I would heartily disagree. If you ignore the straw-man misrepresentations of my arguments, nobody has really even touched them.
Again, critical reading and comprehension skills are required.
A lack of confidence that a link will be found is NOT the same thing as having confidence a link will not be found. Having confidence is having a reasonable certainty of something.
If we put this all on a spectrum on the right there would be a "confidence a link will be found", on the left would be a "confidence a link will not be found" and in the middle-ground would be "a lack of confidence that a link will be found" or "a lack of confidence that a link will not be found". One has a reasonable certainty, the other does not have reasonable certainty.
Let me better emphasize my position on the issue to help you better understand the difference. My position is that there may be a link between the two, and certainly this doctor's hypothesis sounds plausible. Unfortunately due to the VERY complex nature of microbiology and cellular genetics it's extremely difficult to adequately control all variables in order to PROVE a link. Therefore I'm not confident that a definitive link will be found, I'm hopeful it will be found (a link to what causes autism, not necessarily a vaccine related link), but not confident. Maybe it's semantics to you, I see a clear difference.
That being said, none of this can change the fact that there could be a link and that we just haven't found it yet. Confidence or lack there-of doesn't change a thing. If we never find a link that also doesn't mean there IS NOT a link, it merely means we can't find the link...
The point is still valid. A scientist, that had reason to believe things were NOT as the current "general consensus" held based upon scientific reasons was ridiculed and 'exiled' because he went against the grain. The people that ridiculed and exiled him were only using what they knew at present to discredit his scientific theory and/or hypothesis. It wasn't until science and technology advanced further were they proven fools. What makes you believe this isn't a repeat of said events? The general consensus of scientists say there is no link, even if their studies are 100% true they are only using what is known to them TODAY, at present. Don't you think it's a bit short-sighted to say, "today's evidence says this, so it must be true and anybody that feels otherwise is a fool"? Certainly you don't believe that we're at the end of discovery and there is nothing left for humans to discover do you?
Did I prove that vaccines cause autism? Of course I didn't, because I never made that claim.
Alpo said:The litany of accusations about "the process" is valid opinion, but not scientific support that vaccines cause autism.
Alpo said:I've been waiting for the evidence that supports the concern of the OP: that vaccines cause autism.
If that's the only point that you're interested in arguing then you are barking up the wrong tree, Alpo.Haha, do you see what I did there? BARKING? LOL
I've been waiting for the evidence that supports the concern of the OP: that vaccines cause autism. 200 posts later, we are in no different position.
Galileo was forced to recant his position as well, did that make his assertions any less true or credible? At the time he was considered a fool, fast forward a couple hundred years and all of the sudden he was a genius ahead of his time. Do you not see the potential correlation?
Again, critical reading and comprehension skills are required.
A lack of confidence that a link will be found is NOT the same thing as having confidence a link will not be found. Having confidence is having a reasonable certainty of something.
If we put this all on a spectrum on the right there would be a "confidence a link will be found", on the left would be a "confidence a link will not be found" and in the middle-ground would be "a lack of confidence that a link will be found" or "a lack of confidence that a link will not be found". One has a reasonable certainty, the other does not have reasonable certainty.
Let me better emphasize my position on the issue to help you better understand the difference. My position is that there may be a link between the two, and certainly this doctor's hypothesis sounds plausible. Unfortunately due to the VERY complex nature of microbiology and cellular genetics it's extremely difficult to adequately control all variables in order to PROVE a link. Therefore I'm not confident that a definitive link will be found, I'm hopeful it will be found (a link to what causes autism, not necessarily a vaccine related link), but not confident. Maybe it's semantics to you, I see a clear difference.
That being said, none of this can change the fact that there could be a link and that we just haven't found it yet. Confidence or lack there-of doesn't change a thing. If we never find a link that also doesn't mean there IS NOT a link, it merely means we can't find the link...
The point is still valid. A scientist, that had reason to believe things were NOT as the current "general consensus" held based upon scientific reasons was ridiculed and 'exiled' because he went against the grain. The people that ridiculed and exiled him were only using what they knew at present to discredit his scientific theory and/or hypothesis. It wasn't until science and technology advanced further were they proven fools. What makes you believe this isn't a repeat of said events? The general consensus of scientists say there is no link, even if their studies are 100% true they are only using what is known to them TODAY, at present. Don't you think it's a bit short-sighted to say, "today's evidence says this, so it must be true and anybody that feels otherwise is a fool"? Certainly you don't believe that we're at the end of discovery and there is nothing left for humans to discover do you?
I'm not. Did you read the article? She's discussing the use of aborted fetal cell lines, which are used in a small percentage of vaccines. That specific cross section of vaccines would need to be studied with proper control groups. This is not the same old 'vaccines cause autism' discussion. This is new territory.