The readership wood like to know how much altering of the evidence was involved in this latest presentation by the paid CDC's troll.

Regards...

... by the paid CDC's troll.

Regards...

Again with the lie that someone on here is a paid troll.  Show us the proof/evidence that you claim to have to support this or...shut up.

Where is your proof?

Where?

Too bad you were not raised better.  Telling lies demonstrates this very clearly.

Bill

If vaccinations caused autism then you would see the autism diagnosis rate vary with the vaccination rate.  We already know this isn't true.

Who's we ??  Different kids have varying levels of resistance to thimerosal (vaccine preservative) like one person might be drunk off a single bottle of beer while some may take several.  This is the same for tobacco and lung cancer. Altering the rate of how much people smoke does not necessarily change the lung cancer rate.

The only real way to determine this is to have two groups of test subjects.  One who gets vaccinated and one that doesn't.  Amish, apparently,  aren't too keen on getting vaccinated and their autism rate is either not recorded or non existent. However, this is still worth investigating.   

I know you are pro vaccine and that it is okay for kids (including yours) to be injected with a substance that contains mercury. That is fine for as long as it is your kids,  not mine.

Kids...see what happens when you get caught red handed making things up.

If you have a massive ego (and a tiny dick) an apology is not an option...you end up in a vicious cycle of saying stupid things and making moronic rationalizations to attempt to extract yourself from the situation.

But, with me, that won't work...I have an iron grip...and only a public apology will release the hold.

In closing kids, as you go through life always remember, if you keep it real you don't have to keep track of what you say.

Regards...

(Quoted in part)

I seem to recall this creep mentioning that he was a private dick.

You recall wrong.  Never happened.

Seems he forgot that one...someone else must remember it too.

You can't remember something that never happened.  That would be stupid.

... posting a sentence or two out of context...

OK, so first you accuse folks of altering your posts, and now you accuse me of taking you out of context?
To be taken out of context, you first must have a context, which you do not.

So, what is your point?  Just more lies I suppose.

Please note where I say: " quoted in part" which means, because obviously you do not know, that all of your post is not being quoted...only a part...hence the "quoted in part" part.

Bill

Already, 3 readers have requested they wood like to see more of the forum arse kisser clumsily making up stupid stuff about Cap...and then saying more and stupid stuff as Cap keeps him from getting outta the away of the blow back.

I'll do my utmost hold up my end of the board folks.

Regards...

I gues I forgot to PM the arse kisser about the fictional write in readers who debuted here lat week...coincidentally, it was also on a doobie nite.

Maybe it was another booze nite for him...again.

Regards...

Who's we ??

Anyone who is willing to spend a little time to do a little math to refute your own beliefs.

This is the same for tobacco and lung cancer. Altering the rate of how much people smoke does not necessarily change the lung cancer rate.

It absolutely does.  Number of cigarettes smoked per person has almost perfect symmetry with a 20 year gap and lung cancer rate for over eighty years. Where have you been?

The only real way to determine this is to have two groups of test subjects.  One who gets vaccinated and one that doesn't.

Oh? And why, in your expert opinion is this the stronger test?  How much more power does that hold over epidemiological studies for things like overall thiomersol intake in children?

Amish, apparently,  aren't too keen on getting vaccinated

They are somewhat lower in the number of vaccinations.  However it's difficult to get the exact value.

and their autism rate is either not recorded or non existent.

It is neither non-existent nor unrecorded.  It is considerably better than 1 in 68 though.

However, this is still worth investigating.

Not really.  But please, tell me how you would construct this study.

I know you are pro vaccine

Absolutely wrong.  I am not pro-anything.  In fact during the anthrax attacks of 2001 I wouldn't have been vaccinated with AVA.  As it had not yet passed FDA and the information regarding it's safety profile was not public (and I was more likely to win the lottery than to get anthrax-by-mail). The only reason that I consider vaccines to be safe and effective is because that is what the useful evidence points to.  I have read probably every study heralded by anti-vaxers and I would say unreservedly that their opinions are utter crap.   Either they don't understand the study they are reading or they deliberately misunderstand how probability works or in the cases where they actually fund or participate in a study - such as when they took great joy in executing a bunch of primates - they do not understand the first thing about constructing a study.  Now all of these things happen in various parts of medical science but I rarely see a field where so much crap is focused with so much intensity as I do with people who campaign against vaccines.