Let’s use a little critical thinking here. shall we: There are any number of attorneys who made tens of millions of dollars from suits against asbestos, various type of pharmaceuticals, and various models of medical implants. There’s also a sizable fund waiting to be tapped into for people who were stationed at, worked at, or lived in North Carolina Marine Corps facilities in the 1970s and 1980s due to hazardous chemical exposure.
If there were indeed “157 research papers” linking autism to vaccines, which themselves are provided by pharmaceutical companies, how or why would those same attorneys have missed such a lucrative payday? Did they not hear about these “studies?” Did no one in Big Pharma tip them about this? Did the researchers who they pay to seek out things like that happen to miss something so large?
If those research papers were legitimate and peer-reviewed, then attorneys would have made, and would still be making, tens of millions of dollars from litigation, and even the threat of filing litigation in certain cases. To believe otherwise is to avoid using critical thinking about human motivations and economic realities.
Ooh. 157. Really? That’s such a … precise … looking number. The sort of number that people make up when they want to sound like they know what they are talking about. It’s much more convincing than saying “150” or even “more than 150” .
And, yet, there’s that “7” at the end. That’s a tip-off. When people have to choose random numbers, they show a decided preference for odd numbers (and digits in general), with final 7’s being particularly common. 7, 37, 57. But not 77, since the repeated use of the same digit makes people think it has a pattern that looks non-random. And they would never make up a number like 128 or 256, since anything recognizable as a power of 2 couldn’t possibly be random.
So, did you actually put in some effort to find 157 research papers? Or did you just pull that number out of your ass?
Can you tell me just one complete citation to back up your claims? Or even just the PubMed search that you did that led you to finding those 157 research papers? If I search on “vaccine autism” today, I get 1231 hits. But most of those say “our study does not support a link”, or describe how many people still seem to think there is a link in spite of the fact that no reputable, reproducible studies have ever found them.
Oh, yeah; some of the hits are the retraction notices for crappy studies that had incorrecty claimed a link. Now I haven’t read all 1231 papers, or even all the abstracts. But the scientific consensus is pretty clear. And it strongly suggests that the claim in your question is full of shit. Exactly 157 tons of shit.
Nope. You’re completely full of shit.
Anybody can put words on a page and say it is a “research paper”. That’s just a claim. Claims are not science.
You show me papers in actual, respected, peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals that make this connection using clinical trials and statistical analysis that shows appropriate p-values.
All of a sudden, your 157 papers has been narrowed to…zero.
None.
Anybody can make claims. But demonstrating the veracity of those claims is the hard part. One guy managed to get published with this claim, then had his paper retracted and lost his medical license for commiting scientific and medical fraud. That’s what your claim is.
Don’t bother posting conspiracy delusions or unsupported claims in the comments. I have zero tolerance for nonsense, with sensitivity and specificity of 100 percent.
