If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(IFL Science)   Study of 10 studies finding no link between vaccines and autism finds no link between vaccines and autism   (iflscience.com) divider line 63
    More: Obvious, MMR vaccine, autism, vaccines  
•       •       •

619 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 May 2014 at 3:03 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-21 12:05:58 PM
Don't you know that scientific studies aren't nearly as good as gut feelings and the ravings of some nutjob on the internet?
 
2014-05-21 12:58:14 PM
Amzed they found time for the study between Wapner Times
 
2014-05-21 03:07:34 PM
Still no cure for stupid parents.
 
2014-05-21 03:15:21 PM
However they did find a link between brain damage and shiatty parenting
 
2014-05-21 03:17:44 PM
To post or not to post on Facebook.

I might finally push some friends over the edge and back to sanity, but then again, this will probably just reinforce their persecution complex and anti vaccine stance.
 
2014-05-21 03:25:54 PM
So what you're saying is there's still a chance?

Good enough for me!

www2.b3ta.com
 
2014-05-21 03:27:01 PM
I know a lot of 'scientisty' types are upset that regular people are questioning them.  The fact of the matter is, vaccines DO cause problems, up to and including DEATH.  Nobody can deny that....there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead.  All the studies in the world are going to do very little to comfort those parents.

We also know that, even in the best of circumstances, 'studies' have plenty of problems.  How many times have finding been falsified or just plain wrong?  Why is there an increasingly large number of studies with UNREPRODUCIBLE results?  And I'm not making this up - you can read about it.  People are so concerned with getting their work published, they don't bother to do things right.

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/nihs-collins-vows-tackle-sciences -r eproducibility-problem/2014-01-28

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.
 
2014-05-21 03:31:02 PM
www.ztgd.com
 
2014-05-21 03:32:48 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: How many studies showed asbestos to be safe? How many studies showed smoking to be safe? Quite a few actually. In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study? Not much at all.


I know! I keep telling me wife we don't need a car with a seat belt, but she keeps citing all these "studies" and "science" and "facts". It's all just a conspiracy by those damned polyester conglomerates to drain your wallet and nobody will listen to me!
 
2014-05-21 03:37:19 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I know a lot of 'scientisty' types are upset that regular people are questioning them.  The fact of the matter is, vaccines DO cause problems, up to and including DEATH.  Nobody can deny that....there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead.  All the studies in the world are going to do very little to comfort those parents.

We also know that, even in the best of circumstances, 'studies' have plenty of problems.  How many times have finding been falsified or just plain wrong?  Why is there an increasingly large number of studies with UNREPRODUCIBLE results?  And I'm not making this up - you can read about it.  People are so concerned with getting their work published, they don't bother to do things right.

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/nihs-collins-vows-tackle-sciences -r eproducibility-problem/2014-01-28

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.


See, studies do show there is a minute risk of death with a vaccine, less than the risk of death you catch the disease they are inoculating against.

They have not shown any risk of autism though.

They've also backed down on the flu shot possibly causing Guillanne Barre because in all the years since the 70's they had like a less than one out of 1,000,000 chance of having it triggered.  China had .1 out of 1,000,000 reported from those receiving flu vaccines; less than the background rate
 
2014-05-21 03:39:11 PM

skozlaw: Fark_Guy_Rob: How many studies showed asbestos to be safe? How many studies showed smoking to be safe? Quite a few actually. In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study? Not much at all.

I know! I keep telling me wife we don't need a car with a seat belt, but she keeps citing all these "studies" and "science" and "facts". It's all just a conspiracy by those damned polyester conglomerates to drain your wallet and nobody will listen to me!


I realize you are probably being sarcastic - but just because *some* things are b.s. it does not mean all things are b.s.

Still, while I might disagree with you on your seatbelt stance, I absolutely support your right to make it.  Personally, I think the anti-airbag argument is far more compelling though.  Particularly for people that fall outside of the 'typical' height/weight expectations of car manufacturers.
 
