Emily Williams has a Science blog to which I was recently directed. She works “On autism” so it’s easy to see where I’d found a link. This may be trite, but she appears to be a “born again” scientist, living her subject 24/7 and wanting to share it with the world. Cool.
Even more cool, the post I found was to discuss the epidemiological studies so often applauded by the MIC and it’s media poodles, as “disproving any link between the MMR and the development of autism”. These studies have not done any such thing, she was saying, as they cannot.
“In science, when we have an idea, we propose two hypotheses. One, our primary hypothesis, states our primary prediction – in this instance that vaccine exposure shares a relationship with autism. Our other hypothesis is called the null hypothesis, which would state that “There is no relationship between vaccine exposure and autism”. We subsequently design an experiment to test our hypotheses. Should our results prove statistically insignificant we say “Our results fail to reject our null hypothesis”. This doesn’t mean that we have disproven our original [primary] hypothesis – au contraire. In science all we can say in this instance is “We still don’t know”.
“And if we wish to have our answer, it requires further testing. The logic of this lies in the fact that our capacity to measure a true effect is often dependent on the means we choose to measure it, which many times may be completely inadequate and provide us with a false negative. Therefore if we concluded from negative results that our alternative hypothesis isn’t true, our conclusions would frequently be wrong, hence the statistical caution.”
The authoress then goes on to discuss disproof versus non-proven. She continues:
“Granted, in defense of these studies [ie those statistical studies exonerating the MMR, listed below], if there truly is no relationship between vaccines and autism, then we could go on conducting epidemiological studies ad infinitum with an hypothesis that can never be proven false. So, in reality, there must be a limit point at which we say that so many failures to reject the null must indicate a dubious link.”
Five epidemiological studies studies listed at this point all fail to support the hypothesis that the MMR causes autism. Not one study, however, tests the null hypothesis set up at the start of this discussion ie to test a “relationship between vaccine exposure and autism”. They don’t even come near testing it. The fifth – Geier and Geier does pursue the inclusion of Mercury in vaccines and suggest the practice should stop but all, otherwise, are happy to give the MMR the all clear.
Now, if whilst walking home in the dark one night through a rough area you are set upon several times by gangs of yobs, your injuries build up. A bleeding nose first, later bruises on the body and scratches, maybe then a sprained ankle after you stumble awkwardly jumping over a fence. When, finally you meet three more they just lay you out flat. You’ve had enough and your resistance has gone. So it is with the childhood vaccination schedule. The MMR is one of the last to be given and so frequently noted as “Causing the autism” when, actually, it’s just the final beating.
The only test we need epidemiologists to study is Vaccinated versus Non-vaccinated. Sum total of vaccines received – total vaccine load, TVL – being a significant moderating influence to be considered in the study, of course. We are looking at a biological intervention here. Al vaccines are supposed to create the same outcome – “immunity” and so it is utterly legitimate to link all jabs together into one study, even though their chemical makeups differ.
In fact – and please don’t call me a conspiracy theorist as I’ve addressed that issue often previously! – I feel these studies were never undertaken to disprove the practice of vaccination by demonstrating how profoundly damaging outcomes are clearly precipitated as part of their collateral damage in the recipients. Rather, they were designed in support of a particular product – “Show that this is OK, please” being the task set the research teams. They, in fact, are given as their starting point “an ANNUL hypothesis.”
The five studies quoted:
It must be noted that the infamous massive case studies discussed elsewhere are not in this list but, hey, there’re all tarred with the same brush and at least these folk haven’t embezzled large amounts of cash from the US Government! (Or, at least, not that I’ve heard of and “There’s none so blind as those that are paid not to see” does always seem pertinent.)