Ok, let's just do a brief recap here because I think it's important to clear up some misunderstanding.

A different poster (not me) suggested that higher/better rates of detection of diseases could account for higher rates of things like autism/asthma.

You responded to them with : "With better detection should come a better cure rate. Reducing these numbers."

I pointed out that in order to have better cure rates for these issues, a cure would have to exist first. As far as I am aware, there is no cure to asthma or autism (which were the disorders being mentioned in the conversation).

You responded with: "That should come with earlier detection. Its much easier to treat early rather than late. Cancer survivability have improved a lot with early detection."

So you've shifted the conversation from a cure, to treatment (which is different than being a cure) and have added cancer into the discussion.

I responded by asking what the cures for those diseases were, and pointed out that in order to have a higher cure rate, you would first need a diagnosis. So there is no way that you can have a lower diagnosis rate than a cure rate, because in order to have the latter, you first need the former.

You responded with: "Do you think that that autism or allergies went undiagnosed in recent years? Only to be recognized now with better testing? How does that explain the cancer and heart disease increases? The cancer stat in the chart is for increased deaths."

So instead of answering my question about what the cures were for these diseases, you've shifted the conversation from cure rates to autism/asthma to asking me to defend a stance I've not expressed (that cases of autism/allergies had been going undetected) and then introduced cancer and heart disease into the conversation.

I respond by asking you to re-read the conversation, being mindful of not having preconceived notions of what I'm saying. And then I again point out that you can't have higher cure rates than diagnosis rates, because in order to have higher cure rates, you need a diagnosis for what needs curing in the first place.

So now you've responded by saying that I stated better screening was responsible for higher diagnosis rates. Which I never did. You're confusing me with another poster here.

It's really quite simple.

1. In order to have higher cure rates for autism or asthma (and every other disease, for that matter), you first need a cure. There is no cure for asthma or autism (the two diseases that were originally being discussed) or cancer (that you added into the conversation).

So it's impossible to have a higher cure rate for these diseases, because there are no cures to them.

And 2: It's impossible to have a higher cure rate for a disease than you would have a diagnosis rate. Because you need to first have a diagnosis of a disease before you know what to cure.

So, there it is. I don't know exactly where the breakdown in communication happened, but hopefully this cleared up any misunderstanding. Because I'd hate for you to have this type of misunderstanding when arguing with a normie, because that would only convince them even more that there aren't any strong arguments against vaccines.

Ok, let's just do a brief recap here because I think it's important to clear up some misunderstanding.

A different poster (not me) suggested that higher/better rates of detection of diseases could account for higher rates of things like autism/asthma.

You responded to them with : "With better detection should come a better cure rate. Reducing these numbers."

I pointed out that in order to have better cure rates for these issues, a cure would have to exist first. As far as I am aware, there is no cure to asthma or autism (which were the disorders being mentioned in the conversation).

You responded with: "That should come with earlier detection. Its much easier to treat early rather than late. Cancer survivability have improved a lot with early detection."

So you've shifted the conversation from a cure, to treatment and have added cancer into the discussion.

I responded by asking what the cures for those diseases were, and pointed out that in order to have a higher cure rate, you would first need a diagnosis. So there is no way that you can have a lower diagnosis rate than a cure rate, because in order to have the latter, you first need the former.

You responded with: "Do you think that that autism or allergies went undiagnosed in recent years? Only to be recognized now with better testing? How does that explain the cancer and heart disease increases? The cancer stat in the chart is for increased deaths."

So instead of answering my question about what the cures were for these diseases, you've shifted the conversation from cure rates to autism/asthma to asking me to defend a stance I've not taken or expressed (that cases of autism/allergies had been going undetected) and then introduced cancer and heart disease into the conversation.

I respond by asking you to re-read the conversation, being mindful of not having preconceived notions of what I'm saying. And then I again point out that you can't have higher cure rates than diagnosis rates, because in order to have higher cure rates, you need a diagnosis for what needs curing in the first place.

So now you've responded by saying that I stated better screening was responsible for higher diagnosis rates. Which I never did. You're confusing me with another poster here.

It's really quite simple.

1. In order to have higher cure rates for autism or asthma (and every other disease, for that matter), you first need a cure. There is no cure for asthma or autism (the two diseases that were originally being discussed) or cancer (that you added into the conversation).

So it's impossible to have a higher cure rate for these diseases, because there are no cures to them.

And 2: It's impossible to have a higher cure rate for a disease than you would have a diagnosis rate. Because you need to first have a diagnosis of a disease before you know what to cure.

So, there it is. I don't know exactly where the breakdown in communication happened, but hopefully this cleared up any misunderstanding. Because I'd hate for you to have this type of misunderstanding when arguing with a normie, because that would only convince them even more that there aren't any strong arguments against vaccines.