Study Shows Vaxxed Kids Have Greater Risk Of Autism

[TastySuckToy]

Here we go again.​

Here's a few key studies investigating vaccines and autism:

1. Jain et al. (2015) - JAMA
- Study Size: 95,727 children
- Method: Analyzed vaccination records and autism diagnoses
- Result: No increased autism risk for MMR vaccine
- Conclusion: No association between vaccination and autism risk
- Source: JAMA, Vol. 313, No. 15

2. Hviid et al. (2019) - Annals of Internal Medicine
- Study Size: 657,461 Danish children
- Method: Nationwide cohort study tracking vaccination and autism diagnoses
- Result: No link between MMR vaccine and autism
- Conclusion: Vaccine does not increase autism risk
- Source: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 170, No. 8

3. Taylor et al. (2014) - Cochrane Systematic Review
- Study Size: Multiple studies meta-analyzed
- Method: Systematic review of available research
- Result: No credible evidence linking vaccines to autism
- Conclusion: Vaccines are safe regarding autism risk
- Source: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

4. CDC Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Study (2013)
- Study Size: Multiple regional cohorts
- Method: Longitudinal tracking of developmental outcomes
- Result: No statistically significant correlation between vaccination and autism
- Conclusion: Supports vaccine safety
- Source: CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

5. Uno et al. (2015) - Vaccine
- Study Size: 7,930 children
- Method: Analyzed vaccination timing and autism diagnosis
- Result: No relationship between vaccine timing and autism onset
- Conclusion: Vaccine schedules do not trigger autism
- Source: Vaccine, Vol. 33, No. 21

These studies consistently demonstrate no causal link between vaccines and autism, representing the current scientific consensus.

I don't think any one study claiming the opposite of multiple others is a particularly strong argument.

 

[schism666]

I think the thing we're missing here is that Reichy is autistic and so he's looking for answers

vetteman comes here to be educated. it's why most of his threads end with question marks.

 

[rainsol]

Vaccinations don't cause autism.

You're a fucking idiot.

Thanks Dr. No

 

[schism666]

Oh look, the Unserious Science demographic is back for yet another swing at re-litigating the widely discredit "vaccines cause autism" pseudoscience.

Vetteman even found a proper Unserious Science website to promote these "peer reviewed findings".
(The propaganda website devotes itself to two major themes: "Ivermectin Cures All, No Really It Does!" and "RFK Jr Will Save Us, Really He Will!".

No Vetteman. Just no.

"Vaccines cause autism, and THIS time we mean it, because we have NEW and IMPROVED 'peer reviewed research'"

You've had years to try to convince us that vaccines are somehow not "safe", and your overheated "research" doesn't correlate to real-world results:

• Vaccines are safe
• mRna vaccines are especially safe, and are the "new norm"
• Vaccines do NOT cause autism
• Ivermectin is still horse paste parasite de-wormer and advocates of "Ivermectin therapy" are far outside of the scientific mainstream
• Science trumps religious faith

Deal with it. Or don't...I don't care. Nobody is buying "faith-based cures" any longer.

The research you present is garbage. The fact that you feel it is important enough to start a thread here about it shows your political bias and how unserious you are with regard to science.

p.s. the "startling NEW findings" that your website was promoting last month are bogus as well. "Science shows wearing masks actually HURT children, not HELP them!"

bobby, this is just mean.

 

[Rightguide]

Your understanding of peer reviewed studies is only as far as the article tells you. You still think Ivermectin cures covid.

Fucking idiot...

So. is this statement in error, if so how?


"Vaccinated children have a 170% higher chance of being diagnosed with autism compared to unvaccinated children, according to a new peer-reviewed study."

 

[ll74]

Thanks Dr. No

I'd suggest you talk to you doctor, but I don't know if Alex Jones takes your calls.

 

[ll74]

So. is this statement in error, if so how?


"Vaccinated children have a 170% higher chance of being diagnosed with autism compared to unvaccinated children, according to a new peer-reviewed study."

Nothing in that statement is the same as saying " vaccines cause autism"

 

[Rightguide]

Here's a few key studies investigating vaccines and autism:

1. Jain et al. (2015) - JAMA
- Study Size: 95,727 children
- Method: Analyzed vaccination records and autism diagnoses
- Result: No increased autism risk for MMR vaccine
- Conclusion: No association between vaccination and autism risk
- Source: JAMA, Vol. 313, No. 15

2. Hviid et al. (2019) - Annals of Internal Medicine
- Study Size: 657,461 Danish children
- Method: Nationwide cohort study tracking vaccination and autism diagnoses
- Result: No link between MMR vaccine and autism
- Conclusion: Vaccine does not increase autism risk
- Source: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 170, No. 8

3. Taylor et al. (2014) - Cochrane Systematic Review
- Study Size: Multiple studies meta-analyzed
- Method: Systematic review of available research
- Result: No credible evidence linking vaccines to autism
- Conclusion: Vaccines are safe regarding autism risk
- Source: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

4. CDC Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Study (2013)
- Study Size: Multiple regional cohorts
- Method: Longitudinal tracking of developmental outcomes
- Result: No statistically significant correlation between vaccination and autism
- Conclusion: Supports vaccine safety
- Source: CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

5. Uno et al. (2015) - Vaccine
- Study Size: 7,930 children
- Method: Analyzed vaccination timing and autism diagnosis
- Result: No relationship between vaccine timing and autism onset
- Conclusion: Vaccine schedules do not trigger autism
- Source: Vaccine, Vol. 33, No. 21

These studies consistently demonstrate no causal link between vaccines and autism, representing the current scientific consensus.

