Just trust us goys! Never mind the $35+ billion we make on vaccines, we're only aggressively promoting them because we care about you. Never mind that all of our multinational pharmaceutical companies have been sued for fraud that resulted in death and injury..we may of been lying then but we're totally telling the truth about vaccines...Just please don't research vaccine injury court which the CDC said accounted for only 1% of only the most serious reactions. Goys, we're really not trying to create lifelong customers for the sick...Uh... healthcare industry. Get your shots unless you want to die of Measles. You just have to trust us...we only have your best interests in mind.
Email responses from mothers of children who don't vax.
If someone wants to find "evidence" of a link between vaccines and autism/adhd/whatever, they will believe any weak connection.
Vaccine theory states that by presenting a pathogen to the body, that the body's immune system will remember and remove said pathogen. Fight poison with poison(eastern medicine philosophy) is supposedly how they work. Only just giving a virus isn't enough, so they added "adjuvants". What are adjuvants? They are toxins, which encourage the immune system to develop an immune response to the protein in the vaccine.
In other words adjuvants cause a small infection to force the body to have an allergic reaction. The problem is that you force an allergic reaction to the protein/weakened virus, and every other ingredient in the vaccine. This explains why we see a large rise in auto immune disorders and allergies. The adjuvants work so well at associating vaccine contents as pathogens that the body will reject any and all contents, including human and animal stem cells which are vaccine ingredients. Now what happens if your body treats its own stem cells as pathogens and attacks them? Answer: auto immune disease. What happens if peanut proteins or other things are treated as pathogens by your body? Answer: allergic reactions.
(((They))) have a history of poisoning populations through food, water, etc.. Look at how (((they))) have infiltrated and subverted these govt institutions and corporations related to health.
Factually Speaking, Of course. But with diagnosis criteria widened, even Anti-Social people with no learning disabilities can end up with an Autism label slapped on them even if they don't fit the usual symptoms that show Autism. (((They))) make the doctors dumb so that they can dumb down an entire population.
I can account for all the variables I want. If I'm working with a homeschooling association and the only source for my numbers is an anonymous online survey filled out by mother's, I can't expect to be taken seriously. Statistical methods use random population samples to avoid any correlations specific groups might have.
Look at it this way: let's say the study is actually perfect. The numbers are accurate, their methodology is completely sound, and their conclusions follow logically from the data. You know what we've discovered? That homeschooled kids get sick more often when they're vaccinated. That's the best case scenario here. How many people does this sample describe?
they specifically site the why they used home schooled children.
they cited 666 samples, and the indication wasnt so much that the vaccinated gets more or less sick than the unvaccinated but what they get sick with, which seems to be more consistent with the anti-vaxx groups claims that neurological disorders increase
they specifically site the why they used home schooled children.
.
Children educated at home (“homeschool children”) are suitable for such studies as a higher proportion are unvaccinated compared to public school children
Oh boo hoo, it's so hard to find unvaccinated kids elsewhere. Let me just ruin my dataset by cherry picking the sample.
they cited 666 samples,
No. They had one sample. And it was a an anonymous, second-hand survey. What was the survey like?
Both the letter to families and the survey questions were stated in a neutral way with respect to vaccines. Our letter to parents began:
“Dear Parent, This study concerns a major current health question: namely, whether vaccination is linked in any way to children's long-term health. Vaccination is one of the greatest discoveries in medicine, yet little is known about its long-term impact. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of vaccination by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in terms of a number of major health outcomes …”
OH WOW. LET'S JUST GIVE AWAY THE ENTIRE THING BEFORE THEY'VE EVEN TOUCHED IT. THAT SURELY ISN'T GOING TO AFFECT THE ANSWERS WE GET.
or less sick than the unvaccinated but what they get sick with,
Do you know what p hacking is? Because that's what's happening here. In about the laziest way possible.
which seems to be more consistent with the anti-vaxx groups claims that neurological disorders increase
right, so Autism is a psychological problem. there is no test for the brain to determine which chemical or defect actually causes autism (or depression, Anxiety disorders etc)
nothing in the DSM has a test for it - its all by observation. the child is acting like X? he must have Y according to the DSM.
so with that little bit you just learned, do you want to reconsider your thoughts or are you from reddit?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That the DSM isn't what's used to diagnose and define Autism? If so, how do you picture it being diagnosed? I can assure you there are no cheek swabs.
you cited the ability to "account for all the variables I want"[sic] then suggested that home schooled children are somehow differently exposed to the world compared to children who go to school.
when you consider that schools themselves have vaccine clinics and checks to make sure the child has been poked then it makes sense to try to find a group that has not been afflicted in such a way, and home schooled children happen to fit the bill without losing the socio-economic status that can also make changes.
so for instance, a Mennonite group out in the farms someplace would be a perfect group if you want an unvaccinated population but horrible because the way they live is so different from the control group (the vaccinated) that its impossible to account for anything that might be found.
the bottom line is that the "shit study" as you called it isn't shit at all, and if you read into it they specifically address the concerns you bring up, why they did them, and how much it can be trusted (like the anonymous input from mothers)
It is. You should check out Protect Voat. Every other post is just TOO and Crensch complaining about someone and accusing random people of being pedophiles. It's a hoot when you spam that copypasta.
you cited the ability to "account for all the variables I want"[sic]
That was a figure of speech. In English speaking countries, "I can ____ all I want." Followed by a negative statement is actually saying that any effort spent on the action described is pointless.
The statement can be rephrased as "It doesn't matter if I do everything else right. There's still a critical issue"
Are you going to answer the DSM thing? What are you trying to say about it? The definition has been expanded for Autism, and it's now described as an umbrella known as "Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)". The study uses this umbrella with at least two others that we know of to supposedly determine "long-term health impacts".
then suggested that home schooled children are somehow differently exposed t
Science lesson: When you take surveys and samples, you need to do a few things for the numbers to be useful. The most obvious thing is to take random samples. With a large enough population, you eliminate issues like geographic idiosyncrasies, sociological factors, and any unknown traits that may correlate with some groups. They did none of this. They can make all the excuses they want (there's that figure of speech again), nobody with any sense for these things will take it seriously.
the bottom line is that the "shit study" as you called it isn't shit at all,
It's shit. It's an anonymous survey with a cherry-picked sample, that explicitly warns the responders to the intent of the survey. They're second-hand accounts from parents and, to boot, there's no mechanism to verify any of the responses. As if all this wasn't bad enough, they're casting such a wide net, they're going to find something through sheer chance; blatant p hacking.
