- This topic has 513 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Paul, you’ve ignored me AGAIN.
Really this “discussion” is becoming too frustrating to tolerate.
@ Clark
You do go on…I did of course reply to you, but as the information was rather embarrassing to your position, you didn’t notice it:
‘… A conservative estimate based on the research suggests that at least 69% of individuals with an ASD diagnosis have microglial activation or neuroinflammation. Encephalitis, which is defined as inflammation of the brain, is medical diagnosis code G04.90 in the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision; however, children with an ASD diagnosis are not generally assessed for a possible medical diagnosis of encephalitis. This is unfortunate because if a child with ASD has neuroinflammation, then treating the underlying brain inflammation could lead to improved outcomes..’
I’m pretty sure you have twigged to the essence of the above information – ‘…at least 69% of individuals with an ASD diagnosis have microglial activation or neuroinflammation. Encephalitis, which is defined as inflammation of the brain, is medical diagnosis code G04.90 in the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision…’. So, as encephalopathy is accepted as a Table disease for Vaccine Court purposes, as it is actually warned as a possible side effect of the MMR vaccine on the informayion leafleyt that comes with the vaccines (but which are rarely given to the parents of the child having the injection), then saying the MMR vaccination cannot cause Encephalopathy/Autism is total rubbish. But still folks parrot it.If you expect me to allow you to tell me how to think, or how to put my arguments, I’m afraid your barking up a gum tree.
But Paul, you effectively ARE telling me what to think, by constantly setting the agenda, and absolutely refusing to engage in fair debate.
Additionally, you’re pretending to scientific expertise that you do not possess. There is absolutely no way that someone who was utterly naive about Dane Wigington’s hoax with the stroboscopic effect has the background knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to interpret the significance of that paper.
And I do not believe that you are being openly honest with me. You wrote:
– “It’s on the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) website; as you will note, I gave the link where I found it above.
There are 6.2 million papers in that library, PubMed Central. You just “found” it there, did you? I don’t believe you. So again I’m asking you to be honest, and to get down off your high horse and treat me as your equal.
If you were reading papers like that all the time Paul, it seems very odd that you didn’t even finish Bad Science.
The truth blazes forth so obviously I find it extremely hard to imagine an ordinary decent person cannot see it as easily as I can.
Yes, I understand, you clearly have problems thinking logically.
I’m happy to be in a position to set you straight..
glaringly obvious to smart folk like me,
However flimsy you might find my explanation, it’s a darn sight more logical than yours. But that is par for the course.
Yes, I think it should be pretty obvious to a ten year old that I have an interest in the vaccine debate
Yeh, and I want to marry a millionairess.
You do go on…
If you expect me to allow you to tell me how to think, or how to put my arguments, I’m afraid your barking up a gum tree.
Paul, either of us can throw scientific papers at each other. I can throw this one at you:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101
Original Research 16 April 2019
Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism
A Nationwide Cohort StudyAnders Hviid, DrMedSci
, Jørgen Vinsløv Hansen, PhD
, Morten Frisch, DrMedSci
, Mads Melbye, DrMedSciParticipants:
657 461 children born in Denmark from 1999 through 31 December 2010, with follow-up from 1 year of age and through 31 August 2013.
Conclusion:
The study strongly supports that MMR vaccination does not increase the risk for autism, does not trigger autism in susceptible children, and is not associated with clustering of autism cases after vaccination. It adds to previous studies through significant additional statistical power and by addressing hypotheses of susceptible subgroups and clustering of cases.
And there are plenty more where that came from.
I chanced upon it. Iain Orr sent me a link to an article called Are We Born Racist:
https://www.berkeleywellness.com/article/are-we-born-racist
There was a link at the bottom of the article about vaccinations, and as I had been commenting here I followed it. One link led to another, and I found that study.
So you can throw papers at me and call them “embarrassing to my position”, though I don’t really have a position about vaccination except that the scientific consensus is almost certainly a lot closer than any opinion of mine; I admit that I have no expertise about vaccination.
