So let’s watch Vaxxed part 2

Good evening, class.  19:45 here.

Go watch Vaxxed before you read this because you’re not sheeple who need to rely on what I told you it said.  Then read this.

So onwards, starting from the 3:50 mark.

03:50 – I’ll need more evidence than the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy as I have said already.

By the way, have you read Gadad et al yet?  Or the Cedillo Case?

there-are-too-many-coincidencesquote there is nothing wrong with asking questions but you have to be willing to accept the answers to those questions vaccine safety scientific studyautism-epidemic-what-autism-epidemicput-the-mercury-back-in-vaccinesthe-link-is-bustedit-only-makes-sense-to-question-everythingquestion-everythingthere-are-too-many-coincidenceswe-could-say-that-serious-vaccine-injuriesan illustration of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, anti-vaccine, vaccines and autismanti-vaccer bad math, antivaxxer, most people who get a disease where vaccinated against it

 

Oh and by the way,  I was issued a challenge of watching 20 of the videos where parents claimed vaccines caused autism and I followed through on the challenge and no, I am still not convinced that vaccines cause autism.

The argument:

I noticed that my child was autistic after she was vaccinated.
Therefore the vaccines were the cause of my child’s autism.

The logical syllogism:

X happened after Y.
Therefore X caused Y.

The same argument applied to any other random thing and yes, comparing arguments about apples to arguments about elephants is perfectly valid reasoning:

It rained after I ate an apple.
Therefore eating the apple was the cause of the rain.

As should be obvious by now, the arguments are completely parallel and they “stand or fall together.” as the lawyers would say. In other words, they’re exactly the same argument applied to different topics – either both of them work or neither of them work.

Now class, please do try and recall that when you make a claim that something caused something else, you are really making two claims:

1)That the something else happened after the something

AND

2)That the something else happening after the something wasn’t a coincidence.

Those of you who have done the assigned reading will remember that the obligation to support a claim lies with the person making it.

the burden of proof scientists are lying

Of course, this is all just a recap to people so much smarter than the global scientific and medical consensus since obviously, they must have known about all of these in order to know that they are all wrong.   So we can forge ahead now!

04: 11:   Why were you deeply critical of the studies?  I am confident that it is on some basis more than “I didn’t like the results.”

As for the mechanism, there is no difference in rates so this is like trying to prove that the toothfairy can or cannot fly – you’ve kind of missed a crucial step there – that of proving she exists in the first place.

By the way, the support for vaccines comes from a global medical community so if you’re going to prove it, there really will need to be a mention of these mysterious things called other countries at some point.

04: 20 – 04:33 – Can I see this letter please?

04:34 – 04:54:   I am not interested in what you tell me that Brain said.   I’m not a sheeple who doesn’t think for myself.   Give me the link to where Brain said this so I can read it for myself.  The William Thompson documents can be found here, by the way.

A question has occurred to me though:  If the problem was with the CDC, why not check what other countries had to say?  If I suspected the NHS was lying about something, I’d go check what Australia’s health org had to say or America’s or really, any other place in the world.

Dr Thompson is unaware he is being recorded during every phone call in this film.  Okay, thanks for the info.

05:12-05:17:   Why?  It would take maybe 20 minutes, tops, to bust a national conspiracy.  Amazingly, there are these things called other countries besides the U.S.A.  *waves from England*

anti-vax-logic-meets-universal-healthcare

05:24:  If that is true, then other countries will be ten years ahead of the CDC since they don’t have the CDC interfering.   Check what they have to say.

05:40:  Again, this is easily checked by comparing what the CDC says to what other countries say.

05:48:   I don’t care whether you’re a random beggar or the second coming of Jesus Christ Himself. Your arguments stand and fall their own merits and on their own evidence or lackthereof.

05:57:   Have you read Baxter et al yet?   Have you accounted for the expanding spectrum?

vaccinate with confidence.jpg

autism-epidemic-what-autism-epidemic

06:06

Ah, why are there so many more disabled people now?  That’s a question with an easy but rich answer.  Here you go!

