Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Irrelevant how the people you speak of calculate their statistics .. the statistics listed are based on first year of life
"Infant mortality rate is the number of infants dying before reaching one year of age"
How is it irrelevant if other countries don't count certain things as infant mortality that the US does?
*I'm neither confirming nor denying the veracity of the claims, just questioning their relevance
because it was statistics for a many nations and these specific statistics were calculated based on the parameter of "the number of infants dying before reaching one year of age"
How is it irrelevant if other countries don't count certain things as infant mortality that the US does?
*I'm neither confirming nor denying the veracity of the claims, just questioning their relevance
because it was statistics for a many nations and these specific statistics were calculated based on the parameter of "the number of infants dying before reaching one year of age"
But if the different nations use different criteria to determine that number, it could easily skew things.
This doesn't even speak to the question of whether any of the statistics show cause, which certainly has not been shown here.
because it was statistics for a many nations and these specific statistics were calculated based on the parameter of "the number of infants dying before reaching one year of age"
But if the different nations use different criteria to determine that number, it could easily skew things.
This doesn't even speak to the question of whether any of the statistics show cause, which certainly has not been shown here.
how can you not get this ..the criteria was set the same for all the stats for each nation "the number of infants dying before reaching one year of age" that may not be the criteria used by some governments..but that was the criteria of this study and the point is not causation..the point is that countries doing less then half the amount of vaccinations are not appearing to suffer from it and in fact seem to have a lower infant mortality rate and greater longevity
again another false assumption.wow the classic and totally false paranoid rambling..Hey, you know what Daws? You got me! I'll admit it, I DO have a cognitive bias!I don't fucking trust the establishment. Why should I? I know it lies. My grandfather was a thirty-second degree Freemason, my father always told me, don't trust them all, any of them might be lying, you must ALWAYS follow the money. I KNOW president Clinton lied, don't you? I KNOW president BUSH lied, don't you? How can you be so tuned out to not know the establishment is constantly deceiving us in so many ways. You must not just take what they tell you at face value. Does that mean you should take what others read at face value? No. We must SEE the results of these things in reality, and not seek to deny what we see.
I have had over seven years of Political Science at University. I have been well trained in interest groups, revolving door politics, and Iron triangles. My skepticism if VERY high. I KNOW what the elites think the masses are there for. Sure, my cognitive bias is there, and it is extremely skeptical. If you bothered to watch that piece, you would KNOW it isn't a hit piece on vaccines, it is a middle of the road skepticism piece that acknowledges the great wonder and benefit that vaccines have played in our society. And I am willing to bet, that even Eots would say, there was a time when vaccines were a boon to our civilization.
But you know, have you ever heard the saying, "Too much of a good thing?" Isn't it just possible that drug companies have seen something that can be used for the masses as a way to make millions, perhaps billions, and have cut manufacturing processes using cheap ingredients to save costs, have skipped safety trials, and have pushed unnecessary vaccines for diseases that aren't truly a threat to public safety, all in the search of the almighty profit? Did you know that drug companies control the FDA and the CDC? If you don't see or believe that, you aren't a skeptic, you aren't reserving judgement, and you are letting them corrupt something that is probably hugely beneficial for society, only to let it have become deadly dangerous. In my parents day, and my day, vaccines weren't causing the epidemic of health problems that they are causing today. They used to save lives. Now? I'm not sure the cost is worth the gain. That is all I am trying to put forward.
Why don't you ever want to think for yourself?
always has the same ending too !:"Why don't you ever want to think for yourself?" that's ironic since everything you asshats post is a rehash of every other conspiracy theorist's
paranoid rambling..the antistasis of thinking for yourself...
O.K. I tried being logical, rational, and reasonable with you. But I know you well enough to know that is not possible. You don't like to read and take seriously what I have to say, because it causes you serious difficulties. I know what your problem is. . .
nice dodge !you're right you're paranoia and cognitive bias are a fact. your assumptions about me are not.its hardly a false assumption it is a reality of everyday life
I am convinced there is ample evidence that a corporation will sell a product that is not needed or can cause the body harm..I do not think any rational person would even attempt deny this
again another false assumption.wow the classic and totally false paranoid rambling..
always has the same ending too !:"Why don't you ever want to think for yourself?" that's ironic since everything you asshats post is a rehash of every other conspiracy theorist's
paranoid rambling..the antistasis of thinking for yourself...
O.K. I tried being logical, rational, and reasonable with you. But I know you well enough to know that is not possible. You don't like to read and take seriously what I have to say, because it causes you serious difficulties. I know what your problem is. . .
nothing you post is logical, rational or reasonable.
anyone who believes fluoridated water is a hypnotic that makes you watch TV, is several neurons short of a properly functioning brain.
what you call serious difficulties. are in actuality brilliant but unintended comedy..
again another false assumption.O.K. I tried being logical, rational, and reasonable with you. But I know you well enough to know that is not possible. You don't like to read and take seriously what I have to say, because it causes you serious difficulties. I know what your problem is. . .
nothing you post is logical, rational or reasonable.
anyone who believes fluoridated water is a hypnotic that makes you watch TV, is several neurons short of a properly functioning brain.
what you call serious difficulties. are in actuality brilliant but unintended comedy..
Environ Health Perspect. 2012 October;
Review
Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
esults: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was 0.45 (95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on childrens neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.
Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
one other little thing if eots has lived anywhere in the US he's already carrying a load of fluoride.again another false assumption.
nothing you post is logical, rational or reasonable.
anyone who believes fluoridated water is a hypnotic that makes you watch TV, is several neurons short of a properly functioning brain.
what you call serious difficulties. are in actuality brilliant but unintended comedy..
Environ Health Perspect. 2012 October;
Review
Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
esults: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was 0.45 (95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on childrens neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.
Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Interesting report, but it doesn't in any way say that fluoride is a hypnotic.
someone farted in here.
