How on earth do you get the direct connection?
gee, I find it very simple - go by what both prosciencemum and Rrrrrrachel say
you take what is said -
So I'm a bit confused by this argument. Surely if the dr is wrong to deny a first appointment but then there is some long term health impact for the child they will have apts about it going forward, which then make it into the kinds of statistical studies Rrrrrachel has pointed out do happen. So long term at least that reaction makes it into the data, even if never recognized by a dr as a reaction.
that because children are being treated for long term health issues it is being "recognized" (regardless that no reaction is recognized it REALLY still does get counted as a reaction)
and you add in the increase of autism per the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html and the increase means a long term health impact for the child generating more apts and more tracking that makes it's way into statistical studies
so we must know according to what they say is going into the studies- where else is this going??
you know form prosciencemum and Rrrrrrachel point of view, reaction are part of these statistical studies, you have to acknowledge that it is known that a "reaction" took place to cause the need for treatment long term and ALL this is recored
the same argument that prosciencemum and Rrrrrrachel state can be made for this as well-
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dscancerinchildren/index.html - we know cancer also has increase in children, causing the need for more appointments and according to both of them, it doesn't matter if a diagnoses (reaction) is recognized or not, it's counted!
if this isn't TRUE, than we really are just not counting are we?
you can't NOT recognized something if it's not happening but both are really saying it's happening thus the reason for (some long term health impact for the child they will have apts about it going forward, which then make it into the kinds of statistical studies)
but maybe these "wonderful" statistical studies they rely soooooo heavy on are not all that the are promoted to be? could that be?
well, you could look at the "A Population-Based Cohort Study of Undervaccination in 8 Managed Care Organizations Across the United States" as a good source of how little the data pool really is (not like this one is much different from all the others-yet we hear how this represents the WHOLE truth as with their claim about vaccine reactions counting) - For inclusion, each child had to be continuously enrolled in their MCO from at least ages 2 to 12 months. Children were followed up for a maximum of 36 months, and follow-up stopped if a child’s enrollment in his or her MCO was discontinued…To help ensure that children were receiving primary care services within their MCO, they also had to have at least 1 outpatient visit by age 12 months. Some great long term finding, yet with all the statistical studies evidence they try and present it's very clear that its only represent what ever the study groups wants, not really the cross section that many object to being excluded.
If you don't pool large and really follow up, you don't really have anything to acknowledge it's happening and in the case of prosciencemum and Rrrrrrachel they can't prove it's really in there because both can say it but offer no proof "reactions" evidence is in statistical studies.