Study Shows Vaxxed Kids Have Greater Risk Of Autism

[DeluxAuto]

Anyone here consider the CDC a good authority?

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

Sometimes you surprise me when you're not being a lame troll.

 

[Politruk]

So you manged to figure it out on your ownsies after all...

What I've figured out is that this is not a "peer-reviewed study."

Peer review works like this:

https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/f/f4/Peer_review.png/300px-Peer_review.png

What peer review is not[edit]​

Many people think that the process of peer review is meant to settle the actual validity of the work and that in any paper that has passed peer review, the science is entirely correct. This is not the case. Peer review is an "entry-level" sort of test that weeds out the pseudoscience and obviously bad work but is not intended to be a catch-all for outright fraud or experimental error — reviewers simply challenge the rigor by which scientists are reporting their own work or challenge their conclusions if they haven't successfully eliminated competing hypotheses. Often enough, the demand for the right data and better conclusions made by reviewers is more than enough to ensure the work is valid enough, as the process is about making sure everything is submitted and out in the open with nothing hidden. Due to this, direct replication and validation aren't usually a priority or even a necessity for peer review.

There are a few exceptions. For example, the American Chemistry Society won't accept computational chemistry papers unless the results have been verified. This is because taking parameters from a paper's supplemental material and running it on a computer for a few hours is practical; rigorously replicating experiments that may have taken months to get right and require specialized and bespoke equipment is not.

Passing peer review and publication is indicative that (by the standards of the journal in question) the science is thorough, there are no glaring omissions, and the interpretation of the results presented is at least plausible, but this does not cement the science. Further publications and research can then use the data contained in the paper, and its conclusions can be amended (in worst-case scenarios, retracted) in later publications.[15]

To make a legal analogy, if it is erroneously assumed that the peer review process is like a trial (the case is either proven true or dismissed), the actual process is more like an arraignment, only verifying that the case has enough merit to be heard. Indeed the "trial" part of scientific work is an ongoing and continuous process as other scientists cite the paper or attempt to replicate or use it in their own work.

It is also worth noting who those "peers" may be, as practitioners of pseudoscience might form a circle of pseudoscientists who start a pseudoscientific journal. It isn't the support of a claim that makes it true; it's the honest attempts to disprove a claim through experimentation that solidifies it.

 

[HisArpy]

What I've figured out is that this is not a "peer-reviewed study."

Peer review works like this:

https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/f/f4/Peer_review.png/300px-Peer_review.png

What peer review is not[edit]​

Many people think that the process of peer review is meant to settle the actual validity of the work and that in any paper that has passed peer review, the science is entirely correct. This is not the case. Peer review is an "entry-level" sort of test that weeds out the pseudoscience and obviously bad work but is not intended to be a catch-all for outright fraud or experimental error — reviewers simply challenge the rigor by which scientists are reporting their own work or challenge their conclusions if they haven't successfully eliminated competing hypotheses. Often enough, the demand for the right data and better conclusions made by reviewers is more than enough to ensure the work is valid enough, as the process is about making sure everything is submitted and out in the open with nothing hidden. Due to this, direct replication and validation aren't usually a priority or even a necessity for peer review.

There are a few exceptions. For example, the American Chemistry Society won't accept computational chemistry papers unless the results have been verified. This is because taking parameters from a paper's supplemental material and running it on a computer for a few hours is practical; rigorously replicating experiments that may have taken months to get right and require specialized and bespoke equipment is not.

Passing peer review and publication is indicative that (by the standards of the journal in question) the science is thorough, there are no glaring omissions, and the interpretation of the results presented is at least plausible, but this does not cement the science. Further publications and research can then use the data contained in the paper, and its conclusions can be amended (in worst-case scenarios, retracted) in later publications.[15]

To make a legal analogy, if it is erroneously assumed that the peer review process is like a trial (the case is either proven true or dismissed), the actual process is more like an arraignment, only verifying that the case has enough merit to be heard. Indeed the "trial" part of scientific work is an ongoing and continuous process as other scientists cite the paper or attempt to replicate or use it in their own work.

It is also worth noting who those "peers" may be, as practitioners of pseudoscience might form a circle of pseudoscientists who start a pseudoscientific journal. It isn't the support of a claim that makes it true; it's the honest attempts to disprove a claim through experimentation that solidifies it.

Seems to me that you've already tried that angle and proved yourself wrong. Twice now.

 

[Politruk]

Seems to me that you've already tried that angle and proved yourself wrong. Twice now.

I haven't ever been proven wrong in this thread. The article linked in the OP lies in calling this a "peer-reviewed study." It has never been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 

[HisArpy]

I haven't ever been proven wrong in this thread. The article linked in the OP lies in calling this a "peer-reviewed study." It has never been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.