I do have a position that I think you know a lot less about vaccination than you seem to think. I don’t accept that you “have an interest in the vaccine debate”; I think that you’ve spent a lot of time reading anti-vax websites and exchanging e-mails with anti-vaxxers, some of them quite prominent I expect, and I think you’ve spent hardly any time at all reading scientific studies or examining the academic discussion of them.
The academic literature is where the real vaccine debate is, and I challenge you; you don’t have any interest in that debate at all, do you?
This is why I think we should have a discussion about how we should go about investigating things. Because if your answer to every objection is merely “Big Pharma, money, MSM” over and over again, and forever moving the goal posts so that we never investigate how a multitude of studies find no link between MMR and autism, then I say you’re not offering readers science but conspiracy theory, and thereby undermining your readers’ understanding of the scientific process itself.
Oh how mighty and powerful these antivaxxers are. They have mostly little or no scientific knowledge or training at all, and they can quote their high priests of antivaxx, the Wakefields and the Mikovitss, disgraced former researchers held in high esteem by the movement. They can bombard people who know much more about these topics than them and yet they win every single argument with these tactics. You can never win Clark. Have you not realised that you cannot have a rational discussion where it is a matter of faith?
SA, we must all of us climb from the fertile, productive plains and foothills – which are the battleground – to the bare and cold high country of thought, where the arduous inhospitality makes allies of us all.
What becomes of one’s suspicion when no media can be trusted? Knowledge is power, and the public is disempowered, by paywalls, non-disclosure agreements, wholly-owned journals, medical staff’s “ongoing education” by the pharmaceutical industry, complicity and secrecy of regulators, outright government classification, and relentless, confusing, misleading bullshit in the corporate media, endless reams of it.
Experiments in psychology have repeatedly shown that aggression is a response to the perception of threat. Those we call conspiracy theorists and those that purvey it feel they have to fight, and they are right; there is an ongoing information war. Where they are wrong is that it does not have just two sides; all the commercial entities are competing for profit, and for their very survival, as the bigger companies buy up the small specialised ones, and buy out their generalist competitors.
This is why I am in XR. It is only XR that clearly states that it is this system that is toxic; that we are not fighting this company or that government, but trying to transform this Toxic System itself, which corrupts every entity, because all have no option but to participate in it.
I am being robust with Paul – I have to be, for he has fought so long and so hard that he has forgotten how to stop; it’s never safe to stop. But I’m sure he strongly suspects that despite our differences, we share the same goal.
XR Principle 1: “We have a shared vision of change:
– Creating a world that is fit for generations to come.”Paul, come with me. You need a weapons upgrade 😀
And I don’t trust some of your allies. In fact I don’t trust anyone, and I’m not going to ask you to trust me.
– Nullius in Verba.
@ Clark June 17, 2020 at 19:34
‘…I’m not going to ask you to trust me…’
Smart move, that, anyway.But you have been trusting certain parties, and you don’t have the means to check their claims. A lot of the means are in Bad Science. Did you notice that it repeatedly criticises the media?
How the crooks who run Big Pharma got their ‘Blank Cheque’ and ‘No Liability’ legislation through the Senate and Congress, in an almost exact re-run of the Federal Reserve scam in 1913:
Coronavirus Pt 2: ‘Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste’, Replay
(Scroll down to the box:
‘Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee made the following statement on the floor of the House on December 22, 2005:)To circumvent this outrage of the public, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attached a
shortened version of the bill to the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, HR 2863,
literally at the eleventh hour, giving sweeping, unprecedented immunity for drug companies.
Called “Division E—Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act,” Frist’s addendum
added 40 pages to an existing 423-page bill at 11:20 on Saturday night, December 17, 2005, well after the House Appropriation Committee members had reached final agreement on the defense bill, had signed off, and most had gone home…..’And of course, the crook in the White House (George W. Bush) signed off on it.
Even Rep. Obey seemed to forget his ‘outrage’ when the House reconvened in January.
I haven’t had sight of his bank records, but….Trust us, we’re Big Pharma – we had 600 lobbyists on the case…
You’ve changed the subject Paul. You’ve done that over and over again, on this thread, the 9/11 thread, and countless other threads.
