the most part the risks are well known and published. But in some cases the risks are so low there's no reason to make the big fuss about them that so many kooks are making. People take much higher risks every day driving to work or crossing the street than they will by taking a vaccine. When you put things into perspective, it just doesn't make sense. If you're that adverse to risk you may as well lock yourself in a concrete bunker and live in a plastic bubble with recycled air and water.

And again, I think your arguments about big pharma are biased. There are pros and cons to a capitalist system and the patents are probably more of a problem than a solution. However, at the same time we're seeing rapid growth and development and there are many benefits there too along with risks some may be avers to while others not. You seem to be arguing that we need a system with zero risk which tends to limit progress if not stop it completely. I am personally for socialized medicine, for serious patent reform and against corporate involvement in politics, but won't go so far as to say that the capitalist system is inherently evil or that it should be tossed. I think the main driving force behind almost all your logic on all topics is that you despise the idea of rich people getting richer and you see nothing else past that.
 
metalman said:
they were separate examples of non-causation correlations :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sorry, perhaps I confused you because I inadvertently reused your labels for different things. You used A and B to label two specific scenarios, and I used A and B to be two relatable things. I should have chosen X & Y or some such.

Here is what I am trying to ask.

We have organic food purchase: I'll call that X
We have autism diagnosis: I'll call that Y

In you post you give one scenario in which X causes Y and propose a mechanism that it is something in the food that causes autism.

Then you give one scenario in which Y causes X : for A you propose a mechanism - that the diagnosis prompts the mother buy more organic food.
Finally you give another scenario which you label B where X and Y are merely correlated because people who buy organic are also people more likely to have their children tested.

In the non-causative examples you include one causative and one non-causative. Did you perhaps think that you had written something else for A?
 
Only those who get the vaccine will be protected by Jesus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top