Vaccinations; recent developments

[sarkeizen]

...guess you're not ready to think.

"Thompson said that he and other CDC scientists intentionally fudged the results, manipulating the pool of children they analyzed and limiting the proper number of African-American children from participating. The authors limited black children from showing up in the results by excluding babies without a state of Georgia birth certificate."

Well
a) "intentionally fudged" appear to be words made up by Patric Howley.  Thompsons actual statement can be seen on the website of his lawyer.
b) As I've stated earlier Thompson has made this statement on the basis of a re-analysis by Hooker.  Hooker isn't a statistician which is probably why he used the Chi Squared test in the reanalysis.  His results are more likely to be wrong than the prior results because of this error.
c) Excluding based on not having a birth certificate allows you to control for confounders.
d) If you accept Hooker's study as true, then you automatically refute Wakefield (Assuming today you feel like claiming he is saying something about a neurological condition) and the majority of vaccine injury claims because even Hooker shows that the RR for white and black children < 24 months is small.

Of course all those things would be obvious if you read the study.  Instead you read articles written by morons who don't have a stats degree quoting other people who also are not statisticians about something which is about statistics.   It's like getting advice about neurosurgery third hand through two plumbers.

....and of course you still can't answer my question.   You made the claim that timing is the key element in a diagnosing that a series of events were caused by Gardasil.  You either can state this with confidence or you can't.  If you can then you should be able to tell me roughly the degree of confidence you believe is communicated from Katies mom and - since you are making the claim about timing being the key to diagnosis - what time period is useful for this effect size.

Were I to guess as to why you're refusing to answer this rather simple question it would be that you're afraid your argument would be harmed if you do.  This is a difference between a thinker and a propagandist.  A thinker isn't concerned if their argument is harmed.

[sarkeizen]

you're beginning to sound a wee bit like a pervert.

Again I'm not the one felating zengardner.

All of this obsession with

Someone who is obsessed, so someone who ignores other issues to focus on something that's of little consequence....so when you ignore these questions:

Finding sources of Information promoted by The Establishment (Dis-Information and Propaganda) is not a problem for the vast majority.

Please find the contents of DeStefano et. al 2004.  I'll start a clock.

The links we've provided are to sources which are not as readily discovered.

Please point out an actual published study covered in one of your links which is "not readily discovered".

That's kind of what you're talking about or when you spend two or three times the words that I do talking about sexual things?

Just sayin'

[sarkeizen]

This any idiot can do and verify = 100% facts. What is -100% facts is the LACKING of understanding the 100% facts .lol....which you lack sir.

The old joel who fakes a language affectation is back - now with 40% more gibberish.

[kEhYo77]

From: 200 Evidence-Based Reasons NOT To Vaccinate

With this aim in mind, GreenMedInfo.com has painstakingly collected over 300 pages of study abstracts culled directly from the National Library of Medicine's pubmed.gov bibliographic database on the wide-ranging adverse health effects linked to vaccines in the today's schedule over 200 distinct adverse effects, including death, as well as numerous studies related to vaccine contamination, and vaccine failure in highly vaccine compliant populations.

PDF download

[Magluvin]

From: here
PDF download

Very cool. Thanks for posting that.

But get ready for the water down.

Mags