AUTISM CAUSAL LINK ESTABLISHED

[11MohanRedddy]

8 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

Lets dissect your case a bit more. What you described is a classic case of progression from animal testing to humans. 

In your specific example you have a specific belief that they will not cause cancer has very little relevance, what's tested is whether there is an incidence of cancer, which means the mice are examined for presence of tumors (through Biopsy), and further data will be collected. 

Now with Aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines and their association with Autism, there are studies that used mice for incidence of markers for ASD.

Sheth SKS, Li Y, Shaw CA. Is exposure to aluminium adjuvants associated with social impairments in mice? A pilot study. J Inorg Biochem. 2018 Apr;181:96-103. doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2017.11.012. Epub 2017 Nov 21. PMID: 29221615.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29221615/

 

Now the next part of progression , that you repeatedly talk is about prospective clinical trials. They won't be approved for the reasons I already cited before. 

1. Children cannot consent

2. Ethical aspect, and the possibilities of having irreparable damage if you specially do a study. 

Rest of the case you described is pretty much what observational studies e.g. cross sectional and retroactive studies are. Multifactorial approach is included with a defined baseline and normalization is often included to account for delt in cohorts population. 

 

 

 

 

Background: Our group has shown that significant correlations exist between rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and total aluminum adjuvants given to children through vaccines in several Western countries. These correlations satisfied eight out of nine Hill criteria for causality. Experimental studies have demonstrated a range of behavioural abnormalities in young mice after postnatal exposure to aluminium. To build on our previous work, the current study will investigate the effect of aluminium adjuvants on social behaviour in mice. Anomalies in social interaction are a key characteristic of those with ASD.

Quite literally all the studies you point out are correlative, not causative. 

[CADNMALODU]

16 hours ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

@CanadianMalodu this would be a good thing to analyze. Take all cases of autism and correlate the age of the mother with that of control group. Only 1 variable is different. 

There are a lot of late deliveries in women through out the history. 

Age of mother is just one factor, but not necessarily mean egg mutates. Multiple meta analyses showed the risk to be very modest, if any.

[11MohanRedddy]

Just now, CADNMALODU said:

There are a lot of late deliveries in women through out the history. 

Age of mother is just one factor, but not necessarily mean egg mutates. Multiple meta analyses showed the risk to be very modest, if any.

You are selective about which variables you compare. Vaccines is the only variable you want to compare: that is like saying ice creams cause shark attacks.

[CADNMALODU]

9 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

Background: Our group has shown that significant correlations exist between rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and total aluminum adjuvants given to children through vaccines in several Western countries. These correlations satisfied eight out of nine Hill criteria for causality. Experimental studies have demonstrated a range of behavioural abnormalities in young mice after postnatal exposure to aluminium. To build on our previous work, the current study will investigate the effect of aluminium adjuvants on social behaviour in mice. Anomalies in social interaction are a key characteristic of those with ASD.

Quite literally all the studies you point out are correlative, not causative. 

You need to work on your comprehension skills. The correlation they were talking about is in "Children who were vaccinated". They were NOT a part of the mice testing. 

It's the Mice that were tested. Look at the results in THE MICE.

[CADNMALODU]

8 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

You are selective about which variables you compare. Vaccines is the only variable you want to compare: that is like saying ice creams cause shark attacks.

You're the one who proposed mother's age as the variable. Whether to see if it has a causal link, I told you there are multiple meta analyses  that presented it as  a modest risk. 

If you want to find the causal link, the you study the variable of interest and see if the data comes up with something. Mother's age is one such variable, which was already studied as I stated above. I can list multiple meta analyses if you want. Vaccine (aluminium adjuvants based ones) is another variable ofa interest, which has experimental results through "intervention" in mice and cross sectional and retroactive data in Children. 

 

[CADNMALODU]

16 hours ago, Jaggadonga said:

You definitely need a threshold. There are regulatory authorities established for a reason by many countries. They will have to make any decisions based on the research facts. Otherwise RFK will become a doctor whom people like you follow

As with any government institutions, there are multiple conflicts of interest at play. Those that work for regulatory body with approve something and resign and go join board of a company. Very recent example was Scott Gottelib, who joined Pfizer as a director after resigning from FDA post approval of Pfizer's vaccine. 

Bold: This is called COGNITIVE  DISSONANCE. Forget RFK, I don't even care much about his view points as he himself is part of establishment. I'm giving you direct names of MDs and we are talking about published data, and you're seeking administrative validation. The problem is not everyone fights the fight. If you dispute the data, sure I'm all ears. 

[11MohanRedddy]

19 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

You need to work on your comprehension skills. The correlation they were talking about is in "Children who were vaccinated". They were NOT a part of the mice testing. 

It's the Mice that were tested. Look at the results in THE MICE.

there were notable differences between the weights of aluminium-injected mice and control mice. In both males and females, the aluminium-injected mice weighed significantly lesser over time than controls (p < 0.001). While both groups weighed about the same at week 3, the difference in weights between the two groups were initially noted at week 13 (in males) and week. 

