Vaccinations; recent developments

[ramset]

Sigh...
she did mention 167 peer reviewed papers [apparently a bit more than the 2 persons  you mentioned].
and What position does she hold at MIT ??


stick your head back in the sand box..errhh hows that go??
nothing to see here folks
Move along...

[sarkeizen]

she did mention 167 peer reviewed papers [apparently a bit more than the 2 persons  you mentioned].

Then please post one that you feel provides very strong and clear evidence of a vaccine causing autism.  If there's 167 papers that make her points very clearly then she doesn't need to refer to Blaxil who has 0 to his name.  However you probably won't because when someone says something like that you don't think you just swallow it whole.

and What position does she hold at MIT ??

Perhaps you, because you know all about universities can tell me what you think her position has to do with her providing something worth discussing?  Again, I'm reasonably sure you can't answer this.

I more expect that you because you really haven't researched anything.  Will just pull a SeaMonkey - pretend there's information out there somewhere and it's up to someone else to make your argument for you (and then refute it).

[allcanadian]

@Ramset

According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, by 2025, half the kids born in the U.S. will be diagnosed with autism.Dr. Seneff isn't respected by the ivory towers of the pharmaceutical medicine paradigm or industrial agriculture, but she has something to say about autism. She is a computer scientist who transitioned into biology and toxicology, so people like to attack her credentials, but what Dr. Seneff has to say is key, and many other mainstream researchers have been negligent in reporting these findings.

It would seem to be a vicious circle, those outside the circle who have no vested interest are ridiculed while those within it who represent a clear conflict of interest are not. It is simply another flavor of racism in my opinion and they have simply replaced the color of ones skin with credentials.


It would seem to me a computer scientist would know how to gather meaningful data better than anyone else as this is their field of expertise. So really she is being criticized because she has no vested or conflict of interest as the other researchers working within the system obviously do. It is odd how so many in science claim to be independent and unbiased and yet their employment relies on a lack of real solutions. You see if they actually found a cure or solution to any problem then they would no longer be needed and find themselves unemployed. It is quite ridiculous when we think about how the system works fundamentally.


At which time we could make a simple observation, billions upon billions are poured into research each year and yet we find they have found no real solutions to much of anything. Thus I must presume they are either stupid or incompetent or both. In the real world when a person is not getting the job done they are fired however in academia this would not seem to be the case. I believe it may rely on the terminology, Academia: professional scholars and students. Now what does that tell you?, why I know a few people who have went to university for over 25 years and never held a full time job and never done anything which matters in any way... a professional student, lol.


Thus we might understand their profession is not dependent on solutions but solely to retain their status or employment as a student or scholar. In effect they have created the perfect circular system whereby results do not matter but retaining their status is the primary concern which of course relates directly to their income. Why we may as well just come out and say it, academia is white and everyone else black which of course explains why the method of choice is degrading and ridiculing rather than open unbiased debate.



AC

[sarkeizen]

It would seem to be a vicious circle

That's not what that idiom means - unless you add "Mrs. Parker and the" to the beginning.

those outside the circle who have no vested interest are ridiculed

Actually everyone has a vested interest in being right.  Mark "the moron" Blaxil has sold "vaccines causes autism" for years.  It would be nice if he could have a Pauline moment but it's not likely.  His entire career is as much or more based on this idea as Offit is on the opposite (probably more because Offit's pre-guardasil rep was more high-profile than Blaxil's was).

while those within it who represent a clear conflict of interest are not.

Your idea of conflict of interest is ridiculously distorted.  Certainly many people in the scientific community and those doing research have something to gain from the success of various pharmaceuticals however none of them have as much to lose as people who go around crusading on a particular idea.   

It is simply another flavor of racism in my opinion and they have simply replaced the color of ones skin with credentials.

LOL.  Racism is about differentiating based on race or ethnicity the reason that is wrong is because those things clearly do not have anything to do with (or it is reasonable to assume such) peoples ability to the vast majority of things in life.

However to compare that to the idea that we are reluctant to let people who have no experience as plumbers do plumbing.  Is both monumentally stupid and offensive.   Good show there.

It would seem to me a computer scientist would know how to gather meaningful data better than anyone else as this is their field of expertise.

No. Computer science, as a discipline generally sits between one of two polls.  Implementation - e.g. knowing how to write code and Algorithms - e.g. knowing how a particular approach scales in memory and time with input size.  This has absolutely nothing to do with "gathering meaningful data" you utterly. ignorant. moron.

yet their employment relies on a lack of real solutions. You see if they actually found a cure or solution to any problem then they would no longer be needed and find themselves unemployed. It is quite ridiculous when we think about how the system works fundamentally.

Your assumption is that there is an exceptionally small number of problems to be worked on in a particular field.  You can prove, in computer science since you are pretending (stupidly) you know something about this.  That there is no sort algorithm which can outperform a complexity of O(n log n) when the input width is arbitrary.   Yet somehow nobody kept this a secret and nobody got fired in this field as a result.   Please be stupid elsewhere.

Thus we might understand their profession is not dependent on solutions

So according to you.  If I found a cure - however you're defining that - for a disease.  You don't think that would help my employment?  This is really what you think.  That if I was a medical researcher and applied for the director of research at another institution that having two or three disease cures under my belt would actually harm my chances of getting that position?

...and people think academics are out of touch.  Sheeesh.

[MarkE]

@Ramset

It would seem to be a vicious circle, those outside the circle who have no vested interest are ridiculed while those within it who represent a clear conflict of interest are not. It is simply another flavor of racism in my opinion and they have simply replaced the color of ones skin with credentials.


It would seem to me a computer scientist would know how to gather meaningful data better than anyone else as this is their field of expertise. So really she is being criticized because she has no vested or conflict of interest as the other researchers working within the system obviously do. It is odd how so many in science claim to be independent and unbiased and yet their employment relies on a lack of real solutions. You see if they actually found a cure or solution to any problem then they would no longer be needed and find themselves unemployed. It is quite ridiculous when we think about how the system works fundamentally.


At which time we could make a simple observation, billions upon billions are poured into research each year and yet we find they have found no real solutions to much of anything. Thus I must presume they are either stupid or incompetent or both. In the real world when a person is not getting the job done they are fired however in academia this would not seem to be the case. I believe it may rely on the terminology, Academia: professional scholars and students. Now what does that tell you?, why I know a few people who have went to university for over 25 years and never held a full time job and never done anything which matters in any way... a professional student, lol.


Thus we might understand their profession is not dependent on solutions but solely to retain their status or employment as a student or scholar. In effect they have created the perfect circular system whereby results do not matter but retaining their status is the primary concern which of course relates directly to their income. Why we may as well just come out and say it, academia is white and everyone else black which of course explains why the method of choice is degrading and ridiculing rather than open unbiased debate.



AC

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  No matter how qualified an expert is, it is the data and not the expert's representation of the data that tells the story.  Experts like Garwin say cold fusion claims are a load of bovine excrement.  Whether Garwin is right or wrong is not determined by his expertise but by the actual data.