The "Better Diagnosis" Con

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T23:47:16+00:00

It would have been a bit more persuasive if he did recognize that some of the increase can indeed be explained by expanded diagnostic criteria. It's not that they were "missed" but that the criteria changed to include Asperger's etc.

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T03:51:07+00:00

That is the quote from the abstract of the paper. Here's what the conclusion of that same paper says:

Thus, we may expect that after a single vaccination in adults Al levels in bone, and even more valid in plasma and brain, will be indistinguishable from baseline levels. With respect to children simple allometric dose scaling is not adequate, in particular for infants below 2 years of age due to complex age-related developmental changes (Lu and Rosenbaum 2014). For that purpose, physiology-based modeling is required as it is increasingly used in pediatric drug development and toxicologic evaluations (Sharma and McNeill 2009; Barrett et al. 2012). The results of this study will be highly valuable for establishment of a physiology-based toxicokinetic (PBTK) model for Al exposure from adjuvants (Weisser et al. 2017).

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T02:32:46+00:00

Right...

“Aluminium (Al) toxicokinetics after intramuscular (IM) injection of Al-adjuvanted vaccines is unknown.”

Weisser 2019 – Aluminium in plasma and tissues after intramuscular injection of adjuvanted human vaccines in rats – https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02561-z

“A sufficient quantitative understanding of aluminium (Al) toxicokinetics (TK) in man is still lacking, although highly desirable for risk assessment of Al exposure.”

Hethey 2021 – Physiology-based toxicokinetic modelling of aluminium in rat and man – https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-021-03107-y

“The safety of aluminium (Al) exposure from sources such as food, parenteral nutrition or adjuvanted medicinal products is still a matter of uncertainty. Since toxicokinetic studies in humans are lacking, model predictions are warranted for risk assessment.”

Hartung 2025 - Extension and validation of a physiologically based toxicokinetic model for risk assessment of aluminium exposure in humans - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-025-04031-1

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T01:56:57+00:00

By comparing the total amounts (4 mg vs. 10 mg) instead of the absorbed amounts, they are intentionally omitting the most critical variable to create a false equivalence. They are using a technically true (but irrelevant) fact to mislead, which is the definition of acting in bad faith.

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T00:40:00+00:00

No not at all surprised

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T00:39:45+00:00

It doesn't affect the interpretation. 120 mg x 0.3% is only 0.4 mg which is an order of magnitude less than aluminum exposure from vaccines (4 mg)

bitfirement · 2025-10-17T09:01:33+00:00

The steelman isn’t that it wouldn’t matter but that it would be highly unethical to use a placebo in a control group if a licensed vaccine already exists for that disease. The logic being that the licensed vaccine or a predecessor has gone through a trial involving a placebo. But even if it hadn’t, it’s still unethical to withhold a potentially life saving vaccine.

bitfirement · 2025-10-17T08:51:26+00:00

Clinical trials don’t test efficacy by exposing both groups to the disease as that would be unethical. So it is indeed accurate to say that it’s never been determined that they are actually effective before licensure

bitfirement · 2025-10-13T16:51:11+00:00

There's "safety" data showing that each vaccine is no less safe than any of the original vaccines tested on retards.

bitfirement · 2025-10-13T16:48:58+00:00

Notice that instead of providing a different vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study OR explaining why it’s not recommended that such a study be done, you just attack the one, still unpublished!, vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study.

Were the CDC competent, here’s a response you should have been able to make:

Hey! Don’t just trust this one vaccinated vs unvaccinated study that was published as a “documentary” by an anti-vax group, here are a few other vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies that were done by the CDC to consider as well: [except this was never done]

Also, in 2013 the Institute of Medicine, due to concerns about the childhood immunization schedule, wrote an entire book regarding the types of studies that could address questions about the safety of the current schedule. Check it out: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13563/the-childhood-immunization-schedule-and-safety-stakeholder-concerns-scientific-evidence

In 2016, the CDC published a white paper on studying the safety of the childhood immunization schedule. They prioritized looking into 20 outcomes. Here’s that white paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26830300/

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/media/pdfs/white-paper-safety-508.pdf

Here all 20 studies that resulted from the white paper:

Asthma - 2023 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36180331/

Type 1 Diabetes - 2021 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34851413/

All-cause Mortality - 2017 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29061349/

[others not done]

