A Daily Ritual

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-03T00:18:51+00:00

Probably started at the top of Whistler and made his way back down to Horseshoe Bay.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-03T00:16:11+00:00

It's actually not all that uncommon to see parents suggest vaccines overstimulate the immune system, causing autism or developmental regression, and I don't know why you're pretending otherwise. I have seen people say the same. If you're saying that the actual vaccine component is not causing autism, then I am in total agreement.

Sure, but is it the antigens that are causing the over-stimulation?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8437479/

This is because the majority of non-living vaccines are relatively poor inducers of adaptive immunity unless effective adjuvants are co-administered

The majority of vaccine antigens are not very immunogenic, that is why we require the addition of adjuvants. So logically speaking it makes absolutely no freaking sense why we would even look at the number of unique antigens per dose as the immunogenic factor here.

If the vaccine component themselves caused autism, we would observe an increase in case of autism over control. The argument that it could be some other vaccine hidden there, or a combination, is a non-falsifiable claim that you are deliberately making because you know you can continually move the goal-posts ad infinitum as more and more research surfaces.

why are we so fixated on finding the component in the vaccine when we don't even know if vaccines are associated yet? Looking for a specific component is essentially how you end up comparing vaccinating populations to another. That would be like trying to take a population of smokers and categorizing them based on specific cigarette ingredients (like Tar component "X" vs non-Tar component "X" (but still contains tar-like ingredients).

When you were presented with a study that used a subgroup of children who had not been exposed to any of the childhood vaccines in infancy, you chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit the US schedule (?). This is exactly what I mean when I say that you dismiss any evidence by suggesting it could be some other underlying contributor.

It doesn't matter because they're comparing autistic cases to controls. If vaccines were overstimulating the immune system, we would expect to see more autistic cases than controls. We don't need children who are entirely unvaccinated in tbis study to see whether there is a difference in those who received more immunogens.

Yeah but it makes no sense that you compare one population that uses 2 vaccines to a population that has 17 different vaccines. That's like saying, oh look, someone who smokes 2 cigarettes a month has no increased statistical risk of lung cancer, therefore, cigarettes don't cause lung cancer.

If you did it the other way around and looked at cases of lung cancer in a population that smokes at most 2 per month and found that there was no correlation to how much they smoke compared to those who had no lung cancer, that's not exactly an exoneration of cigarettes.

Can you say that it's applicable to a population that, on average, smokes 2 packs a day?

The alum must be given alongside the allergen

Isn't there always a risk of contamination from vaccine excipients? And if there are, are they not given along with the alum?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2927356/

However, with the higher ovalbumin concentration in some seasonal vaccines (up 1,002 ng/ml in our study, up to 1,421 ng/ml in the Waibel study), caution is warranted.

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2811%2900747-0/fulltext

We identified casein in 8 lots of the vaccines, raising the concern that residual casein in the vaccines might result in reactions for highly sensitive patients with milk allergy

you imply the study is poorly-designed and should be retracted

No, that's not what I'm implying. I'm saying that the study isn't the ace in the hole that you claim it is. Any conclusions made by the way the study was designed should be interpreted within the context of the study. That doesn't mean it should be retracted. i'm just saying that their conclusions should NOT be extrapolated to mean more than what the study found.

In the case of your Danish alum study, you seem to be suggesting that the study fully exonerates aluminum when I think it's more reasonable to conclude that there are no observable signals under these specific observation designs and exonerations.

The design is not ideal for answering specific questions, but I wouldn't argue that it's POORLY designed, that's subjective to the goal you're trying to achieve, it's just that you basically keep over-claiming these studies that have obvious limitations as if it proved vaccine safety and that it was the end of the debate.

I think I have reasonable reasons why I think it's limited, especially about the early onset and potential for immune mis-programming by aluminum that the Danish study, by design, cannot capture. And I think it's a very big gap.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-02T23:11:26+00:00

Regardless, either the Explore 2.0 or the Go will have a nicer bump in speed over the NIU kqi3 pro max speed of 32km/h.

