Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.today

17 replies

I mean, it's kinda true-ish? What if someone develops a vaccine in 200 years that actually causes autism because the world has realized that autism is a desirable trait because makes people better at what is needed in the future? We can't know if that vaccine will cause autism so we can't know if "vaccines" as EVERY VACCINE EVER CREATED will cause autism.

Checkmate, jabbed people and science "believers"!!

/s

2
reddthat.com

HHS giving off serious" Buy my supplements" vibes these days.

14
lemmy.zip

Science doesn't "know" anything. It is not sentient, it is a tool.

Not even a tool. It's a methodology. For combining objective facts and using them to reach testable and repeatable conclusions.

The result of testing those conclusions and getting consistent results is what we come to accept as fact.

And to that end, science has proven, through repeatable tests with the same outcome every time, that vaccines don't have anything to do with autism.

Because we have plenty of historical figures who retroactively fit the diagnosis of autism long before we had vaccines...let alone the name "autism".

The only reason to think that, would be because kids who were born autistic and got vaccinated didn't die of whooping cough and actually see a doctor instead of living off-grid in a trailer park.

17

There are a lot of findings in science that might not be the whole story. Or maybe could be caused by some methodology of testing.

Probably a lot more of it than people might think.

Which is why when there is scientific consensus, when there have been literally thousands of studies by multiple scientist all over the world, using variations of data collection, measuring other variables too, and using diverse samples, and the results are all the same, it means it's pretty much a fact.

As a researcher we are always advised against using the term "proven" , but in this case, since there is so much supporting evidence, I think it's appropriate.

5
lemmy.world

The new changes appear to have been made to secure a crucial confirmation vote for Dr. Erica Schwartz, Trump’s [nominee to lead the CDC].

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, whose support is vital for moving health nominees through the Senate Health Committee, previously signaled that he needed assurances that the agency would uphold scientific integrity before advancing her nomination.

I don’t get it. They went from saying there is no causal relationship between vaccines and autism to saying that science doesn’t know. How does that help secure Cassidy’s vote?

36
Snowclonereply
lemmy.world

politicians really like to get these kind of hard concessions to move forward, like 'I'm not going to let you nominate a eugenicist nazi unless you make it clear that you don't think science EXPLICITLY may or may not agree with your narrative you've been pushing and profiting from for decades'

He showed them who's boss!

12

See, I thought that as well. The new statement is slightly ambiguous, but it’s still a reversal in policy. I don’t see how it’s better or that it is preserving anybody’s integrity in allowing this nominee to pass.

4
lemmy.ca

I have a theory: people are living too long and not dying enough. That is making social programs too expensive for government. They need a way to have people dying off at younger ages and more quickly when disease presents as treatment is too expensive. The CDC is now in charge of lowering the average lifespan and having children go back to dying of many vaccine preventable diseases and more women dying in pregnancy & childbirth the n order to lower the cost of government commitments.

-3

The reason for what the CDC is doing and probably your theory, is based on the same thing: the education system is failing this country.

4

You reached the end

RFK Jr’s team quietly updates CDC website to say science doesn’t know if vaccines cause autism | Spyke