2014-05-21 03:41:13 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead


Something something correlation, causation.

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.

If only studies had words describing experiments and you were able to read the words and critically evaluate what they say.  But I guess all studies are studies,  so your gut feeling is just as valid as a meta-analytical study.
 
2014-05-21 03:41:17 PM

RexTalionis: Don't you know that scientific studies aren't nearly as good as gut feelings and the ravings of some nutjob on the internet?


Hey, she may only have a hair stying diplima from East Anuston vocational high school, but she LOVES her kids, she's an AMERICAN MOM, and she did her research as you would know if you bothered to read the links on her badly-formatted blog.  Vaccines have molecules and drug companies are poisoning kids with molecules to get rich, you can't prove otherwise.
 
2014-05-21 03:46:48 PM

Jack Harper: Fark_Guy_Rob: there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead

Something something correlation, causation.

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.

If only studies had words describing experiments and you were able to read the words and critically evaluate what they say.  But I guess all studies are studies,  so your gut feeling is just as valid as a meta-analytical study.


Unless you are a medical doctor (and even then, a primary care physician is not the same a medical researcher), you aren't qualified to interpret the results of a medical study.  Besides which, the details of most are behind expensive paywalls, not readily available for private reading.

www.healio.com www.healio.com

Can *you* pull up an old medical study that we all accept as b.s. and point out the flaws in the methodology?  Give me an example of what you are asking me to do - it should be easy given the large number of historic examples that exist, right?
 
2014-05-21 03:46:59 PM
You know what I would like to see?  A study on the availability of services measured against the severity of the autism.  Because for severely autistic kids, there doesn't appear to be shiat.   For "high functioning autistic" kids, there seems to be a plethora of options.
 
2014-05-21 03:47:41 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I know a lot of 'scientisty' types are upset that regular people are questioning them. The fact of the matter is, vaccines DO cause problems, up to and including DEATH. Nobody can deny that....there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead. All the studies in the world are going to do very little to comfort those parents.

We also know that, even in the best of circumstances, 'studies' have plenty of problems. How many times have finding been falsified or just plain wrong? Why is there an increasingly large number of studies with UNREPRODUCIBLE results? And I'm not making this up - you can read about it. People are so concerned with getting their work published, they don't bother to do things right.


You's trollin...?

But seriously, there are a lot of crap studies being "published" lately, I use scare quotes because there's a whole new industry of basically pay-to-publish crap journals with zero professional reputation.  They add lines to an academic's CV but even a rudimentary examination shows they're worthless drivel.

This is why meta-studies of multiple other studies published in reputable journals and with acceptable study methodology are so very, very useful.
 
2014-05-21 03:57:18 PM
Definitely no link, definitely.
 
2014-05-21 03:58:05 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Still, while I might disagree with you on your seatbelt stance, I absolutely support your right to make it. Personally, I think the anti-airbag argument is far more compelling though. Particularly for people that fall outside of the 'typical' height/weight expectations of car manufacturers.


The fact is that their is not complete agreement on the scientific evidence for seatbelt safety. It's funny how all those "professionals" just kind of gloss over all the people that have been killed in decapitation crashes or burned to death because they couldn't escape. There's no money in telling us that and it works because suckers like you insist on regurgitating snippets and sound bites without understanding the real data behind any of this so-called "research".
Try thinking for yourself for a change instead of listening to whatever the Polyester Mafia buys and sells.
 
2014-05-21 04:02:04 PM
Also...
www.flix66.com
Uh oh!
 
2014-05-21 04:11:41 PM
BIG PHARMA!

/not remotely serious
 
2014-05-21 04:14:55 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Jack Harper: Fark_Guy_Rob: there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead

Something something correlation, causation.

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.

If only studies had words describing experiments and you were able to read the words and critically evaluate what they say.  But I guess all studies are studies,  so your gut feeling is just as valid as a meta-analytical study.

Unless you are a medical doctor (and even then, a primary care physician is not the same a medical researcher), you aren't qualified to interpret the results of a medical study.  Besides which, the details of most are behind expensive paywalls, not readily available for private reading.

[www.healio.com image 250x359] [www.healio.com image 250x324]

Can *you* pull up an old medical study that we all accept as b.s. and point out the flaws in the methodology?  Give me an example of what you are asking me to do - it should be easy given the large number of historic examples that exist, right?


FYI, the Lancet is (or was) offering a free account.  It's not a 100% access, but it's something.
 
2014-05-21 04:34:37 PM
If you don't want to partake in vaccinations, that's fine.

Please just leave the country so you won't reduce our local herd immunity.

Is that so much to ask?

Or do you want the herd immunity benefits without contributing? Is that it? You're a leech?
 
2014-05-21 04:38:29 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I know a lot of 'scientisty' types are upset that regular people are questioning them.  The fact of the matter is, vaccines DO cause problems, up to and including DEATH.  Nobody can deny that....there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead.  All the studies in the world are going to do very little to comfort those parents.

We also know that, even in the best of circumstances, 'studies' have plenty of problems.  How many times have finding been falsified or just plain wrong?  Why is there an increasingly large number of studies with UNREPRODUCIBLE results?  And I'm not making this up - you can read about it.  People are so concerned with getting their work published, they don't bother to do things right.

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/nihs-collins-vows-tackle-sciences -r eproducibility-problem/2014-01-28

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.


I know.  Those stupid scientists keep telling me that arsenic is deadly.  I don't believe them one bit.  In fact, I just swallowed a whodfjkldjklghldfh;j
 
2014-05-21 04:40:57 PM
Friend of the family is a hard-core antivaxxer and is proud to tell you that her little 2 year old jimmy won't get any of those evil big pharma chemical injected into his precious bodily fluids.

Jimmy was just diagnosed with autism.  Kind of surprised it took that long actually - you could tell there was something off about the kid at just a few months old.

I really feel for this kid and family.  If these people really want to help they'll drop the vaccine angle.  By continually focusing attention on discredited causes, they're  impeding or distracting the search for the real culprit.
 
2014-05-21 04:52:29 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Jack Harper: Fark_Guy_Rob: there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead

Something something correlation, causation.

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.

If only studies had words describing experiments and you were able to read the words and critically evaluate what they say.  But I guess all studies are studies,  so your gut feeling is just as valid as a meta-analytical study.

Unless you are a medical doctor (and even then, a primary care physician is not the same a medical researcher), you aren't qualified to interpret the results of a medical study.  Besides which, the details of most are behind expensive paywalls, not readily available for private reading.

[www.healio.com image 250x359] [www.healio.com image 250x324]

Can *you* pull up an old medical study that we all accept as b.s. and point out the flaws in the methodology?  Give me an example of what you are asking me to do - it should be easy given the large number of historic examples that exist, right?


Good thing you're a doctor who somehow disagrees with 99.99999% of all medical doctors, right? Or am I missing that you're Poe's Lawlzing it up here?
 
2014-05-21 04:54:14 PM
Where can I find more information about these studies?  Oh, look, TFA has links!
http://www.livescience.com/28825-most-obvious-science-findings.html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp0802904
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/182/4/E199.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673699012398

That's what's lovely about good science: Open links, repeatable results, peer-reviewed documentation, accredited publications.

Rant all you want, but the "link" has been proven bullshiat over and over and over.  That 4th one is even the official retraction of the original BS that started all this.  But no, you'd rather listen to the "informed" opinion of an ex pornstar instead of peer-reviewed publications?  "Wake up, sheeple!" is the modern "The sky is falling!".

/Full disclosure: Ms.Dverning is in the last year of her PhD in neuroscience, specializing in developmental autism spectrum and intellectual disorders.  Her thesis is on genetic and exposure related ID.  She works in a lab that published several studies on this topic and has invested thousands of hours on it.  One of the quickest ways to piss her off is to mention McCarthy.
//No, she does not receive any money from pharma companies and we live in a crappy apartment.
///Yes, out daughter is vaccinated.
////YAY!  Slashies!
 
