I did procreate, unfortunately they didn't do well after they were vaccinated though.
I KID I KID !!! hahaha
Do any of RFK’s defenders still believe he’s not anti-vax?
- Thread starter WhyisIUBBcursed
- Start date
I KID I KID !!! hahaha
They recently started a new study on the effects of MEGA on the Republican party. Early indications although this is preliminary, trend toward 38.5 points drop in overall Intelligence quotient. The conclusion of the ongoing study should be completed before 2028.
Aren't all the Republicans supposed to be in this "Let's cut out all the wasteful spending" mode? We've been hearing the responses for weeks now that the fat has to be trimmed, even if you end up sacrificing a bit of steak along the way.
So how do you justify spending millions of dollars on a "study" that has already been looked at? Doesn't that seem to qualify as wasteful spending?
There's a thread here in the past couple of days talking about how governments shouldn't be spending money on medical research and that universities should be privatizing their funding. Shouldn't that standard also apply to this autism research?
So how do you justify spending millions of dollars on a "study" that has already been looked at? Doesn't that seem to qualify as wasteful spending?
There's a thread here in the past couple of days talking about how governments shouldn't be spending money on medical research and that universities should be privatizing their funding. Shouldn't that standard also apply to this autism research?
Ask Joe H. He doesn’t believe all the previous research
Taxpayers' Tab For Trump's Second-Term Golf Excursions Crosses $26 Million Mark
He has now traveled to one of his golf resorts on nine of the ten weekends since taking office in January. It is his seventh trip to his Palm Beach, Florida, country club.
And why the Amish don't suffer from this poisoning.
.
Didn't Republicans bitch and moan about Obama's far less frequent golf trips?Taxpayers' Tab For Trump's Second-Term Golf Excursions Crosses $26 Million Mark
He has now traveled to one of his golf resorts on nine of the ten weekends since taking office in January. It is his seventh trip to his Palm Beach, Florida, country club.www.huffpost.com
I'm not complaining in the least. If he's not signing something (other than border related) I'm probably better off.
Who does he think he is, McNutt?
I think that predictions of eclipses are pretty good, don't you?
I think that the studies in the 70s implicating chlorofluorocarbons in the depletion of the ozone layer, leading to their ban, leading to replenishment of the ozone layer was pretty good, don't you?
I think that studies to design immunotherapy for cancer were pretty good, leading to some remarkable cures, don't you?
I could list studies all day that gave amazing results that held up...
The wasteful spending question?
Yes I am 100% against wasteful spending. I am also aware that we have a serious problem and if I understand the data (self admittedly that I do not, have not and probably will not in the future, follow this with more than .1% of effort).
A study or search for answers are only as good as the way that it is organized. In the Engineering world, we call these DOE's. If one doesn't pick the right variables to consider, it's a shit experiment from day one. I'm not saying that the legacy studies are all shit. I am not saying that they AIN'T.
What I am saying, is that too many times in the history of innovation, some person (even a little uneducated redneck) threw in what was a previously considered Nothing burger, that ended up being a magic bullet.
The only way for those accidental successes to happen, is through more attempts, with greater randomization. Heck, even totally irrational assumptions.
We have a known problem, and it seems that I am (somewhat) arguing with a crowd that is entrenched in the notion of; "It's been studied so we simply can't do anything about it" . That pretty much sounds like an agenda to me, but that is beside the point.
That isn't a world that I live in, sorry.
Eclipses, don't belong in your grouping here.
So the ozone is fixed and climate change is over, right. That what the end all be all?
Cancer is gone. Another end all be all?
I think my comment that you are actually shooting at, is the one about a study PROVING that there is NO correlation. I will say again, A study may find that there was no observed correlation, but it can not conclusively say that there IS NO correlation. Or NO CHANCE of a correlation under conditions that "we" didn't examine. Studies/ the scientific method itself is not definitive infinitum. You should know this. Should.
But how many studies do you need NOT showing a correlation before you believe that there is no correlation? I have an answer. When you’ve drunk the MAGA bleach there is no number. You are nothing more than a lemming
So 65 million abortions isn't enough, you need to promote and support autism in the ones that didn't get killed.
I simply want answers, you simply support chaos. I think we are done. Have a great day.
Well, science relies almost always on comparing data sets, such as a test set and a control set. There is no such thing as a 100% confidence limit, so indeed nothing can be proven beyond any doubt. But if study after study after study establishes a correlation with (say) 95% confidence, only a MORON would doubt the validity of the assessment. But here we are...
Has there ever been repeated studies using the same data sets? NOOOO that could never happen, could it Anthony?
You have helped cement the understanding that we can not believe anything from todays political scientific community. There is a huge population that start with the assumption, and then frame the questions to achieve that assumption (reads narrative).
Listen, this isn't my hill to die on, but it is what I know and you have helped to prove it.
I don't think he is saying that. To the contrary, it seems like Joe is a data driven guy and understands testing, etc. What I took away was that Joe was saying that nobody can prove 100% about X, Y or Z. Maybe you can depending upon subject matter. Don't think he was going to down a rabbit hole or anything. Just my 2 cents. If he was, I probably would have made fun of his mustache.
No. What Joe is trying to say is that he doesn’t believe that vaccines don’t cause autism despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What I’ve always loved and respected about science is that they come up with an idea, then spend all day trying to prove their ideas wrong.
No. You don’t get to spout absolute nonsense about abortions (I am anti abortion btw) and then say good day. When you’ve drunk start adding BS comments to avoid the topic at hand you know you’ve lost
We're not.
The Real Reasons Autism Rates Are Up in the U.S.
A hard look at whether the rise comes from more awareness, better diagnosis—or something else
So even the study/ rational to define or diagnose Autism, has a long way to go to not be looked at as flawed itself.We're not.
The Real Reasons Autism Rates Are Up in the U.S.
A hard look at whether the rise comes from more awareness, better diagnosis—or something elsewww.scientificamerican.com
I am so glad that I wadded off into this discussion. NOT.
But my point still stands, maybe even stronger about studies and experiments. Shit in : shit out.
Every toddler is screened for autism now. There are lots and lots of vaccinated kids and lots of unvaccinated kids. It is easy to look at percentages in each group.
More than a dozen such analyses have been done. Rates of autism in the 2 groups do not differ.
It isn't complicated
More than a dozen such analyses have been done. Rates of autism in the 2 groups do not differ.
It isn't complicated
And every quirky kid gets the diagnosis now.. lots of ulterior motives by parents, schools, etc…
It's not much greater here. We are on the high end, as countries go, but we aren't at the top.
Autism Rates by Country 2025
While I don't agree with that (there comes a point where evidence is overwhelming to a point that the thesis is accepted as fact, ye old scientific method), I do notice that you also conveniently ignored the second part of the question: why should this be funded by the government when other studies have to rely on private funding?
My brother in law is researching a cure for diabetes. His funding has been cut. When i brought that up here, the response was "he needs to go out and get private funding".
As a FYI, diabetes affects 38 million people in the US and is the 8th leading cause of death in this country.
Autism, while certainly nothing I would ever wish on somebody, is not fatal. And only about 5 million people are affected by it.
Why is it OK for people to say that a disease that 8 times as many have in this country, and is the 8th leading cause of death needs to sack up and get private funding while an autism study, that has already been analyzed, needs funds? If diabetes research has to go run off to Soros to get funding, shouldn't autism research have to run off to Musk?
I never meant to imply that it should be gov funded. I'm all for private funding.
