Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

But you said "delayed vaccination" there, implying that the variation in when a child is vaccinated is correlated with when they start noticing the symptoms.

If everyone was vaccinated on a strict schedule then there would be no variance in vaccination date, and you can only calculate correlation when to variables are varying together: i.e. how much change in one variable predicts a change in the other variable. Measurable correlation is always zero if either variable is static.

"delayed vaccination" correlating with autism symptoms implies that if vaccination is delayed, autism symptoms are noticed later (compared to if the vaccination was on schedule). That is a real correlation, but it can be explained like I said, that parents are more alert for changes after the vaccination because of the media attention.

[itisnotlogical]

My work for my music theory class is already incredibly technical and nitpicky. Deducing the time signature of a piece, reading clefs, all that makes sense so far. But one worksheet is just "Fix the confusing or incorrect notation", when most of the notation looks totally fine. It's things like which groups of eighth notes should be beamed together. Or notes on ledger lines not having a long enough stem. Or which way the highest note head should be facing in a chord.

I've lamented my inability to write songs before, but holy shit nty if this is the kind of thing I have to be thinking about.

[Neonivek]

But you said "delayed vaccination" there, implying that the variation in when a child is vaccinated is correlated with when they start noticing the symptoms.

If everyone was vaccinated on a strict schedule then there would be no variance in vaccination date, and you can only calculate correlation when to variables a varying together. You don't seem to understand what a correlation is.

"Correlation doesn't equal causation". You can find correlation between unrelated things all the time.

What I mean is that they did statistics between children who got their shots on time and when they showed signs of autism (likely at 12 months) and compared it to children who got it at 15 months and then showed signs of autism...

And showed that that "On average" the ones who received it at 12 months showed signs of autism sooner then the ones who got it at 15 months.

However! what I am saying is... That this "correlation" is meaningless... For obvious reasons. (Namely, that the 15 months would be vetted a bit... and even if that isn't true, the different is so slight it can be explained simply through statistical noise)

[Reelya]

You have comprehensional problems Neonivek.

The date they noticed the symptoms was later if they were vaccinated later. That's explained by what I said. You refute my explanation but you're not offering a coherent counter-theory. All this suggests you have a basic lack of understanding of what a correlation is.

The REASON for it... is because you get those vaccines before you CAN get symptoms of autism. A Autistic child shows symptoms between 12-18 months.

But in that case, the date they noticed the autism would be a completely independent variable when compared with the date the child was vaccinated. (i.e. there would be no effect on when the symptoms were detected whether or not you vaccinated early). So in that situation, a correlation study would find zero correlation.

[Neonivek]

You have comprehensional problems Neonivek.

The date they noticed the symptoms was later if they were vaccinated later. That's explained by what I said. You refute my explanation but you're not offering a coherent counter-theory.

I am not refuting you at all. I am saying that it isn't that "Well now our kid is vaccinated with a poisonous vaccination... QUICK! lets watch even closer!"

But rather it is that the vaccination occurs relatively close to when symptoms appear... Because that is when symptoms appear normally.

As for "Later if they were vaccinated later" was an easy one to explain. If they ALREADY were diagnosed with autism and then got the 4th vaccine, they aren't included in the statistic. That would immediately make the "Vaccinated at a later date, means a later bout of autism" possible.

[Dunamisdeos]

Here's a thought. How many children with autism that had a delayed schedule did not develop symptoms at a delayed rate? Do we have statistics for that? Because that is how we rule out confirmation bias.

[Neonivek]

Here's a thought. How many children with autism that had a delayed schedule did not develop symptoms at a delayed rate? Do we have statistics for that? Because that is how we rule out confirmation bias.

Given the movie this statistic is from... We will never know.

It isn't confirmation bias at work anyway... The parents aren't the ones making a diagnosis, nor are the doctors really being asked to make autism diagnosis out of the ordinary and even then, they are trained to confirm it anyway.

This is a different kind of bias. They set up the control group and the study group to have different statistics inherently.

[Reelya]

I am not refuting you at all. I am saying that it isn't that "Well now our kid is vaccinated with a poisonous vaccination... QUICK! lets watch even closer!"

But rather it is that the vaccination occurs relatively close to when symptoms appear... Because that is when symptoms appear normally.

Sorry, but this is sounding like you have autism now -_-

Say the average age that symptoms were noticed was ... 18 months. And then say that you could be vaccinated at either 12 or 15 months. Then you have two groups, the 12-monthers or the 15-monthers. Both on average get autism detected at 18 months. What is the correlation between vaccination date and detection date? It's ZERO because the variation in one doesn't predict variation in the other.

A "correlation" is a measure of "change in X" vs "change in Y". If X and Y are "close" that doesn't mean you can measure a "correlation" between them. So your explanation doesn't make any scientific sense.

So what the correlation study is saying is that if a kid is vaccinated later, that on average, autism is detected later than it would be if the kid was vaccinated earlier. e.g. the 12-month vaccinated kids might have autism detected at ... 17 months on average, and the 15-month vaccinated kids might have autism detected at ... 19 months on average. That is, it's a measurable difference in the two groups showing that one variable affects the other.

In your explanation there would be no correlation whatsoever. You don't seem to understand what the term "correlation" means.

[Dunamisdeos]

I am not refuting you at all. I am saying that it isn't that "Well now our kid is vaccinated with a poisonous vaccination... QUICK! lets watch even closer!"

But rather it is that the vaccination occurs relatively close to when symptoms appear... Because that is when symptoms appear normally.

Sorry, but this is sounding like you have autism now -_-

Could you not.

Also I agree with your assessment. While I have not seen this movie, it sounds like insufficient data is being given/is available to actually make any kind of connection.

[Neonivek]

And then say that you could be vaccinated at either 12 or 15 months. Then you have two groups, the 12-monthers or the 15-monthers. Both on average get autism detected at 18 months. What is the correlation between vaccination date and detection date? It's ZERO because the variation in one doesn't predict variation in the other.

Ok... Lets do it another way to explain what I mean... We will use 7 children for this test group for both the 12 month and 15 month vaccine. They got autism at 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

However, we exclude children who already have autism automatically.

So group 1 has: 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18
Group 2 has: 16, 17, and 18

Group 1 gets autism at average age: 15 months
Group 2 gets autism at average age: 17 months

THAT is how they got the statistic they used. THAT is the "Evidence" they used... and it is bunk... But it isn't confirmation bias.

That is what I am trying to say.

[Reelya]

Well I'll put the confusion down to your typical failure to write coherent sentences.

[Neonivek]

Well I'll put the confusion down to your typical failure to write coherent sentences.

I absolutely do not understand your confusion or your objections... and I feel like I've been clear.

In your explanation there would be no correlation whatsoever. You don't seem to understand what the term "correlation" means

Maybe it is just that?

By Correlation I mean "Statistical Correlation"

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I do not mean they are actually related... as in it is actually causing autism... The movie is presenting the correlation AS the cause.

---

Ok can someone either explain Reelya to me... or me to Reelya please?

[Flying Dice]

Ah, anti-vaxxers. It's a shame that they chose possibly the worst way to self-terminate their tepid contribution to the gene pool, otherwise I'd be cheering them on.

[itisnotlogical]

If you mean "worst" as in "slowest" then I agree

[Eric Blank]

Do you think its better or worse for the rest of us than suicide bombers?