Propagandists’ standard practice: when the evidence is going against you start discussing something else; avoid proceeding to the conclusion because if you admit the fallacy someone might link to it when you’re deploying the same argument upon someone else in future, and this would reveal your essential dishonesty.
Paul, OK, you’ve changed the subject, and I see you’ve been busy posting disinformation from the Swiss Propaganda Research site, and the mods have been busy deleting it.
As with the “MMR causes autism” hoax, I have strong reasons to accept the half-a-million-dead figure for covid-19 in the UK. and it isn’t because “that’s what it says in the MSM”. You can treat me with respect and show an interest in why I accept that, or you can dismiss me as a brainless dupe, which is what you’ve done so far.
What’s the point of campaigning against Western wars if you’re going to encourage policies that would kill say 2% of the entire global population? That’s over 150 million people, 150 Iraq invasions, over seven World War Ones. You’re completely undoing your own good work many times over, and all because you trust some highly dubious, completely anonymous site.
@ Clark
I moved on, because it seemed you were not answering as soon as I found and presented credible evidence for my position, and against your position. Remember? Instead, you go off on a tangent:
‘…@ Clark
You do go on…I did of course reply to you, but as the information was rather embarrassing to your position, you didn’t notice it:
‘… A conservative estimate based on the research suggests that at least 69% of individuals with an ASD diagnosis have microglial activation or neuroinflammation. Encephalitis, which is defined as inflammation of the brain, is medical diagnosis code G04.90 in the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision; however, children with an ASD diagnosis are not generally assessed for a possible medical diagnosis of encephalitis. This is unfortunate because if a child with ASD has neuroinflammation, then treating the underlying brain inflammation could lead to improved outcomes..’
I’m pretty sure you have twigged to the essence of the above information – ‘…at least 69% of individuals with an ASD diagnosis have microglial activation or neuroinflammation. Encephalitis, which is defined as inflammation of the brain, is medical diagnosis code G04.90 in the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision…’. So, as encephalopathy is accepted as a Table disease for Vaccine Court purposes, as it is actually warned as a possible side effect of the MMR vaccine on the informayion leafleyt that comes with the vaccines (but which are rarely given to the parents of the child having the injection), then saying the MMR vaccination cannot cause Encephalopathy/Autism is total rubbish. But still folks parrot it.If you expect me to allow you to tell me how to think, or how to put my arguments, I’m afraid your barking up a gum tree.’
Same still holds.Yeah, and I asked you how you found that paper, and I didn’t believe your answer. I then showed you a paper that demonstrates that there is no more autism among the MMR vaccinated than among the MMR unvaccinated; it is one of many.
To you, you’ve landed a punch, that will help you win. To me, there’s something interesting going on, something to be discovered.
And that’s the difference; my curiosity – your conflict.
Conflict kills Paul; I shouldn’t have to tell you that. Here’s another question, but “as the answer is rather embarrassing to your position” I fully expect you to ignore it. What happens, how many die or suffer, if you win, but you’re wrong?
Or are you infallible, like the Pope?
This is a direct challenge to Paul
Reporting of half truths by liars and interpreted by ignorant people is a dangerous thing in the internet. Because you need knowledge to debunk this rubbish.
‘… A conservative estimate based on the research suggests that at least 69% of individuals with an ASD diagnosis have microglial activation or neuroinflammation. Encephalitis, which is defined as inflammation of the brain, is medical diagnosis code G04.90 in the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision; however, children with an ASD diagnosis are not generally assessed for a possible medical diagnosis of encephalitis. This is unfortunate because if a child with ASD has neuroinflammation, then treating the underlying brain inflammation could lead to improved outcomes..’
This is of course a quotation , not referenced on this occasion, but obviously from an anti-vaxxer website which sounds plausible but is not.