Do you know what p hacking even is? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like an answer.
so again - the study (which was peer reviewed) specifically addresses your concerns about input from parents and the apperant bad data from parents. I suggest you read the bottom half at least of the study to get this information.
if im not mistaken, you brought up the DSM, not me. my point about the DSM is that none of the afflictions contained within it have a blood test or other physical method to determine diagnosis, only observation and answers from the patient, kinda like what the parents are providing about their children.
I dont know what P hacking is but Im guessing its related to sussing out results from data that might not otherwise indicate what the data is showing. im not certain if thats possible in a peer-reviewed study, since the entire purpose of a peer-review is to help eliminate that very thing.
By who? So far it's doing a poor job holding up to my own.
I suggest you read the bottom half at least of the study to get this information.
Every time I read this, I come out just a little bit more disappointed. No context makes work this sloppy acceptable.
only observation and answers from the patient, kinda like what the parents are providing about their children.
Anonymously. With no medical verification. Twitter polls are more rigorous. No, really. They have larger, more varied samples that are tied to an identity. Also, it's harder to lead your responders with only 280 characters. Sure they're still selected samples, since you don't see Twitter polls if you don't want to. Also you're not controlling who responds. But it's still a step up.
if im not mistaken, you brought up the DSM, not me. my point about the DSM is that none of the afflictions contained within it have a blood test or other physical method to determine diagnosis,
Mine is that the expanded definitions for Autism are an obvious factor for the increase in its diagnosis.
I dont know what P hacking is but Im guessing its related to sussing out results from data that might not otherwise indicate what the data is showing.
Vague, but no. Long story short, you notice they state "confidence" percentages in the data they use? That's basically the statistically determined odds that the data isn't a fluke. In the case of most papers, anything under 5% is acceptable. So there's only a 1 in 20 chance that what's being seen isn't a real effect. What's the problem? Well the problem is when you cast a huge net. Learning Disabilities (umbrella), Autism Spectrum (Umbrella), Allergies (Umbrella), Pneumonia, Ear infections, and ADHD.
Even if we ignore sampling issues; hell, even if we pretend each one of those things being screened only counts as a single data point somehow (maybe they were only looking for a single kind of allergy, for example), that's still 6 chances to get a statistical blip. And this is what they admitted to. Who knows what else they dumped to get published.
im not certain if thats possible in a peer-reviewed study, since the entire purpose of a peer-review is to help eliminate that very thing.
There are deep issues with science. Predatory journals publishing any random thing that's found, journals in general refusing to publish negative results (so-called "failed experiments", which is a misnomer), the grant system in general. There's a real focus on publishing to reputable journals because those, so the thinking goes, have consistently screened and published high-quality research. Generally speaking, if it says "open access", it's not one of the reputable ones. There's plenty of money to be made if you just publish any garbage that comes your way.
the study itself admits nothing is definitive, only that the unvaccinated seemed to tend to suffer from some illnesses more than the vaccinated and vice versa. it just so happens that the umbrella (and agreed there, autism itself seems to lack a clear definition beyond symtoms) was one of the things checked for and caused a blip.
your comments about sample size and anonymous data are directly addressed in the article:
Mothers’ reports could not be validated by clinical records because the survey was designed to be anonymous. However, self-reports about significant events provide a valid proxy for official records when medical records and administrative data are unavailable [70]. Had mothers been asked to provide copies of their children’s medical records it would no longer have been an anonymous study and would have resulted in few completed questionnaires. We were advised by homeschool leaders that recruitment efforts would have been unsuccessful had we insisted on obtaining the children’s medical records as a requirement for participating in the study.
If anything this article shows that a legitimate study is needed - they cite wherein among the amish the only autistic children among them happen to be the ones that are also vaccinated, which is an extremely small percent of the overall population.
as to your final point I could not agree more and specifically about this issue - vaccines have become more of a cult than a science and a large part of it is the crushing or no funding for any study outside of a narrow scope done independently.
as an anti-vaxxer this only supports what we've been saying all along and more study is needed. unfortunately, theres just too much money to be made here and the vaccine court picks up the costs of any wrong doing anyway.
So am I. Don't worry, we're on the same page. Literally.
just so happens that the umbrella
Umbrellas. Plural. Among other things. P hacking. I said this. I will have it sink in.
our comments about sample size and anonymous data are directly addressed in the article
I don't care about their excuses. You keep telling me that they give excuses, but it's like an abuser blaming her dead husband on a bad day she had. Science isn't done by people who make excuses for their bad publications. Stop making them, and stop giving me them. If they can't do the study right, then they should have packed up and gone home. I know why they didn't. But that's not my problem.
the footnote[70] leads here:
.
Analysis of self-reported health care utilization and absence when compared with administrative data.
I know you're not doing this on purpose. You're just not cut out for science. Lucky for you, biology is my domain. The only reason I'm not currently a published researcher is because the economics of a degree looked shaky at best. You're entirely unaware of what it is you're looking at. You have no idea what proper tests look like. You don't know how proper samples are taken. This footnote? It links to an article telling us that individuals report how often they use doctor's and miss work. Notice there's no mention of "anonymous online poll" anywhere. Or even whether they give accurate diagnoses of what they had. Only that they accurately reported how often they use doctor's. And the more educated and wealthy they are,.the more accurate that gets.
You're seeing what you want to see. You have no idea what else it might mean.
as to your final point I could not agree more and specifically about this issue - vaccines have become more of a cult than a science and a large part of it is the crushing or no funding for any study outside of a narrow scope done independently.
Again. Wrong. Seeing what you want to see. This became an issue long after vaccinations were developed. Even as late as the 1960's, the Highs Field was hypothesized in a comparatively lax scientific environment.
too much money to be made here and the vaccine court picks up the costs of any wrong doing anyway.
Wrong. If these people made any less money off vaccines, it'd be a goddamn charity. Hell, thePaul A. Offit was begging for Congressional action out of concern for a dwindling market. And besides, since when was Capitalism a bad thing? Of course someone would want to make money. You think manufacturers make anything for the warm, fuzzy feeling they get when they think about all the cheap stuff you can have thanks to them?
