I didn't prove anything, I just stated a fact: There is no connection between autism and vaccines.
That's it, and that is the absolute truth. All of the "supposed" connections have turned out to be false. Not only that, but the numbers are actually in for those who don't vaccinate, and guess what? They have autism at the same rates.
Then I'm sure you won't mind linking the study demonstrating what the real cause is. Otherwise your assertions are nothing more than baseless opinions.
Personally, I think that if such a discovery had been made, it would've been headline news... but then again, it could be that is was & I missed it
It's always puzzled me why people believe that. That this whole debate is still going on is a real testament to media manipulation and induced hysteria though. If anyone ever doubted the effectiveness of using the media to manipulate the perceptions of a population, this should put those doubts to rest.
Isn't it a sad indictment of the society we live in, where we place greater reliance on what journalists spoonfeed us than we do on (admittedly dull) textbooks and research publications? Even though the latter are readily available to anyone that wants to read them?
Club of Rome publication "The Limits to Growth" (1972)
"The main thesis was that a foreseable decline of non-renewable resources would have an influence on all of the other factors. The decline of resources was predicted to happen already in the 1970s while by 2015, food production and global industry was thought to decline leading to a shrinking of world population."
So either we're all starving & on our way out, or there's a lot more to climate modelling than we know now, and the current fanaticism people on both side exhibit regarding the subject has more in common with 2 fleas arguing about who owns the dog, than reasoned scientific debate in search of a reliable and accurate model
Remove the current blanket immunity from prosecution that vaccine manufcturers currently enjoy first.
The moment you go down the forced medication route, you better be sure what you are doing is 100% safe. Otherwise the repercussions from the public could end up being severe. Because at that point, you've forced your population to the 3rd of the 3 conflict resolution boxes (soap box, ballot box, ammo box). Plus you now reduced your society to what? Fascist dictatorship maybe? Certainly some form of authoritarian government, where free speech and individuality is a crime. After all - where do you draw the line?
I probably should've posted links regarding the herd immunity theory though....
For those genuinely interested, the following is a very good read:
Epidemiologic Reviews 1993
Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practice
Paul E. M. Fine
http://op12no2.me/stuff/herdhi...
I guess that not many others in the thread have studied virology or molecular biology... or read a textbook:-)
What this does show really well is just how powerful the popular media is at influencing individuals, to the point where theories are believed to be factual and beyond question. Wonder what a psych major would make of that?
There seems to be a trend these days of people wanting to abdicate all thought and personal responsibility, preferring their govt to make all their decisions for them.
Enough to make anyone afraid....
This thread is certainly a good display of the pseudo-religious hysteria surrounding vaccination, although you also see it in other topics.
Basically, the proponents will produce theories as being irrefutable fact (e.g. herd immunity **theory**), and launch into personal attacks against any who don't follow the populist opinions that the proponent subscribes to.
In this case, herd immunity theory, as proferred by Fox in his Measles paper, uses a Reed-Frost statistical model consisting of a closed population of 1000 hosts.
(The measles virus, like diptheria, does not follow the herd immunity theory. Outbreaks in 100% vaccinated populations have occured and been well documented)
The last polio outbreak was caused by the oral polio vaccine - the human waste of the newly vaccinated infected the water source.
Now if you argue that an unvaccinated child puts your vaccinated child at risk, aren't you whining that you don't believe the vaccine conferred immunity to your child?
Slashdot Mirror
RedHat do that too... OpenShift. It uses linux containers to slice up a single system.
I didn't prove anything, I just stated a fact: There is no connection between autism and vaccines.
That's it, and that is the absolute truth. All of the "supposed" connections have turned out to be false. Not only that, but the numbers are actually in for those who don't vaccinate, and guess what? They have autism at the same rates.
Then I'm sure you won't mind linking the study demonstrating what the real cause is.
Otherwise your assertions are nothing more than baseless opinions.
Personally, I think that if such a discovery had been made, it would've been headline news... but then again, it could be that is was & I missed it
There is zero connection between autism and vaccines.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...
There **may** or **may not** be a link. Bottom line is, we really don't know, because we don't know what DOES cause the condition.
Cheers... :-)
It's always puzzled me why people believe that.
That this whole debate is still going on is a real testament to media manipulation and induced hysteria though.
If anyone ever doubted the effectiveness of using the media to manipulate the perceptions of a population, this should put those doubts to rest.
Isn't it a sad indictment of the society we live in, where we place greater reliance on what journalists spoonfeed us than we do on (admittedly dull) textbooks and research publications? Even though the latter are readily available to anyone that wants to read them?
Anyone remember how it all started?
Club of Rome publication "The Limits to Growth" (1972)
"The main thesis was that a foreseable decline of non-renewable resources would have an influence on all of the other factors. The decline of resources was predicted to happen already in the 1970s while by 2015, food production and global industry was thought to decline leading to a shrinking of world population."
So either we're all starving & on our way out, or there's a lot more to climate modelling than we know now, and the current fanaticism people on both side exhibit regarding the subject has more in common with 2 fleas arguing about who owns the dog, than reasoned scientific debate in search of a reliable and accurate model
http://www.extremetech.com/ext...
If only NASA had consulted Slashdot instead... think of the research dollars they would have saved :-)
Remove the current blanket immunity from prosecution that vaccine manufcturers currently enjoy first.
The moment you go down the forced medication route, you better be sure what you are doing is 100% safe. Otherwise the repercussions from the public could end up being severe. Because at that point, you've forced your population to the 3rd of the 3 conflict resolution boxes (soap box, ballot box, ammo box).
Plus you now reduced your society to what? Fascist dictatorship maybe? Certainly some form of authoritarian government, where free speech and individuality is a crime. After all - where do you draw the line?
I probably should've posted links regarding the herd immunity theory though.... For those genuinely interested, the following is a very good read: Epidemiologic Reviews 1993 Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practice Paul E. M. Fine http://op12no2.me/stuff/herdhi...
I guess that not many others in the thread have studied virology or molecular biology... or read a textbook :-)
What this does show really well is just how powerful the popular media is at influencing individuals, to the point where theories are believed to be factual and beyond question. Wonder what a psych major would make of that?
There seems to be a trend these days of people wanting to abdicate all thought and personal responsibility, preferring their govt to make all their decisions for them.
Enough to make anyone afraid....
This thread is certainly a good display of the pseudo-religious hysteria surrounding vaccination, although you also see it in other topics. Basically, the proponents will produce theories as being irrefutable fact (e.g. herd immunity **theory**), and launch into personal attacks against any who don't follow the populist opinions that the proponent subscribes to. In this case, herd immunity theory, as proferred by Fox in his Measles paper, uses a Reed-Frost statistical model consisting of a closed population of 1000 hosts. (The measles virus, like diptheria, does not follow the herd immunity theory. Outbreaks in 100% vaccinated populations have occured and been well documented) The last polio outbreak was caused by the oral polio vaccine - the human waste of the newly vaccinated infected the water source. Now if you argue that an unvaccinated child puts your vaccinated child at risk, aren't you whining that you don't believe the vaccine conferred immunity to your child?