You've shoved your foot into your own mouth so many times in this thread that you're reduced to using your laces for floss.

 

[jomar]

Has Jenny McCarthy been mentioned? She’s down with vaccines causing autism. Raise your hand if you’d do her anyway.

 

[Rightguide]

Might as well report this news as well:

Norway Sounds Alarm as Scientists Link Covid ‘Vaccines’ to Global Death Surge​

Frank BergmanFebruary 6, 2025 - 12:58 pm

A group of leading scientists in Norway is sounding the alarm after a major study of international mortality data linked Covid mRNA “vaccines” to a global surge in excess deaths.

While the link between deaths are Covid shots may not be new, the researchers also found that previous studies showing high mortality rates among the unvaccinated had selectively used unhealthy cohorts.

The team behind the study was led by Professor Jarle Aarstad of the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences.

The study analyzed the UK government’s official Office for National Statistics (ONS) data for all-cause mortality among Covid-vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens ten years and older.

More here:https://slaynews.com/news/norway-sounds-alarm-scientists-link-covid-vaccines-global-death-surge/

Now let Rob rave on and fulfill our expectations of the coming meltdown.

 

[Politruk]

Might as well report this news as well:

Norway Sounds Alarm as Scientists Link Covid ‘Vaccines’ to Global Death Surge​

Frank BergmanFebruary 6, 2025 - 12:58 pm

A group of leading scientists in Norway is sounding the alarm after a major study of international mortality data linked Covid mRNA “vaccines” to a global surge in excess deaths.

While the link between deaths are Covid shots may not be new, the researchers also found that previous studies showing high mortality rates among the unvaccinated had selectively used unhealthy cohorts.

The team behind the study was led by Professor Jarle Aarstad of the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences.

The study analyzed the UK government’s official Office for National Statistics (ONS) data for all-cause mortality among Covid-vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens ten years and older.

More here:https://slaynews.com/news/norway-sounds-alarm-scientists-link-covid-vaccines-global-death-surge/

Now let Rob rave on and fulfill our expectations of the coming meltdown.

Judging by the welcome page at slay.com, it is nothing to be taken seriously.

 

[Politruk]

You've shoved your foot into your own mouth so many times in this thread that you're reduced to using your laces for floss.

I have made no mistakes whatsoever in this thread.

 

[ll74]

Might as well report this news as well:

Norway Sounds Alarm as Scientists Link Covid ‘Vaccines’ to Global Death Surge​

Frank BergmanFebruary 6, 2025 - 12:58 pm

A group of leading scientists in Norway is sounding the alarm after a major study of international mortality data linked Covid mRNA “vaccines” to a global surge in excess deaths.

While the link between deaths are Covid shots may not be new, the researchers also found that previous studies showing high mortality rates among the unvaccinated had selectively used unhealthy cohorts.

The team behind the study was led by Professor Jarle Aarstad of the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences.

The study analyzed the UK government’s official Office for National Statistics (ONS) data for all-cause mortality among Covid-vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens ten years and older.

More here:https://slaynews.com/news/norway-sounds-alarm-scientists-link-covid-vaccines-global-death-surge/

Now let Rob rave on and fulfill our expectations of the coming meltdown.

another covid vaccine post.

Neat!

From this study

Results​

First, I found that all-cause mortality among COVID-19 unvaccinated was higher than among vaccinated.

 

[Rightguide]

Judging by the welcome page at slay.com, it is nothing to be taken seriously.

Yes always attack the source and not the subject, it's the creed of the academically disadvantaged in defense of their fanciful sacred cows.

 

[ll74]

Yes always attack the source and not the subject, it's the creed of the academically disadvantaged in defense of their fanciful sacred cows.

To be fair, Slay is shit.

But yes, the content of the study also doesn't say what you think it is saying. It never does because you believe what people tell you rather than read what the study says.

 

[Politruk]

Yes always attack the source and not the subject, it's the creed of the academically disadvantaged in defense of their fanciful sacred cows.

The most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger.

 

[dolf]

If only a simple injection could make you all as awesome as I am...

 

[Lance_Castro]

If only a simple injection could make you all as awesome as I am...

I agree; injecting you would be awesome.

 

[Rightguide]

If only a simple injection could make you all as awesome as I am...

Yours is the call for an undying spring, a siren song luring us to reclaim the lost vigor of youth, to dance once more in the radiant glow of boundless possibility, untouched by the steady march of years. But then here I am, the epitome of youthful vigor in a middle-aged body.

 

[HisArpy]

Will you be sending flowers?