2014-05-21 04:55:52 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I know a lot of 'scientisty' types are upset that regular people are questioning them.  The fact of the matter is, vaccines DO cause problems, up to and including DEATH.  Nobody can deny that....there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead.  All the studies in the world are going to do very little to comfort those parents.

We also know that, even in the best of circumstances, 'studies' have plenty of problems.  How many times have finding been falsified or just plain wrong?  Why is there an increasingly large number of studies with UNREPRODUCIBLE results?  And I'm not making this up - you can read about it.  People are so concerned with getting their work published, they don't bother to do things right.

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/nihs-collins-vows-tackle-sciences -r eproducibility-problem/2014-01-28

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.


In fact the study that sparked this entire public health clusterfark was a poster child for money's influence.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/

Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them. Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers -- a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. After years on controversy, the Lancet, the prestigious journal that originally published the research, retracted Wakefield's paper last February.

The series of articles launched Wednesday are investigative journalism, not results of a clinical study. The writer, Brian Deer, said Wakefield "chiseled" the data before him, "falsifying medical histories of children and essentially concocting a picture, which was the picture he was contracted to find by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers and to create a vaccine scare."

According to BMJ, Wakefield received more than 435,000 pounds ($674,000) from the lawyers. Godlee said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism.
 
2014-05-21 04:58:49 PM
We're presenting such good arguments to the whole 0 farkers who will read this thread and think that vaccines are dangerous.
 
2014-05-21 05:04:23 PM
Guys, he's trolling so transparently that initially I think he was just intending to be sarcastic, and was probably as surprised as anyone when some of y'all bit on something obviously not designed to be taken seriously.

Stop feeding it.
 
2014-05-21 05:16:11 PM
I hate you subby subby
 
2014-05-21 05:19:31 PM

Jim_Callahan: Guys, he's trolling so transparently that initially I think he was just intending to be sarcastic, and was probably as surprised as anyone when some of y'all bit on something obviously not designed to be taken seriously.

Stop feeding it.


Who could tell?  His arguments are exactly the same as the drivel that comes out of Jenny McCarthy and the other anti-vaxxers.
 
2014-05-21 05:22:10 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I realize you are probably being sarcastic - but just because *some* things are b.s. it does not mean all things are b.s.


The anti-vax thing is complete b.s. though.
 
2014-05-21 05:22:30 PM

Rent Party: You know what I would like to see?  A study on the availability of services measured against the severity of the autism.  Because for severely autistic kids, there doesn't appear to be shiat.   For "high functioning autistic" kids, there seems to be a plethora of options.


That would be interesting. I`d like to see some sort of chart for the cost/benefit ratio for the services available for the lowest to highest functioning too. At some point you start to get diminishing returns so to speak.
 
2014-05-21 05:27:28 PM

Lamberts Ho Man: Friend of the family is a hard-core antivaxxer and is proud to tell you that her little 2 year old jimmy won't get any of those evil big pharma chemical injected into his precious bodily fluids.

Jimmy was just diagnosed with autism.  Kind of surprised it took that long actually - you could tell there was something off about the kid at just a few months old.

I really feel for this kid and family.  If these people really want to help they'll drop the vaccine angle.  By continually focusing attention on discredited causes, they're  impeding or distracting the search for the real culprit.


Have you tried to talk them into getting the vaccines now?
Kid cant get any worse, and not getting polio on top of autism, well that would be nice.
madness
it is farkign madness
 
2014-05-21 05:36:11 PM

dready zim: Rent Party: You know what I would like to see?  A study on the availability of services measured against the severity of the autism.  Because for severely autistic kids, there doesn't appear to be shiat.   For "high functioning autistic" kids, there seems to be a plethora of options.

