What to call this thread?

Rigby5 said:
"If you are testing to see if thimerosal causes autism in those with an allergy to mercury," R5 #1,140
Click to expand...
Yes. BUT !
It's neither illegal nor unscientific to study risk to an entire population.

You are correct that this is determined by study design, the test population selection criteria.

Rigby5 said:
" you don't allow 98% of the test patients to be without this allergy." R5 #1,140
Click to expand...
Serendipitous test results are not unknown to science.
I know of nothing intrinsically wrong with your study design.
But it's not the only possible study design, and may not be the optimal study design for an autism link.
 
sear said:
Yes. BUT !
It's neither illegal nor unscientific to study risk to an entire population.

You are correct that this is determined by study design, the test population selection criteria.


Serendipitous test results are not unknown to science.
I know of nothing intrinsically wrong with your study design.
But it's not the only possible study design, and may not be the optimal study design for an autism link.
Click to expand...

The point is that autism went from 0.01% of the population, to 3.2% of the population.
So since 3.2% is still below the margin of error, you can't use the whole general population then.
What you want to do is find out what changed in the 3.19% in those who went from normal to autistic.
And in general we know that some people have an allergy to mercury.
And that is what we then should have focused the study on.
It does absolutely no good at all to study the 97.8% who have absolutely no reaction or change.
That is the whole point of any study attempting to discover a cause for a change.
You keep trying different small specific test groups until you find one with a correlation.
An increase by a factor of 320 has to have a cause.
Some claim it is due to increase diagnosis, but it seems more than that to me?
 
Rigby5 said:
"The point is that autism went from 0.01% of the population, to 3.2% of the population." R5 #1,142
Click to expand...
Perhaps. BUT !

Rigby5 said:
"Some claim it is due to increase diagnosis, but it seems more than that to me?" R5
Click to expand...
Even if it's both, how can we determine the ratio?

As you suggest:
do those stats indicate a change in the population? Or instead,
does it merely reflect refined detection criteria / methodology that has enabled us to detect it today
when years ago it would have gone undiagnosed?

This is part of the complication R5, of living in an era not merely of change, but in an era of exponential change.
 
sear said:
Perhaps. BUT !


Even if it's both, how can we determine the ratio?

As you suggest:
do those stats indicate a change in the population? Or instead,
does it merely reflect refined detection criteria / methodology that has enabled us to detect it today
when years ago it would have gone undiagnosed?

This is part of the complication R5, of living in an era not merely of change, but in an era of exponential change.
Click to expand...

My take is just to not do risky things.
Since mercury was used to allow the same hypodermic to be reused for all those being immunized, we know mercury had to be extremely toxic.
So then why inject something so extremely toxic at all?
If it can sterilize a hypodermic, I would not want it in my body.
Seems much safer to me to sterilize just the hypo separately instead of adding sterilizing agents into the vaccine?
So regardless of how sure we are of the autism connection, there is no need for mercury in any injection, ever.
And yet we still do put some mercury in adult vaccinations.
{...
While most vaccines in the U.S. no longer contain thimerosal, some products may still contain it, including:
  • Multidose flu vaccines
  • Immune globulin, a drug made from human blood that boosts your immune system to treat infection or disease
  • Drugs used to offset the effects of venom from animal bites or stings
  • Substances used in allergy testing called skin test antigens
  • Some medications in the form of nasal sprays, eye solutions, and ear drops
  • Antiseptic sprays
...}
 
Rigby5 said:
"My take is just to not do risky things. ..." R5 #1,144
Click to expand...
I'm nearly the same. When I do risky things, I try to do them safely.
That applies to:
- power-boating
- sail / row boating
- bicycling on or off road
- motorcycling on or off road
- rappelling
- hang gliding

While I've tried to reduce risk to insignificance, I've failed enough to have learned: bad decisions make good stories.
 
sear said:
Perhaps. BUT !


Even if it's both, how can we determine the ratio?

As you suggest:
do those stats indicate a change in the population? Or instead,
does it merely reflect refined detection criteria / methodology that has enabled us to detect it today
when years ago it would have gone undiagnosed?

This is part of the complication R5, of living in an era not merely of change, but in an era of exponential change.
Click to expand...

The scary thing is our past evolution used to select for the most curious, experimental, intelligent, etc., but now has switched to select for those who are the most subservient, able to tolerate repetitive tasks, ignore risks like elevators and airplanes, follow orders, etc.
 
sear said:
As you suggest:
do those stats indicate a change in the population? Or instead,
does it merely reflect refined detection criteria / methodology that has enabled us to detect it today
when years ago it would have gone undiagnosed?
Click to expand...
Most likely the majority of that change would be the result of improved diagnostics and, to some extent, changing the definition.
 
With all the herbicides/pesticides, plastics, preservatives, heavy metals, etc. increasing in the food chain, we need to become aware of which of these is the most dangerous and to be worked on removing.
 
Rigby5 said:
"With all the herbicides/pesticides, plastics, preservatives, heavy metals, etc. increasing in the food chain, we need to become aware of which of these is the most dangerous and to be worked on removing." R5 #1,148
Click to expand...
Easier said than done.
It's like pulling hen's teeth trying to ween America off petroleum.

I suspect we'll be bearing children with 3 eyes before U.S. consumers abandon plastic.