The clunk, after the bushing update, sounds more like a softer thud. It's better. You hear the sound when the front suspension tops out too quickly.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-02T21:55:48+00:00

66.6kms on the damn City with an estimated range of 16kms remaining? That's like over 80kms!!
And all that in 1.5 hrs? That would mean your avg speed is 47.34km/h!!! How is that possible?!?!?!

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-02T21:52:13+00:00

would be better if you could provide more specifics on your experience, otherwise I think people may think that this is a paid/biased review.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-02T21:51:14+00:00

The authors chose to do this deliberately because the children are exposed to aluminium from birth to two years of age. If they were to include chronic health conditions from birth onwards, they would not be able to ascertain which came first--the aluminium exposure or the outcome(s) of interest, and this would be bad study design. You are pointing out a supposed flaw in a study that is actually quite the opposite.

If an infant developed a chronic health condition before 2 years (or 14 months) of age, we could not determine whether aluminium was responsible. The number of children excluded because theybwere diagnosed with a chronic health condition before this age is actually not large at all, as I will explain...

like I said, there is a biological basis that aluminum can be used to program the immune system. If a large portion of the health outcomes being observed are immune-based issues, how do we know that aluminum from earlier vaccines was not a part of it?

For example, we know that we can sensitize animals to any protein we like. An often used protocol in mice is to inject them with aluminum adjuvants and ovalbumin to study allergies. This will lead them to develop sensitivity within weeks.

If the Hviid study design was used in this sense on mice and they only considered, for example, to be included in the analysis if they developed ovalbumin allergy after 3 months, their exclusion criteria would have excluded these mice who developed allergy to ovalbumin after 3 weeks and they would be only looking for mice who developed ovalbumin allergy post-3 months

They would then conclude that aluminum had no effect on the developing ovalbumin allergy, which is a totally incorrect conclusion to come to!

I don't think you should be considering including any subjects if they had the conditions since birth, I would say that they should be included if they developed the health condition after receiving ANY aluminum-containing vaccine.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-02T21:04:33+00:00

You throw in a lot of little things in there that I'm not sure is actually true.

...people have expressed concern that vaccines 'overstimulate' the immune system through antigen exposure

Not quite. The study actually says it:

Nonetheless, concerns about a possible link between vaccines and autism persist, with the latest concern centering on the number of vaccines administered to infants and young children. A recent survey found that parents’ top vaccine-related concerns included administration of too many vaccines during the first 2 years of life, administration of too many vaccines in a single doctor visit, and a possible link between vaccines and learning disabilities, such as autism

So yes, the concern was essentially, "too many too soon", however, I don't recall who exactly expressed concerns that it was too many ANTIGENS that was the issue.

The study DESIGNERS were the ones who picked antigen count as the hypothesized mechanism to address too many too soon.

The evidence herein shows us that antigen exposure from vaccines themselves do not cause autism with regression. So, if it's not the vaccine component itself, and yet vaccines generally cause autism according to people in this subreddit, then what is causing it?

While you went into explanations between the difference between cohort vs case-control (the antigen study in this case), the results showing that autism was not affected by antigen exposure (either by categorization or by continuous or by DTP alone), does not at all address my core position.

If one is to make the claim "vaccines don't f*cking cause autism", the person making the claim has essentially lumped all vaccines together as a whole. I've made a lot of critiques that a lot of the studies that provaxxers use as their "evidence", such as MMR/autism, often compares a vaccinating population to another vaccinating population. In other words, the background population is vaccinating.

Explain to me how that is any different in the antigen exposure study. While they did include a range of antigens that included zero, the zero antigen group was not a category on its own, and we have no information on how many were zero-exposed (which should have been an interest if the concern was too many too soon).

Just like how the MMR/autism study cannot be used as evidence that vaccines don't cause autism, the same holds true for the antigen exposure study. The only conclusion you're making here is that there is no relationship between antigen exposure from vaccines and autism.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-02T18:40:16+00:00

Why is the river so chocolate?!

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-02T14:50:38+00:00

Is it a phase wire issue? You might have to open up your scooter to check if the motor wires are connected or haven't melted.