I think well have to agree to disagree then. the takeaway for me is that this indicates that more study is needed.
your link seems to exclude the cost of the vaccine which is the one component im referring to when I say that too much money is being made to actually take a critical look at vaccines. big pharma no longer needs you to be sick to get you to take medicine.
i have no problem with big pharma or any other company trying to sell things, but this particular thing is in some cases being mandated under law and all sorts of public shame falls upon you should you decide not to partake in it. its no longer a sale if it comes with social stigma, and not enough study has been done to address the concerns of anti-vaxxers such as myself, but thats another topic altogether.
I fear that the FDA has failed americans and to some extent other nations who use them as a standard by allowing vaccinations to this degree to occur. They are the regulators - we cannot rely on scientific studies sponsored by the corporations themselves to be the primary dictator of the safety of the product.
1) there are three components - the preservative, the adjuvant, and the virus itself usually in a disabled state.
2) the method of delivery bypasses all of the bodies physical defenses and allows the vaccine contents past the blood brain barrier
3) with the exception of the measles vaccine all vaccines expire, usually around 15-20 years after administration. since much of the adult population does not vaccinate this pretty much kills any notion of a herd immunity existing, let alone acting as some form of shield.
4) vaccinated people can still carry the disease they vaccinate against, and so offer no protection to the immune-depressed.
5) the decline of measles, polio, mumps, rubella, scarlet fever (went away so fast a vaccine wasn't even made for it), and almost every disease all went down hill as sanitation availability (like plumbing for sewage) and practices like hand washing became more common
6) child cancer has increased massively since the 1960's. many diseases which were completely unknown before are now so common today there are radio talk shows about it on the weekly basis.
7) asking if there is a link between the vaccines and side effects that are negative automatically gets you shut down everywhere, not just online but in real life
8) vaccines actually do work as far as providing protection against the disease they are designed for
sorry for the bullet point wall of text but I figured id just get to the bottom line on your question.
the method of delivery bypasses all of the bodies physical defenses
Define "method of delivery" and give me a source.
with the exception of the measles vaccine all vaccines expire, usually around 15-20 years after administration.
The CDC only recommends booster shots every ten years for Td specifically. And I don't know that Tetanus is infectious.
vaccinated people can still carry the disease they vaccinate against, and so offer no protection to the immune-depressed.
That's a rehash of your last bullet point. Also, source please. Because the best I can imagine is someone with pertussis Hawks a loogie on you shirt, then your unvaccinated grandpa rubs it all over his hand. He certainly won't get it from you coughing in his face.
5)
All wonderful contributing factors. Thank goodness for them too.
asking if there is a link between the vaccines and side effects that are negative automatically gets you shut down everywhere, not just online but in real life
With studies of this caliber being cited, I can see why.
) vaccines actually do work as far as providing protection against the disease they are designed for
Correct.
sorry for the bullet point wall of text but I figured id just get to the bottom line on your question.
I wasn't going to ask any of this. But I will take all these bullet points to suggest that you're a 1.
Needtoknownews Dot Fucking Com? How fucking Glow in the Dark are you OP? How is it you have been here almost Four Fucking years and you have SCP and CCP of someone for a fucking day?
Tell you what? Go back to not posting because your source is shit.
OMG, you idiots haven't gotten over this conspiracy theory yet? Does it not matter that the doctor who originated this vaccine/autism bullshit admitted his "study" was a hoax and publicly retracted it? But once the seed of an idea like this falls into the stupid, fearful, conspiracy-loving horse shit-fertilized minds of idiots like you, there's no stopping it.
The doctor never retracted any of his research. Pharma just said he was wrong and suspended his license so Pharma Shills like You, could tell people he was "debunked". Serously, you need to take a hard look in the mirror and ask if you are proud of yourself for trying to lead people into a path that results in suffering.
There's only one thing in your reply that's true: Andrew Wakefield never did retract it -- but the Lancet, the extremely well-respected journal that was duped into publishing it did. They had to because the study was immediately and thoroughly debunked. As for looking in the mirror, your comment is absolutely ironic. The number of people who have been stricken with illnesses -- some potentially life threatening --- illnesses that had been essentially eradicated -- as a result of this anti-vaxxer bullshit is astounding. You might want to consider their suffering, you fuck head.
These don’t mention the gardasil shot the older children receive. There are plenty of adverse reaction incidents from that shot alone. It has been rumored that “polio” the epidemic was actually a reaction to a shot-the symptoms came about only after getting inoculated against something else-as in it wasn’t properly tested before being administered and that the “polio” scare was actually a cover for wrongdoing of the pharma industry.
I do not know what the cause is but I have never, ever seen any documentation proving the shots are safe with all the adjuvants. The CDC will tell you they are safe but no one really knows. I do know that autism is exploding and no one can give a reason as to why. It cannot just be genetics-there is a triggering event of course, what is it? This is a serious question that cannot be resolved by calling someone a fuck head. Well at least I don’t think that is how it can be resolved. Any medical person will also tell you that they judge a vaccine a success by the “tither” and that in of itself is still not proof that they work.
life is too short to give a shit we all live longer than we have previously and that is good enough for me but I don't have kids I would feel differently if I did.
It is terrifying that we can't do a double blind placebo study on this. It's also a damn good reason not to listen to the people who use "muh science" to attack vaccine choice advocates. The science is weak as hell without a double blind placebo study.
Unfortunately this study has many potential sources of error. Pharma loves these easily attackable studies because it supports their narrative that the proof vaccines cause chronic illness is weak. Meanwhile their business makes far more money off sick kids than healthy ones yet liberals defend them. It's an impressive propaganda strategy.
But then the argument will be that doing a placebo study is unethical because they wouldnt be getting vaccinated and therefore being put at risk, assuming the vaccines are safe and effective without actually testing the hypothesis.
If vaccines were the cause we should be seeing zero autistic kids in the unvaccinated group. If something in the formula is a catalyst or a risk factor, that's at least a good step in the right direction of finding the cause.
The rate is up 15% in the last 2 years. 1:59. One kid for every 2 classrooms. 10 years ago it was 1:142. In another 10 years every classroom will have at least one autistic kid. In 20 years, 1/10 the the population of that generation will be irreversibly retarded. I'm very concerned with the state of our military and security effectiveness at that point.
the cause of autism is the accumulation of poisons in our children bodies and the underexposure to natural "healthy bacteria". The reason why some develop it earlier than other is their immune system. Vaccines fuck up some of your immune and nervous system.