That would be interesting. I`d like to see some sort of chart for the cost/benefit ratio for the services available for the lowest to highest functioning too. At some point you start to get diminishing returns so to speak.


It's a problem with the notion of "high functioning" and "low functioning."  It's a bullshiat differentiation.   Autism is debilitating.  If you aren't debilitated, you don't have autism, you're just an asshole that is taking up resources from those that do.   "Low functioning" generally means "non-verbal," and that is considerably different.
 
2014-05-21 05:44:22 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Jack Harper: Fark_Guy_Rob: there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead

Something something correlation, causation.

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.

If only studies had words describing experiments and you were able to read the words and critically evaluate what they say.  But I guess all studies are studies,  so your gut feeling is just as valid as a meta-analytical study.

Unless you are a medical doctor (and even then, a primary care physician is not the same a medical researcher), you aren't qualified to interpret the results of a medical study.  Besides which, the details of most are behind expensive paywalls, not readily available for private reading.

[www.healio.com image 250x359] [www.healio.com image 250x324]

Can *you* pull up an old medical study that we all accept as b.s. and point out the flaws in the methodology?  Give me an example of what you are asking me to do - it should be easy given the large number of historic examples that exist, right?


My god, this is a new level of douchiness.  I mean, refusing to support your own argument and just saying, "Go Google it" is douchy enough, but actually demanding that someone else make your argument for you?  Holy crap, man.
 
2014-05-21 05:56:54 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I know a lot of 'scientisty' types are upset that regular people are questioning them.  The fact of the matter is, vaccines DO cause problems, up to and including DEATH.  Nobody can deny that....there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead.  All the studies in the world are going to do very little to comfort those parents.

We also know that, even in the best of circumstances, 'studies' have plenty of problems.  How many times have finding been falsified or just plain wrong?  Why is there an increasingly large number of studies with UNREPRODUCIBLE results?  And I'm not making this up - you can read about it.  People are so concerned with getting their work published, they don't bother to do things right.

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/nihs-collins-vows-tackle-sciences -r eproducibility-problem/2014-01-28

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.


You are forgetting that literally millions of people are now healthy and alive because of vaccines. You are forgetting that studies also showed asbestos to be harmful and smoking to be harmful.
 
2014-05-21 06:02:28 PM

namatad: Lamberts Ho Man: Friend of the family is a hard-core antivaxxer and is proud to tell you that her little 2 year old jimmy won't get any of those evil big pharma chemical injected into his precious bodily fluids.

Jimmy was just diagnosed with autism.  Kind of surprised it took that long actually - you could tell there was something off about the kid at just a few months old.

I really feel for this kid and family.  If these people really want to help they'll drop the vaccine angle.  By continually focusing attention on discredited causes, they're  impeding or distracting the search for the real culprit.

Have you tried to talk them into getting the vaccines now?
Kid cant get any worse, and not getting polio on top of autism, well that would be nice.
madness
it is farkign madness


I kinda think that right now isn't the best time to bring it up.  Haven't seen them in person yet either.
 
2014-05-21 06:15:10 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Fark_Guy_Rob: I know a lot of 'scientisty' types are upset that regular people are questioning them.  The fact of the matter is, vaccines DO cause problems, up to and including DEATH.  Nobody can deny that....there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead.  All the studies in the world are going to do very little to comfort those parents.

We also know that, even in the best of circumstances, 'studies' have plenty of problems.  How many times have finding been falsified or just plain wrong?  Why is there an increasingly large number of studies with UNREPRODUCIBLE results?  And I'm not making this up - you can read about it.  People are so concerned with getting their work published, they don't bother to do things right.

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/nihs-collins-vows-tackle-sciences -r eproducibility-problem/2014-01-28

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.

You are forgetting that literally millions of people are now healthy and alive because of vaccines. You are forgetting that studies also showed asbestos to be harmful and smoking to be harmful.


but smoking isn't harmful.