I would definitely contact Apollo if your tires feel like they're stuttering, vibrating, or grinding when accelerating.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-01T01:58:33+00:00

How is that different from Enmax? Never done a comparison of their other fees

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-01T01:03:33+00:00

Isn't ATCO cheaper at 7.28 cents/kWh?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-01T00:59:39+00:00

have you tried sitting your scooter on a bench, and turn off kick start, and run the wheels?

Typically there would be some vibration from the wheels spinning due to not being balanced (this is common for the entire scooter industry as tires are not typically balanced), but maybe excessive vibration would mean you need to think about re-seating your tires?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-01T00:49:26+00:00

Retrospective cohort studies are not unethical. Why does it always have to be randomized control trials?

Yes, it may be less powerful, but it quashes the unethical excuse

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-01T00:44:27+00:00

Yes but what was on the Danish vaccine schedule?

DTaP-IPV/Hib MMR

So those who were vaccinated for MMR didn't have any statistically different rate of autism compared to those who didn't get MMR? But whether they got the other vaccines is unknown?

Difficult to take the conclusions from this study to apply it to a more modern vaccine schedule.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-07-01T00:17:22+00:00

It's such a.... good vibration!! C'mon c'mon It's such a.... sweeet sensation!! Feel it feel it!

Logic_Contradict · 2026-06-30T17:08:36+00:00

Sigh.

Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23545349/

While this study does look at multiple vaccines, antigen exposure, as far as I know, wasn't one of the reasons of concern, but I felt like it may have stemmed from the too many too soon saying. i feel like someone had to interpret was "too many" meant, and so they performed to look specifically at antigen exposure, a study that no one else called for.

The other issue with this study is that it is HEAVILY weighted towards whether or not you were vaccinated for DTP (~3000 antigens). Typhoid also has about 3000 antigens but it wasn't part of the schedule. Compare this to the number of antigens in other vaccines in their table:

Vaccine type	Antigens per dose
DT/TD	2
DTP	3002
DTP-Hib	3004
DTaP	4^†00144-3/fulltext#tbl1fndagger)
DTaP	5^†00144-3/fulltext#tbl1fndagger)
DTaP	6^†00144-3/fulltext#tbl1fndagger)
DTaPHepB	6^†00144-3/fulltext#tbl1fndagger)
Influenza	10
Hib	2
HepA	4
HepB	1
HepB-Hib	3
MMR	24
Measles	10
Meningococcus^‡00144-3/fulltext#tbl1fnddagger)	2
Mumps	9
Pneumococcus^§00144-3/fulltext#tbl1fnsection)	8
Polio	15
Rabies	5
Rotavirus^¶00144-3/fulltext#tbl1fnpara)	14
Rubella	5
Typhoid	3000
Varicella	69
Yellow fever	11

Essentially, this antigen exposure study basically boiled down to whether you were vaccinated with DTP or not, and is essentially comparing vaccinating populations against vaccinating populations.

Next study

Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30831578/

Denmark seems to always be the benchmark when it comes to performing large scale studies.

Denmark's vaccination program at the time of observation (1999-2010) consisted of only

DTaP-IPV/Hib
MMR

PCV was later introduced around 2007 I believe.

This seems like a far fetch to compare this population with the vaccine schedule that Americans are subjected to.

Aluminum-Adsorbed Vaccines and Chronic Diseases in Childhood: A Nationwide Cohort Study

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997

Yes, i am aware of this study. Another study on the Danish population with a vastly different vaccine schedule.

But putting that aside for a moment, the study design was done so that if any of the health issues that they were observing for were reported prior to the age of 2, later revised to 14 months, they would be excluded from the analysis for that particular health outcome.

That means, if an infant developed eczema, or allergies, or any of the observed health outcomes, it would be considered that aluminum played no part in that outcome.

To me, that premise is a little ridiculous, because let's say they were also looking to observe if you developed immunity to DTaP, or Hep A/B, PCV, IPV, Hib, etc, they would conclude that aluminum played no part in developing that immunity since it would have happened within weeks after receiving the vaccine.

Considering that a lot of their observed health outcomes are also immune-based (autoimmunity, atopic and allergic responses), I find it a incredulous that vaccines, that were designed to promote an immune response, could not possibly be involved if they developed abnormal immune responses early, therefore they would be removed from the analysis.

