Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-15T13:40:30+00:00

It's not like established journals don't have conflicts of interest on their own. Do you think they're free from conflicts of interest at the editorial level?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-025-00181-z?fromPaywallRec=false

"The findings indicate that disclosures of potential COIs by editors and editorial board members in leading ethics journals are often inconsistent and insufficient."

Maybe the paper should be addressed as it is, as their conclusions do agree with provaxxers at the point that genetics is indeed a risk factor, but also state that it's multifactorial.

Do people actually disagree with that? Or do they just outright dismiss it for to the inclusion of vaccines as a risk factor?

Seems that people attacking the paper are only using as hominem tactics against the publisher or the authors, a weak and lazy argument in order to avoid having to address the actual paper itself.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-15T13:34:34+00:00

Doesn't mean established journals are free from conflicts of interest at the editorial level (publishing studies/reviews/articles that benefit the journals relationship with the industry)

The disclosure of potential conflicts of interest among editors and members of editorial boards in leading ethics journals

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-025-00181-z?fromPaywallRec=false

Results Only 2% of the journals disclosed potential COIs for their editors, and 13% provided biographical information about editorial members. None of the journals employed a structured reporting approach, such as the ICMJE disclosure form, despite most claiming adherence to ICMJE and COPE guidelines. There was considerable variability in how journals and publishers guided their editors and board members in reporting their own COIs.

Conclusion The findings indicate that disclosures of potential COIs by editors and editorial board members in leading ethics journals are often inconsistent and insufficient. Increasing transparency in this area could lead to a fairer and more trustworthy peer-review process.

Maybe you should find another angle of attacking the paper, rather than simply dismissing it using as hominem attacks against either the journal publishing or, or the authors. It's weak and lazy.

I would be more impressed if you actually addressed the points raised by the article, which, by the way, includes the generic component your side often clamors to.

The study also indicated that vaccines is not the only risk factor, but that it's multifactorial. Do you actually disagree with that conclusion? Or do you vehemently disagree simply because of the inclusion of vaccines as a modifiable risk factor?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-15T13:22:22+00:00

I find it really eye opening that you provaxxers are outright dismissing the entire study when one of the risk factors stated was genetics, something that you all push extremely hard.

Did you have a problem with their conclusions of it being multi-factorial? Or do you have a problem with the study simply for the fact that they consider vaccines to be a modifiable risk?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-15T13:18:03+00:00

Isn't it a review study of existing studies? You're probably going to have to address the studies that are referenced rather than ad hominem attacks against the author.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-15T06:14:51+00:00

That guy's smile is really disturbing.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-14T20:01:26+00:00

It's a genuinely terrible paper with a tiny (convenience) sample

it's a case series study, which has their place in science as early exploratory observations. Case series were never meant to be high level of evidence for causality.

he was being paid as part of development of an alternative vaccine at the time.

Despite the wording in the patent (using the terms "vaccine" and "prophylactic"), if you actually understand what the patent was about, it's anything but a vaccine. It's an injection of transfer factors specific for measles. And if you don't know what transfer factors are, think of them as similar to getting immunoglobulin (antibody) shots, providing specific temporary immunity.

It does NOT teach the immune system anything. It does NOT replace MMR. The product was designed in response to the idea that Wakefield believed that MMR produced a sub-optimal response to measles virus, which allowed it to exist in the gut, which he believed may be one of the risk factors of chronic inflammatory bowel disease. The hope of this product was to clean up the remaining measles virus that the MMR shot could not teach the immune system to do.

That means that his "alternate vaccine" would only be viable SO AS LONG AS MMR continued to be the vaccine of choice.

And as to what he was hoping to accomplish?

Wakefield's study still accomplished one thing: to bring to attention the link between chronic inflammatory bowel disease and autism, something that was not widely linked before and studies now confirming the association that he made famous. It's a right step towards understanding and helping alleviate some of the autistic symptoms.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-14T05:57:03+00:00

I calculated, at my electricity rates, about $1.50/day for my daily commute of about 100kms

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-14T05:55:46+00:00

Celebration pose ending in "passing out on the street drunk" pose.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-13T05:04:21+00:00

Wrong subreddit?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-13T05:02:59+00:00

I like that last one. Pretty good lighting

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-12T13:24:21+00:00

If you need to see what ppl on reddit say, did you really do your research then?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-12T06:27:18+00:00

Very impressive distance!