Shiftless2 said:
The first thing that should be removed is RFK Jr.
Click to expand...
A secretary-ectomy?
Let us hope the operation is completed without anesthesia. 🏴‍☠️
 
Shiftless2 said:
View attachment 3586
Click to expand...

Actually I sort of agree.
It does not really matter what gender they are, but if they have the large bone structure and dense muscle of 15 years of testosterone, then they can't be allowed in sports intended for those of 15 years of estrogen.

Being sexually aggressive in itself is not bad, but is only bad if they are leveraging something like power, age, money, authority, etc.
 
Rigby5 said:
It does not really matter what gender they are, but if they have the large bone structure and dense muscle of 15 years of testosterone, then they can't be allowed in sports intended for those of 15 years of estrogen.
Click to expand...
Brings us back the obvious question - if MtF athletes have such an advantage why haven't they completely dominated the podium by now? After all, both the IOC and the NCAA have allowed trans athletes to compete for some years (since 2003 and 2010 respectively). If there was any validity to your concern trans athletes should have completely dominated the podium by now. Instead, nothing.

1767191409590.png

Being sexually aggressive in itself is not bad, but is only bad if they are leveraging something like power, age, money, authority, etc.
Click to expand...
The issue with Trump goes far beyond "being handsy" - he's been found guilty of sexual assault (the judge on the case used the word "rape").

And his relationship with Epstein is another matter entirely.
 
Last edited:
Shiftless2 said:
Brings us back the obvious question - if MtF athletes have such an advantage why haven't they completely dominated the podium by now? After all, both the IOC and the NCAA have allowed trans athletes to compete for some years (since 2003 and 2010 respectively). If there was any validity to your concern trans athletes should have completely dominated the podium by now. Instead, nothing.


The issue with Trump goes far beyond "being handsy" - he's been found guilty of sexual assault (the judge on the case used the word "rape").

And his relationship with Epstein is another matter entirely.
Click to expand...

I believe that trans athletes have completely dominated when they exist.
The only reason there is not more of a problem is that there just are not very many of them.
Plus some non-trans females may also have some natural testosterone production?

But I think Trump was the one abused in the Jean Carroll case.
 
Rigby5 said:
I believe that trans athletes have completely dominated when they exist.
Click to expand...
Since the IOC has allowed trans athletes to compete there have been over 80,000 Olympians. Only two of them have been MtF trans - one came in 47th out of 52 and the other came in dead last.

That says that only two MtF trans athletes were even good enough to make the team in their chosen sport. And then they bombed out on the world stage.

But reality is, not matter how hard the "average joe" trains they're never going to win an Olympic medal (or even come close to making the team). Every Olympic athlete is somehow abnormal - does that mean we should ban competitors whose bodies fall outside the "normal" range, whatever that may be?

If that's the case we should ban people who are too tall from playing basketball (last time I met an MBA player I was getting off an elevator and when the door opened I found myself looking at this guy's belt buckle).

Or how about a swimmer whose arms are too long for their body, whose hands and feet are too big, whose joints are overly flexible, and whose body produces less than half the lactic acid a normal person's does? Should someone who is that much of a "freak" be allowed to compete against "normal" people? [BTW, if you didn't recognize him, I just described Michael Phelps.]

We've seen female athletes banned because their natural testosterone levels were "too high" (funny thing is the affected athletes were all black). By contrast, nobody cares about male testosterone levels - all that matters is that they don't come out of a bottle.

And it's not that long ago that white female athletes were complaining about black women competing because they had too many natural advantages.

But I think Trump was the one abused in the Jean Carroll case.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. After all, how dare anyone even think that the law (any law) should apply to Trump?
 
Shiftless2 said:
Since the IOC has allowed trans athletes to compete there have been over 80,000 Olympians. Only two of them have been MtF trans - one came in 47th out of 52 and the other came in dead last.

That says that only two MtF trans athletes were even good enough to make the team in their chosen sport. And then they bombed out on the world stage.

But reality is, not matter how hard the "average joe" trains they're never going to win an Olympic medal (or even come close to making the team). Every Olympic athlete is somehow abnormal - does that mean we should ban competitors whose bodies fall outside the "normal" range, whatever that may be?

If that's the case we should ban people who are too tall from playing basketball (last time I met an MBA player I was getting off an elevator and when the door opened I found myself looking at this guy's belt buckle).

Or how about a swimmer whose arms are too long for their body, whose hands and feet are too big, whose joints are overly flexible, and whose body produces less than half the lactic acid a normal person's does? Should someone who is that much of a "freak" be allowed to compete against "normal" people? [BTW, if you didn't recognize him, I just described Michael Phelps.]

We've seen female athletes banned because their natural testosterone levels were "too high" (funny thing is the affected athletes were all black). By contrast, nobody cares about male testosterone levels - all that matters is that they don't come out of a bottle.

And it's not that long ago that white female athletes were complaining about black women competing because they had too many natural advantages.


Absolutely. After all, how dare anyone even think that the law (any law) should apply to Trump?
Click to expand...

Yes I see your point in that all successful professional athletes likely are physically unusual in some way.

But in the Jean Carroll case, she had offered to model lingerie in private.
That seems more than a little suggestive.
I do not see how she could put lingerie on without first getting naked in front of Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top