Skip to comments.Judge upholds New York vaccination law for students in Amish lawsuit
Posted on 11/06/2019 4:23:26 PM PST by NRx
No excerpt due to copyright concerns. A link to the article will be found in the first comment.
Humphries is a repeatedly debunked quack.
In order to understand what they're talking about I had to look at this study. This seems to be the only place that it can be found on the net. Another link the PDF is corrupted. :
Since there is no way to read this. I can only come to the conclusion her work is in question by this lady named Isabella B.
Isabella B seems to run a pro-vaccine twitter account:
"debunked" means nothing to me.
You are being willfully obtuse if you are refusing to understand that Humphries is using a 50 year old study regarding a vaccine that was discontinued the following year to criticize and make untrue claims about the current vaccine.
Claiming to be unable to understand this simple logic unless you are able to read the full paper is just lame.
Seriously, just stop with the pretense and go back to your kool aid.
I do see both of them stretching the truth to make their point. If you draw a line from 1910 to the arrow on the number of people getting sick it did go down by about 50,000 cases per 100K over a course of 50 years.
Though their is a significant drop after vaccines.
Except there is one major concern for proper statistics.
The peak deaths (60 per 100,000 people) which suggest the highest number of people getting measles was in the 1880's before there was a measurement of people getting sick. They only charted deaths.
Isabella B. also used an extreme case in the Netherlands of a religious group that had a higher death rate then pre-vaccines then the peak in the 1880's. This is obvious deception.
That doesn't mean Isabella is wrong it means she is cherry picking to make her case sound better then what it is.
After reading these charts I do not see either Isabella B. or Dr Suzanne Humphries as quacks as you suggest.
They both simply have a different perspective of what is a rational course of action for these disease.
just a few links on Humphries.
And my personal fave... https://www.quackwatch.org/ is a treasure trove.
For oral consumption I would agree the medicines would be fine. They're not validated as there is a pattern of increased autism shortly after taking the vaccines.
As we can see why they claim the mercury level as an example is fine for oral consumption thus it's fine for injections. You have to admit that is ridiculous right?
Your claim of a pattern of increased autism after vaccination is total poppycock. It has been studied out the wazoo after the Wakefield claims.
And thimerosal has been used safely in medications and cosmetics for 90 effing years and is the bugaboo of the chemical ignorati.
We haven't even gotten into the issue of what creates autism from these vaccines. or why vaccines companies do not test for the effects as well as they should.
They're working on a method of creating an anti-inflammatory with the use of inflammatory cytokine protein interleukin-18. which is likely the cause of the brain inflammation that causes Autism.
Here is one example:
Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies.
Definitively vaccines do not cause and are not linked to autism. Period end of story.
Not my problem and almost certainly not your problem either. Although I vaccinated my children, I completely support the rights of these parents to decide what gets injected into their children. To side with the statists on this issue is a direct affront to everything this nation was founded upon.
So a 5 year old study is irrelevant, but Humphries citing a 50 year old study is legitimate?
This is how I know you are not serious, but just a hoodwinked drone endlessly repeating things that are not true while you determinedly refuse real science.
Because a 5 year old meta-study on all the prior studies done on a possible vaccination/autism link must just be wrong because of your beliefs.
Here’s the logic you are missing. If the brain inflammation you claim is causing autism (rather than being a symptom) was caused by vaccines, then basic math would show a strong correlative effect between being vaccinated and being diagnosed with autism, most especially if it were indeed a cumulative effect. But no study has ever found even a correlative relationship.
And no matter how I state the obvious, you circle back to your vaccinations cause autism belief with one lame invalidation of actual scientific fact in favor of your mere belief.
P.S. Saying you can’t read a study, doesn’t make it go away or invalidate the science. Right up there with the dog at my homework.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.