Opinion RFK calls for retraction of Danish vaccine study

[Brampton_Boy]

Don’t answer questions just inject the aluminum into babies

As someone who conducts large scale studies, longitudinal studies rarely have a control group (particularly when the topic you are examining has multiple confluencing variables). The latter is of particular importance - you are looking at healthcare outcomes over two decades. The number of variables (both known and unknown) that can impact the results are in the thousands. The goal of the study is inferential analysis, not causal analysis (the latter being impossible due to the lack of controls).

Once again, most time series studies do not have a control group (in the conventional sense).

 

[ShadowRun]

Don’t answer questions just inject the aluminum into babies

Don’t forgot those HEP vaccines don’t want babies catching that from having sex.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Its funny not one post objects to this critique because no honest person can. Just a thread full of insults. The reality is most studies have flaws but people make the epistemic leap of having unwarranted confidence in them, beyond even what the scientists conducting them would conclude. This has become a religion for many, relying on a "priest" class for their "truth", abdicating their own capacity for critical thinking.

All I got was laughing emojis.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Don’t forgot those HEP vaccines don’t want babies catching that from having sex.

Within 24 hours please

 

[ShadowRun]

Within 24 hours please

You antivax crazy man , how dare you I bet you assume the babies assigned sex too

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Lets start with a few simple questions Who has the burden of proof when a vaccine is introduced?

Proof of what exactly? Vaccine manufacturers bear the burden of proof to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. This is done through trials and regulatory review

Why do we feel justified in our knowledge of vaccines, to the point of speaking of them as matter of fact healthy, the same way we speak about physics or technlogies like computers?

Definitely not as exact as physics or mathematics. But through the trials and global peer reviewed research we can build a strong evidence base that we can draw from

We know biology is a different science with more variables and isnt a closed system. Why do we pretend that the risk analysis is suffiecient when it isnt?

First of all, what do you believe biologist do, and why don't you think it's sufficient?

 

[Islam Imamate]

All I got was laughing emojis.

Gonna just ignore this response?

As someone who conducts large scale studies, longitudinal studies rarely have a control group (particularly when the topic you are examining has multiple confluencing variables). The latter is of particular importance - you are looking at healthcare outcomes over two decades. The number of variables (both known and unknown) that can impact the results are in the thousands. The goal of the study is inferential analysis, not causal analysis (the latter being impossible due to the lack of controls).

Once again, most time series studies do not have a control group (in the conventional sense).

 

[Limbo Pete]

There is a clear methodology issue with this study.

This study does not include a truly unvaccinated control group, which limits its ability to completely rule out possible harms from aluminum additives. There is evidence to suggest aluminum builds up in the body and cross into the brain, creating big concerns about repeated exposure during early childhood. We need to be skeptical here.

RFK bless

Don’t answer questions just inject the aluminum into babies

With so many variables to account for like healthcare access, socioeconomic status etc. getting a consistent vaccinated vs unvaccinated group can be extremely difficult. Instead they compared children with different levels of aluminum exposure due to their vaccine schedule, this controls lifestyle factors more effectively. There's also an ethical dilemma of intentionally withholding proven protection from an infectious disease to children for a study. The natural variation method that the Danish study used avoided that.

Its funny not one post objects to this critique because no honest person can. Just a thread full of insults. The reality is most studies have flaws but people make the epistemic leap of having unwarranted confidence in them, beyond even what the scientists conducting them would conclude. This has become a religion for many, relying on a "priest" class for their "truth", abdicating their own capacity for critical thinking.

As someone who conducts large scale studies, longitudinal studies rarely have a control group (particularly when the topic you are examining has multiple confluencing variables). The latter is of particular importance - you are looking at healthcare outcomes over two decades. The number of variables (both known and unknown) that can impact the results are in the thousands. The goal of the study is inferential analysis, not causal analysis (the latter being impossible due to the lack of controls).

Once again, most time series studies do not have a control group (in the conventional sense).

All I got was laughing emojis.

Can't even be honest about what's happening in this very thread lol

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

All I got was laughing emojis.

I asked if you were also skeptical of RFK and his expertise on the subject and you didn't answer.

 

[Andy Capp]

Its funny not one post objects to this critique because no honest person can. Just a thread full of insults. The reality is most studies have flaws but people make the epistemic leap of having unwarranted confidence in them, beyond even what the scientists conducting them would conclude. This has become a religion for many, relying on a "priest" class for their "truth", abdicating their own capacity for critical thinking.

