Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Did you know vaccine "testing" of vaccines is done only on healthy children?

I cannot possibly imagine why.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Good for you. Whatever. SMH.

Nothing to say about the fact that two of the MMR studies I cited (including one of the biggest) involved comparing children who had the MMR jab vs those who hadn't? And TSRs point about MMR never containing thimerosal?

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by abaddon

What is super scary is that you cannot figure out why this is so.

Yeah sure. But it's okay to require the less healthy children to get the vaccine.

Isn't likely that the less healthy 60% of the children would be more susceptible to negative reactions when given vaccines?

Shouldn't the threshold of requiring vaccines be that they are at least as healthy as the study group?


Maybe the less healthy 60% of the children are more prone to be stricken with autism.

What is that, some sort of upside down control group policy? We're not allowing 60% of the children participate
in the study because it make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 50% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 60% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 70% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 80% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 90% participate in the survey make the results worse?

I wonder at which threshold the instances of negative responses might begin spiking?

I wonder if parents are ever informed that their children, when getting a vaccine, are not healthy enough to participate in a vaccine study?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Good for you. Whatever. SMH.

Oh. I was especially impressed by how you turned up the surly. That will surely make everyone come to your 'save the killer virii' campaign.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Good for you. Whatever. SMH.

So, basically, you're not interested in evidence that doesn't say what you want it to?

Dave

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Yeah sure. But it's okay to require the less healthy children to get the vaccine.

After the trial is over and the vaccine is approved for use.

Quote:

Isn't likely that the less healthy 60% of the children would be more susceptible to negative reactions when given vaccines?

Sounds like someone has absolutely no clue how or why experimental trials work. It's likely that their reactions during the test will not actually be because of the medication being tested. Hence why healthy test subjects are chosen. Is the concept of controlling your variables in an experimental study too difficult for you to comprehend?

Quote:

Shouldn't the threshold of requiring vaccines be that they are at least as healthy as the study group?

No, because that makes no sense.

Quote:

What is that, some sort of upside down control group policy? We're not allowing 60% of the children participate
in the study because it make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 50% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 60% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 70% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 80% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 90% participate in the survey make the results worse?

It has nothing to do with 'better' or 'worse.' It has to do with being able to establish the cause for whatever negative result may come up. If you've got a subject who isn't healthy and has some sort of reaction, you have no idea if it's the result of the medication or because of a pre-existing ailment. This would invalidate any of the conclusions of the experiment, or at the very least make the results questionable and the medication likely wouldn't be approved.

Quote:

I wonder if parents are ever informed that their children, when getting a vaccine, are not healthy enough to participate in a vaccine study?

I'm not sure why you think it should matter.

[Clayton Moore]

[quote=Tolls;7175006]Also ignoring the fact that the Sweden study:

From page 4 here.

Quote:

Page 2
AUTISM RESEARCH AT THE NICHD
2
Why do people think
that vaccines can
cause autism?
Some parents and families of children with
autism believe that the Measles/Mumps/
Rubella (MMR) vaccine caused their children’s
autism. These parents report that their
children were “normal” until they received the
MMR vaccine. Then, after getting the vaccine,
their children started showing symptoms of
autism. Because the symptoms of autism begin
to occur around the same time as the child’s
MMR vaccination, parents and families see the
vaccine as the cause of the autism. However,
just because the events happen around the
same time does not mean that one caused the
other. Although children receive many other
vaccines in addition to the MMR vaccine,
these other vaccines have not been identified as
possible causes of autism.
These parents’ beliefs and observations were
reinforced by a small study of bowel disease
and autism, published by Wakefield and his
colleagues in 1998 (Wakefield et al 1998).

reinforced reinforced reinforced

Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism.

[kookbreaker]

Ummm. So? Stupid people trying to find something to blame got their wish via a corrupt study. The parents were in no way being scientific, they just latched onto something to blame besides their own genetics.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

reinforced reinforced reinforced

Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism.

This is a horrendously dishonest cherrypick. You completely fail to take note of the other statements made in the text you've quoted.

Quote:

These parents report that their children were “normal” until they received the MMR vaccine. Then, after getting the vaccine, their children started showing symptoms of autism. Because the symptoms of autism begin to occur around the same time as the child’s MMR vaccination, parents and families see the vaccine as the cause of the autism.

derp.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by excaza

After the trial is over and the vaccine is approved for use.


Sounds like someone has absolutely no clue how or why experimental trials work. It's likely that their reactions during the test will not actually be because of the medication being tested. Hence why healthy test subjects are chosen. Is the concept of controlling your variables in an experimental study too difficult for you to comprehend?


No, because that makes no sense.


