|Chronology||Current Month||Current Thread||Current Date|
|[Year List] [Month List (current year)]||[Date Index] [Thread Index]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]||[Date Prev] [Date Next]|
On Jan 29, 2020, at 8:27 PM, brian whatcott <email@example.com> wrote:
Bill, since you insist I offer a more direct judgment I will say this.
I set aside as far as I can, any study which used American physicians and epidemiologists because, since medicine was converted by Congressional law to a profit-making enterprise, U.S results are at once made suspect by the ever present profit motif in medicine and also in law-making mediated by lobbyists, but also by the known discrepancies of life-expectancy as between the US and a number of other countries.
Instead, I prefer to look at European studies where lobbyists' efforts are less all-encompassing, though sadly, not absent.
If I search for studies intended to study the relation between autism and popular vaccines like MMR (Measles, Mumps Rubella) I come upon papers like this one as a sample of the general European approach to vaccination*,*though it suffers statistically because it is retrospectiveand it carries a U.S imprimatur ~
Annals of Internal Medicine:
n = 657 461 children born in Denmark from 1999 through 31 December 2010, with follow-up from 1 year of age and through 31 August 2013.
During 5 025 754 person-years of follow-up, 6517 children were diagnosed with autism (incidence rate, 129.7 per 100 000 person-years). Comparing MMR-vaccinated with MMR-unvaccinated children yielded a fully adjusted autism hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02). Similarly, no increased risk for autism after MMR vaccination was consistently observed in subgroups of children defined according to sibling history of autism, autism risk factors (based on a disease risk score) or other childhood vaccinations, or during specified time periods after vaccination.
Is this sufficiently blunt (head-on) to meet your requirement?
On 1/29/2020 6:01 PM, Bill Norwood via Phys-l wrote:/snip/
- You keep drawing attention away from the central issue.
- Please, let me see you address head-on the issue about the degree to which you are responsible to perform objective research designed to maximally defend those you care about against the ravages of autism.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 29, 2020, at 4:09 PM, brian whatcott <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I am not a climatologist. Should I do my own objective research, read 50 books on the topic possibly - before accepting the global warming hypothesis?
I am not a brilliant or even a mediocre physicist, by the way, just as you would probably agree you are not an epidemiologist.
p.s. I DO know how 'endemic' is defined - and that's something!
On 1/29/2020 12:38 PM, Bill Norwood via Phys-l wrote:
- Yes, I have studied and worked roughly 1000 hours on the vaccine problem, and I readily admit that I do not know it all.
- Even the producers of the documentary for which I wrote the transcript, which involves several board-certified physicians as well as an array of other highly qualified specialists, virtually admit via an add-on that their documentary does not “know it all.”
Forum for Physics Educators