Our immune system learns by fighting diseases, unfortunately some are deadly. Vaccines are in theory a good idea but not when shit like aluminium and mercury is added to it because they fuck up our immune system (see Trace Amount) "What is thimerosal (or thiomersal)?
Thimerosal (also called thiomersal) has been used as a preservative in vaccines since the 1930s. It is 49.6% mercury by weight and is metabolized into ethyl mercury and thiosalicylate. In 1999, as a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics urged vaccine manufacturers to remove thimerosal from all infant vaccines as soon as was practical and recommended that studies be carried out to understand better the risks associated with mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines. As a result, in 2003, thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines, with the exception of inactivated flu vaccine in multi-dose vials.
There were 60,000,000 thimerosal-containing flu shots manufactured for 2014 alone, and many more millions in circulation in the United States. Globally, thimerosal loaded vaccines are still distributed to unregulated developing nations."
Once you do and you see the insane prevalence of autism in the classroom, you'll understand that while they did widen the criteria, the majority of kids with autism have multiple "symptoms" of autism, it's extremely rare to find one with only one of the criteria. Your statement as a counter is exactly what you were meant to believe, and unfortunately most do until they actually witness five kids in one classroom with autism.
No, but I am a teacher. I teach students from age 10 to 18, occasionally adults too.
I have two students who are full blown autistic, one is an autistic savant, can speak 4 languages fluently and learned to code morse in less than two hours.
The other is just a mad cunt with a stupid haircut who cannot function in a classroom with other students and needs to have almost every single lesson in a 1-on-1 setting.
I have lots of other students who are claimed to be 'on the spectrum' but in pretty much every single case, I diagnose them all with a total lack of discipline, lack of male guidance (they are all boys and their fathers pay almost no role in their upbringing, they also have almost no male teachers), combined with ready and easy access to computer games and distracting electronic devices.
I live and work in China by the way, and most my students are international school kids, so a mix of America, British, Canadian and Local kids.
Well it must be nice that is what your "autistic" experience is.
I will say, not that my personal experience reflects the "norm" even though we've been through three school systems in the last five years due to being military, that the "mad cunt" is what the autistic kids have been in both of my school aged children's class rooms. No idiot savants as you were blessed with.
A cross-sectional study of mothers of children educated at home was carried out in collaboration with homeschool organizations in four U.S. states: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Mothers were asked to complete an anonymous online questionnaire on their...
Ha, the sample is so cherry-picked it's hilarious. Then it's an anonymous online survey as if that's not bad enough.
NDD, a derived diagnostic measure, was defined as having one or more of the following three closely-related diagnoses: a learning disability, Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Okay. Interestingly wide net being cast.
The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD.
Oh, so not only were we looking for the pointlessly huge "NDD" umbrella, but now we were also looking for all these other things? You want to know what this smells like? P hacking. OP didn't even fucking read the abstract.
And how interesting this "increase" in ASD coincided with the release of the DSM 5.
This is why I'm extremely skeptical and cynical of anything "science" related on Voat. Of course you're supposed to be skeptical all the time, but when shit gets posted here, I make extra sure to check the primary sources and 95% of the time it's just bullshit that doesn't support what the submission header implication is. If someone posted something hypothetically that "proves" climate change, it'd get downvoated into oblivion; if the reverse happened "proving it false," it'd get upgoated to hell. People aren't here for science, they're here for bias.
The fact of the matter is people don't generally have the talent for this. Everyone likes to think they're smart enough to understand things. They forget science is a skill, and it takes the right kind of person years to do passably. Not just any moron can see the issues with studies after a read-through. So long as their well-being doesn't depend on them actually understanding any of this, they'll keep being stupid. Because, honestly, what do they lose right here and now by not understanding the concept of random sampling?
Did YOU read the study? They specifically pointed out strengths and weaknesses of the study in the discussion, mentioning your point. They justify it by: finding a large population of unvaccinated kids is hard, as other studies have not done this. Also anonymous questionnaires are standard fare for many studies, as it can allow for greater honesty. Is it perfect? No. There is good and bad to all types of studies, because no study is perfect.
But your first thought is P hacking because this study finds against your beliefs. I wonder who is the biased one here?
Look, I’m neutral on this one and have a post history of not shilling any way, but he has a point.
This study is very weak, even if they explain why it doesn’t offer much of use.
It’s not as bad as that liberal “people judge minority names worse in hiring but we basically have a sample size of three and made up our results” paper, but it ain’t good.
Sunnybrooke ago
Just trust us goys! Never mind the $35+ billion we make on vaccines, we're only aggressively promoting them because we care about you. Never mind that all of our multinational pharmaceutical companies have been sued for fraud that resulted in death and injury..we may of been lying then but we're totally telling the truth about vaccines...Just please don't research vaccine injury court which the CDC said accounted for only 1% of only the most serious reactions. Goys, we're really not trying to create lifelong customers for the sick...Uh... healthcare industry. Get your shots unless you want to die of Measles. You just have to trust us...we only have your best interests in mind.
albatrosv15 ago
2017
conservativecanuck ago
Email responses from mothers of children who don't vax. If someone wants to find "evidence" of a link between vaccines and autism/adhd/whatever, they will believe any weak connection.
The methodology of this "study" is brutally weak.
slowcrash101 ago
Vaccine theory states that by presenting a pathogen to the body, that the body's immune system will remember and remove said pathogen. Fight poison with poison(eastern medicine philosophy) is supposedly how they work. Only just giving a virus isn't enough, so they added "adjuvants". What are adjuvants? They are toxins, which encourage the immune system to develop an immune response to the protein in the vaccine.
In other words adjuvants cause a small infection to force the body to have an allergic reaction. The problem is that you force an allergic reaction to the protein/weakened virus, and every other ingredient in the vaccine. This explains why we see a large rise in auto immune disorders and allergies. The adjuvants work so well at associating vaccine contents as pathogens that the body will reject any and all contents, including human and animal stem cells which are vaccine ingredients. Now what happens if your body treats its own stem cells as pathogens and attacks them? Answer: auto immune disease. What happens if peanut proteins or other things are treated as pathogens by your body? Answer: allergic reactions.
xobodox ago
(((They))) have a history of poisoning populations through food, water, etc.. Look at how (((they))) have infiltrated and subverted these govt institutions and corporations related to health.