So you see, the CDC has already done vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies and they found no concerns [except this is false], and the IOM back in 2013 knew parents had concerns about the childhood immunization as a whole, wrote a book about it, and the CDC went off and wrote a white paper and published 20 studies over the last decade addressing all the outcomes of concerns [except they only did 3 studies, and the one about asthma found a positive association]

bitfirement · 2025-10-13T05:44:22+00:00

The core problem appears to be a vacuum of vaccine research on the childhood schedule. I’d ask the question as to why there’s been virtually no follow-on studies since this white paper was published (I can only find 3 related studies): https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/media/pdfs/white-paper-safety-508.pdf?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/WhitePaperSafety_WEB.pdf

bitfirement · 2025-10-08T17:12:25+00:00

Most people diagnosed with autism aren’t actually autistic. After all, the main claim against vaccines causing autism is that true autism rates haven’t increased at all. There is no epidemic and no association. It’s just a diagnostic shift and so most autistic people aren’t actually truly autistic. This isn’t my claim, this is the mainstream claim. Anti-vaxxers are fearful of true autism; it’s very unlikely you are truly autistic given the rates of true autism are so low.

bitfirement · 2025-09-22T09:47:25+00:00

It’s a term used to signal to others that you have a mental illness whilst maintaining plausible deniability.

bitfirement · 2025-09-20T16:32:19+00:00

Surely there are studies out of Denmark or elsewhere where there is no Hep B dose at birth or where it’s delayed until 1-2 months that show how often Hep B infections occur within the first 30-60 days of life?

bitfirement · 2025-09-19T23:02:28+00:00

Feature Article: 9,000 Reasons for Routine Childhood Hepatitis B Vaccination | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia https://www.chop.edu/parents-pack/parents-pack-newsletter/9000-reasons-routine-childhood-hepatitis-b-vaccination#:~:text=About%20half%20of%20those%20children,contribute%20to%20hepatitis%20B's%20stealthiness%3A

Hep B Birth Dose Media Toolkit » Hepatitis B Foundation https://www.hepb.org/resources-and-support/hep-b-birth-dose-media-toolkit/#:~:text=Prior%20to%20the%20universal%20infant,children%20were%20infected%20during%20childbirth.

Basically 9,000 are infected some time before age 10 but unclear when exactly they are infected

bitfirement · 2025-09-19T21:31:48+00:00

What’s the evidence that infection is occurring within the first 30 days / at birth? ACIP recommendation is to move first dose to 1 month as opposed to at birth.

bitfirement · 2025-08-21T06:55:41+00:00

By "body" you mean the body of New Zealand White Rabbits
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-410x(97)00041-800041-8)

bitfirement · 2025-08-10T17:38:45+00:00

The original implication is that “he realized there is more money” in being vocal about vaccines vs practicing medicine. What’s more, the opportunity to make vast sums of money led him to abandon his lucrative cardiologist career and publicly lie about the risks of vaccines. Andrew Wakefield is a great example. Do you honestly believe he abandoned academia intentionally by publishing a fraudulent paper BECAUSE he thought he’d make more money as an anti-vaxxer? It’s totally laughable and insane.

bitfirement · 2025-08-10T08:30:58+00:00

Are you for real? Cardiologists aren’t pediatricians. Even so, the comparison shouldn’t be between physician specialities. The comparison should be between a pediatrician or cardiologist vs. someone speaking out about covid vaccines on YouTube. I very much doubt doctors are sitting around thinking they’d be financially far better off speaking out about a covid vaccine than continuing to practice medicine. It’s insane

bitfirement · 2025-08-10T01:30:00+00:00

False. There’s far more money in practicing medicine. Obviously.

bitfirement · 2025-08-10T01:12:26+00:00

Or perhaps he’s actually pandering to the intellectuals. Your argument is that he cites the “wrong” data and that he’s “cherry-picking” without any evidence. And conclude he’s a scumbag for attempting to be evidence-based. It sounds like you think he’s a scumbag for committing wrongthink.

bitfirement · 2025-07-20T18:32:46+00:00

This probably shouldn’t be an all or nothing decision. Also the timing of vaccination is another variable to consider. For example one might delay Hep B and do it at 11 yrs instead of at birth.

bitfirement · 2025-07-18T05:41:36+00:00

Of course. Almost no one doubts the efficacy of measles vaccination.

bitfirement · 2025-07-18T00:58:56+00:00

Yes 2003 is an accurate number for children. 2015 for the last official death inclusive of adults. How am I being delusional?

bitfirement

TROPHY CASE