I do appreciate you piping up. I'll point out right away I can't learn anything I don't already know if folks don't set me straight when I'm wrong. However, the McCullough Foundation study points out that incidence of autism has risen >32k% since 1970, and 26% of those cases are not merely 'on the spectrum', but severe autism. This clearly isn't just increased awareness, but is an environmental factor that has similarly increased in impact.
My statement to that effect doesn't prove - or claim - what environmental factor that is. The McCullough Foundation report does, however.
" Why is this such a persistent myth?"
In the study they look at different possible determinants, and the one that is statistically most impactful is vaccinations. They don't claim it is the only one. You seem to have given great consideration to the matter, and having a read at the study itself might convince you that the other determinants you mention have been properly considered. You, just like me, can't learn anything you don't already know unless you have an open enough mind to actually look at the data that's been reviewed and assess for yourself the rigor of the research that is reported - and if you see that it's lacking in some way, you can provide salient criticism beyond mere assumptions and possibilities that could, maybe, might matter, by stating shortcomings specific to the research in question.
If they're wrong, I'd sure like to know how they went wrong.
Thanks!
Yes, you are dead right - one should engage with counter arguments, which is why I'm here and why I so strongly voiced my viewpoint.
From what I know about this report, firstly, what raises huge red flags for me is that Wakefield is involved and he's the one who published dodgy 'studies' which set the whole thing off. A lot of the info in that study was falsified, and from what I understand, this report has ignored tons of peer reviewed data and journals that have been held to strict standards - ie a case of cherry picking. And Maccallough et all were known to soard disinformation around covid 19 etc too, so even if I did credit the study, if be worried about vested interest here and would like to see studies produced by less biased people.
So there's a LOT of red flags here that make me scoff at these claims... Sorry, I'm not at all dismissing YOU, but I'm very, very dubious about this report. People blindly believe things that are esp used by so called science that hasn't been undertaken with proper measures.
It's easy enough to find flaws in the study online ,- I'm not a scientist nor a data analyst and I definitely don't have time nor even inclination to read it in a less than cursory way (totally get you might find this approach flawed also 😜) but from what I've read, there's a helluva lot debatable about this report that shows it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
My big issue is people being misled by biased reports and taking them as gospel.
Respectfully, always.
I have to assume you didn't read that study either, but only what you were told about by people paid by pharmaceutical companies to lie about, just as they lied about the Covid jabs, and are lying about this now.
You shall know them by their fruits. Anytime you want to know the actual truth you only have to read the actual research. Until then, you may continue to be misled.
That was my starting point. I think you're misled, you think I'm misled, and never the twain shall meet.
I definitely think we need to be vigilant against vaccines and very cautious, but that does not mean all vaccines, as many have done a world of good for humanity, and I don't think I am misled here. You only have to see the impact of NOT vaccinating kids and them getting measles etc to see that. It may not be perfect, but it's the best we have got, and I don't think they cause autism and are yet to see proof otherwise. This certainly isn't it.
And I did read that study, and read this one too. Certainly, if people are paid by pharmaceutical companies to say anything I wouldn't listen to them either, but there's plenty of rigorously independent scientific studies - actual research as you say - that people ignore because they believe what they want to believe.
That was my starting point, as I had been taught from birth. But then I saw this:
Amongst the diseases charted is scarlet fever, for which there is no, and has never been a, vaccine. Also, the early 'vaccination' for smallpox absolutely did not save any lives, and if you read the literature from that time this will be obvious. The reason for that is all they did to 'vaccinate' people was to take a sample of pus from infected animals and introduce that - with all and sundry infectious pathogens - into subjects. Unsurprisingly, this caused many illnesses and deaths, far from reducing impact of disease. What is apparent from the chart is that, while vaccines were introduced at various times, diseases all reduced in impact simultaneously, including smallpox and scarlet fever. If you look closely at the smallpox data, it shows that the worst outbreak occurred after the most stringent mandate was imposed. Smallpox vaccination made the disease much worse!
I learned I was wrong, and when an honest man learns he is wrong, he either ceases to be wrong or ceases to be honest. Because this information made me look into the literature, I changed my mind. Today I regret ever allowing any vaccinations to be imposed on my sons.
That is why I provide the data, the actual factual information, rather than claims of them with immense profit motives to fool us into believing, as we've been told, that vaccines of any kind or stripe, ever have done anyone any good. The studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children all show that vaccinated children have ~2.5x higher all causes mortality. The data tells the truth. The profiteers and their minions do not. We cannot ascertain that without looking at the data, which requires reading the studies.
That show any benefit from vaccines? I haven't seen them, and I look. Please provide links to any such information that you are aware of. If I am wrong, I very much want to know it so that I can change my mind and become right. I am happy that you have looked at the studies I have linked. Whether you are in agreement with them or not, you at least haven't treated the data like a cultist warding off heretical dogma, as many do. This makes me happy for you, and glad you make decisions based on information you ascertain for yourself, rather than just doing as you're told. Whether we agree about this or that today is a minor thing, because honest people that look at the same information will at least make rational decisions based on their interpretation of that information, and will see the value in having the freedom to themselves make their own decisions based on their own investigation - which means they do not support censoring that information or mandatory medical interventions that would deprive them of their right to choose for themselves.
These are far more important than whether we agree about the impact of vaccines, because they are what differentiate sovereigns from chattel.
When I was a child I literally was taken to a measles party by my parents, so that I would catch measles at the appropriate age to suffer only a mild fever and a few days of relative misery. I also got the mumps and chicken pox, also relatively mild and no more than a few days discomfort, from which almost no children suffered more or died in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The hype about measles today is pure BS. I have not only seen the impact of measles, but personally lived it.
I am living proof of my claims.