Replies

You cannot discern the difference between a scientific journal article and a scientific study. Are you really that stupid?

Apparently it's you who can't discern the difference, which is why you were claiming that it's relevance was based simply on its length in pages.

Look, the whole point here was that you were claiming an article I posted was "pathetic" because it was 21 pages long. I've provided ample evidence that peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject are of comparable length, even those you posted, so consider the matter closed. You didn't back up your argument, and we can all agree that your page number argument is invalid.

That is word for word from page 209. Do you have any original thoughts?

Of course it's word for word, you jackass. That's why I said "The company itself even notes one case:", and then posted the quote in italics. Is your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you just drifting back into sociopathy?

Wow that is pretty causal....but you will still deny it won't you?

Of course I will. Not only does West or Lennox–Gastaut not mean that the kid has autism, but they couldn't even determine a causal relationship to the vaccine and West/Lennox–Gastaut. I'm going to put this in quotes and italicize, just so you don't get confused:

"This 4-month-old female subject was diagnosed with West Syndrome/ Lennox-Gastaut syndrome less than one month after 1st dose of Infanrix hexa and Prevenar. Causal relationship to vaccination could not be formerly assessed and other etiologies were considered (metabolic, viral encephalitis)."

This has no relevance to the court decision, which was the whole reason you posted this report. So nice try and dragging us into a tangent.

And yet you have never produced your credentials. Please enlighten us or don't try to dismiss someone else's education.

I'm not appealing to any credentials, and I have no published peer-reviewed work on vaccines. That's why I'm using scientific evidence of those who have the credentials and have done the research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, while you've used Age of Autism and other dubious blogs.

After all of this time you have yet to provide one peer-reviewed scientific journal entry that backs up your point, while I've given dozens.

My estimation of your education is based more on the lack of reading comprehension that you've displayed. You can't seem to discern source types, and you often get confused when I quote something, then accuse me of not having "any original thoughts".

I dare you to find one sentence I've written that is not sourced, quoted, or italicized in any of my responses and find copied from another source.

Go on, find one.

"Look, the whole point here was that you were claiming an article I posted was "pathetic" because it was 21 pages long. I've provided ample evidence that peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject are of comparable length, even those you posted, so consider the matter closed. You didn't back up your argument, and we can all agree that your page number argument is invalid."

You have proved that many peer reviewed articles are not much longer than your meager 21 page study. I will concede that point. My backgrounds tends more to the government regulatory side of life, so my experience is more with the 1271 pg "tax returns" of science. I like them better since they are more data and less analysis. Which is exactly the reason you do not like them, you are incapable of analysis outside of the tiny tidits from the GlaxoSmithKline "scientists." You are little able to comprehend what transpires in these pages. You totally missed the Sudden infant death syndrome section(of course you believe this whole argument to be based on autism, since that is what you believe your conservative power-brokers to have declared.) I have been rather open to your nonsense since the beginning. I have never declared this a MMR discussion(though you have deemed it so. Nor have I declared it an autism argument though that seems your focus.)

Please see post 133

<"http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM101580.pdf

Here is an excerpt in case you don't have time to wade through the whole pdf: Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism , convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. " Here is an excerpt in case you don't have time to wade through the whole pdf: Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism , convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. "

I see this a minor child malady, which is what you concede chickenpox is in other threads. Measles has had a similar death rate(yes the CDC obfuscates that from you, but look at the 1963 430 deaths from nearly 4 million cases, the advances in science since then that have reduced the 430 death per 4 million, to less than half that...The two shots 2000mg of vitamin A has been published in peer reviewed articles.) So even by your standard measles is a minor child malady. 215 deaths per 4 million as compared to 150 deaths in 4 million cases

From post 118: "It would also be nice if you did not cite a tainted CDC source Which source are you referring to? Do you have any evidence that the Journal of Pediatrics study I linked to is "tainted"?>
,br/>Since you are unwilling to offer a analysis of your study,

Sounds like you're going to play the 9/11 Truther angle, and claim any evidentiary source that deb8unks your assertions is part of the conspiracy."

Your source:

http://www.jpeds.com/content/JPEDSDeStefano Is dependent on reference # 3:

Institute of Medicine. Immunization safety review: vaccines and autism. National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2004

Which is turn dependent upon:

Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA. 2003;290(13):1763–6. [PubMed]

Which in turn is dependent on:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949291

Which is called into question with this freedom of information act request

http://www.bolenreport.com/mark%20geier/PLAINTIFF%20RESPONSE%20MO-SUM%20JDG%20%2011-CV-01276%20%282%29.pdf
So, before you respond, let me say...I don't care who the plaintiff is, nor the validity of his case...What I do care about is the clear obfuscation of the facts of this study. Clearly, there was a reduction of autism amongst the Danes after the removal of Thermisol from the populace. A fact that the Journal of Pediatrics ignored. In addition, to the emails involving ignoring the 2001 data, there is the email from a CDC official encouraging the Journal of Pediatrics to publish a flawed study(see the 2001 omission) and a twice rejected study(JAMA and Jancet). The emails are in the above court action.If you want any credibility of your claims you will need to explain away the CDC involvement and the neglect of the Danish 2001 records. I also remember one of the primary scientist being under investigation for embezzling funds.

"Of course I will. Not only does West or Lennox–Gastaut not mean that the kid has autism, but they couldn't even determine a causal relationship to the vaccine and West/Lennox–Gastaut. I'm going to put this in quotes and italicize, just so you don't get confused:"

LIAR!LIAR!LIAR! That was straight regular text. Guess you are like Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy...we just can't trust you, you lying sack of crap.
You can't see the scientific merit of a 1271 page report that is loaded with data because you are a moron that can't analyze the data for yourself. But, please go on and promote your uneducated self. Perhaps, since I have identified what was wrong with your pediatric journal, you can explain table 36 from bridge report(not as scientific as a press release). That would be pg 246 of the paper and pg 249 of the pdf.

You like to claim ""That's why I'm using scientific evidence of those who have the credentials and have done the research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, while you've used Age of Autism and other dubious blogs."

But, you were offered the opportunity to note why your press release that alluded to a dubious scientific journal was flawed. You failed to do so. My main source of information, a 1271 pg confidential report from the vaccine maker itself you deem to not be scientifically worthy. It is full of data, perhaps you can cite a portion and not use the pithy retort of the manufacture's lackeys. Let us see your analysis of the data.

Meanwhile, my use of blogs such as age of autism is merely to link original source documents, not to use there arguments. So, please try again to actually make an allegation that sticks. Further, even if I used a blog such as those, you would need to substantiate why that is invalid. In most intelligent communities, "because GunRunner said so" is not reason enough to accept anything. That may hurt that strangers and people who know you do not value you thoughts no matter how inadequate they are.