(((They))) need to go..
TheKnightOfGod ago
Also, some vaccines contain thimerosal (or thiomersal) which contain mercury, a neurotoxin.
HitlerDinduNufin ago
Do you eat fish?
TheKnightOfGod ago
Rarely
slowcrash101 ago
An adjuvant as well, it's an umbrella term, and there are many like preservatives like aldehydes such and formaldehyde.
Voateringforlife ago
Don’t forget the polysorbate 80!
tokui ago
Yes, adjuvants. Aluminum, too. The penut allergy has skyrocketed - since penut oil added to vaccines.
Voateringforlife ago
Interesting- I volunteer with special needs children and it does seem anecdotal that many have “allergies” to different items.
irradiated_toaster ago
Isnt autism a genetic disorder though?
SolarProphet ago
Factually Speaking, Of course. But with diagnosis criteria widened, even Anti-Social people with no learning disabilities can end up with an Autism label slapped on them even if they don't fit the usual symptoms that show Autism. (((They))) make the doctors dumb so that they can dumb down an entire population.
englishwebster ago
the link when to a sketchy site that took its source from an even sketchier one. however THAT site linked to the actual study which is important.
someone needs to re-post this but to the actual study and not just on voat but everywhere they can.
Dortex ago
It's a shit study.
englishwebster ago
i dunno about that - I read through it and they accounted for many variables and used known reliable data.
Dortex ago
I can account for all the variables I want. If I'm working with a homeschooling association and the only source for my numbers is an anonymous online survey filled out by mother's, I can't expect to be taken seriously. Statistical methods use random population samples to avoid any correlations specific groups might have.
Look at it this way: let's say the study is actually perfect. The numbers are accurate, their methodology is completely sound, and their conclusions follow logically from the data. You know what we've discovered? That homeschooled kids get sick more often when they're vaccinated. That's the best case scenario here. How many people does this sample describe?
englishwebster ago
they specifically site the why they used home schooled children.
they cited 666 samples, and the indication wasnt so much that the vaccinated gets more or less sick than the unvaccinated but what they get sick with, which seems to be more consistent with the anti-vaxx groups claims that neurological disorders increase
Dortex ago
.
Oh boo hoo, it's so hard to find unvaccinated kids elsewhere. Let me just ruin my dataset by cherry picking the sample.
No. They had one sample. And it was a an anonymous, second-hand survey. What was the survey like?
OH WOW. LET'S JUST GIVE AWAY THE ENTIRE THING BEFORE THEY'VE EVEN TOUCHED IT. THAT SURELY ISN'T GOING TO AFFECT THE ANSWERS WE GET.
Do you know what p hacking is? Because that's what's happening here. In about the laziest way possible.
Or, you know, the DSM 5 coming out.
englishwebster ago
yes it is actually, if you want to try to keep socio-economic factors in check.
DSM is for psychological problems, not physiological.
you do know what peer review is yes? its the thing that overrides your ability to use bolded capital letters in a voat response
Dortex ago
Who do you think defines and diagnoses Autism and Autism Spectrum Disorder?
Yes.
iT oVErrIDEs NOthing
englishwebster ago
right, so Autism is a psychological problem. there is no test for the brain to determine which chemical or defect actually causes autism (or depression, Anxiety disorders etc)
nothing in the DSM has a test for it - its all by observation. the child is acting like X? he must have Y according to the DSM.
so with that little bit you just learned, do you want to reconsider your thoughts or are you from reddit?
Dortex ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That the DSM isn't what's used to diagnose and define Autism? If so, how do you picture it being diagnosed? I can assure you there are no cheek swabs.
englishwebster ago
you cited the ability to "account for all the variables I want"[sic] then suggested that home schooled children are somehow differently exposed to the world compared to children who go to school.
when you consider that schools themselves have vaccine clinics and checks to make sure the child has been poked then it makes sense to try to find a group that has not been afflicted in such a way, and home schooled children happen to fit the bill without losing the socio-economic status that can also make changes.
so for instance, a Mennonite group out in the farms someplace would be a perfect group if you want an unvaccinated population but horrible because the way they live is so different from the control group (the vaccinated) that its impossible to account for anything that might be found.
the bottom line is that the "shit study" as you called it isn't shit at all, and if you read into it they specifically address the concerns you bring up, why they did them, and how much it can be trusted (like the anonymous input from mothers)
theoldones ago
dortex is a lying spamming snake. you won't get anything good out of him
https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3245244/
englishwebster ago
yeah, I got that impression when he talked like a child then pretended to be a scientist. thanks for the heads up about @Dortex
Dortex ago
u/theoldones begged for child porn,repeatedly, and again for good measure, then had a mental breakdown for over a day when he got called out for it. Also u/TruthDefender is his alt.
Thanks for the ping. <3
englishwebster ago
i had no idea voat was so highschool
Dortex ago
It is. You should check out Protect Voat. Every other post is just TOO and Crensch complaining about someone and accusing random people of being pedophiles. It's a hoot when you spam that copypasta.
Dortex ago
That was a figure of speech. In English speaking countries, "I can ____ all I want." Followed by a negative statement is actually saying that any effort spent on the action described is pointless.
The statement can be rephrased as "It doesn't matter if I do everything else right. There's still a critical issue"
Are you going to answer the DSM thing? What are you trying to say about it? The definition has been expanded for Autism, and it's now described as an umbrella known as "Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)". The study uses this umbrella with at least two others that we know of to supposedly determine "long-term health impacts".
Science lesson: When you take surveys and samples, you need to do a few things for the numbers to be useful. The most obvious thing is to take random samples. With a large enough population, you eliminate issues like geographic idiosyncrasies, sociological factors, and any unknown traits that may correlate with some groups. They did none of this. They can make all the excuses they want (there's that figure of speech again), nobody with any sense for these things will take it seriously.
It's shit. It's an anonymous survey with a cherry-picked sample, that explicitly warns the responders to the intent of the survey. They're second-hand accounts from parents and, to boot, there's no mechanism to verify any of the responses. As if all this wasn't bad enough, they're casting such a wide net, they're going to find something through sheer chance; blatant p hacking.
