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.
view the rest of the comments →
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.