[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
I tend to not make emotional decisions, especially when it comes to important issues in life. But I’d be an idiot if I were to ignore cases of real people who’ve experienced their children developing severe autism within 24 hours of getting vaccinated.
[/quote]
You would be an idiot, unless you had some reason to believe that the vaccines weren’t causing the autism. Such as a number of studies proving that they didn’t.
[quote=CA renter]
Call it whatever you want, but I would argue that it’s an emotional thinker who ignores what they see with their own eyes and instead listens to the “offical message” from the government.
[/quote]
The government? “Official message?” I’m not listening to the government. I’m listening to scientific studies.
[quote=CA renter]
The FACT (not an emotional argument) is that many families have seen their children become completely closed off, autistic, even catatonic, immediately after being vaccinated. You can talk about coincidences all day long… [/quote]
If 4 million people have incident A happen to them during their second year of life, and if ten thousand people have incident B happen to them during that same year, there are going to be some that have incident A and B on the same day. And even more that happen within a day or two. I don’t know if you call that a coincidence or not, but it’s a fact.
[quote=CA renter]
… but it’s this sort of evidence that leads us to understand the world around us. More research is necessary.
[/quote]
Those two sentences really don’t make sense when taken together. First, you say that this anecdotal evidence is how we understand the world. Then you say “more research is necessary.” What kind of research are you talking about? The kind that’s already been done, but more? So, which is it? Anecdotal evidence is what counts, or more scientific studies?
[quote=CA renter]
And I’m not suggesting that vaccines necessarily cause autism, just that we don’t know for a fact that they don’t. [/quote]
And what would it take to know “for a fact” that they don’t?
[quote=CA renter]
Let’s not forget that this government/govt-approved data is from the same government who said that the air was safe to breathe after 9/11:
[/quote]
Where are you getting “government-approved” from?
[quote=CA renter]
But let’s also note that the most emotional thinkers are the ones who consistently attack those who hold opposing viewpoints, rather than staying on topic and addressing the issues one by one.
[/quote]
I’ve done nothing but address issues one by one.
[quote=CA renter]
Read through this thread again and see who is most inclined to post emotional attacks against others (including the use of words like “idiot” or calling people “irrational”) and see if that high IQ of yours is blinding you to your own weaknesses.[/quote]
The only people I called idiots were Rand Paul and some women I met in Mensa a few decades ago. And I didn’t call you irrational. I said you were saying irrational things. If I say you’re saying irrational things, and I can point to those things, that’s not a personal attack.[/quote]
It’s been years since I’ve talked to those families, but at the time, nobody was trying to do tests to see why their children reacted to the vaccines the way they did. As a matter of fact, they were told that the vaccines couldn’t cause those problems, and were pretty much shut down by doctors and government officials when they tried to report it. With one family of the two that we’ve known, their pediatrician refused to treat their children after that (don’t remember specifics about the other, but don’t believe they got much assistance from the medical community or the related government agencies, either). That smells an awful lot like a coverup.
Until those particular patients are studied (all of the patients that had that a “coincidental” reaction within ~24 hours of being vaccinated), then we don’t know nearly as much about these vaccines and the possible reactions to them as you’d like to think we do.
