SOUNDS FAMILIAR

If you like authority, you're a happy and willing slave.

Im going through the 157 papers right now and i already see a problem in the first one. The whole point of a 95% confidentiality range is to see if the difference in 2 sets of data are due ti chance. If the ranges overlap there is no significant statistical difference between the two. When you say there is a connection between the 2 and you give ranges overlapping thats just not understanding how to use 95% confidentiality. In other words the experiment supports no connection between the 2.

I realize this is going to take a long time but im going to go through them all anyways until i find one that works

2. Nothing wrong with this paper more of a user error though

They come to the conclusion based off of an anonymous survey that vaccinated kids are more likely to have certain neurological diseases. HOWEVER that is a big user error to assume that they were caused by thr vaccines because there is one thing being forgotten: the sample size could very well be biased to one side. If people who are more likely to get a vaccine but because they have these diseases already then people with autism could be more likely to get vaccinated. Unfortunately we cant make that claim either because the reverse could be true.

So in other words the paper says nothing

3 is the exact same problem

4 same problem as 1. I thought it would be a good study especially because thats what health institute's tell pregnant women to avoid but they found the opposite result and supported the opposite claim they should have. I dont understand why its difficult. This is literally the first thing we learned in my class and the ap biology test uses this overlapping range to try to screw people up especially with bar graphs but people are just being dumb and not looking at there data. Also its a different topic anyways

5 support the experiment but not directly connected to vaccines. Also to any antivaxxers this paper is directing you to use mercury arguements not aluminium. Actually aluminium causing autism is basically destroyed. If youre interested in what to look for check 5. Of course this means youll have to check if mercury accumulation prevents mercury detoxification but it has the most potential so far. Still not proven or definite evidence just a leading direction

6 would love to check 6 but they dont appear to give me any data so i have to assume their claim is unjustified. Got to give me more than an abstract. All the other ones do. Seems like it could be a legitimate experiment but they need actual data with it.

7 not vaccines supports 5

8 problem is rat brains and human brains are not similar enough to assume the results are the same. Legitament study

9 mice not people

10 interesting and weird. The rat arguement isnt actually valid in this case but the topic is not connected to mercury levels in vaccines and it is not tested to model levela of mercury in human vaccines or with ethylmercury or whatever is within the vaccines. But it does prove interesting with source 5 and 7

Also your thing is an online library not a scientific journal

yea of scientific papers lol

besides all you cite is government institutions which are know to lie and manipulate data so you got no real credible sources

that is a fact

i guess you forgot that

that is like taking a liar into a court room and trying to use them as a credible source of info

but you think the measles is deadly too

your too young to even know

come into voice

if you dare

Its not data manipulation. Its called understanding data. All these papers that missuse 95% confidence intervals should be thrown away. Its literally purposely missuing data to lie to the public

not it is called data manipulation

period

And measles is in most cases not deadly i never actually said it was

http://humansarefree.com/2016/11/the-97-of-scientists-agree-on-climate.html

proof they do it

they do it in all fields

Its your source dummy

!mute @the21cat

dummy huh

fk off

too stupid for your own good

the shill can take a break

funny how only 75 scientist make up the 97% !!!!! how the fk does that work?????? is there only 77 geo scientist in the world

no it is called data manipulation

learn to identify it