Basically mice getting Aluminum weigh less. See the conclusion. They don't have significant differences in social behavior and the difference is coming because mice are not eating well 

[CADNMALODU]

12 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

there were notable differences between the weights of aluminium-injected mice and control mice. In both males and females, the aluminium-injected mice weighed significantly lesser over time than controls (p < 0.001). While both groups weighed about the same at week 3, the difference in weights between the two groups were initially noted at week 13 (in males) and week. 

Basically mice getting Aluminum weigh less. See the conclusion. They don't have significant differences in social behavior and the difference is coming because mice are not eating well 

I don't know what you're reading even. The results clearly show the difference in social behaviour and the conclusion states the same. As they studied it in mice, they couldn't assert the same in humans. That's obvious.

 

 

[11MohanRedddy]

9 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

I don't know what you're reading even. The results clearly show the difference in social behaviour and the conclusion states the same. As they studied it in mice, they couldn't assert the same in humans. That's obvious.

 

 

See the actual paper: notable differences between the weights of aluminium-injected mice and control mice. In both males and females, the aluminium-injected mice weighed significantly lesser over time than controls (p < 0.001). While both groups weighed about the same at week 3, the difference in weights between the two groups were initially noted at week 13 (in males) and week.  The p value for weight loss is actually significant in comparison to the p value for social behavior. The difference in the social behavior is due to weight loss. Read the discussion. 

[Jaggadonga]

53 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

As with any government institutions, there are multiple conflicts of interest at play. Those that work for regulatory body with approve something and resign and go join board of a company. Very recent example was Scott Gottelib, who joined Pfizer as a director after resigning from FDA post approval of Pfizer's vaccine. 

Bold: This is called COGNITIVE  DISSONANCE. Forget RFK, I don't even care much about his view points as he himself is part of establishment. I'm giving you direct names of MDs and we are talking about published data, and you're seeking administrative validation. The problem is not everyone fights the fight. If you dispute the data, sure I'm all ears. 

My personal perspective, I am against vaccines. As a person I am scared of deadly diseases so I will take vaccines and to my kid. I am trying to avoid flu vaccines even for my kid, but struggling at least a week once you get hit by the flu

[CADNMALODU]

40 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

See the actual paper: notable differences between the weights of aluminium-injected mice and control mice. In both males and females, the aluminium-injected mice weighed significantly lesser over time than controls (p < 0.001). While both groups weighed about the same at week 3, the difference in weights between the two groups were initially noted at week 13 (in males) and week.  The p value for weight loss is actually significant in comparison to the p value for social behavior. The difference in the social behavior is due to weight loss. Read the discussion. 

 

Any p-value less than 0.05 makes the observation based on data statistically valid. You cannot have two p values of different parameters juxtaposed.  Even then, what's that you're suggesting? That the weight loss is reason for  altered "social behaviour?"

 

 

 

[11MohanRedddy]

13 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

 

Any p-value less than 0.05 makes the observation based on data statistically valid. You cannot have two p values of different parameters juxtaposed.  Even then, what's that you're suggesting? That the weight loss is reason for  altered "social behaviour?"

 

 

 

I didn't suggest that, the paper suggested it in the discussion section. Behavioral tests are not the same as a biochemical tests. If you are talking about 1 protein concentration, or 1 gene expression you can measure that specifically using a machine so the p-value of 0.04 would still mean something. Behavioral tests are not like that. They need to be double blinded (which the authors did not do), because essentially if the person testing it knows which mice received aluminum and which mice did not, the reported social behavior can be biased. So, yes the results are inconclusive. 

[CADNMALODU]

2 hours ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

I didn't suggest that, the paper suggested it in the discussion section. Behavioral tests are not the same as a biochemical tests. If you are talking about 1 protein concentration, or 1 gene expression you can measure that specifically using a machine so the p-value of 0.04 would still mean something. Behavioral tests are not like that. They need to be double blinded (which the authors did not do), because essentially if the person testing it knows which mice received aluminum and which mice did not, the reported social behavior can be biased. So, yes the results are inconclusive. 

Huh? How can you double blind a study in mice ?  The social interaction tested is based on the time that mice spent in sniffing (aluminum vs control ). Measure of time is NOT a qualitative  metric. The data of the time spent in sniffing alone is statically relevant as demonstrated by p values (all values are <0.05). What bias are you implying? 

 

[CADNMALODU]

2 hours ago, Jaggadonga said:

My personal perspective, I am against vaccines. As a person I am scared of deadly diseases so I will take vaccines and to my kid. I am trying to avoid flu vaccines even for my kid, but struggling at least a week once you get hit by the flu

How was your susceptibility to flu, pre COVID vs Post COVID Vax ?

Do you see an increase in down time ? Fatigue? and any other parameters? 

 

[11MohanRedddy]

2 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

Huh? How can you double blind mice study?  The social interaction tested is based on the time that mice spent in sniffing (aluminum vs control ). Measure of time is NOT a qualitative  metric. The data of the time spent in sniffing alone is statically relevant as demonstrated by p values (all values are <0.05). What bias are you implying? 

 

A person has to start a timer when the mouse starts sniffing and stop it when it stops. Single blinded - means the person who starts and stops the timer doesn't know which mice were give aluminum vs not. Double blinded - the person who is doing the analysis of the data doesn't know which mice started and stopped sniffing faster than the other.