“A conservative estimate…” this means nothing, we are not estimating here we need data, is there data to prove this assertion? I doubt it. If so then I need a scientific study not say so to believe this or debate it.“Encephalitis, which is defined as inflammation of the brain, is medical diagnosis code G04.90 in the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision;
…” NO it is not. G04.09 is
“ICD-10-CM Codes › G00-G99 Diseases of the nervous system › G00-G09 Inflammatory diseases of the central nervous system › Sequelae of inflammatory diseases of central nervous system G09
Sequelae of inflammatory diseases of central nervous system G09-
Note
Category G09 is to be used to indicate conditions whose primary classification is to G00-G08 as the cause of sequelae, themselves classifiable elsewhere. The ‘sequelae’ include conditions specified as residuals.
Do you know what this means? No I don’t think you do, you just regurgitate pseudo rubbish.
If you want to look at classifications of encephalitis then you need to look at G-04
Clinical Information
“An inflammatory process involving the brain (encephalitis) and meninges (meningitis), most often produced by pathogenic organisms which invade the central nervous system, and occasionally by toxins, autoimmune disorders, and other conditions.”
and G-05
ICD-10-CM Coding Rules
“G05.3 describes the manifestation of an underlying disease, not the disease itself.”As to neuroinflammation, you can read all about it here.
A role for immune responses, involving antigen presentation and immune-response-generating cytokines, in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease was recognized for a decade before the term neuroinflammation came into widespread use [1, 2]. A PubMed search using “neuroinflammation” as the only key word yields some 300 papers, none before 1995 [3]. While some chronic/remitting neurological diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, have long been recognized as inflammatory, the term neuroinflammation has come to denote chronic, CNS-specific, inflammation-like glial responses that do not reproduce the classic characteristics of inflammation in the periphery but that may engender neurodegenerative events; including plaque formation, dystrophic neurite growth, and excessive tau phosphorylation. In this way, neuroinflammation has been implicated in chronic unremitting neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease – diseases that historically have not been thought of as inflammatory diseases. This new understanding has come from rapid advances in the field of microglial and astrocytic neurobiology over the past fifteen to twenty years. These advances have led to the recognition that glia, particularly microglia, respond to tissue insult with a complex array of inflammatory cytokines and actions, and that these actions transcend the historical vision of phagocytosis and structural support that has long been enshrined in the term “reactive gliosis.” Microglia are now recognized as the prime components of an intrinsic brain immune system [4], and as such they have become a main focus in cellular neuroimmunology and therefore in neuroinflammation. This is not the inflammation of the adaptive mammalian immune response, with its array of specialized T-cells and the made-to-order antibodies produced through complex gene rearrangements. This is, instead, the innate immune system, upon which adaptive immunity is built [5].
As to autism, I urge you to read this paper, a very good start, even if you just read the abstract below:
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition of heterogeneous etiology. While it is widely recognized that genetic and environmental factors and their interactions contribute to autism phenotypes, their precise causal mechanisms remain poorly understood. This article reviews our current understanding of environmental risk factors of ASD and their presumed adverse physiological mechanisms. It comprehensively maps the significance of parental age, teratogenic compounds, perinatal risks, medication, smoking and alcohol use, nutrition, vaccination, toxic exposures, as well as the role of extreme psychosocial factors. Further, we consider the role of potential protective factors such as folate and fatty acid intake. Evidence indicates an increased offspring vulnerability to ASD through advanced maternal and paternal age, valproate intake, toxic chemical exposure, maternal diabetes, enhanced steroidogenic activity, immune activation, and possibly altered zinc–copper cycles and treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Epidemiological studies demonstrate no evidence for vaccination posing an autism risk. It is concluded that future research needs to consider categorical autism, broader autism phenotypes, as well as autistic traits, and examine more homogenous autism variants by subgroup stratification. Our understanding of autism etiology could be advanced by research aimed at disentangling the causal and non-causal environmental effects, both founding and moderating, and gene–environment interplay using twin studies, longitudinal and experimental designs. The specificity of many environmental risks for ASD remains unknown and control of multiple confounders has been limited. Further understanding of the critical windows of neurodevelopmental vulnerability and investigating the fit of multiple hit and cumulative risk models are likely promising approaches in enhancing the understanding of role of environmental factors in the etiology of ASD.