Do you know what p hacking even is? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like an answer.
englishwebster ago
so again - the study (which was peer reviewed) specifically addresses your concerns about input from parents and the apperant bad data from parents. I suggest you read the bottom half at least of the study to get this information.
if im not mistaken, you brought up the DSM, not me. my point about the DSM is that none of the afflictions contained within it have a blood test or other physical method to determine diagnosis, only observation and answers from the patient, kinda like what the parents are providing about their children.
I dont know what P hacking is but Im guessing its related to sussing out results from data that might not otherwise indicate what the data is showing. im not certain if thats possible in a peer-reviewed study, since the entire purpose of a peer-review is to help eliminate that very thing.
Dortex ago
By who? So far it's doing a poor job holding up to my own.
Every time I read this, I come out just a little bit more disappointed. No context makes work this sloppy acceptable.
Anonymously. With no medical verification. Twitter polls are more rigorous. No, really. They have larger, more varied samples that are tied to an identity. Also, it's harder to lead your responders with only 280 characters. Sure they're still selected samples, since you don't see Twitter polls if you don't want to. Also you're not controlling who responds. But it's still a step up.
Mine is that the expanded definitions for Autism are an obvious factor for the increase in its diagnosis.
Vague, but no. Long story short, you notice they state "confidence" percentages in the data they use? That's basically the statistically determined odds that the data isn't a fluke. In the case of most papers, anything under 5% is acceptable. So there's only a 1 in 20 chance that what's being seen isn't a real effect. What's the problem? Well the problem is when you cast a huge net. Learning Disabilities (umbrella), Autism Spectrum (Umbrella), Allergies (Umbrella), Pneumonia, Ear infections, and ADHD.
Even if we ignore sampling issues; hell, even if we pretend each one of those things being screened only counts as a single data point somehow (maybe they were only looking for a single kind of allergy, for example), that's still 6 chances to get a statistical blip. And this is what they admitted to. Who knows what else they dumped to get published.
There are deep issues with science. Predatory journals publishing any random thing that's found, journals in general refusing to publish negative results (so-called "failed experiments", which is a misnomer), the grant system in general. There's a real focus on publishing to reputable journals because those, so the thinking goes, have consistently screened and published high-quality research. Generally speaking, if it says "open access", it's not one of the reputable ones. There's plenty of money to be made if you just publish any garbage that comes your way.
englishwebster ago
to be clear (and im afraid I was not so apologies for that) im referring to the study itself at https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php and NOT the article posted by OP.
the study itself admits nothing is definitive, only that the unvaccinated seemed to tend to suffer from some illnesses more than the vaccinated and vice versa. it just so happens that the umbrella (and agreed there, autism itself seems to lack a clear definition beyond symtoms) was one of the things checked for and caused a blip.
your comments about sample size and anonymous data are directly addressed in the article:
the footnote[70] leads here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528832 which concludes that it is indeed a viable method for collecting this type of data.
If anything this article shows that a legitimate study is needed - they cite wherein among the amish the only autistic children among them happen to be the ones that are also vaccinated, which is an extremely small percent of the overall population.
as to your final point I could not agree more and specifically about this issue - vaccines have become more of a cult than a science and a large part of it is the crushing or no funding for any study outside of a narrow scope done independently.
as an anti-vaxxer this only supports what we've been saying all along and more study is needed. unfortunately, theres just too much money to be made here and the vaccine court picks up the costs of any wrong doing anyway.
Dortex ago
So am I. Don't worry, we're on the same page. Literally.
Umbrellas. Plural. Among other things. P hacking. I said this. I will have it sink in.
I don't care about their excuses. You keep telling me that they give excuses, but it's like an abuser blaming her dead husband on a bad day she had. Science isn't done by people who make excuses for their bad publications. Stop making them, and stop giving me them. If they can't do the study right, then they should have packed up and gone home. I know why they didn't. But that's not my problem.
.
I know you're not doing this on purpose. You're just not cut out for science. Lucky for you, biology is my domain. The only reason I'm not currently a published researcher is because the economics of a degree looked shaky at best. You're entirely unaware of what it is you're looking at. You have no idea what proper tests look like. You don't know how proper samples are taken. This footnote? It links to an article telling us that individuals report how often they use doctor's and miss work. Notice there's no mention of "anonymous online poll" anywhere. Or even whether they give accurate diagnoses of what they had. Only that they accurately reported how often they use doctor's. And the more educated and wealthy they are,.the more accurate that gets.
You're seeing what you want to see. You have no idea what else it might mean.
Again. Wrong. Seeing what you want to see. This became an issue long after vaccinations were developed. Even as late as the 1960's, the Highs Field was hypothesized in a comparatively lax scientific environment.
Wrong. If these people made any less money off vaccines, it'd be a goddamn charity. Hell, the Paul A. Offit was begging for Congressional action out of concern for a dwindling market. And besides, since when was Capitalism a bad thing? Of course someone would want to make money. You think manufacturers make anything for the warm, fuzzy feeling they get when they think about all the cheap stuff you can have thanks to them?
englishwebster ago
I think well have to agree to disagree then. the takeaway for me is that this indicates that more study is needed.
your link seems to exclude the cost of the vaccine which is the one component im referring to when I say that too much money is being made to actually take a critical look at vaccines. big pharma no longer needs you to be sick to get you to take medicine.
i have no problem with big pharma or any other company trying to sell things, but this particular thing is in some cases being mandated under law and all sorts of public shame falls upon you should you decide not to partake in it. its no longer a sale if it comes with social stigma, and not enough study has been done to address the concerns of anti-vaxxers such as myself, but thats another topic altogether.
I fear that the FDA has failed americans and to some extent other nations who use them as a standard by allowing vaccinations to this degree to occur. They are the regulators - we cannot rely on scientific studies sponsored by the corporations themselves to be the primary dictator of the safety of the product.
Dortex ago
On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being "average at best", 10 being "world's foremost expert", how well would you say you understand vaccines?
englishwebster ago
Here is what I understand in a nutshell:
1) there are three components - the preservative, the adjuvant, and the virus itself usually in a disabled state.
2) the method of delivery bypasses all of the bodies physical defenses and allows the vaccine contents past the blood brain barrier
3) with the exception of the measles vaccine all vaccines expire, usually around 15-20 years after administration. since much of the adult population does not vaccinate this pretty much kills any notion of a herd immunity existing, let alone acting as some form of shield.