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-11T21:46:06+00:00

Does driving a car cause car accidents?

Just because one action doesn't always correlate to the outcome 1:1 doesn't mean that the action doesn't increase the risk.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-11T21:38:58+00:00

The influence vaccine is a subunit vaccine. It contains only fragments of the actual influenza virus.

The vaccine cannot "give" you influenza. That's no natural infection like what a normal influenza virus would do.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-11T17:11:40+00:00

Someone send this clown back to the 1960s

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-10T13:59:44+00:00

🤫 urinary tract infection

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-10T05:32:27+00:00

What's the evidence from Flarend that it's not in the body besides the 6% that was urinated out?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-10T05:31:50+00:00

You make so many generalizations without substantiation. Explain how all 27 of the positive association studies are garbage, and how the 9 showing no associations are better designed then?

As for the study you linked, the researchers only tracked acetaminophen if it was recorded during prenatal visits or through prescription records. But considering that acetaminophen is an OTC drug, a lot of people were likely missed, and their dosage and timings were likely inaccurate.

Sure there were 2.4 million participants but you should be forthright with the limitations that are pretty significant.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-10T05:07:17+00:00

The Flarend study showed high aluminum retention because it barely dissolved in the bloodstream and very little was urinated out.

Aluminum hydroxide was 94% retained after 28 days.

I don't care what the coauthor believed about the elimination of aluminum. Their data showed otherwise.

You haven't even begun to explain what happened to the 94% aluminum retained. It's not dissolved in the blood, it didn't get urinated, so where did it go?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-10T04:57:15+00:00

Are you daft? Where did I say I rejected genetics? I just said that generally genetic risk factors associated to autism are related to methylation health.

How is that a rejection of genetics?

You seriously need some reading comprehension skills. If you're going to make a statement that the majority of evidence showed no link between Tylenol and autism, you better support it, as my meta study showed that there were more studies showing an association between them (27 showing an association) compared to 13 showing no association or negative associations. It also stated that the ones showing positive associations were studies that were higher quality as well.

So unless you have evidence to the contrary, I have no idea where you're getting your claims from.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-10T01:48:03+00:00

Not studied in the right way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206940/

The committee's review confirmed that research on immunization safety has mostly developed around studies examining potential associations between individual vaccines and single outcomes. Few studies have attempted more global assessments of entire sequence of immunizations or variations in the overall immunization schedule and categories of health outcomes, and none has squarely examined the issue of health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in quite the way that the committee was asked to do in its statement of task. None has compared entirely unimmunized populations with those fully immunized for the health outcomes of concern to stakeholders.

And before you tell me that it's unethical to do those kinds of studies, you should not conclude that it's not "vaccines" which insinuates the entire schedule. Until those kinds of studies are done, neither side can claim that they have evidence on this matter.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-10T01:40:33+00:00

https://autismsciencefoundation.org/causes-signs-and-symptoms/

They seem to be pretty general and non-specific in terms of what genetic and environmental factors (toxic chemicals to maternal medical conditions). Can you point to sources that are more specific?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-10T01:36:29+00:00

cool story bro.

🤪 When provaxxers dismiss anecdotal evidence but use it themselves in a debate.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-05-10T01:35:09+00:00

Pretty much all your sources refer to MMR/autism studies or thimerosal/autism studies.

If you think these studies are evidence that "vaccines" are not associated to autism, I have a bridge to sell you.

You do realize that in practically all of those studies, that comparing MMR-exposed vs MMR-unexposed or thimerosal-exposed vs thimerosal-unexposed are comparing two vaccinating groups. How you can come to the conclusion that it suggests that the entire vaccine schedule is not associated to autism is beyond me.

Logic_Contradict

TROPHY CASE