It has nothing to do with 'better' or 'worse.' It has to do with being able to establish the cause for whatever negative result may come up. If you've got a subject who isn't healthy and has some sort of reaction, you have no idea if it's the result of the medication or because of a pre-existing ailment. This would invalidate any of the conclusions of the experiment, or at the very least make the results questionable and the medication likely wouldn't be approved.


I'm not sure why you think it should matter.

Being unhealthy doesn't necessarily mean you have an ailment. I just believe excluding 60% hides a lot of potential negative reactions that would have nothing to do with pre-existing ailments.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Being unhealthy doesn't necessarily mean you have an ailment.

I'm not going to play semantic games with you.

Quote:

I just believe

Fortunately, your belief is not fact.

Quote:

excluding 60% hides a lot of potential negative reactions that would have nothing to do with pre-existing ailments.

And including those 60% would also introduce a whole boatload of effects that have nothing to do with the drug. That is the reason why experimental trials are set up the way they are. It's really not a difficult concept, but apparently it's one you're not getting.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Ith a conthpiwathy!!!
Courtesy of a DaVinci Code-style NWO/illuminati conspiracy website and Fox News.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by excaza

This is a horrendously dishonest cherrypick. You completely fail to take note of the other statements made in the text you've quoted.


derp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
reinforced reinforced reinforced

Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism.


This is a horrendously dishonest cherrypick. You completely fail to take note of the other statements made in the text you've quoted.

Quote:
These parents report that their children were “normal” until they received the MMR vaccine. Then, after getting the vaccine, their children started showing symptoms of autism. Because the symptoms of autism begin to occur around the same time as the child’s MMR vaccination, parents and families see the vaccine as the cause of the autism.

The fact that it took until 1998 for a study to be done is kind of a reverse cherry pick.

Why do all you name callers think many thousands of parents are incorrect when they connect MMR shots with an onset of autism symptoms?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Why do all you name callers think many thousands of parents are incorrect when they connect MMR shots with an onset of autism symptoms?

(1) Because autism is most commonly first detected at about the same age that MMR vaccination is delivered, leading to a false association, and,
(2) Because multiple statistical studies have shown no significant difference in the prevalence of autism between populations who have and have not received the MMR vaccination.

In case you need clarification, (1) is why parents make the connection, and (2) is what proves them incorrect.

Mind you, since I haven't been calling anybody names, maybe you weren't asking me.

Dave

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Oh. I was especially impressed by how you turned up the surly. That will surely make everyone come to your 'save the killer virii' campaign.

Quote:

Indeed, vaccines were oh-so profitable that the number of pharma companies producing them dropped from two dozen to 2-3 over the last few decades. After all, there was money to be not made.

That's what you said. You said nothing about vaccines for children.

[Tolls]

[quote=Clayton Moore;7175946]

Originally Posted by Tolls

Also ignoring the fact that the Sweden study:

From page 4 here.




reinforced reinforced reinforced

Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism.

First you cherry pick by ignoring the Sweden and Danish studies (both larger than Wakefield, and the latter by several orders of magnitude), then you cherry pick that quote.

Two can play at that game:

Quote:

These parents’ beliefs and observations were
reinforced by a small study of bowel disease
and autism, published by Wakefield and his
colleagues in 1998 (Wakefield et al 1998).

small small small

See?

Or, put another way, a study of 500,000 trumps a study involving 12.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

(1) Because autism is most commonly first detected at about the same age that MMR vaccination is delivered, leading to a false association, and,
(2) Because multiple statistical studies have shown no significant difference in the prevalence of autism between populations who have and have not received the MMR vaccination.

In case you need clarification, (1) is why parents make the connection, and (2) is what proves them incorrect.

Mind you, since I haven't been calling anybody names, maybe you weren't asking me.

Dave

I'll answer, since I called him a scaremongering arse.
What Dave said...

And (2) is what is shown quite clearly in the Danish study.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Ummm. So? Stupid people trying to find something to blame got their wish via a corrupt study. The parents were in no way being scientific, they just latched onto something to blame besides their own genetics.

You mean parents are stupid if they noticed that their child had a negative reaction to a vaccination and spoke up/out about it?

And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

You mean parents are stupid if they noticed that their child had a negative reaction to a vaccination and spoke up/out about it?

.
And these parents determined that it was the vaccine and nothing else ... how?
.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?

.
Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

One notes that you continue to run from your gaff about thimerosal in MMR vaccine, and what happened to autism rates after the former was removed altogether...
.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Why do all you name callers think many thousands of parents are incorrect when they connect MMR shots with an onset of autism symptoms?

Because a.) they're not doctors, and b.)