@Rob Battisti this is for both of you:


"Aluminum is found in numerous foods and beverages including fruits and vegetables, beer and wine, seasonings, flour, cereals, nuts, dairy products, baby formulas, and honey. Typically, adults ingest 7 to 9 milligrams of aluminum per day."

"The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life."

His critique is based upon bad information and isn't worth a fuck.

 

[Andy Capp]

All I got was laughing emojis.

Have you considered that's all you deserve for your entirely uniformed take on this issue?

 

[PurpleDrank]

Can't even be honest about what's happening in this very thread lol

The substantive post from Brampton Roy was done after my post. Thanks for contributing nothing.

 

[Rob Battisti]

@Rob Battisti this is for both of you:


"Aluminum is found in numerous foods and beverages including fruits and vegetables, beer and wine, seasonings, flour, cereals, nuts, dairy products, baby formulas, and honey. Typically, adults ingest 7 to 9 milligrams of aluminum per day."

"The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life."

His critique is based upon bad information and isn't worth a fuck.

Is there any difference between subcutaneous injection and digestion in the relation to holding on to aluminum or it passing between the brain barrier?

 

[PurpleDrank]

@Rob Battisti this is for both of you:


"Aluminum is found in numerous foods and beverages including fruits and vegetables, beer and wine, seasonings, flour, cereals, nuts, dairy products, baby formulas, and honey. Typically, adults ingest 7 to 9 milligrams of aluminum per day."

"The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life."

His critique is based upon bad information and isn't worth a fuck.

So the respomse is that its not bad because the poisoning is ubiquitous and continues?

 

[Limbo Pete]

The substantive post from Brampton Roy was done after my post. Thanks for contributing nothing.

Oh harumph! I say, good sir!

With so many variables to account for like healthcare access, socioeconomic status etc. getting a consistent vaccinated vs unvaccinated group can be extremely difficult. Instead they compared children with different levels of aluminum exposure due to their vaccine schedule, this controls lifestyle factors more effectively. There's also an ethical dilemma of intentionally withholding proven protection from an infectious disease to children for a study. The natural variation method that the Danish study used avoided that.

Its funny not one post objects to this critique because no honest person can. Just a thread full of insults. The reality is most studies have flaws but people make the epistemic leap of having unwarranted confidence in them, beyond even what the scientists conducting them would conclude. This has become a religion for many, relying on a "priest" class for their "truth", abdicating their own capacity for critical thinking.

....anyhoo

 

[PurpleDrank]

Proof of what exactly? Vaccine manufacturers bear the burden of proof to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. This is done through trials and regulatory review



Definitely not as exact as physics or mathematics. But through the trials and global peer reviewed research we can build a strong evidence base that we can draw from



First of all, what do you believe biologist do, and why don't you think it's sufficient?

They bear the burden but dont meet the standards sufficient for any mandate or any high degree of confidence, just epistemically. We can build an evidence base but we have to be brutally honest on the limitations which no on is. So in the Biology example, we know Biology is a complex system and an open system, that means millions of variables. We see the issue but we dont actually take it into seriously.

So when we get to this specific study and we see the flaws but we still see the way its spoke about and the conclusions taken from it, we have to be percise.

We cant say that from this study its justified to conclude aluminum in vaccines cause no harm. When causality wasnt even determined or looked at.

 

[Limbo Pete]

@Rod1 it's wild how the anti vax stuff pretty much ending up being the poster child for horseshoe theory

 

[PurpleDrank]

Oh harumph! I say, good sir!





....anyhoo

That objection is horsehit. Its basically saying we cant do adequate risk analysis for this ethical reason, ignoring the ethical implications of not doing so.

 

[Limbo Pete]

That objection is horsehit. Its basically saying we cant do adequate risk analysis for this ethical reason, ignoring the ethical implications of not doing so.

You said, and I'm quoting here:
"Its funny not one post objects to this critique because no honest person can. Just a thread full of insults"

And yet...

 

[PurpleDrank]

You said, and I'm quoting here:
"Its funny not one post objects to this critique because no honest person can. Just a thread full of insults"

And yet...

There was one objection and many more insults, do you deny that? You are a fucking moron btw