You can’t have too much foxglove tea. Or is it you shouldn’t have too much foxglove tea? I can never keep herbalists instructions straight, but a liter diluted to 30C should be perfectly safe.
You never let me have any fun. :mad:
Please note that if you are an antivaxxer, you really should do it anyways.
While I understand the sentiment, this thread is about pitting people who are killing kids with bad advice. On what side do you want to be?
If they die they can’t kill kids with bad advice.
Wishing scorn and embarrassment on hard-core antivaxers is one thing; death is beyond bad taste.*
*death threats against pro-immunization advocates are unfortunately not unknown, as Paul Offit M.D. could tell you.
For the anti-vaxxers, evidence doesn’t matter. Studies don’t matter. You can provide 10,000 studies to an anti-vaxxer, and they will still believe vaccines are full of poison, cause autism, etc. They simply wave off all the evidence and claim it’s a conspiracy perpetrated by “Big Pharma” or whatever. They are insane.
I recently responded in another forum to an antivaxer who claimed there was only one study showing that vaccines didn’t cause autism, and argued that provaxers just recycle the same one in different forms.
I responded by linking to studies by multiple different authors/research teams, including a meta-analysis of ten research publications concluding that there was no vaccine-autism link. The original poster never responded, but a second antivaxer jumped in to change the subject.
Some of these folk are delusional; others have perfected the art of na-na-na-I-can’t-hear-you.
That mental attitude has become a meme: My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.
Seeing as the whole “vaccines caused autism” scam was created by Andrew Wakefield to sell his “safer” vaccines, and who was discredited for it, that should have settled the debate.
But there are no studies!!!it is unethical to do studies in vivo with vaccines… it was iterated on this forum to that effect. NO STUDIES.
What the fuck are you doing here? Don’t you have some fucking childen to bury, you fucking scumbag?
You can look at populations before vaccinations and after. Example: polio, smallpox, etc.
That is ethical. What is not ethical is to take part of a current population and withhold vaccinations.
Which is what you want for no reason other than your own abysmal ignorance.
It is unethical to design a study to withhold vaccines from people. It is not unethical to compare vaccinated with unvaccinated populations.
Got it?
Putting on multiple exclamation points doesn’t make your statement any less of a lie, or you any less of a liar.
Larry had himself a nice fringe reset while he was out.
Already answered earlier in this thread. Yes, there are such studies.
As suggested to you by others, large-scale prospective studies leaving one group unvaccinated and the other vaccinated are not ethical.
Is the new fringe gold? Cuz that would make it an Admiralty conspiracy theory
Although when testing a new vaccine it is ethical to withhold it from a part of the study population, provided:
- The group not given the new vaccine is given the standard of care, including possibly a older version of the vaccine
- If in the course of the trial it becomes very clear that the new vaccine produces superior results to the current stand of care all patients are moved to the new vaccine.
- If it is clear that the new vaccine causes harm, the study is halted.
And this is what is done with all new vaccines. Every vaccine that has been put on the market has had a trial in which one group got the vaccine and the other group didn’t. But once that vaccine is proven and becomes the standard of care, it is generally unethical to withhold it.
And this should be done for all drug studies. There is a classic study which totally violated these principles–The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment:
And on the other side of the country from New York: