A study published in the May 11, 2011, issue of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health shows that in the US there is a state by state link between the proportion of
I'm not going to comment on the Validity of the study. However I will comment that the Pro-vaxers have all been very quick to say 'this isn't a credible study" to support their stance. The fact that she works for the deparment of health and is clearly a credible scientist cuts no ice but hey lets just over look that for now. Will they apply the same rules to their own references in the future please. nothing more from Quackwatch, Chirobase, Whatstheharm etc as these are not crdible scientific studies or web sites. They are sites with an agenda to stop people using alternative medicine by massively missrepresenting the risks and completely ignoring any benefits. Less of the 2 faced behaviour and we might take the pro-vaxine lobby a little more seriously. Edit: ####Wrong: 2 + 2 = 4#### Using base 10 this is correct. What would it be using the base 3? ###Today, tomorrow, and one thousand years from now. 2 + 2 will always = 4.#### Using Base 10 yes it would. Who is to say this would always be the case? Do you see how nothing is 100% certain? (Can someone with such a simplistic mind see that?) ####We live in a world of absolutes. Just because we can't always qualify or quantify them doesn't mean they aren't there.#### Erm, no we don't actually. Any theoretical physicist can tell you of the known uncertainties but I guess you don't know as much about science as you like to think you do. Edit: Gary an occasional scientific paper referenced on a website to illustrate a point that the biased author is trying to make does not give it scientific credibility. If the author put forward other points of view with references from scientific papers and then discussed the pros and cons it might. This is not the case on quackwatch. its one sided and has a specific agenda so has NO SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY. You are fully aware of this yet consistently try and defend it as having scientific validity. And you wonder why no one respects you and takes you seriously? NB. I am not anti vaccine. Although i have stated this repeatedly and told you that i have had many vaccines myself you keep falsely labeling me as anti vaccine. I don't want to trow the baby out with that bath water but I do question vaccine policy. That does not make me anti-vaccine anymore than refusing to buy a car with an automatic gear shift makes me anti car. Edit: ###@Stormy - please don't talk to me about scientific credibility. You think you can diagnose disease by touching people's scalps.#### Mr Orisate, I have never diagnosed disease based on palpation of the scalp. that is not what cranial osteopaths are trained to do. Of course you choose to believe the assertions of a deceiver who has been exposed in open court as a liar ( http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2... ) and had no training at all in Cranial osteopathy rather than someone who has done the training? Well what does that say about your level of intelligence and gullibility let alone your credibility ? ###You won't even agree that homeopathy is bogus.### My feelings on homeopathy I have made clear many times. As long as it is practiced safely I don't have a problem with it. Nothing is unsafe about giving people water in very small doses. If a treatment protocol involves stomping around in suet chanting praise to the lord as long as it is practiced safely and does no harm, I don't care. Fact is neither of these practices will do harm. Another fact is people can choose these things and don't need your permission. GET OVER IT! Edit: Nate, as your camp have repeatedly said, when questioned about whether your camp is qualified to judge us, you don't have to be qualified to make a valid opinion.Keep your face in your palm boy.