(example: Scarlett Johansson - smoking hot, not harmful)
 
2014-05-21 06:23:07 PM

uttertosh: Zeppelininthesky: Fark_Guy_Rob: I know a lot of 'scientisty' types are upset that regular people are questioning them.  The fact of the matter is, vaccines DO cause problems, up to and including DEATH.  Nobody can deny that....there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead.  All the studies in the world are going to do very little to comfort those parents.

We also know that, even in the best of circumstances, 'studies' have plenty of problems.  How many times have finding been falsified or just plain wrong?  Why is there an increasingly large number of studies with UNREPRODUCIBLE results?  And I'm not making this up - you can read about it.  People are so concerned with getting their work published, they don't bother to do things right.

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/nihs-collins-vows-tackle-sciences -r eproducibility-problem/2014-01-28

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.

You are forgetting that literally millions of people are now healthy and alive because of vaccines. You are forgetting that studies also showed asbestos to be harmful and smoking to be harmful.

but smoking isn't harmful.

(example: Scarlett Johansson - smoking hot, not harmful)


She is when she kicks you in the balls. Just sayin'.
 
2014-05-21 06:24:02 PM

uttertosh: but smoking isn't harmful.

(example: Scarlett Johansson - smoking hot, not harmful)


Counter-argument: Thích Quảng Đức
 
2014-05-21 06:31:22 PM

Lamberts Ho Man: namatad: Lamberts Ho Man: Friend of the family is a hard-core antivaxxer and is proud to tell you that her little 2 year old jimmy won't get any of those evil big pharma chemical injected into his precious bodily fluids.

Jimmy was just diagnosed with autism.  Kind of surprised it took that long actually - you could tell there was something off about the kid at just a few months old.

I really feel for this kid and family.  If these people really want to help they'll drop the vaccine angle.  By continually focusing attention on discredited causes, they're  impeding or distracting the search for the real culprit.

Have you tried to talk them into getting the vaccines now?
Kid cant get any worse, and not getting polio on top of autism, well that would be nice.
madness
it is farkign madness

I kinda think that right now isn't the best time to bring it up.  Haven't seen them in person yet either.


And actually, they'll probably go full derp and insist that since vaccines cause autism, that vaccines will also make autism worse.  Once you've drunk the kool-aid...
(couldn't find good bang-head-on-wall pic)
 
2014-05-21 06:35:03 PM

Zeppelininthesky: She is when she kicks you in the balls. Just sayin'.


You managed to get Scarlett to KITBSH you??!!?? Lucky bastard. I'd have donated my yearly wage to charity for that kinda pain.*

*only if she was nekkid whils doing so, mind.
 
2014-05-21 06:55:21 PM

uttertosh: Zeppelininthesky: She is when she kicks you in the balls. Just sayin'.

You managed to get Scarlett to KITBSH you??!!?? Lucky bastard. I'd have donated my yearly wage to charity for that kinda pain.*

*only if she was nekkid whils doing so, mind.


I am not that "lucky".
 
2014-05-21 07:09:58 PM

Geotpf: Jim_Callahan: Guys, he's trolling so transparently that initially I think he was just intending to be sarcastic, and was probably as surprised as anyone when some of y'all bit on something obviously not designed to be taken seriously.

Stop feeding it.

Who could tell?  His arguments are exactly the same as the drivel that comes out of Jenny McCarthy and the other anti-vaxxers.


I don't remember exactly which thread, but he did once openly admit to trolling.

Lamberts Ho Man: And actually, they'll probably go full derp and insist that since vaccines cause autism, that vaccines will also make autism worse.  Once you've drunk the kool-aid...
(couldn't find good bang-head-on-wall pic)


Not quite "bang head on wall", but I'm partial to this one:

i1182.photobucket.com

/ow, excessive headdesk!
 
