Nostr Web Client

nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev, I dare you to boost me or reply.

Where bitcoiners go wrong with modern health accusations (seed oils, vaccines, etc) is that they are trying to apply praxeology to a field that is not conducive to doing so. Praxeology makes sense in economics: you can deduce so much about the economy just by making a few simple assumptions about human action.

However, you can't make any assumptions in medicine based on the supposed mechanism of how a vaccine works. Unless you have god-like understanding of how ALL the molecules, proteins, genes are going to react to a medicine, food, vaccine , etc, then you have to rely on data in aggregate from studies to inform your thinking. Praxeologists want to believe because a vaccine has a miniscule heavy metal in it that in large amounts causes brain damage, that this must mean it is the cause of the increased rates of autism.

But the funny thing is that the same people then like to quote statistics to help their cause as well. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Statistics can easily be molded to fit a narrative and it's been seen over and over again that people will quote correlative studies claiming causation. Are the rates of autism going up? Yes. Is there likely an environmental cause? Yes. But there have been so many more environmental factors happening in the last half century other than just vaccines: pesticides, pollution, PFAS, processed food additives, etc. All those things should be fought against. I'm on your side on that one. But at least vaccines have an intended benefit of preventing childhood illnesses like polio. So please send me your study that definitively links or at the least plausibly correlates vaccines and autism; I'd love to be educated.

Just don't send me the one that got this all started by Andrew Wakefield, who was found to have falsified his data to try and prove a correlation between MMR vaccines and autism.

I'm a bitcoiner through and through, but let's not conflate Bitcoin maximalism and pseudoscience.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

techfeudalist 2y ago

The problem is that none of the information on the topic is trustworthy.

The pharma companies themselves are clearly untrustworthy. Criminal fines, etc.

It’s clear that medical journals, regulators and researchers are captured by big pharma. So you cant trust the studies nor the regulators.

The pharma companies even have no liability for the products.

All you know is that some of the ingredients are probably toxic. You don’t know how it will affect you or your family.

The best you can do is to research the harms that might befall you if you get sick with the disease, and do a risk-reward assessment, minimizing your exposure to these medical products only for the worst of the potential diseases. You’re rolling the dice either way.

pebble (b/acc) 2y ago

Well said.

Guy Swann 2y ago

You are implying a vastly broad set of arguments than what I've made & I assume you are responding to. If you want to reply to something I've said, please do. But if you are replying to some vague "mentality" about all the tings you've heard about medical or health advice, then I'm not going to spend time defending things you've heard other people say.

What I said can be easily contradicted by showing the work. Interventionists into the human body have the burden to prove that what they are doing doesn't cause enormous harm.

Find me a placebo controlled long term trial that studies the side effects of the adjuvants put in all the vaccines to make them work.

If you can verify it, do it.

Bitcoin Dad 2y ago

If there's no good observational data that links these adjuvants with harms, then it doesn't make sense to explore it further with an RCT, which over the timeframe you're asking for, would be wildly expensive. Do you have a good prospective or retrospective cohort that links them to harms? I'd love to read it and debate its merits.

Guy Swann 2y ago

Since you brought up Wakefield I'll give some details that I know about that:

- The Wakefield study didn't even claim autism and MMR were linked, this was inferred from the data which made everyone crazy. The paper only suggested to investigate it further.

- The paper was about the connection between gastrointestinal disorders and neurological issues.

- The "fraud" wasn't related to their data, despite the endless repetition of this in every news article under the sun. It was accusation that they didn't get sufficient approval from the ethics board for individual patients, and that some set of funds (like 50k pounds or similar) wasn't used for what it had been allocated for.

- Wakefield wasn't the senior author. It was another guy (Smith or something), and after both were accused, he solely appeal and won. He was reinstated and found that the claims against their work were not accurate and they had followed the guidelines as required.

There are a few other caveats if I remember when i took the time to look into it (not too long ago actually). I'll see if I can find what I was reading.

Stacy Scott 2y ago

Yes!!!! So many of the people who dent Andy’s study have never even read it. Once at an adoption seminar the pediatrician said he ( wakefield) did s study on mercury in vaccines…read the actual study then we can talk