I don't think any one study claiming the opposite of multiple others is a particularly strong argument.

So in what way is this statement in error?


"Vaccinated children have a 170% higher chance of being diagnosed with autism compared to unvaccinated children, according to a new peer-reviewed study."

 

[RobDownSouth]

Check the link before you call anyone an idiot on this subject:

https://publichealthpolicyjournal.c...-nine-year-old-children-enrolled-in-medicaid/

The demographics chosen and the standards applied are gold-plated cherry picking.

"Research" was limited to Florida Medicaid recipients. Why? Because it was freely available online.

Medicaid recipients are by definition the poorest segment of society, and pre-natal care for women in Florida is particularly lacking for poorer women.

The racial demographic is clearly skewed towards women of African American descent by an overwhelming margin so we're making general claims for the general population based on research conducted on poor minorities with less access to pre-natal care. And to further skew the research "findings", let's further cherry pick and limit our "research" to premature deliveries (which occur, sadly, much more frequently in populations with less income).

Now let's look at the startling "findings".....vaccinated 5 year olds who were born prematurely are much more likely to be diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders than unvaccinated 5 year olds who were born prematurely!

Shocking.

No really.

<insert Nicolas Cage "You Don't Say!" meme here>

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that a poor family who doesn't have the interest in ensuring quality post-natal care for their new family members (i.e. forgoing vaccinations, which are free for Florida Medicaid recipients) also lacks the motivation to seek medical intervention for some unspecified "neurological disorder" when their child is 5 years old. (to put it crudely in terms you might understand from your own childhood: "I have bills to pay, I can't afford to miss to take that kid to the doctor just because he's still drooling and pissing his pants. He's just slow!")

Take that Unserious Science elsewhere Vetteman. Nobody is buying what you're selling. Again.

 

[rainsol]

Nothing in that statement is the same as saying " vaccines cause autism"

Nothing says it doesnt except these left wing forums

 

[ll74]

Nothing says it doesnt

Lol...the funniest part of that is that you're correct and you don't even understand what that demonstrates.

 

[Rightguide]

Nothing in that statement is the same as saying " vaccines cause autism"

Nothing in the title says that. I didn't say that either; you claimed I said that without any evidence. The statement said, "Children Have 170% Higher Risk."

 

[HisArpy]

So. is this statement in error, if so how?


"Vaccinated children have a 170% higher chance of being diagnosed with autism compared to unvaccinated children, according to a new peer-reviewed study."

My issue with this is 2-fold.

As the population increases, there will be more kids diagnosed with this disease. Higher total numbers if you will.

As time moves onward, kids will continue to be vaccinated. At the current rate of population replacement this keeps the vax numbers climbing but slowly.

When you compare the 2 what you soon realize is that a higher number of children with the disease will skew the percentages in the vax/autism counts. This makes it appear that the vax is the cause when it's more likely that the diagnosis is more widely applied (less stigma, easier access to medical care, etc) to a relatively stable vaccination "population."

 

[ll74]

Nothing in the title says that. I didn't say that either; you claimed I said that without any evidence. The statement said, "Children Have 170% Higher Risk."

No, that is not what it says. The study showed that vaccinated children in the study had a 170% higher risk of being diagnosed with autism.

You have filled in the blanks based on your biases.

Nothing in that study process that vaccines lead to autism.

There is no evidence that autism is associated with vaccines....even with this study included.

And that is why you thinking you understand studies like this is fucking hilarious. You make conclusions that are due to your understanding rather than the studies' conclusions. And you seek out shitty analysis that supports your perspectives from random Internet sites like this because it's important to you to try to sell your ignorant narrative.

 

[TastySuckToy]

So in what way is this statement in error?


"Vaccinated children have a 170% higher chance of being diagnosed with autism compared to unvaccinated children, according to a new peer-reviewed study."

Vaccinated children have a much higher statistical probability of helicopter/overprotective parents, who overly sterilize their children's interactions with the world. For example, heavy users of anti-bacterial soap, and vegan lifestyles who claim things like meat/animal products are bad for health, rather than concentrated sources of nutrients and vitamins, like B12.

This compromises developing children's immune systems and introduces severe deficiencies, as their bodies are not properly exposed to assorted pathogens that are needed to strengthen their immune systems, especially in early formative years of development.

