CDC Cover-up?

Post Reply New Topic

?If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings.?

--Leonardo da Vinci

?Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you?re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.?

--Mahatma Gandhi

"It amounts to a diseased attitude -- a conditioned reflex that shunts aside the independence of your minds whenever it is a question of opposing authority. [...] And that's wrong don't you see?"

--Isaac Asimov, Foundation

1st quote: you aren't citing your own experience
2nd quote: You are citing something that has not been established to be fact.

I will address the first two with the next paragraph:
The two of you have taken a conversation that was intellectually stimulating and ground it to a halt by presenting one study that is questionable and one that has been discredited and insisting that they are fact; presenting anecdotes as "scientific evidence"; engaging in ad hominem attacks; engaging in wild speculation; insisting that outright falsehoods were fact; a statement that the scientific method isn't "as sterile as you seem to thing it is" - i.e. that anecdotes have a place as evidence; and insulting the intelligence of anyone that expressed an opinion or facts that ran counter to your narrative.

Your third quote is from science fiction, but I will address it anyway:
For the record... I have read, cover to cover, over 1200 studies on the subject of the "link" between vaccines and autism. I have delved into their experimental methodologies, reasoning and conclusions. I have spoken to roughly 250 psychiatric professionals about their perceptions, experience and findings about our condition. I do not, nor have I ever taken the word of "authority". I am a social anarchist philosophically and have a deep running distrust of government and authority. I have read, researched, experienced, and drawn my own conclusions...

but if we take your quote to an illogical conclusion (which is what seems has happened during this entire conversation): "It amounts to a diseased attitude -- a conditioned reflex that shunts aside the independence of your minds whenever it is a question of opposing authority. "

I will cite one of the dictionary definitions of authority.
"an accepted source of information, advice, etc. - a quotation or citation from such a source."

You philosophically reject authority, and I suspect that you reject it in all its forms... including this definition. One form of authority is someone who has gained enough factual information to be a creditable and reliable source on the subject.

Lastly, out of curiosity, I wanted to test your hypothesis that Journals publish only papers they agree with... so I actually emailed 50 journals in the last few days... I've only received responses from 2 (hoping for more), but the two that I emailed disagree with your assertion. They state that they will publish any paper that is in their subject, is scientifically valid, has proper citation, has been peer reviewed and has not been retracted or discredited. The journals do not take any sides and present an unbiased position.

I don't want to debate it... I do not wish to argue, hold discourse, or discuss this. You can disagree with me at all turns, but your information is based on your biased opinion, and in no way based in science.

After engaging in argumentum verbosium - submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details ; onus probandi - I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false; confirmational bias - the tendency to favor information that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses and to ignore information that disagrees with one's point of view; cum hoc ergo propter hoc - a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other; suppressed correlative - where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible; equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning; causal oversimplification - it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes; contextomy - refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning; single authority - using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea; furtive fallacy - outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers; incomplete comparison - in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison; intentionality fallacy - the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated; proof by assertion - a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction, you have exhausted pretty much all of the logical fallacies that can be applied in this conversation (and this is not intended as a challenge to find more that you can apply).

My girlfriend summed this all up in one succinct sentence - "If you refuse to acknowledge scientific studies that are applicable to the conversation, then you cannot cite studies at all."

As you have written over and over and over and over and over. You can't help yourself, can you?

Please stick to your word. Please fulfill your promise. Please do what you have said you would do. Don't let your intentions turn into lies.

JONRAPPOPORT: "Here it is: how the US government admits vaccines cause autism" (September 7, 2014)
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/ ... use-autism

And again, you provide a falsehood... please find the word promise in anything I have written in this conversation. You won't... because i didn't...I admit, I wrote the things you are citing when I was angry... However, I made it clear that I was done arguing with you. I am still done arguing with you. I am not debating your sources, your interpretation of data or your understanding of the issues.

But a conversation about this thread convinced me that it was worth another try. And instead you choose ad hominem yet again. And this is why the anti-vaxxers are ridiculed.

LOL. The difference is, before, I was trying to hold a discourse on the subject... but since this thread is now a joke, I can enjoy it.

I offer you this challenge, aside from the two studies you cited ad nauseum... find me a few accredited and valid studies (not the abstracts of same) that the conclusion states a causal link between autism and vaccines. My reasoning for this is that I TRULY hope that is the case... that the cause is something as simple as you and riley have asserted it is. That would mean an end to autism... which would be a joyous occasion. When you can do that, I will rejoice.

At this point, what is needed, is a study that starts before birth and follows willing parents and their children through the process. Not processing data that has already been collected, but start at the beginning, and takes an in depth look at the issue comparing a control group (vaccinated) and the experimental group (unvaccinated) and compares the rates of incidences of autism, using the same diagnostic criteria for both (a single pool of diagnosticians) and the neruological scans to ascertain whether or not the neurological factors are present in those diagnosed. Until then, this debate will rage on ad infinitum between scientists and anti-vaxxers... and after that, it will still be ignored.

So... Do not tell me to stop responding unless you have been elevated to the level of moderator... it's not your place.

I enjoy your comments and don't want to see you leave angrily or otherwise, but your continuing written promises to stop yourself from debating or responding to this topic is annoying considering your apparent inability to actually do so.

second time I have stated this: I made NO promises. Go back, look, and find the word promise. You will not. I did not use it. This is another example of you misquoting. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Before, we were talking about the CDC whistleblower... Not doing that any more, so I did stay true to my words

Now, I am discussing your methodology and processing of the information. Different thing.

Since you ignore some things I will be citing this again and again... I did not promise, I did not use the word promise, you will not find it in the statements you cite. And before you get on the "I am done with you" statement... already discussed that, it was anger.