4) vaccinated people can still carry the disease they vaccinate against, and so offer no protection to the immune-depressed.
5) the decline of measles, polio, mumps, rubella, scarlet fever (went away so fast a vaccine wasn't even made for it), and almost every disease all went down hill as sanitation availability (like plumbing for sewage) and practices like hand washing became more common
6) child cancer has increased massively since the 1960's. many diseases which were completely unknown before are now so common today there are radio talk shows about it on the weekly basis.
7) asking if there is a link between the vaccines and side effects that are negative automatically gets you shut down everywhere, not just online but in real life
8) vaccines actually do work as far as providing protection against the disease they are designed for
sorry for the bullet point wall of text but I figured id just get to the bottom line on your question.
Dortex ago
Why are people so averse to answering simple questions?
More.
Define "method of delivery" and give me a source.
The CDC only recommends booster shots every ten years for Td specifically. And I don't know that Tetanus is infectious.
That's a rehash of your last bullet point. Also, source please. Because the best I can imagine is someone with pertussis Hawks a loogie on you shirt, then your unvaccinated grandpa rubs it all over his hand. He certainly won't get it from you coughing in his face.
All wonderful contributing factors. Thank goodness for them too.
With studies of this caliber being cited, I can see why.
Correct.
I wasn't going to ask any of this. But I will take all these bullet points to suggest that you're a 1.
englishwebster ago
well ok then good talking to you.
PatrioticAmerican ago
"based on Mothers’ Reports)"
Not a scientific research paper. Just another op-ed pretending to be science.Liberals don't know facts, they think their thoughts are facts.
YouAreASlave ago
(((libs))) aka (((the communists))) are pro vax.
XSS1337 ago
Who are the peers?
Two crackheads aren’t peers.
BentAxel ago
Needtoknownews Dot Fucking Com? How fucking Glow in the Dark are you OP? How is it you have been here almost Four Fucking years and you have SCP and CCP of someone for a fucking day?
Tell you what? Go back to not posting because your source is shit.
edistojim ago
Because autism is so much worse that polio………….fucking retards.
AvariciousNose ago
Please get your family vaccinated and don’t listen to cherry picked news articles
AntiMason ago
Shills have come out hard on this post.
hankylanky ago
OMG, you idiots haven't gotten over this conspiracy theory yet? Does it not matter that the doctor who originated this vaccine/autism bullshit admitted his "study" was a hoax and publicly retracted it? But once the seed of an idea like this falls into the stupid, fearful, conspiracy-loving horse shit-fertilized minds of idiots like you, there's no stopping it.
Sunnybrooke ago
The doctor never retracted any of his research. Pharma just said he was wrong and suspended his license so Pharma Shills like You, could tell people he was "debunked". Serously, you need to take a hard look in the mirror and ask if you are proud of yourself for trying to lead people into a path that results in suffering.
hankylanky ago
There's only one thing in your reply that's true: Andrew Wakefield never did retract it -- but the Lancet, the extremely well-respected journal that was duped into publishing it did. They had to because the study was immediately and thoroughly debunked. As for looking in the mirror, your comment is absolutely ironic. The number of people who have been stricken with illnesses -- some potentially life threatening --- illnesses that had been essentially eradicated -- as a result of this anti-vaxxer bullshit is astounding. You might want to consider their suffering, you fuck head.
Voateringforlife ago
What is it? Any thoughts as to the reason? Is it the air? Or water or food? Does anyone know? Here is some scientific data: https://www.childrensimmunization.org/uploads/Vaccination-Schedules-Past-Present-and-Future.pdf
This has nice graphic showing how many young children get: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/01/cdc-mandatory-vaccine-schedule-1983-vs.html?m=1
These don’t mention the gardasil shot the older children receive. There are plenty of adverse reaction incidents from that shot alone. It has been rumored that “polio” the epidemic was actually a reaction to a shot-the symptoms came about only after getting inoculated against something else-as in it wasn’t properly tested before being administered and that the “polio” scare was actually a cover for wrongdoing of the pharma industry.
I do not know what the cause is but I have never, ever seen any documentation proving the shots are safe with all the adjuvants. The CDC will tell you they are safe but no one really knows. I do know that autism is exploding and no one can give a reason as to why. It cannot just be genetics-there is a triggering event of course, what is it? This is a serious question that cannot be resolved by calling someone a fuck head. Well at least I don’t think that is how it can be resolved. Any medical person will also tell you that they judge a vaccine a success by the “tither” and that in of itself is still not proof that they work.
EpiPendemic ago
life is too short to give a shit we all live longer than we have previously and that is good enough for me but I don't have kids I would feel differently if I did.
cT9NlRLhxlyr ago
In other news, vaccinated kids have a higher literacy rate, too. I guess vaccines cause literacy.
CowWithBeef ago
It is terrifying that we can't do a double blind placebo study on this. It's also a damn good reason not to listen to the people who use "muh science" to attack vaccine choice advocates. The science is weak as hell without a double blind placebo study.
Unfortunately this study has many potential sources of error. Pharma loves these easily attackable studies because it supports their narrative that the proof vaccines cause chronic illness is weak. Meanwhile their business makes far more money off sick kids than healthy ones yet liberals defend them. It's an impressive propaganda strategy.
AntiMason ago
But then the argument will be that doing a placebo study is unethical because they wouldnt be getting vaccinated and therefore being put at risk, assuming the vaccines are safe and effective without actually testing the hypothesis.
CowWithBeef ago
Assuming is the key word here. We assume they are safe so it's unethical to test. Totally insane.
Dortex ago
Not even this sham of a paper denies their effectiveness.
CowWithBeef ago
Hi Pfizer stockholder!
Dortex ago
"We need an honest look at vaccines, man!"
"Not even these losers deny they work"
"URA SHILL LMAO"
Yfw
Mrw
CowWithBeef ago
Dortex ago
If you look just a few inches up on this page, you'll notice the "study" being ripped apart. You have no talent for this "science" thing.
Action_Bastard ago
If vaccines were the cause we should be seeing zero autistic kids in the unvaccinated group. If something in the formula is a catalyst or a risk factor, that's at least a good step in the right direction of finding the cause.