Quote:

Because the symptoms of autism begin to occur around the same time as the child’s MMR vaccination, parents and families see the vaccine as the cause of the autism.

Perhaps you should read that over and over again until it sinks in and you stop repeatedly asking the same stupid question.

[000063]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Yeah sure. But it's okay to require the less healthy children to get the vaccine.

Isn't likely that the less healthy 60% of the children would be more susceptible to negative reactions when given vaccines?

Shouldn't the threshold of requiring vaccines be that they are at least as healthy as the study group?


Maybe the less healthy 60% of the children are more prone to be stricken with autism.

What is that, some sort of upside down control group policy? We're not allowing 60% of the children participate
in the study because it make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 50% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 60% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 70% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 80% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 90% participate in the survey make the results worse?

I wonder at which threshold the instances of negative responses might begin spiking?

I wonder if parents are ever informed that their children, when getting a vaccine, are not healthy enough to participate in a vaccine study?

Speculation.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

You mean parents are stupid if they noticed that their child had a negative reaction to a vaccination and spoke up/out about it?

They didn't have a negative reaction to the vaccine.

Quote:

And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?

Ignoring the fact that genetics and lineage are the exact same thing, yes.

[Clayton Moore]

[quote=Tolls;7176125]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

First you cherry pick by ignoring the Sweden and Danish studies (both larger than Wakefield, and the latter by several orders of magnitude), then you cherry pick that quote.

Two can play at that game:

small small small

See?

Or, put another way, a study of 500,000 trumps a study involving 12.

Maybe he didn't have sufficient funding to a large study. But he did have access to autistic children who became autistic after a recent vaccine dose.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

That's what you said. You said nothing about vaccines for children.

But you were complaining about vaccines causing Autism in children, and 'poisoning our children'. I went on the assumption that most reasonable would make: that I was referring to vaccines made for children, not cancer vaccines, h1n1 vaccines, influenza vaccines that are meant for adults.

I'm sorry your attempt at pwnage fell flat but don't try to salvage it with a batch of micro-pedantic nitpicking.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Maybe he didn't have sufficient funding to a large study.

Or maybe he picked exactly the sample he needed to get the results he was looking for?

Quote:

But he did have access to autistic children who became autistic after a recent vaccine dose.

Children become autistic after being born, should we start banning births?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by excaza

Children become autistic after being born, should we start banning births?

In fact, being alive results invariably in death. We should stamp it out ASAP.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by excaza

They didn't have a negative reaction to the vaccine.


Ignoring the fact that genetics and lineage are the exact same thing, yes.

You're exactly correct.

ge·net·ics (j-ntks)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.
2. (used with a pl. verb) The genetic constitution of an individual, group, or class.

lin·e·age 1 (ln-j)
n.
1.
a. Direct descent from a particular ancestor; ancestry.
b. Derivation.
2. The descendants of a common ancestor considered to be the founder of the line.
[Middle English linage, lineage, from Old French lignage, from ligne, line; see line1.]

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

But you were complaining about vaccines causing Autism in children, and 'poisoning our children'. I went on the assumption that most reasonable would make: that I was referring to vaccines made for children, not cancer vaccines, h1n1 vaccines, influenza vaccines that are meant for adults.

I'm sorry your attempt at pwnage fell flat but don't try to salvage it with a batch of micro-pedantic nitpicking.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/children.htm

[excaza]

Does it make you feel good to nitpick semantics even though the rest of your arguments completely fall flat?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

You're exactly correct.

ge·net·ics (j-ntks)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.
2. (used with a pl. verb) The genetic constitution of an individual, group, or class.

lin·e·age 1 (ln-j)
n.
1.
a. Direct descent from a particular ancestor; ancestry.
b. Derivation.
2. The descendants of a common ancestor considered to be the founder of the line.
[Middle English linage, lineage, from Old French lignage, from ligne, line; see line1.]

Ok, now explain the biological difference.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/children.htm

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

But you were complaining about vaccines causing Autism in children, and 'poisoning our children'. I went on the assumption that most reasonable would make: that I was referring to vaccines made for children, not cancer vaccines, h1n1 vaccines, influenza vaccines that are meant for adults.

I'm sorry your attempt at pwnage fell flat but don't try to salvage it with a batch of micro-pedantic nitpicking.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0&postcount=63

It was about vaccines and profits, not vaccines for children and profits.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0&postcount=63

It was about vaccines and profits, not vaccines for children and profits.

Then why has the MMR jab and Wakefield been such a center of your attention. I haven't heard you bemoaning the HPV virus. All you do is mash all vaccine makers into a pile to make them seem somehow obscenely profitable when the vaccines you are actually talking about are nowhere near as profitable. You're quite transparent and this attempt at salvage is pathetic - but maybe you've managed to convince yourself - probably not though.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by excaza

Does it make you feel good to nitpick semantics even though the rest of your arguments completely fall flat?



