That expletive wimp, Mitch McConnell, should be going to trump and saying, "Look, I got you your stacked supreme court and I kept you from being found guilty in your impeachment. Get rid of that Kennedy asshole."
Right. You need at least two arms to the study, with both arms basically similar (or a VERY LARGE n) and the only differing variable is getting one particular shot.
This is tantamount to saying "one arm of the study is babies that get shots, and all these other babies won't get immunizations and their parents are cool with that and now let's see what happens."
This. This is what happens. Imagine the chagrin of the parents. ("Whoops. If only someone had warned us. Now, who will pay for our child's healthcare and protect him the rest of his life after we're gone?")
That expletive wimp, Mitch McConnell, should be going to trump and saying, "Look, I got you your stacked supreme court and I kept you from being found guilty in your impeachment. Get rid of that Kennedy asshole."
Note the unaccounted for by other things part. But yes, you are right, you simultaneously need studies to show how the vaccines could cause autism and there is no credible mechanism.
Right. You need at least two arms to the study, with both arms basically similar (or a VERY LARGE n) and the only differing variable is getting one particular shot.
This is tantamount to saying "one arm of the study is babies that get shots, and all these other babies won't get immunizations and their parents are cool with that and now let's see what happens."
This. This is what happens. Imagine the chagrin of the parents. ("Whoops. If only someone had warned us. Now, who will pay for our child's healthcare and protect him the rest of his life after we're gone?")
No, no, no. There can be correlation in almost anything. Correlation is not what evidence-based studies look for - unless, of course, the purpose of the study is to show in which groups incidence of a particular diagnosis/condition occurs. For example, most cancers are diagnosed in older people, so there is a correlation between age and cancer. So cancer and aging are correlated. CAUSALITY is key. And correlation <> causality, regardless of what RFK, Jr. (yet another "stable genius") and his followers say.
Note the unaccounted for by other things part. But yes, you are right, you simultaneously need studies to show how the vaccines could cause autism and there is no credible mechanism.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Mar 7, 2025 - 1:43pm
haresfur wrote:
Sure, fine, study it using proper scientific methods. Um, how long will it take to do a double blind study with a control group and a treatment group that you follow for long enough to determine if there is any correlation that is not accounted for by other factors?
No, no, no. There can be correlation in almost anything. Correlation is not what evidence-based studies look for - unless, of course, the purpose of the study is to show in which groups incidence of a particular diagnosis/condition occurs. For example, most cancers are diagnosed in older people, so there is a correlation between age and cancer. So cancer and aging are correlated. CAUSALITY is key. And correlation <> causality, regardless of what RFK, Jr. (yet another "stable genius") and his followers say.
Watched him address democratic complaints in the 2018 budget, by claiming they were getting all upset
at finding "A Hair on their Biscuit." (All while minimizing Republican drama around their complaints.)
We have referred to him as the "Hair on a Biscuit" Senator ever since.
Poor ol hound, long past his huntin' age.
Sure, fine, study it using proper scientific methods. Um, how long will it take to do a double blind study with a control group and a treatment group that you follow for long enough to determine if there is any correlation that is not accounted for by other factors?
