Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus
The reason why the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is relevant to the vaccines/autism subject is that vaccinations are routinely given to children at about the same age when autism traits begin to become apparent; also even those people who believe that vaccinations cause autism admit that this only happens to a small minority of vaccinated children.
|
Then why are children in the Amish population not developing autism at the age of 3, or showing any traits whatsoever? You are assuming that developing autism is normal and that a certain amount of children will get it. You also say that a small minority of children get it. One in 100,000 children on the autism spectrum is not a small minority.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ceptimus
Now, imagine that no child was ever diagnosed with autism in the hours or days following a vaccination - that would be amazing! It would show that the vaccine, as well as protecting against, say, measles as intended was also giving temporary immunity against developing autism!
|
How is it giving temporary immunity against autism if the adjuvants in the vaccines have the potential to cause inflammation or demyelination?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ceptimus
Let's say we want to scientifically test whether vaccinations cause autism symptoms in three-year-old children during the week following vaccination. First we would need to establish a baseline of how many unvaccinated three-year-olds showed the first signs of autism in a given week: for the sake of argument we can say this happens to 1 child out of every 100,000. Now for every million vaccinations given to three-year-olds we would expect about ten of those children to show autism signs in the week following vaccination - even if when the vaccine has no causal effect on autism whatsoever.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ceptimus
This is exactly what scientists have already done.
|
Sorry, but you can't establish a definite number of children who get autism and then use that as a baseline to prove that vaccines are not the cause. It's not linear like this. Comparing populations is better than this sort of test, and the Amish are a good population to compare because very few are vaccinated. Of course you will find some flaw in this type of study, but why is your study any less flawed?