Posted on 12/03/2012 8:37:15 PM PST by Sun
"USA & CANADA - ABORTED FETAL CELL LINE PRODUCTS AND ETHICAL ALTERNATIVES (Nov 2012)"
(Colored chart follows)
(Excerpt) Read more at cogforlife.org ...
Any group, including your pubmed.org, can have biased people, which is why we should think for ourselves and take STATISTICS seriously!
Again, and this is from a liberal website, and from the CDC (maybe you’ll believe those :) ):
Now in the U.S.:
“CDC: U.S. kids with autism up 78% in past decadeBy Miriam Falco, CNN
updated 1:16 PM EDT, Thu March 29, 2012
snip
the newest data — from 2008 — suggests 1 in 88 children have autism.”
more http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/health/autism/index.html
But more importantly, do you think we should use murdered innocent babies as “medicine?”
Call Merck tomorrow, at 1-800-422-9675, and tell them that you won’t use their vaccines unless they are ethical.
After the holidays, click the link in OP, and contact the others.
PubMed is not a group; it is a database of medical research articles. Medical research from all over the world is indexed there, going back into the 1800s. As an aid in thinking for yourself, it is indispensable. It allows you to look up original research for yourself, without having factoids cherry-picked in support of a pre-decided conclusion.
I found this review article in PubMed using the keywords "autism review"; a review is a summary of the results of many different studies. It discusses the most current knowledge of the causes of autism. Notice how heavily referenced the body of the article (beyond the abstract) is. Notice how different the style of writing is from that found in what I call "advocacy" sites (any anti-vac site, for example), which typically use one cherry-picked sentence or phrase to expound at length on how it supports their pre-conceived conclusion. FYI, in that review, it mentions that recent studies have shown some correlation between autism and maternal fever during pregnancy.
Statistics are used heavily in research; they are used by researchers as a tool to help determine whether results are real. Studies don't get published without pretty intense statistical analyses.
I don't consider CNN a reliable source. That CNN article does hint at the fact that more inclusive diagnostic criteria lead to more cases being identified, but it doesn't do enough to explain why.
To answer your other post, I do not find any valid reason to use murdered babies in medicine. I have, in the past, posted on the scientific reasons I think it is a bad idea.
“..To answer your other post, I do not find any valid reason to use murdered babies in medicine. I have, in the past, posted on the scientific reasons I think it is a bad idea.”
That’s great. Glad we agree on that!
Maybe you’ll join me in clicking the link in the Opening Post, and calling the drug companies (phone numbers at bottom), and telling them you don’t want aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.