06:07: 7:30:   “We’ve massively expanded the definition of autism and also, deinstitutionalized people with autism.   I don’t understand why there are more people classified as autistic in the general population.

tion!”

Really?  I thought you were a psychiatrist – shouldn’t you know better?

Yup.  Shocker how it works, isn’t it?  Expand the definition from autism – i.e. Classic/Kanner’s autism to ASD and there is more people diagnosed that count for the autism figures.

vaccinate-with-confidence

08:04:   Yes, your study was a lie, your book was a lie and so far, your film is a lie too.  And no, they didn’t rig it or you would have won when you sued for libel, maybe not in America but certainly  here in England with its much more friendly-to-the-plaintiff laws resulting in libel-tourism before we fixed that  particular legal loophole.

08:09-08:10:   Surely, you have better evidence than this.  All together now, class:  After is not a synonym for because of.

09:06:   Yup, Andrew Wakefield’s research was fraudulent.  And no,  Walker-Smith’s exoneration does not exonerate Andrew Wakefield.  In fact, given that Walker-Smith’s defence more-or-less boiled down to “HEY! Andrew Wakefield lied to ME, too.”, this makes Fakefield look worse, not better.

09:25:  Nope, that’s what you said you discovered.

09:28 – 09:30 :  Do you notice the cut to something emotional here?  This is an appeal to emotion and well….two can play at that little game.  Here’s an infant with pertussis:  Watch the toxins.

Also, go read the Cedillo case.    Oh, yes, and there’s this.

diptheria-toxin-and-pertussis-toxin

09:39:   Again, class, altogether:  After is not a synonym for because of.

09:47:  Given that no-one asked you to do so, this is a complete strawman.

09:51:   Indeed, that is true.  The paper specifically stated it didn’t.   However, you did state that vaccines cause autism on the media circuit.

I suspect Kreesten MM, et al, NEJM 2012  would prove enlightening reading at this junction.

10:05:  Yes, and more work has been done.  The result of the resolved issue  is that you were wrong.

10:12:  Exactly.  There have been many many studies proving that vaccines don’t cause autism.

10:28:  Appeal to popularity = not logically valid.  Not a random sample either – think about it:  Who posts on facebook that their child became autistic right before a vaccine even if they did?   And the appeal to emotion and crying baby/toddler won’t distract us from the fact that well….altogether now, class:  After is not a synonym for because of.   

Two can play at this appeal to emotion game though:

https://youtu.be/nywbWAUattA

10:48 – 10:59:

It was called the Autism Omnibus.  It demonstrated that parents missed early warning signs of autism.  And they’re not written off as if they know nothing.  That’s just a silly strawman.  Even when it was “standard” to listen to the patient, that didn’t mean that the patient got everything they wanted, even if there was no medical need for it. By the way, the parent’s not the patient at the pediatrician:  Their child is.

11:21:  It doesn’t matter whether it makes sense to you or not.   It matters what the evidence is.

11:41:  Ah, hello Polly Tommy.   You’d better have some really good evidence because I am already annoyed at your nonsense of completely topsy-turvy standards of what is okay to criticize and what isn’t.

11:50- 11:54:   Lol, I love this idea of ordering a child as if they were a pizza or something – it amuses me.

12:40-12:41:  There he is, hand flapping.

12:50: I’ll let Dara O’Brien handle the homeopathy comment since I don’t think wordpress rules allow me to express my true feelings on the matter.

12:51 – 13:24:

Yes, you were  absolutely correct here.  It would be headline news, the doctor would be calling you up and all of that would be happening.

13:48:

Oh hello, Jim Sears.

so-youre-a-doctor-who-wants-to-overturn-the-decades-long

we-love-books-but-there-are-reasons-why-revoultionary-scienctific-findings-are-published-in-science-journals-and-not-books

13:59:  Makes sense to me.

And that is enough for today since it is now 22:52 here.

 

3 thoughts on “So let’s watch Vaxxed part 2

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.