@ Clark June 22, 2020 at 12:55
‘Yeah, and I asked you how you found that paper, and I didn’t believe your answer. I then showed you a paper that demonstrates that there is no more autism among the MMR vaccinated than among the MMR unvaccinated; it is one of many…’
I’ll cover you’re latest ‘comment’ first: ‘..and I didn’t believe your answer…’ – so you’re calling me a liar. Well, I found it while following other links, as I generally do. I did not say, nor was I intending to put across any idea I had trawled through a host of scientific papers which I mostly wouldn’t understand (that covers the first point below, as well – I have stated as much before. ‘…you’re pretending to scientific expertise that you do not possess…’ is total rubbish). I did say that even I could understand the paper I was trying to get you to acknowledge (minus some scientific words: basically,
‘…at least 69% of individuals with an ASD diagnosis have microglial activation or neuroinflammation. Encephalitis, which is defined as inflammation of the brain, is medical diagnosis code G04.90 in the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision; however, children with an ASD diagnosis are not generally assessed for a possible medical diagnosis of encephalitis. This is unfortunate because if a child with ASD has neuroinflammation, then treating the underlying brain inflammation could lead to improved outcomes..’.
Anybody with any interest in the subject of Autism should be able to understand that, even me.
You would have noticed if you had followed up the paper that there were a number of Meta-studies (or whatever they are called) of the basic info, which showed it wasn’t just a freak one-off.
The impact, in my opinion, shatters all the false allegations that the MMR cannot cause Autism or ASD, because the MMR information leaflet admits it CAN cause brain inflammation of encephalitis. The fact that you are studiously ignoring that obvious point indicates it has greatly surprised you, and you have no adequate response, apart from ‘showering me with papers that conclude MMR can’t cause ADS or Autism’ (or words to that effect).
Now I know that there are oodles of papers out there saying that, but their are Big Pharma and their $billions who fund most of the studies one way or another.
Why have they not been able to prove the paper/s I referred to are wrong? Because if, as I have repeated time and again, they are right, it blows their assurances of MMR not causing ADS / Autism out of the water.
You previously commented:
‘..Additionally, you’re pretending to scientific expertise that you do not possess. There is absolutely no way that someone who was utterly naive about Dane Wigington’s hoax with the stroboscopic effect has the background knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to interpret the significance of that paper.
And I do not believe that you are being openly honest with me. You wrote:
– “It’s on the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) website; as you will note, I gave the link where I found it above.
There are 6.2 million papers in that library, PubMed Central. You just “found” it there, did you? I don’t believe you. So again I’m asking you to be honest, and to get down off your high horse and treat me as your equal…’
You have referred to ‘..Dane Wigington’s hoax with the stroboscopic effect..’ before, and I replied then that I had no idea what you were talking about. I still don’t; I’ve never even heard about it, except from you.
‘…There are 6.2 million papers in that library, PubMed Central. You just “found” it there, did you? I don’t believe you. So again I’m asking you to be honest, and to get down off your high horse and treat me as your equal…’
I ‘just found it there’ by following other links, as I generally do.
‘..I don’t believe you. So again I’m asking you to be honest, and to get down off your high horse and treat me as your equal…’
If I wrote that sort of unjustified ad hominem crap, I’m sure my comment would be deleted.
You make me out a liar, from your unjustified assumptions that I was trying to mislead you.
I really would like your opinion (or Dr. Edd’s) of the ‘..over 69%..’ papers.
Looks like it might be the ‘smoking gun’.