Lol

And a piece of my heart to go with.

 

[Rightguide]

Will you be sending flowers?

Lol

Just my respect and good wishes for a happy life.

 

[y=mx+b]

Isn't Elon Muskkk autistic? You rightwing dipshits should be rejoicing they found a fast track way for you all to increase your population and forcing your pregnant tradwives to get the jab throughout each trimester of their pregnancies

 

[Lance_Castro]

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

RightGuard is Kanye West.

View attachment 2487375

 

[AlexBailey]

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."

If you had the mental capacity to think critically you would have found why the headline is misleading.

A detail in the Methods of the study includes:

“Vaccination uptake was measured by numbers of healthcare visits that included vaccination-related procedures and diagnoses.”

The statistics are not based on number or type of vaccines a child was given, nor was any measure considered as to whether children who, according to the study, received less health care and presumably fewer vaccinations may have more undiagnosed conditions.


The findings of the study can also be said to prove that children who receive less health care may have more illnesses that go without diagnosis.

It’s the Trump theory: If you stop testing, there will be less reported disease. Meanwhile diseases can continue affecting the population without drawing concern.

 

[AlexBailey]

Notice how the headline of the article Rightguide quoted does not reflect the title of the peer reviewed study?

Spin, spin, spin.

 

[Chernosoth]

RFK explained it in some video I won't bother to find now because this will come up again: traditional vaccines, not the new mRNA stuff, work by combining the virus with the most toxic substance the scientists could find, a mercury compound, so the body associates the toxin with the virus. They claim it's safe because the mercury does not show in blood tests. It accumulates in the brain. The only way to detect that accumulation is an autopsy. Coroners don't do that because they only want the cause of death, not the cause of autism. Some scientist confirmed the brain accumulation by injecting and autopsying monkeys. But those old toxic vaccines are still much safer than the deadly mRNA shots.

RFK's interest in this topic started when he was an environmental attorney with mercury in fish lawsuits. Women with damaged kids attended all his speeches and badgered him into reading the information they gathered, because he was the only attorney they could find with any interest in the effects of mercury on child developtment. And then his interest became more personal, when he discovered his spasmodic dysphonia listed as a side effect of a flu shot he had 20 years previously.

 

[AlexBailey]

RFK explained it in some video I won't bother to find now because this will come up again: traditional vaccines, not the new mRNA stuff, work by combining the virus with the most toxic substance the scientists could find, a mercury compound, so the body associates the toxin with the virus. They claim it's safe because the mercury does not show in blood tests. It accumulates in the brain. The only way to detect that accumulation is an autopsy. Coroners don't do that because they only want the cause of death, not the cause of autism. Some scientist confirmed the brain accumulation by injecting and autopsying monkeys. But those old toxic vaccines are still much safer than the deadly mRNA shots.

RFK's interest in this topic started when he was an environmental attorney with mercury in fish lawsuits. Women with damaged kids attended all his speeches and badgered him into reading the information they gathered, because he was the only attorney they could find with any interest in the effects of mercury on child developtment. And then his interest became more personal, when he discovered his spasmodic dysphonia listed as a side effect of a flu shot he had 20 years previously.

Thimerosal was never used as an active or therapeutic ingredient in vaccines. It was only ever a preservative, particularly in multi-dose vials. Any info source that claims it was used as active ingredient is pseudoscience. NO scientific evidence has found it to be associated with autism or other health risks.

I had concerns about it when my children were young, particularly when my oldest had a high fever after receiving a vaccination cocktail at his first doctor visit. He was later tested and to have an egg allergy - eggs were commonly used in the production of many vaccines, especially viral ones.

We ordered thimerosal-free and egg-free vaccines for all of our kids after that. Other options are widely available except in some seasonal flu vaccines.

 

[jhenry922]

‘Jaw-dropping’ Study Finds Vaccinated Children Have 170% Higher Risk of Autism​

AdministratorPosted onFebruary 4, 2025CategoriesEconomy, Politics, Social IssuesTagschildhood vaccines cause autism

The peer-reviewed study also found that vaccinated children had a 212% greater likelihood of developing other neurodevelopmental disorders, including ADHD, epilepsy/seizures, brain inflammation and tic and learning disorders.

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

The study also found that vaccinated children had a 212% greater likelihood of developing a range of other neurodevelopmental disorders, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy/seizures, brain inflammation and tic and learning disorders.

According to the study, the childhood vaccination schedule is likely a significant contributor to the higher rate of autism and neurodevelopmental conditions in vaccinated children.

https://www.theburningplatform.com/...ated-children-have-170-higher-risk-of-autism/

Here we go again.

Yes because they live long enough to survive childhood period