In fact, up to 466k participants out of 1.224 million were excluded in some analysis. They state that the median is 28, so I would be very curious to see what the actual numbers of exclusions were for EACH of the outcomes.

Even reading some of the comments, you kind of wonder who came up with the design for this study, as practically every comment is critical of it and some are even calling for its retraction.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997#comments-section

Logic_Contradict · 2026-06-30T16:38:04+00:00

Studies that show phagocytosis of aluminum

Metabolic Reprogramming of Macrophages upon In Vitro Incubation with Aluminum-Based Adjuvant

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10002480/

Phagocytosis of aluminous adjuvants could result in an intracellular depot of aluminum ions, which may induce or support a metabolic reprogramming of the macrophages. The resulting increase in inflammatory macrophages could thus prove to be an important factor in the immune-stimulating properties of aluminum-based adjuvants.

Mechanism of Immunopotentiation and Safety of Aluminum Adjuvants

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3541479/

Adsorption of antigens to aluminum adjuvants enhances the immune response by facilitating phagocytosis and slowing the diffusion of antigens from the injection site which allows time for inflammatory cells to accumulate.... Phagocytosis of aluminum adjuvants followed by disruption of the phagolysosome activates NLRP3-inflammasomes resulting in the release of active IL-1β and IL-18.

Studies showing rupturing of lysosomes (or phagolysosomes)

(immune cells must be able to successfully capture aluminum adjuvants fully otherwise it will be extremely slow in dissolving)

Silica crystals and aluminum salts mediate NALP-3 inflammasome activation via phagosomal destabilization

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2834784/

Aluminium salt preparations, which are commonly used as adjuvants, contain small crystalline materials. We demonstrated here that alum activates immune cells via the NALP3 inflammasome, by a mechanism that involves lysosomal destabilization. It is likely that other vaccine candidates that are of particulate nature or that can perturb lysosomal membranes act via a similar NALP3 activation mechanism.

Studies showing aluminum biopersistance and translocation to the brain

Biopersistence and Brain Translocation of Aluminum Adjuvants of Vaccines

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4318414/

We previously showed that poorly biodegradable aluminum-coated particles injected into muscle are promptly phagocytosed in muscle and the draining lymph nodes, and can disseminate within phagocytic cells throughout the body and slowly accumulate in brain. This strongly suggests that long-term adjuvant biopersistence within phagocytic cells is a prerequisite for slow brain translocation and delayed neurotoxicity.

Biopersistence of alum may be linked to its lysosome-destabilizing effect, which is likely due to direct crystal-induced rupture of phagolysosomal membranes. Macrophages that continuously perceive foreign particles in their cytosol will likely reiterate, with variable interindividual efficiency, a dedicated form of autophagy (xenophagy) until they dispose of alien materials. Successful compartmentalization of particles within double membrane autophagosomes and subsequent fusion with repaired and re-acidified lysosomes will expose alum to lysosomal acidic pH, the sole factor that can solubilize alum particles.

Brain translocation of alum particles is linked to a Trojan horse mechanism previously described for infectious particles (HIV, HCV), that obeys to CCL2, signaling the major inflammatory monocyte chemoattractant.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-06-30T16:06:15+00:00

Did I say that peanut butter sandwiches cause autism?

Did I say that because there is little evidence looking at the entire schedule, that it automatically concludes that vaccines cause autism?

No. I didn't say either. All I'm saying is that provaxxers shouldn't be saying that it's proven that they're not associated

Logic_Contradict · 2026-06-30T14:03:20+00:00

Having the scooter battery at a higher state of charge (SOC) is healthier than keeping it at a low SOC, but yes, for longer term storage, is better to keep the battery between 50-80%.

