Btw. I might add, that I'm the one agreeing with the experts. I'm the one agreeing with the CDC. I'm the one agreeing with WHO.
You, however, are not.
Military and Vaccines - Page 3
5 years? Then your fb timeline is wrong because you list having started your post-secondary education in 2011. It's only the beginning of 2014, so apparently my math is off. Also, you don't get to call yourself a biologist without the credentials to back yourself up. Sorry; that's not how it works. You are deliberately misrepresenting yourself to this community. I did 6 years (2000-2006) of post-secondary work in music. That doesn't make me a musicologist, even with a bachelor's degree and a two-year diploma. Claiming a title that you haven't earned is quite disingenuous.
Actually, I don't consider checking up on someone's background to be stalking. This is the internet, and if you are going make claims about yourself, be prepared for someone to verify the validity of those claims, especially when you want people to take you seriously. There is no reason for these women, who have put a lot of serious time and effort into their study on this topic and other parenting topics, to take someone seriously who is behaving as badly as you are.
There was a man known as the bird man of alcatraz. He was a prisoner there serving life. He had no formal education in biology. None. He spent his free time examining birds and documenting bird diseases. He wrote a book on ornithology that became well known among ornithologists and advanced our knowledge of birds quite a bit.
He had no credentials, except knowledge.
Darwin had no biology degree. He was a biologist. He studied live.
Just because I have CHOSEN to not pay for the piece of paper yet does not mean I do not have credentials or knowledge or education. Knowledge and education does not come with the piece of paper. The piece of paper is just a certificate of your knowledge.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
So what you're saying is, despite me working in a lab, despite me having enough credits to graduate, I can't call myself a biologist until I pay $50.
Do you do work in the field of music? If you just got a degree but do not utilize it, then of course not. I am utilizing my knowledge on a daily basis.
Then you don't know what stalking is. If I followed you home to check out what neighborhood you lived in... That would be stalking.
This is no different.
Behaving badly? I thought this is me acting nice.
This is extremely disrespectful to my knowledge base and a direct attack on my character rather than my knowledge.
You know what they say. If you can't dispute my claims, attack my character.
I'm sorry AdinaL - I will drop it.
Back to the point at hand: please provide hard evidence that the vaccine schedule as outlined and administered to the military members has been proven safe and without side effect. And in relation to my line of questioning, which is certainly not limited to my own son's disease, but also to what I have observed as a high level of special needs and disease within the military community, please provide proof that the vaccination schedule of the military members does not affect their children's health. I'm not aware of any such studies, but if they exist, I'm certainly interested in reading them. These are questions that parents in the military community are asking; assuming that you aren't lying about your service, you probably wouldn't know about this type of questioning because you aren't a parent and we don't tend to discuss these kinds of things with people who aren't parents IRL.
Burden of proof fallacy. I have repeatedly asked for evidence that it has considerable damage. The only links I've seen have been questionable at best.
Irrelevant. Cognitive bias assimilation.
In order to justify a link, random samplings must be obtained and quantified.
Anyone with any knowledge of science would know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to show that something has NO effect or NO harm. It is IMPOSSIBLE to show that something is 100% safe. The fact you don't grasp this concept is demonstrable that you're not qualified to have this conversation with me.
You also owe me an apology.
You can't prove a negative.
Please prove that invisible unicorns don't exist. Go ahead, try :)
Not the type of link I was looking for; sorry. It appears that, once again, you have a reading comprehension problem. I'm not saying anything definitive; only asking questions and speculating about possible second-degree effects, which, from what I understand, is what scientists do until they disprove their hypothesis. You are acting like you have hard proof that the vaccines given to military members have been studied and proven safe, so I would like to see those, please. I was merely adding a layer of depth to the question by asking about potential impact on future generations, since we know that many lifestyle choices of individuals have impact on their children and grandchildren. Also, this is your topic that you brought up, so if you are serious about it, bring something serious to the table or discussion. You haven't offered anything that I should take seriously yet.
What I clearly said was that my experience with my son's cancer has caused me to really question everything that I put into my and my children's bodies. Nowhere did I make any sort of definitive statement as to what caused my son's cancer, just posing questions, like any parent in my situation does.
This is perfectly logical and a normal reaction.
Can't prove anything in science, but there is no reason we ought to assume they are dangerous.
Where are the studies that demonstrate they are dangerous? There are millions of service men out there.
There are 1,429,995 military members. In order to show at least some detriment, we would expect at least 71499 service members to show at least some harm.
Yes. We can demonstrate that an effect is occurring.
This is trying to demonstrate a negative.
This is trying to prove Ho. Ho is nothing happens.
Ho = H naught btw.
It's the default hypothesis.
We can DISPROVE Ho (meaning we disprove the idea that nothing happens meaning something occurred)
Or we can FAIL to disprove Ho (meaning we couldn't demonstrate any harm, but this does not mean they are safe)