[quote=CA renter]
I’m talking about incredibly dramatic and permanent changes happening within ~24 hours after a vaccination. A perfectly normal child becoming totally unresponsive to their own parents and siblings within a day.
[/quote]
What does how dramatic and permanent the changes are have to do with anything? Those same exact changes happen to children who haven’t taken the vaccine. And as far as the timing goes, as I said, regressive autism frequently regresses, sometimes quite rapidly, at the same age that vaccines are given.
[quote=CA renter]
There are thousands upon thousands of people who’ve had this very experience. If that doesn’t make you question your “science,” then nothing will. [/quote]
Science is always open to questions. That’s the beauty of it. No real scientist would ever say, “don’t question my work.” If there weren’t several large studies that had already tested the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism, I would question the science of this matter. I would hypothesize that vaccines might have something to do with autism, and test that hypothesis. That’s how science works. Fortunately, that has already been done. Science has already shown that that hypothesis is incorrect.
So you have the science disproving your hypothesis, and you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for what’s happening: If millions of children get vaccines at around the same age that many thousands of children’s autism regresses, there’s going to be many instances where the timing is such that the vaccine appears to cause the autism.
Before science had advanced enough, it seemed as obvious to humans that the sun revolved around the earth as it does to you that vaccines cause autism.
[quote=CA renter]
Believing that you know everything there is to know about the world is idiotic. [/quote]
Well of course believing that you know everything there is to know about the world is idiotic. How does that pertain to this discussion?
[quote=CA renter]
We must ALWAYS be willing to question our existing beliefs when evidence (even anecdotal) indicates that we just might be wrong.[/quote]
Yes, we must always be willing to question our beliefs when evidence indicates we might be wrong. The belief that vaccines don’t cause autism has been questioned. It’s been questioned enough that major studies have been done to test that belief. Science has shown that vaccines don’t cause autism.
We must always be willing to question our beliefs when evidence indicates we might be wrong. But the evidence no longer indicates that vaccines cause autism. Science took what had been anecdotes and turned it into testable data. The data show that vaccines don’t cause autism.
If you look at the anecdotes too close a perspective, and can’t see the larger picture, you’re going to have a distorted view. That’s what’s happening here.
[quote=CA renter]
but if we know that even a few people might have major reactions to these vaccines, instead of denying the very real experiences of some parents, why not work on a test to determine which children are affected by these vaccines? [/quote]
Nobody is denying that reactions have occurred in children with egg allergies and thimerosal sensitivities. But those reactions are not autism.
[quote=CA renter]
Just calling these people “idiots” isn’t very convincing.[/quote]
Fortunately, calling Rand Paul an idiot wasn’t the argument I was putting forth. The argument I’m making is in the posts I’ve made.
What’s not convincing is sticking to anecdotal evidence when that evidence has been turned into data, tested, and turned out to be incorrect.