Get over it. You cannot shame me with citation of my own words... I admitted being in the wrong...

Don't wanna talk to me, don't respond to my words... As you stated, I don't think you can help yourself.

You are correct. You didn?t use the word ?promise? in your on-again, off-again refusals to continue with this topic:

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:26 pm...

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:44 am...

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:16 am...

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:37 am...

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:26 pm...

Pardon me for believing that your refusals were, nonetheless, quite strident and showed a degree of certitude that I mistook generically for your promises. Apparently, however, when you write that you "will not," "am not," "don't want to" and "do not wish to," your intent appears to be quite determined and unmistakeable to this reader.

Why does this topic disturb you? Certainly, I can't be the only Wrong Planet user who is believed to lie, exaggerate, mislead, obfuscate and deny, can I? My opinions might be as ludicrous as others and completely irrelevant or unfounded. But, why target MY words, MY opinions and MY claims (the First Amendment protection of free speech protects my words as much as yours), and not the others? I believe that my statements and questions clearly provoke you. Do you work for the pharmaceutical, medical or governmental industries who benefit by this topic being denied and gaslighted? If not, why your apparent anger with this topic and my statements within it? If it is simply to present your idea of truth, fine. But, why the apparent hostility and insults to me and others who disagree with your opinion? If our discussion within this topic so bothers you, maybe it would be best to avoid returning to it. Just a suggestion.

Yup. Discussed, explained and admitted to. Same response. Don't wanna talk to me, don't respond to me. Again, you can't shame me with my words. I owned up and admitted where I acted in anger... Which I feel is wrong.

I have addressed every one of your concerns in he thread. Why, because you make assertions that are flawed and I counter, with science. Go back, read... You started the insults. I responded poorly. If you do not see how your statements are insulting and how they provoke ... That is on you... Citation: your entire last post. I have done the research, and as such have a surety of my information.

I challenged you, instead you focus on this. Time to move on.

Fr the record, I don't care if it annoys you... Logical fallacies annoy me... And I don't live my life for your pleasure

I suspect it is an attempt to derail the topic. Why? There is a subset of autism culture that view autism as nothing less than an "evolutionary mutation" making them superior. The idea that some autism is caused from brain damage threatens this cult like belief system.. and those most severely effected by autism; the ones who are adults who cannot talk and are so disabled that they still wear nappies kind of disproves the autism=superior belief.

So again. The topic is CDC coverup. It would be nice instead of blatantly trying to derail it for their own ego's sake.

Riley: I offered the challenge. Go back and read it. The challenge is in topic. Accept it or don't, but disengage from as hominem attacks, and derailing under the guise of stating I am doing the same. Find a few studies whose conclusions support your stance. Otherwise, you are derailing. If you cannot move forward (which is the intent of the challenge), then the problem is not mine.

I posit that there are no discredited or spurious studies that will show a he vaccine autism link. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, it is smoke and mirrors. AspieUtah, while I feel his method was incorrect, went afield and beyond the two studies. It is not you thy is in question, it is th data. I challenge you to prove my stance wrong.

Agreed. I have written elsewhere on Wrong Planet that I see many expressions in the autistic-spectrum community that I have seen and studied among other emerging political and social groups. Many of the groups lunged from idea to idea testing the waters to determine whether what they believed about their status would be accepted by others within the groups. From separatism to radicalism, and finally to conventionalism, these groups appeared at first to have an overriding distrust of, and sense of superiority over, outsiders, and anyone or anything which resembles that of the outsiders was denigrated and resisted. Gandhi might not have applied his statement that "[f]irst they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" to developing internal group dynamics, but it seems to describe the matter to me. Most groups I have studied went through exactly the same emotions and opposition to integration of ideas and behaviors. Seeing the autistic-spectrum community with its most and least severe individuals (as well as various opinions, politics and desires) as a spectrum and not a bloc is apparently quite upsetting to some, in my opinion.

I am going to address the extraordinary mutation comment.

You are not familiar with my blog... Ou are also not familiar with my stance or opinion on this. I have received hate mail and even a death threat for my stance that autism is a disease.

Please refrain from commentary such as this as this is what I was referring to ad hominem attacks. I have addressed you personally on it, but I do not appreciate the personal attacks.

As for the topic, you cite the story and statements which run counter to repeated studies on the subject. At this point, my stance is and always has been,that anecdotes are not evidence. Without a study to back it up, the data collected in Atlanta is an anomaly.

Without further evidence, it remains that. I refer you again, to the challenge. I always bow to truth and fact. If you can find these things in support of your stance, please do.

My point on the Italian court ruling is that eyewitness accounts have convicted many people that were then exonerated by DNA evidence. Eyewitnesses are often wrong. And courts have little grasp of science. Therefor a court opinion has no impact on scientific fact. The Galileo court case is a prime example.

Accept the challenge or not, I provided you with 107 studies, I have found 1200+ online. None of them state that there is a causative link between vaccines and autism... Find us some. Because if your stance is correct, I want vaccines outlawed.

And I suck at typing on my iphone

Further information on the "court finds hat vaccines cause autism" story.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillin ... cine-link/

Interpreting scientific research results works like this: Specific result needs to pop up again and again and again to be considered close to the truth, eggspecially if the result is about something as mechanistically ill-defined as autism causation. A single significant finding a single time means not much, while the same significant finding multiple times means something. Just this summer, I had a problem with some data that some people turned into nonsense by processing it wrong, and that resulted in a p ~ 0.003 significant correlation of absolute nonsense.

I didn't read this whole thread, but I just need to post this about how science research works.