Hey! Let's Open The Vaccination Can Of Worms!

RyuJin wrote: you can't just

That's too bad because I am. This happened. I don't care if you don't like it. You have to deal with it.

RyuJin wrote: debates don't work that way

It's been over for quite some time.

This is our "debate":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA

Tellahane wrote: "I read on this one website that this thing happened, therefore its true. I also saw a youtube video where someone was

Video on cspan of a representative Bill Posey testifying before the house.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud


You can read a transcript here:

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/07/29/CREC-2015-07-29-pt1-PgH5601-3.pdf

"The coauthors scheduled a meeting
to destroy documents related to the
study.

The remaining four coauthors all met and
brought a big garbage can into the meeting
room and reviewed and went through all the
hard copy documents that we had thought
we should discard and put them in a huge
garbage can.

However, because I assumed it was illegal
and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests,
I kept hard copies of all documents in
my office, and I retained all associated computer
files.

I believe we intentionally withheld controversial
findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper. "

Red_Eye_Jedi wrote:

Tellahane wrote: "I read on this one website that this thing happened, therefore its true. I also saw a youtube video where someone was

Video on cspan of a representative Bill Posey testifying before the house.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud


You can read a transcript here:

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/07/29/CREC-2015-07-29-pt1-PgH5601-3.pdf

"The coauthors scheduled a meeting
to destroy documents related to the
study.

The remaining four coauthors all met and
brought a big garbage can into the meeting
room and reviewed and went through all the
hard copy documents that we had thought
we should discard and put them in a huge
garbage can.

However, because I assumed it was illegal
and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests,
I kept hard copies of all documents in
my office, and I retained all associated computer
files.

I believe we intentionally withheld controversial
findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper. "

So perhaps I'm missing something here but what does any of this prove? All I see is something May have been a correlation or a link, but they weren't 100% sure, and to prevent scare they potentially destroyed it. Let's say there was a possible correlation, the keyword is still possible, as in statistics might have shown something, but it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Just keep that in mind, even if from this debate opens the possibility, its still just that a possibility, it was a possibility before the research, its still going to be a possibility after, many many more studies would still have to go on for definitive proof of anything.

Still doesn't change the fact that while statistically there's a chance of harm that might have a correlation, it's still statistically safer to get vaccinated then not. It's like how there's the chance of dieing from a plane crash but its still the safest way to transit in the US. Yet people still get on the plane knowing this.

So all that being said the only thing that has changed assuming your argument is correct, is that a possibility...is still a possibility...which it was still a possibility...I apologized in advance if I missed something.

Tellahane wrote: So perhaps I'm missing something

Oh no, nothing important. Just that the scientists conducting vaccine safety studies are being forced to alter findings and destroy evidence. No big deal.

Hey what are you guys doing tonight, I am having a vape party we are putting methyl mercury in our vape juice! Gives a heck of a buzz!!! Oh and don't worry, it's all organic.

Scientific evidence is any set of multiple and discrete and independantly verifiable points of data that are not in dispute as their veracity is empirically identifiable and that are positively indicative of one conclusion over any other.
Testimony is not evidence.
Nobody in medicine gives a flying frak what some real estate executive has to say in a political environment. Nor should they and nor should we.
Unfortunately that cannot be said of medics who fake data and while dishonesty and science are two things incompatible in my view, they are a reality nonetheless. Mistakes in measurement also are. And the way to counteract both of these is by overwhelming it with data that are more reproducible and as such more reliable.
The way to identify a fraud at any rate, is to produce evidence of a fraud. Don't link us to congress, link us the the data that hero scientist released instead. Show us that he didn't fake but his colleagues did theirs. And while you're at it, please show us how everybody else is lying, too, in a grand conspiracy to make the pharma industry even richer, as if homoeopathy didn't do quite enough to that end already.

Anton, could you explain to them how statistical correlation works ? I can understand it enough when it is in demographic research and qualitative analyses, but I'm not good at explaining to others what "significant" correlations are ...

It comes down to a reduction on a scale of -1 to +1. The closer you get to +1, the more significant the correlation ; contrarily, the closer to -1, the more the factors don't imply anything about one another.

But science is not a duality of 0 and 1 ; it isn't a black/white, yes/no affair ... it gets strung out along a scale. So, if research findings come up with +0,35 and up correlation, that starts to indicate a "significant" correlation. Likewise below -0,35 shows that the factors studied are less and less relative to one another. So, if the results were coming back at around -0,27 (for example), that is still close enough to 0, enough of a correlation, though not "significant" enough to say that there is a definite correlation, it still isn't -1 (nor would it be for a lower value), so there is a slight possibility that the factors are related, but only a very minimal one.

Thus, if the test results are "inconclusive", that means that the statistical evidence for the correlation of this to that are pretty damned weak. Not "impossible", just very, very, very unlikely ...

Then again, with much of this sort of research being done in independent (private business) laboratories and university laboratories dependent on private endowments for funding, there is a possibility that they find whatever they are being paid to find -- and reporting it how they are paid to report it. On the flip-side, journalists who make documentaries that get on YouTube - not to mention those who share/post them - are not generally unbiased either.

Did I get that right ? (I don't know much about this sort of thing ...) :blush:

Red_Eye_Jedi wrote:

RyuJin wrote: how does anyone know that this representative is completely honest and trustworthy.

Because one of the scientists conducting the study saved all the evidence they destroyed, and blew the whistle after the study was published, and with the help of a whistle-blower attorney contacted the representative to make the information public.

<yawn> again...how do we or anybody else know that this scientist did not fabricate this "evidence"...it's his word vs. the word of many others....evidence is fabricated all the time in order to prove one point or another....

i can print up hundreds of pages saying that it has been proven that soda is harmful, then claim that i was ordered to destroy them in order to keep the soda industry going, then turn around and say i saved the documents....the whole time it's all one big lie.....

as to the cspan video....cspan has made mistakes and spread untruths in the past....and name a single politician that hasn't been caught in a lie at least once...

It is my firm belief that this thread ran out of anything sensible to say months ago.

RyuJin wrote: <yawn> again...how do we or anybody else know that this scientist did not fabricate this "evidence"...

By coming forward and blowing the whistle, Dr. William Thompson essentially took his reputation, credibility, and employability out behind the shed and shot them dead.

Though you may downplay his sacrifice I doubt you can appreciate how much "face" Dr. William Thompson has lost as a result of his decision.

Let me point out the double standard in effect here.

Had Dr. William Thompson not blown the whistle, you could have quoted this study directly as evidence the MMR vaccine has no links to autism or autism like features.

If I responded the exact same way you just did with:

"<yawn> again...how do we or anybody else know that Dr. William Thompson did not fabricate this "evidence"..."

You would laugh at me, and rightfully so.