Vaccine safety studies are only done for one purpose, and that is so they can claim they “can’t find the evidence”.
Vaccine safety studies begin with the wild assumption that vaccines are 100% safe, and then they don’t try very hard to disprove their own assumption.
They claim they have done 100 studies that can’t find the evidence that vaccines cause autism, and yet they won’t do 100 studies to rule out any other cause?
Isn’t it strange that as soon as they clear vaccines, their professional curiosity stops? They never get to the bottom of the autism problem. They never find the root cause. They are happy to clear vaccines, and just leave it at that?
They say autism is genetic, but theres no genetic test for autism?
They present the problem like that of a criminal defendant, who is entitled to the presumption of innocence. innocent until proven guilty.
The problem with this approach is that an inanimate object like a vaccine has no rights, it has no right to the presumption of innocence.
Do we go around drinking chemicals and assuming its safe, simply because its never been proven to our satisfaction that drinking chemicals may be unsafe?
Or do we err on the side of caution, and presume that drinking chemicals is unsafe, until proven otherwise?
Did you know that not one single person in the history of the world, has ever been able to use a “credible” study to find that any vaccine has ever caused any long term problem?
Thats because studies aren’t supposed to find problems. Studies are supposed to provide plausible deniability. Studies are supposed to be the convenient rebuttal they use, when someone dares to claim vaccines cause testicle swelling and impotence.
“Statistical significance” is literally a matter of opinion. There is no hard-and-fast rule about statistical significance. If the author of a study feels like setting the threshold for SS at 5%, they are free to do that. If they feel like setting SS to any other number, they are free to do that too.
So, what study authors do is arbitrarily set statistical significance above the rate of incidence, and then claim their study “cant find the evidence” that A causes B.
Then, the media takes these carefully worded assertions of “can’t find the evidence”, and deliberately conflates that assertion into proof that A does NOT cause B.
Bear in mind, its often claimed that you “can’t prove a negative”, and yet, when it comes to vaccine safety studies, they claim they can prove “vaccines DO NOT cause B”. They claim to be able to prove a negative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
And on the off-chance that a vaccine safety study does accidentally find statistically significant evidence that a vaccine causes a problem, well they just omit those data, and publish a conclusion that is the exact opposite of what their data showed.
https://i.redd.it/1rb482xb9ty41.png
And if one of the authors has a conscience, and later admits the fraud, he is called a liar, and his allegations are dismissed as the ramblings of an anti-vaxxer
Isn’t it interesting that “con” means “the opposite of”, hence,
Science : conscience
Hmm
Well said.