AUTISM CAUSAL LINK ESTABLISHED

[CanadianMalodu]

1 hour ago, Android_Halwa said:

Yeah, too many vaccinations. growing up kids, vallaki anni vaccinations avasarama ? Naa degara emi scientific studies and conclusions emi levu kani at every stage, look at the list of vaccinations. Human Body tendency motham kill chesthe inkemi pani chestadi ? 

School enrollment ki compulsory vaccines kavalanata...at least choice aina iyandra ayya...

You can always request an exemption citing religious grounds. All you need is a scripture reference, and the interpretation to suit your need/belief. 

[11MohanRedddy]

 

Example 2: Master’s Degrees vs. Box Office Revenue

If we collect data for the total number of Master’s degrees issued by universities each year and the total box office revenue generated by year, we would find that the two variables are highly correlated.

Does this mean that issuing more Master’s degrees is causing the box office revenue to increase each year?

[11MohanRedddy]

12 minutes ago, Android_Halwa said:

Yeah, too many vaccinations. growing up kids, vallaki anni vaccinations avasarama ? Naa degara emi scientific studies and conclusions emi levu kani at every stage, look at the list of vaccinations. Human Body tendency motham kill chesthe inkemi pani chestadi ? 

School enrollment ki compulsory vaccines kavalanata...at least choice aina iyandra ayya...

 

[CanadianMalodu]

8 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

What is the baseline here? As we have more understanding of what autism is, we identified more cases of autism now than in the past. It doesn't mean autism is increasing. In fact autism is a spectrum enough that most people have some level of autism without even realizing it. 

Did you even see the data ? Prathi study ki some baseline is defined. Ippudu Hooker et al. Study undhi, baseline is children's age (a minimum of three years at the time of data analysis, health status) lantivi. For each of the studies in there is some defined  baseline.

[CanadianMalodu]

7 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

 

Example 2: Master’s Degrees vs. Box Office Revenue

If we collect data for the total number of Master’s degrees issued by universities each year and the total box office revenue generated by year, we would find that the two variables are highly correlated.

Does this mean that issuing more Master’s degrees is causing the box office revenue to increase each year?

Again none of these examples that you have quoted will stand as an analogy because there is no baseline to even begin with.

[11MohanRedddy]

22 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

Did you even see the data ? Prathi study ki some baseline is defined. Ippudu Hooker et al. Study undhi, baseline is children's age (a minimum of three years at the time of data analysis, health status) lantivi. For each of the studies in there is some defined  baseline.

Do you mean the study that was retracted in 2014? Yeah right. 

https://translationalneurodegeneration.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-9158-3-16

 

[11MohanRedddy]

21 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

Again none of these examples that you have quoted will stand as an analogy because there is no baseline to even begin with.

It is exactly the same thing. People with vaccinations increased, people with autism increased. So vaccinations cause autism. 

[CanadianMalodu]

7 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

It is exactly the same thing. People with vaccinations increased, people with autism increased. So vaccinations cause autism. 

Not the same thing. When you're exploring the data to determine whether vaccine have a role in autism, you are specifically comparing those that are vaccinated vs those that are not with some baseline. 

When your other examples, says in measles vs marriage, how were your cohorts defined ? What's their baseline ? Who were included ? Who were excluded? 

[11MohanRedddy]

6 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

Not the same thing. When you're exploring the data to determine whether vaccine have a role in autism, you are specifically comparing those that are vaccinated vs those that are not with some baseline. 

When your other examples, says in measles vs marriage, how were your cohorts defined ? What's their baseline ? Who were included ? Who were excluded? 

Where is this data? What you are comparing is among people that are vaccinated today vs people that are not vaccinated decades ago. The comparison is the same are number of masters degrees and box office collection. Both are increasing with time. So are the cases of autism. 

This is Statistics 101. Correlation is not equal to causation. If you want to prove A is causing B, you need to remove A and compare B with and without A at the same time. Alternatively you could do it in a mouse, but RFK is going after mice now too. 

 

[CanadianMalodu]

13 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

Do you mean the study that was retracted in 2014? Yeah right. 

https://translationalneurodegeneration.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-9158-3-16

 

I was quoting the one from SAGE in 2020. Regardless of that,  retraction is specific to that particular journal. Doesn't mean not other journals published it. 

[11MohanRedddy]

1 minute ago, CanadianMalodu said:

I was quoting the one from SAGE in 2020. Regardless of that,  retraction is specific to that particular journal. Doesn't mean not other journals published it. 

You can post the article here. But my point stands. The cases that have autism, there are so many factors to consider, like parents genetics, age of parents, family conditions, mutations, time, and a lot more. But no. For reasons we all know, you decide to compare the rate of autism with the rate of vaccination when there are so many other variables there. This is exactly the same as shark attacks and ice creams. I decide to compare them, so ice cream causes shark attacks. 

[CanadianMalodu]

23 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

Where is this data? What you are comparing is among people that are vaccinated today vs people that are not vaccinated decades ago. The comparison is the same are number of masters degrees and box office collection. Both are increasing with time. So are the cases of autism. 

This is Statistics 101. Correlation is not equal to causation. If you want to prove A is causing B, you need to remove A and compare B with and without A at the same time. Alternatively you could do it in a mouse, but RFK is going after mice now too. 

 

Nope. Who told you that? 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32537156/

Here 's that from SAGE. 

Here the baseline is defined. The children were born between November 2005 and June 2015; minimum age of 3 years at the time of data analysis (ensuring sufficient follow-up for outcomes in the first year of life).

Again, about the second part of your comment and your examples; none of them have a defined baseline. Let6s dissect your number of Masters degree vs Box office collection example, what are you trying to establish here? What's your hypothesis? What exactly are you measuring?

 

[CanadianMalodu]

8 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

You can post the article here. But my point stands. The cases that have autism, there are so many factors to consider, like parents genetics, age of parents, family conditions, mutations, time, and a lot more. But no. For reasons we all know, you decide to compare the rate of autism with the rate of vaccination when there are so many other variables there. This is exactly the same as shark attacks and ice creams. I decide to compare them, so ice cream causes shark attacks. 

You didn't even read the article. Trying giving it a read first.  It's a "Multi factorial" study, those factors are considered as well. 

 

[CanadianMalodu]

1 hour ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

 

Hmm, somehow Amish children in the US are among the healthiest. 

[11MohanRedddy]

5 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

You didn't even read the article. Trying giving it a read first.  It's a "Multi factorial" study, those factors are considered as well. 

 

I read the article. It is pretty shitty. Calling it multi factorial is a joke. What he is doing here is comparing the group that received vaccination before the age of 1 vs after the age of 1 and looking for differences. If you go by this as a scientific method, you can compare the number of cancer cases and the number of mobile phones will follow a correlation. So, would you compare people with and without mobile phones and see what are the differences between these two groups. 1. People with mobile phones have higher income. So high income causes cancer. 2. People with mobile phones live in cities. So living in cities causes cancer. 3. People with mobile phones work in offices. So working in offices causes cancer. That is how this paper is written. That is not how you do science. That is how you start a religion (aka run by faith and fiction).