“So Paul, I urge you to cut out the crap. If you really have a genuine interest in understanding and helping people with ASD then you have to be open minded enough to at least believe that it is really not at all related to vaccination but due to other important factors, and that there are people out there who are genuinely interested in helping autistic people, but it is not the antivaxxers. If you do not even wish to engage with me and answer this important post by me on whatever basis you choose, then you would have exposed yourself as a sham. In which case I suggest that this forum thread should be closed.
SA, the quote is not from an anti-vax site; it’s from the paper Paul linked; it’s on PubMed:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717322/
Paul neglects to tell me how he found that paper from the 6.2 million on PubMed.
But yes, I’m considering requesting the thread be closed and deleted, because Paul neglects to engage in structured debate. The scientific literature is the place for this sort of discussion, because, apparently, in this public forum censorship is the only way to prevent aggressive promotion of disinformation.
I find that very sad in itself, and sadder still for me personally that Paul does not care about my sadness. In the way he treats us, our world would be better if you, I and all others like us were simply dead, for we merely obstruct his path, which he is sure leads to paradise. Or we may meekly conform to his battle-cry, or cease meddling in the world. The choices he will permit us seem to me reminiscent of fascism; indeed, literally Naziism, since I know from personal interaction that Paul will not trust me because he thinks I may be a Jew.
And this is a Corbyn supporter who sees no anti-Semitism among Corbyn’s supporters.
@ Clark June 22, 2020 at 12:55
‘Yeah, and I asked you how you found that paper, and I didn’t believe your answer. I then showed you a paper that demonstrates that there is no more autism among the MMR vaccinated than among the MMR unvaccinated; it is one of many…’
I’ll cover you’re latest ‘comment’ first: ‘..and I didn’t believe your answer…’ – so you’re calling me a liar. Well, I found it while following other links, as I generally do. I did not say, nor was I intending to put across any idea I had trawled through a host of scientific papers which I mostly wouldn’t understand (that covers the first point below, as well – I have stated as much before. ‘…you’re pretending to scientific expertise that you do not possess…’ is total rubbish). I did say that even I could understand the paper I was trying to get you to acknowledge (minus some scientific words: basically,
‘…at least 69% of individuals with an ASD diagnosis have microglial activation or neuroinflammation. Encephalitis, which is defined as inflammation of the brain, is medical diagnosis code G04.90 in the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision; however, children with an ASD diagnosis are not generally assessed for a possible medical diagnosis of encephalitis. This is unfortunate because if a child with ASD has neuroinflammation, then treating the underlying brain inflammation could lead to improved outcomes..’.
Anybody with any interest in the subject of Autism should be able to understand that, even me.
You would have noticed if you had followed up the paper that there were a number of Meta-studies (or whatever they are called) of the basic info, which showed it wasn’t just a freak one-off.
The impact, in my opinion, shatters all the false allegations that the MMR cannot cause Autism or ASD, because the MMR information leaflet admits it CAN cause brain inflammation of encephalitis. The fact that you are studiously ignoring that obvious point indicates it has greatly surprised you, and you have no adequate response, apart from ‘showering me with papers that conclude MMR can’t cause ADS or Autism’ (or words to that effect).
Now I know that there are oodles of papers out there saying that, but their are Big Pharma and their $billions who fund most of the studies one way or another.
Why have they not been able to prove the paper/s I referred to are wrong? Because if, as I have repeated time and again, they are right, it blows their assurances of MMR not causing ADS / Autism out of the water.You previously commented:
‘..Additionally, you’re pretending to scientific expertise that you do not possess. There is absolutely no way that someone who was utterly naive about Dane Wigington’s hoax with the stroboscopic effect has the background knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to interpret the significance of that paper.
And I do not believe that you are being openly honest with me. You wrote:– “It’s on the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) website; as you will note, I gave the link where I found it above.
There are 6.2 million papers in that library, PubMed Central. You just “found” it there, did you? I don’t believe you. So again I’m asking you to be honest, and to get down off your high horse and treat me as your equal…’
You have referred to ‘..Dane Wigington’s hoax with the stroboscopic effect..’ before, and I replied then that I had no idea what you were talking about. I still don’t; I’ve never even heard about it, except from you.
‘…There are 6.2 million papers in that library, PubMed Central. You just “found” it there, did you? I don’t believe you. So again I’m asking you to be honest, and to get down off your high horse and treat me as your equal…’
I ‘just found it there’ by following other links, as I generally do.
‘..I don’t believe you. So again I’m asking you to be honest, and to get down off your high horse and treat me as your equal…’
If I wrote that sort of unjustified ad hominem crap, I’m sure my comment would be deleted.
You make me out a liar, from your unjustified assumptions that I was trying to mislead you.I really would like your opinion (or Dr. Edd’s) of the ‘..over 69%..’ papers.
Looks like it might be the ‘smoking gun’.“Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors have been involved in vaccine/biologic litigation. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”But also when you look at this ‘smoking gun’ you find that they quote 16 studies. None of those studies have any statistical power to answer the question asked. The highest study examined 47 cases with 25 controls. Not only not sufficiently powered but also skewed. Of the sixteen studies 13 have 20 or less subjects, and only two have 47 subjects. Two studies are only observational. I wonder how this paper got accepted.
Then let us look at this
“RETRACTED ARTICLE: Systematic Assessment of Research on Autism Spectrum Disorder and Mercury Reveals Conflicts of Interest and the Need for Transparency in Autism Research “ with these authors:
Janet K Kern 1 , David A Geier 2 , Richard C Deth 3 , Lisa K Sykes 4 , Brian S Hooker 5 , James M Love 4 , Geir Bjørklund 6 , Carmen G Chaigneau 4 , Boyd E Haley 7 , Mark R Geier 2
The reason for the retraction is probably because of conflict of interest!
And finally, the grand titled “Institute of Chronic Illnesses, Inc.”
This institute has three employees and Mark Geier is the director and a budget of about $9000 dollars.– “Now I know that there are oodles of papers out there saying that, but their are Big Pharma and their $billions who fund most of the studies one way or another.”
So you approve of scientific evidence when it confirms your existing faith, but straight back to conspiracy theory when scientific evidence goes against it.
Huh.
– “The fact that you are studiously ignoring that obvious point indicates it has greatly surprised you, and you have no adequate response, apart from ‘showering me with papers that conclude MMR can’t cause ADS or Autism’”
I am surprised neither one way nor the other, because I realise I’m no specialist in either brain inflammation or autism. But neither are YOU, Paul. In fact you have not demonstrated any ability to reason scientifically at all. Instead you work a ratchet – cherry-picked science that advances your goal, and conspiracy theory “big pharma fund lots of stuff” when the science points the other way. With dogged application of this technique anyone and “prove” anything. It’s exactly what Professor Patrick Holford was exposed as doing in Bad Science.
OK there is probably some evidence that neuroinflammation has a role to play in some psychiatric disorder but this does not mean that
1. We know how to treat these disorders with anti-inflammatory drugs but are not doing so.
2. That because in rare cases vaccines cause encephalitis, that autism is caused mainly by vaccines.In fact there it is much more likely that absence of vaccines predisposing to maternal infection with these common viruses is actually more likely to lead to foetal neuroinflammation. It is of course well known that rubella (german measles) can cause serious foetal damage in pregnant women oftenl leading to miscarriage. Catholic bishops should be up in arms encouraging women of child bearing age to be vaccinated.
SA, be fair; it’s a review paper, summarising the research of I think six other papers.
I advise against “conflict of interest” approach, because that’s the same technique as conspiracy theory. Always look at evidence rather than scientists. Something’s amiss here, and we don’t know what it is yet. But the evidence and reasoning are to be found, somewhere.
As we all in here probably know, not all science is the absolute truth, and papers do get published that perhaps shouldn’t and I am sure ‘Bad Science’ addresses this question. Findings are confirmed AND REFUTED OR RETRACTED But the formula that Paul uses is simple:
Pick a scientific paper that I agree with and believe blindly in everything the paper I agree with says. The rest is all big pharma lies.
