Replies

It’s not hard to understand, it’s patently false.

The sample size here is over a half million.

If 8% isn’t statistically significant in a sample of that size, what is?

Of course it’s statistically significant.

19 posted on 03/29/2019 3:15:16 PM PDT by thoughtomator (The Clinton Coup attempt was a worse attack on the USA than was 9/11)

Although 18% of children were unvaccinated during that time, their risk of autism was 8% higher (although not statistically significantly) than comparable vaccinated children.

Put simply, if vaccines caused autism, the risk of autism in unvaccinated children should have been much lower or even zero.

I'm missing something.

If vaccines are the problem then unvaccinated children should have 0 cases but this study says there is no statistically difference in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Or slightly higher in the unvaccinated children(8%)

Am I wrong?

35 posted on 03/29/2019 4:36:57 PM PDT by RedMonqey ("Those who turn their arms in for plowshares will be doing the plowing for those who didn't.")