3 ms·

"The timing of diagnosis coinciding with vaccine delivery is pure coincidence." That is an assumption, not a "fact". "Furthermore, there very likely is a gene

by oblib 8y ago

"The timing of diagnosis coinciding with vaccine delivery is pure coincidence." That is an assumption, not a "fact". "Furthermore, there very likely is a genetic component." That is another assumption, but let's assume further for just a moment... If we do not fully understand the genetic component we cannot fully understand how that might be linked to triggering problems when children are vaccinated. Again, what we don't know is far greater than what we do know. It costs us nothing to keep that in mind (except fake karma points).

naasking 8y ago
> That is an assumption, not a "fact". Yeah, no. At this point it's absolutely a fact. > If we do not fully understand the genetic component we cannot fully understand how that might be linked to triggering problems when children are vaccinated This is not correct. Full understanding is not needed to conclude here exists no causal relationship.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  My whole post was that you can’t throw around absolutes while mocking people throwing around absolutes. Which is exactly what you are doing. You can practice science. You can’t “believe” in it. The only ‘facts’ here are that we don’t know what causes autism. It does not appear to be genetic as I understand it. It’s entirely possible that in some people it’s triggered during something that happens with the vaccine process. We just don’t know. It’s unlikely, it’s not a reason to withhold vaccines, but scientifically it’s not a fact to say vaccines definitely does or does not cause autism in some people. I’m sure that last sentience makes you mad, which again, is very unscientific. Try taking the absolutes out, and question everything including the big things.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > My whole post was that you can’t throw around absolutes while mocking people throwing around absolutes. Which is exactly what you are doing. No, I'm "mocking" people that "throw around" falsehoods. > The only ‘facts’ here are that we don’t know what causes autism. Incorrect. It's also a fact that it's not connected to vaccines. > It’s entirely possible that in some people it’s triggered during something that happens with the vaccine process. Nope, because then we'd see evidence of it. Which we don't, after hundreds of thousands of samples. Furthermore, analysis from the other direction have demonstrated that most of the "rise" in autism is due to better diagnostics. So we have here no observation of any connection between autism and vaccines, and from the other side the diagnostic changes have mostly been accounted for. Where do you think an alleged connection to vaccines would hide? Face it, vaccines do not cause autism. There is and never was any reason to connect the two, just like there is little reason to connect vaccines with lightning strikes.

by oblib 8y ago

naasking 8y ago

> That is an assumption, not a "fact". Yeah, no. At this point it's absolutely a fact. > If we do not fully understand the genetic component we cannot fully understand how that might be linked to triggering problems when children are vaccinated This is not correct. Full understanding is not needed to conclude here exists no causal relationship.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
My whole post was that you can’t throw around absolutes while mocking people throwing around absolutes. Which is exactly what you are doing. You can practice science. You can’t “believe” in it. The only ‘facts’ here are that we don’t know what causes autism. It does not appear to be genetic as I understand it. It’s entirely possible that in some people it’s triggered during something that happens with the vaccine process. We just don’t know. It’s unlikely, it’s not a reason to withhold vaccines, but scientifically it’s not a fact to say vaccines definitely does or does not cause autism in some people. I’m sure that last sentience makes you mad, which again, is very unscientific. Try taking the absolutes out, and question everything including the big things.
- naasking 8y ago
  > My whole post was that you can’t throw around absolutes while mocking people throwing around absolutes. Which is exactly what you are doing. No, I'm "mocking" people that "throw around" falsehoods. > The only ‘facts’ here are that we don’t know what causes autism. Incorrect. It's also a fact that it's not connected to vaccines. > It’s entirely possible that in some people it’s triggered during something that happens with the vaccine process. Nope, because then we'd see evidence of it. Which we don't, after hundreds of thousands of samples. Furthermore, analysis from the other direction have demonstrated that most of the "rise" in autism is due to better diagnostics. So we have here no observation of any connection between autism and vaccines, and from the other side the diagnostic changes have mostly been accounted for. Where do you think an alleged connection to vaccines would hide? Face it, vaccines do not cause autism. There is and never was any reason to connect the two, just like there is little reason to connect vaccines with lightning strikes.