The rate is up 15% in the last 2 years. 1:59. One kid for every 2 classrooms. 10 years ago it was 1:142. In another 10 years every classroom will have at least one autistic kid. In 20 years, 1/10 the the population of that generation will be irreversibly retarded. I'm very concerned with the state of our military and security effectiveness at that point.
TheKnightOfGod ago
the cause of autism is the accumulation of poisons in our children bodies and the underexposure to natural "healthy bacteria". The reason why some develop it earlier than other is their immune system. Vaccines fuck up some of your immune and nervous system. Our immune system learns by fighting diseases, unfortunately some are deadly. Vaccines are in theory a good idea but not when shit like aluminium and mercury is added to it because they fuck up our immune system (see Trace Amount) "What is thimerosal (or thiomersal)? Thimerosal (also called thiomersal) has been used as a preservative in vaccines since the 1930s. It is 49.6% mercury by weight and is metabolized into ethyl mercury and thiosalicylate. In 1999, as a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics urged vaccine manufacturers to remove thimerosal from all infant vaccines as soon as was practical and recommended that studies be carried out to understand better the risks associated with mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines. As a result, in 2003, thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines, with the exception of inactivated flu vaccine in multi-dose vials.
There were 60,000,000 thimerosal-containing flu shots manufactured for 2014 alone, and many more millions in circulation in the United States. Globally, thimerosal loaded vaccines are still distributed to unregulated developing nations."
Action_Bastard ago
Thimerosal isn't in nature. Aluminum might be a better study. Its in the wild, so unvaccinated kids could be exposed to it.
TheKnightOfGod ago
Well my point was that mercury is also added to vaccines and it fucks up your body.
FecalDemiurge6000 ago
Autistic master race is coming. We will own this world.
HitlerDinduNufin ago
The criteria for diagnosing autism has been widened.
Warnos44 ago
Yes but do you have children in school?
Once you do and you see the insane prevalence of autism in the classroom, you'll understand that while they did widen the criteria, the majority of kids with autism have multiple "symptoms" of autism, it's extremely rare to find one with only one of the criteria. Your statement as a counter is exactly what you were meant to believe, and unfortunately most do until they actually witness five kids in one classroom with autism.
HitlerDinduNufin ago
No, but I am a teacher. I teach students from age 10 to 18, occasionally adults too. I have two students who are full blown autistic, one is an autistic savant, can speak 4 languages fluently and learned to code morse in less than two hours. The other is just a mad cunt with a stupid haircut who cannot function in a classroom with other students and needs to have almost every single lesson in a 1-on-1 setting.
I have lots of other students who are claimed to be 'on the spectrum' but in pretty much every single case, I diagnose them all with a total lack of discipline, lack of male guidance (they are all boys and their fathers pay almost no role in their upbringing, they also have almost no male teachers), combined with ready and easy access to computer games and distracting electronic devices.
I live and work in China by the way, and most my students are international school kids, so a mix of America, British, Canadian and Local kids.
Warnos44 ago
Well it must be nice that is what your "autistic" experience is.
I will say, not that my personal experience reflects the "norm" even though we've been through three school systems in the last five years due to being military, that the "mad cunt" is what the autistic kids have been in both of my school aged children's class rooms. No idiot savants as you were blessed with.
Redpilleveryone ago
Downvoat for old article from 2017.
ThinkAboutIt1488 ago
It's all a money grab or worse. When they payed for that vaccine 'commercial' during the oscars I was seriously freaked out.
Creggieb ago
Alive children suffer 100 percent more illness than children who died of polio
CowWithBeef ago
Ok but it's more probable to win the powerball than to get polio in the USA. 100% of zero isn't very many.
Liberameya ago
BS Sponsored Content
RealBiggly ago
Well just go to the study then:
https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php
Dortex ago
Bruh:
Ha, the sample is so cherry-picked it's hilarious. Then it's an anonymous online survey as if that's not bad enough.
Okay. Interestingly wide net being cast.
Oh, so not only were we looking for the pointlessly huge "NDD" umbrella, but now we were also looking for all these other things? You want to know what this smells like? P hacking. OP didn't even fucking read the abstract.
And how interesting this "increase" in ASD coincided with the release of the DSM 5.
shrink ago
This is why I'm extremely skeptical and cynical of anything "science" related on Voat. Of course you're supposed to be skeptical all the time, but when shit gets posted here, I make extra sure to check the primary sources and 95% of the time it's just bullshit that doesn't support what the submission header implication is. If someone posted something hypothetically that "proves" climate change, it'd get downvoated into oblivion; if the reverse happened "proving it false," it'd get upgoated to hell. People aren't here for science, they're here for bias.
Dortex ago
The fact of the matter is people don't generally have the talent for this. Everyone likes to think they're smart enough to understand things. They forget science is a skill, and it takes the right kind of person years to do passably. Not just any moron can see the issues with studies after a read-through. So long as their well-being doesn't depend on them actually understanding any of this, they'll keep being stupid. Because, honestly, what do they lose right here and now by not understanding the concept of random sampling?
Biggerpotato ago
Sounds like you are nitpicking from the bottom of the barrel, shill.
Dortex ago
Sure, if you don't know what that looks like.
Biggerpotato ago
At least your honest about your shilling. Off yourself nigger.
AntiMason ago
Go shove your vaccines up your ass.
DavidHogg ago
Excellent counter argument there buddy.
UnJaded ago
Did YOU read the study? They specifically pointed out strengths and weaknesses of the study in the discussion, mentioning your point. They justify it by: finding a large population of unvaccinated kids is hard, as other studies have not done this. Also anonymous questionnaires are standard fare for many studies, as it can allow for greater honesty. Is it perfect? No. There is good and bad to all types of studies, because no study is perfect.
But your first thought is P hacking because this study finds against your beliefs. I wonder who is the biased one here?
Dortex ago
If my study had "cherry-picked sample", "anonymous online survey" as weaknesses, I wouldn't even bother.
This is enough to get laughed out of a room no matter what your conclusions are.
No. It's because this reeks of p hacking. We're looking for:
The net is so huge, they're going to find something through sheer chance.
You. Also you have no talent for science.
Volcris ago
Look, I’m neutral on this one and have a post history of not shilling any way, but he has a point.
This study is very weak, even if they explain why it doesn’t offer much of use.
It’s not as bad as that liberal “people judge minority names worse in hiring but we basically have a sample size of three and made up our results” paper, but it ain’t good.