This leaves them much more vulnerable to development issues like autism.

 

[ll74]

JFC, your brain actually works like this....lmao

 

[Rightguide]

My issue with this is 2-fold.

As the population increases, there will be more kids diagnosed with this disease. Higher total numbers if you will.

As time moves onward, kids will continue to be vaccinated. At the current rate of population replacement this keeps the vax numbers climbing but slowly.

When you compare the 2 what you soon realize is that a higher number of children with the disease will skew the percentages in the vax/autism counts. This makes it appear that the vax is the cause when it's more likely that the diagnosis is more widely applied (less stigma, easier access to medical care, etc) to a relatively stable vaccination "population."

It could very well be. I don't know. All I said in the beginning was, "here we go again" (another vaccine argument). I knew it would be trigger time for the usual suspects. It is true that a number of people have put their imprimatur on the statement that the huge increase is associated with vaccines. I'm not a scientist. Vaccines are a controversial subject so I put it up for discussion. The usual suspects left their microscopes, tore off their white lab coats to rush into the public square to call me a heretic.

 

[Rightguide]

JFC, your brain actually works like this....lmao

JFC?

 

[Rightguide]

The demographics chosen and the standards applied are gold-plated cherry picking.

"Research" was limited to Florida Medicaid recipients. Why? Because it was freely available online.

Medicaid recipients are by definition the poorest segment of society, and pre-natal care for women in Florida is particularly lacking for poorer women.

The racial demographic is clearly skewed towards women of African American descent by an overwhelming margin so we're making general claims for the general population based on research conducted on poor minorities with less access to pre-natal care. And to further skew the research "findings", let's further cherry pick and limit our "research" to premature deliveries (which occur, sadly, much more frequently in populations with less income).

Now let's look at the startling "findings".....vaccinated 5 year olds who were born prematurely are much more likely to be diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders than unvaccinated 5 year olds who were born prematurely!

Shocking.

No really.

<insert Nicolas Cage "You Don't Say!" meme here>

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that a poor family who doesn't have the interest in ensuring quality post-natal care for their new family members (i.e. forgoing vaccinations, which are free for Florida Medicaid recipients) also lacks the motivation to seek medical intervention for some unspecified "neurological disorder" when their child is 5 years old. (to put it crudely in terms you might understand from your own childhood: "I have bills to pay, I can't afford to miss to take that kid to the doctor just because he's still drooling and pissing his pants. He's just slow!")

Take that Unserious Science elsewhere Vetteman. Nobody is buying what you're selling. Again.

Fuck off and die with your hallucinatory vettman bullshit.

 

[RobDownSouth]

My issue with this is 2-fold.

As the population increases, there will be more kids diagnosed with this disease. Higher total numbers if you will.

As time moves onward, kids will continue to be vaccinated. At the current rate of population replacement this keeps the vax numbers climbing but slowly.

When you compare the 2 what you soon realize is that a higher number of children with the disease will skew the percentages in the vax/autism counts. This makes it appear that the vax is the cause when it's more likely that the diagnosis is more widely applied (less stigma, easier access to medical care, etc) to a relatively stable vaccination "population."

Bingo!
The research also doesn't account for multi-variable variations.

They divide the kids into two groups:

• Children who have had at least one vaccination (WHICH vaccination is "irrelevant", a child could have anywhere between 1 and 99 vaccinations and be included in this group
• Children who have never had a vaccination

The multi-variate groups above are then compared against multi-variate OUTCOMES, i.e.

• Children who have one or more diagnoses of something on the list of "NDD" disorders
• Children who have never been diagnosed with ANY form "NDD" of disorders.

This is Unserious Science at its finest and cannot possibly be replicated.

It's one thing to say that "My research shows that the MMR vaccine results in an increase in XYZ Neurological disorder".

Claiming to have proven that any random vaccination injection may statistically result in an increase in diagnosis of a random list of neurlogical deficit disorders is a perversion of the Scientific Method.

It is Unserious Science at its finest.

 

[ll74]

JFC?

Yah, probably look that one up

 

[RobDownSouth]

Fuck off and die with your hallucinatory vettman bullshit.

Unserious reply, vetteman. Tsk.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yah, probably look that one up

Google wasn't much help "What is JFC abbreviation? Jeorgia Fried Chicken?"

 

[HisArpy]

It could very well be. I don't know. All I said in the beginning was, "here we go again" (another vaccine argument). I knew it would be trigger time for the usual suspects. It is true that a number of people have put their imprimatur on the statement that the huge increase is associated with vaccines. I'm not a scientist. Vaccines are a controversial subject so I put it up for discussion. The usual suspects left their microscopes, tore off their white lab coats to rush into the public square to call me a heretic.

They are in universal denial mode. For them, everything/anything you say is automatically "wrong."

They are a waste of oxygen.

 

[PhoenixRyzing]

https://i.imgur.com/8QTaNkU.jpeg