2014-05-21 07:17:57 PM

Lamberts Ho Man: Fark_Guy_Rob: I know a lot of 'scientisty' types are upset that regular people are questioning them.  The fact of the matter is, vaccines DO cause problems, up to and including DEATH.  Nobody can deny that....there are parents who brought their healthy children in for a vaccine who ended up dead.  All the studies in the world are going to do very little to comfort those parents.

We also know that, even in the best of circumstances, 'studies' have plenty of problems.  How many times have finding been falsified or just plain wrong?  Why is there an increasingly large number of studies with UNREPRODUCIBLE results?  And I'm not making this up - you can read about it.  People are so concerned with getting their work published, they don't bother to do things right.

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/nihs-collins-vows-tackle-sciences -r eproducibility-problem/2014-01-28

How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.

In fact the study that sparked this entire public health clusterfark was a poster child for money's influence.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/

Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them. Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers -- a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. After years on controversy, the Lancet, the prestigious journal that originally published the research, retracted Wakefield's paper last February.

The series of articles launched Wednesday are investigative journalism, not results of a clinical study. The writer, Brian Deer, said Wakefield "chiseled" the data before him, "falsifying medical histories of children and essentially c ...


I think a good #rekt is in order here.
 
2014-05-21 07:36:02 PM

Zeppelininthesky: You are forgetting that literally millions of people are now healthy and alive because of vaccines. You are forgetting that studies also showed asbestos to be harmful and smoking to be harmful.


Was asbestos dangerous to end-users? or only to the miners, fabricators and installers?
(not saying that isnt bad enough)
It looks like it was long exposure to high concentrations.
Looks like everyone has some amount of asbestos in their lungs right now. Strange.
(wikipedia is your friend)
 
2014-05-21 07:49:32 PM

namatad: Zeppelininthesky: You are forgetting that literally millions of people are now healthy and alive because of vaccines. You are forgetting that studies also showed asbestos to be harmful and smoking to be harmful.

Was asbestos dangerous to end-users? or only to the miners, fabricators and installers?
(not saying that isnt bad enough)
It looks like it was long exposure to high concentrations.
Looks like everyone has some amount of asbestos in their lungs right now. Strange.
(wikipedia is your friend)


According to the NIH, yes, we all have a low concentration in our lungs. The harm comes from those who are exposed to higher concentrations of asbestos.  http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/asbestos
 
2014-05-21 07:51:37 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: How many studies showed asbestos to be safe?  How many studies showed smoking to be safe?  Quite a few actually.  In those cases, when there is money and vested interests at stake....what good is a study?  Not much at all.


Asbestos is perfectly safe and it's still used in building materials to this day. Things like roofing shingles and vinyl floor tiles, to name just two, still have asbestos in them. There's a damn good chance you have it somewhere in your home right now. The fear over asbestos is way overblown. The people who get mesothelioma are those exposed to it in an industrial setting, like factory and construction workers who don't take the proper precautions when working with it, and even then it takes years and years of exposure before it becomes an issue.

As for smoking, well it's obviously not good for you, but again it's way overblown especially when it comes to second hand smoke.
 
2014-05-21 09:14:54 PM

Rent Party: dready zim: Rent Party: You know what I would like to see?  A study on the availability of services measured against the severity of the autism.  Because for severely autistic kids, there doesn't appear to be shiat.   For "high functioning autistic" kids, there seems to be a plethora of options.

That would be interesting. I`d like to see some sort of chart for the cost/benefit ratio for the services available for the lowest to highest functioning too. At some point you start to get diminishing returns so to speak.

It's a problem with the notion of "high functioning" and "low functioning."  It's a bullshiat differentiation.   Autism is debilitating.  If you aren't debilitated, you don't have autism, you're just an asshole that is taking up resources from those that do.   "Low functioning" generally means "non-verbal," and that is considerably different.



Are you saying the people called high-functioning do not have autism spectrum disorder?

It gets confusing because there is no longer autism disorder, Asperger's disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder. Now it's all autism and rated on one of three levels of severity. Even level 3 is certainly debilitating socially, academically and professionally.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report