Ok, now explain the biological difference.

Hmmm one is about biology and the other is about ancestry.

Maybe you should see if there are .com sites for them.

Some game grabbed lineage so you can try mylineage or ancestry.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Hmmm one is about biology and the other is about ancestry.

Maybe you should see if there are .com sites for them.

Some game grabbed lineage so you can try mylineage or ancestry.

You are the one that brought lineage into the discussion about vaccines.

Quote:

And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?

Biologically, lineage and genetics are the same thing. You get your genes from your ancestors. Unless you think aliens are growing us in test tubes?

Interesting how you latch onto pointless semantic waffling instead of addressing the counters to the woo garbage you keep posting.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Then why has the MMR jab and Wakefield been such a center of your attention. I haven't heard you bemoaning the HPV virus. All you do is mash all vaccine makers into a pile to make them seem somehow obscenely profitable when the vaccines you are actually talking about are nowhere near as profitable. You're quite transparent and this attempt at salvage is pathetic - but maybe you've managed to convince yourself - probably not though.

It's called a tangent of the discussion.

Do you know how many vaccines children get plus boosters before elementary school age? Do you know how many times a child goes to the doctor before elementary school age?

Multiply that by 4,331,999. That's the projected number babies that will be born in the US in 2011.

10 vaccines $20 each $866,399,800

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton

Quote:

Quote:
And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?

excaza

Quote:

Ignoring the fact that genetics and lineage are the exact same thing, yes.

Originally Posted by excaza

Does it make you feel good to nitpick semantics even though the rest of your arguments completely fall flat?



Ok, now explain the biological difference.

excaza

Quote:

Interesting how you latch onto pointless semantic waffling instead of addressing the counters to the woo garbage you keep posting.

So I'm nitpicking semantics?



A. And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?

B. And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their genetics?

C. And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are disposed by lineage to become autistic no matter their lineage?

D. And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are disposed by lineage to become autistic no matter their genetics?

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

So I'm nitpicking semantics?

Yes.

Quote:

A. And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?

Makes no sense.

Quote:

B. And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their genetics?

Makes no sense.

Quote:

C. And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are disposed by lineage to become autistic no matter their lineage?

Makes no sense.

Quote:

D. And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are disposed by lineage to become autistic no matter their genetics?

Makes no sense.

Millions of children world wide, are genetically disposed to become autistic. This makes sense.

Symptoms of autism typically begin showing at ages 1 or 2, around the same time the MMR vaccine is administrated. Idiots are now convinced that the vaccine causes autism, despite the fact that there is no evidence that agrees with them.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

It's called a tangent of the discussion.

Do you know how many vaccines children get plus boosters before elementary school age? Do you know how many times a child goes to the doctor before elementary school age?

Multiply that by 4,331,999. That's the projected number babies that will be born in the US in 2011.

10 vaccines $20 each $866,399,800

I can sell things at cost and make a whole lot of gross profits too. I can sell $1,000,000 worth of stuff tomorrow but if it cost me $999,990 to make and ship I will have barely enough for 2 cups of coffee.

You seem to have no clue about the definitions of 'profit' are.

I'm not saying they don't make money - they should. It encourages them to stay in business, expand and research into other areas. But to say they are making serious money compared to the cash cows things like Viagra and Cholestrerol medications is a joke.

The ability to make profits on other drugs vs the low margins from vaccines is why there are so few companies making children's vaccines.

If you had any idea of what you are talking about instead of repeating hysterical nonsense you would understand that.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

It's called a tangent of the discussion.

Do you know how many vaccines children get plus boosters before elementary school age? Do you know how many times a child goes to the doctor before elementary school age?

Multiply that by 4,331,999. That's the projected number babies that will be born in the US in 2011.

10 vaccines $20 each $866,399,800

Revenue is not the same as profit. Even if it was pure profit, so what?

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Clayton is just telling us what he believes in. And he's quite the conspiracy believer. He's a Holocaust denier, a 9/11 'truther,' and now (apparently) an anti-vaxxer. (I eagerly await his dissertations on Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the Apollo moon landings. He's already got one trifecta going; I see no reason for him to not go for another!)

We've also learned the masked man is old enough to be a grandfather.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I see you are 32. If you have young children or intend to have them I hope you ignore your faith in vaccines and space them, one at a time, as far apart as possible.

That's what my son and his wife have done for their little girl who will be 3 this summer. Both are special ed teachers

I had him pegged at 17 or 18 at the oldest and thought there might be hope for him when he "grows up." I guess not, though.