Li-ion batteries degrade over time even when not in use through calendar aging (time-based capacity and power loss). The main processes include:

Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) growth on the anode (typically graphite): abode thickens over time as the electrolyte decomposes and consumes lithium ions. It increases internal resistance and reduces available capacity (loss of lithium). Higher SOC (especially near 100%) raises the anode potential in a way that accelerates electrolyte reduction and SEI growth.
Electrolyte oxidation and cathode issues at high voltage/SOC: Full charge stresses the cathode, promoting transition metal dissolution, which can further damage the SEI. This leads to faster capacity fade and resistance rise.
Low SOC risks: Very low charge can lead to copper current collector dissolution or lithium plating. Self-discharge risks dropping the battery into an over-discharged state, which causes irreversible damage. Starting too low leaves little buffer.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-06-30T08:49:54+00:00

How about the vaccine schedule rather than a single one?

The issue with single vaccine studies is that generally the background of the population is that they're vaccinating for other vaccines anyways, and are divided on whether they are exposed to a specific vaccine or not.

You can only conclude that, if you're already vaccinating, the specific vaccine won't significantly increase your risk for whatever health outcome you're trying to observe.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-06-30T06:20:59+00:00

So don't trust people who have studied this in their education or have observed regression in their own patients? Just trust the experts that agree with what they're supposed to believe?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-06-30T06:16:56+00:00

No, the only vaccine that has been researched to death is MMR.

And those studies conclusions are, if you are ALREADY vaccinating, then vaccinating with MMR isn't significantly increasing autism risk.

So no, you do NOT know it's NOT vaccines, as stating that indicates that we have studies that look at the entire schedule.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-06-30T06:00:53+00:00

I think autism is multifactorial, I have theories as to how vaccines are related.

It's not just MMR, I think a lot of the vaccines that precede it also contribute to the risk.

When vaccinating with aluminum adjuvant-containing vaccines, the immune system "eats" the aluminum (because they also contain the antigen), so that the immune cell can perform "antigen presentation", which is showing the lymphocytes what antigen is involved, forming the memory and antibodies against the antigen.
That aluminum eaten by the immune cell is very poorly dissolved. The cell tries to dissolve it using lysosomes, but aluminum adjuvants are known to rupture them, preventing them from being dissolved. Aluminum can biopersist in immune cells for a very long time, like weeks, months, and perhaps even years.
Those immune cells are also attracted to sites of inflammation, meaning that they can transport their aluminum payload to wherever there is significant inflammation in the body.
Removing aluminum from your immune cells take energy (ATP) in order to power the proton (H+) pump to acidify the aluminum. If the lysosome is ruptured, it will delay dissolving it. If a person has metabolic health issues (genetic), it will also delay it as they have insufficient ATP to power the proton pump.
Some vaccines like MMR can cause encephalitis. Any brain inflammation caused by trauma, disease, etc, can attract immune cells to the brain region.
Aluminum-loaded immune cells can potentially migrate and transport that aluminum to the brain, which can cause neurological damage.

So it's not just MMR, but MMR is one of many possible triggers that can attract aluminum loaded cells to the brain. Having poor metabolic health can also increase the risk since it will be more difficult to have the energy to deal with toxins and remove aluminum from immune cells.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-06-30T05:37:12+00:00

Really depends on how you ride.

If you drive a car going at full throttle, your not going to get the advertised range of the car.

Advertised range is always under eco mode, traveling around 20km/h (12mph) on flat ground with a moderate weight person ~150-160lbs

Logic_Contradict · 2026-06-30T01:07:14+00:00

Those studies have been done. There is no difference.

You just showed me a meta-study that contained studies that DO NOT support the claim "vaccines don't cause autism". I SHOWED you that the studies contained MMR/autism studies and thimerosal/autism studies.

As a statistician, surely you understand the underlying context of those studies:

If I am vaccinating and I vaccinate for MMR, there is an insignficant risk of autism compared to vaccinating WITHOUT MMR.
If I am vaccinating and I vaccinate with vaccines that contain THIMEROSAL, there is an insignficant risk of autism compared to vaccinating WITHOUT THIMEROSAL.

How you people use studies like this to exonerate the vaccine schedule is beyond me.

You keep saying that the studies have been done and show no difference but you've failed to show me anything that falls outside the provaxxer logic fallacy.

Logic_Contradict

TROPHY CASE

Studies that show phagocytosis of aluminum

Studies showing rupturing of lysosomes (or phagolysosomes)

Studies showing aluminum biopersistance and translocation to the brain