Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Fuck you Jenny McCarthy.

Fuck you Mexicans.

Fuck you hippie lib bastards.

---

Yeah, Wulfie - you NEVER get personal. At least as long as no one here is Jenny McCarthy, Mexican, or a hippie, a liberal, or a "bastard", huh?

All you've ever had is personal insults. It's what you do.

---

Quote:

---

I knew Gardasil was exceptionally dangerous, I said as much, pointed out the bad science and the danger signs, from the very fucking beginning, and pointed out suspicious conduct on behalf of those marketing, only to be mocked and shouted down by pissants like you.

And then kids started dropping DEAD

---

Quote:

---

I get that you are angry, btw. I really do. But whats the solution?

have government take over? Never get a vaccination? What?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wow. Lots of hate here, Wulf.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I found it funny, asshole, only because the newsources were lamenting the loss of life... while also demanding that even more people be defenseless.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Its gallows humor, true. But I guess my voice was hoarse that day from screaming about the need for self-defense.... so what can you do in the face of PREVENTABLE tragedy, when those in "authoritah" are preaching victimization BUT laugh?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Citizen: Your United Kingdom is failing.

Its failing because you have placed all of your lives and your faith in "government".

Ours is faltering because too many here have done the same.

We (meaning our countries) have already HAD this argument. We won.

Being mad at me doesnt change that.

So, by all means. Go be defenseless. Suckle at the teat of "authoritah" and "gubmint".

Let us over here solve our own problems.

Or... continue to rage against me. Its cool.

(I think I've already said this before on many, many occasions. YOU, over there. US, here.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Uh huh.

No, Im sure waving a sign really, REALLY affects change in your government. I know they must be sitting there scared of you. It matters, really. What you do, with a bullhorn (you do have at least a bullhorn right?) matters!

Do you have pamphlets?

Wait wait... heheh...

Do you FEEL the "energy" of the crowd? Thats how you know you are making a difference, right? The "energy"?

No, no. I know!

You blog here, just like I do, and hope that someone will DO something?

lol

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Lets be clear tho.

Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL Causation.

Can we all agree on that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malachite:

I see this statement thrown around on this site a lot, so I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page with this. This is a principle used to evaluate a study to question whether the results you see are truly due to the factors you have been evaluating, but it is not an absolute truth. In some cases, correlation does actually equal causation -- such as cigarette smoking causing cancer. Now in the case of vaccinations causing autism, that has not been established. A correlation between vaccination and autism hasn't even been established, let alone whether vaccinations actually cause autism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Anything to try and disprove me, eh Cit?

lol

Too funny.

---

Quote:

---

In some cases, correlation does actually equal causation -- such as cigarette smoking causing cancer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

In some cases, correlation does actually equal causation -- such as cigarette smoking causing cancer.

---

Oh, some around here might even question that, not because they think cigarettes are good for you, but rather because they think the cigarette cancer link has more to do with toxicity of the chemicals in cigarette smoke weakening the immunological response to cancer causing virus.

It's a good example of the causation vs. correlation thing, though.

Frem's story about Shannon when I first heard it kinda put me off any vaccines forever. I'd always had concerns, but now whenever I hear about a new vaccine, or the media starts reporting a flu scare, I go digging. Whose saying what, why might they be saying it, how long have they been testing the vaccine, and what's in it.

I also caution my family members to do research into the contents of vaccines and check trial periods before they make any decision about getting a vaccine. I was very concerned about the recent flu vaccine, for example, because it was similar to Gardasil in that they were pushing out vaccinations to the broader public before they'd even finished analyzing the results of the initial tests. Luckily, not much went wrong here, possibly because someone decided to put out an adjuvant and thimerosol free version of the vaccine. The most I saw was my mom had a bit of a fever and was nauseated for a couple days.

I'll never understand why something that's supposed to prevent you getting sick sometimes has getting sick as a side effect. But anyway.

Wulf will be glad to know I don't plan on having kids, and so my no vaccine belief won't ever hurt any innocent children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malachite:

I see this statement thrown around on this site a lot, so I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page with this. This is a principle used to evaluate a study to question whether the results you see are truly due to the factors you have been evaluating, but it is not an absolute truth. In some cases, correlation does actually equal causation -- such as cigarette smoking causing cancer. Now in the case of vaccinations causing autism, that has not been established. A correlation between vaccination and autism hasn't even been established, let alone whether vaccinations actually cause autism.

---

He said it wrong. Correlation doesn't PROVE causation. correlation never proves causation, you need more than correlation to prove a causal link.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malachite:
I'm hopefully not getting too semantical about this, but I was wondering when you say that you need "more" than correlation to prove a causal link, what exactly is that "more"? Are you meaning double blind, placebo controlled trials in a randomized population that are independently verified and replicated? In my mind, those are the means used to "prove" (I put the word "prove" in quotes because it is hard to prove anything with 100% certainty) that the x factor which correlates with y result is, in fact, the causative factor.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Citizen: Your United Kingdom is failing.

Its failing because you have placed all of your lives and your faith in "government".

Ours is faltering because too many here have done the same.

We (meaning our countries) have already HAD this argument. We won.

Being mad at me doesnt change that.

So, by all means. Go be defenseless. Suckle at the teat of "authoritah" and "gubmint".

Let us over here solve our own problems.

Or... continue to rage against me. Its cool.

(I think I've already said this before on many, many occasions. YOU, over there. US, here.)

---

Blah blah blah. The French did most of the fighting, btw, just pointing it out because I know it'll upset you.

and frankly I do more to curb abuses in government over here, than you ever have over there. I just don't scream about it to big myself up, while doing nothing, which is, lets face it, what you're doing.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

---

Quote:

---

The other way it gets noted is "correlation doesn't imply causation", which is much the same as prove I think. Never heard of "correlation doesn't equal causation", correlation can equal causation, in fact any causal factor would HAVE to correlate, so the statement has to be wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Past experience tells me that by this point everyone is far too embroiled to even notice I've posted, but I feel the need to put it out there once again:
It is entirely possible to not be vaccinated, not be inoculated, steer clear of hospitals and their disease breeding grounds, and be perfectly healthy.
I'm living proof.
Just, y'know, for the record.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:


Hey wulf, This irrelevant British cock sucker is only mad that the US beat em again. This time instead of mopping the battlefield with their blood we won our group at the world cup...Vaulted right over these tea drinking wusses...I wouldn't waste my time debating a Brit....Just tell him he is irrelevant...Treat him as our Government treats his government...like a dumb little brother....

Niki2 you fat , old, bipolar douchebag....Good Morning...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malachite:
I'm hopefully not getting too semantical about this, but I was wondering when you say that you need "more" than correlation to prove a causal link, what exactly is that "more"? Are you meaning double blind, placebo controlled trials in a randomized population that are independently verified and replicated? In my mind, those are the means used to "prove" (I put the word "prove" in quotes because it is hard to prove anything with 100% certainty) that the x factor which correlates with y result is, in fact, the causative factor.

---

I mean proof, correlation isn't proof. What constitutes proof would depend on the specific case at hand. For "smoking causes cancer", that smokers have a higher incidence of cancer doesn't prove anything. It could be that smokers are also people who don't generally take care of their health, and it's poor health that causes cancer, so smoking is incidental. You need to show how smoking causes cancer, and eliminate other factors, the correlation doesn't prove anything.

The other way it gets noted is "correlation doesn't imply causation", which is much the same as prove I think. Never heard of "correlation doesn't equal causation", correlation can equal causation, in fact any causal factor would HAVE to correlate, so the statement has to be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

---