CDC Again Changes Wording About Vaccines and Autism

Nor do they take it from people who had a brain worm and snorted coke off toilet seats.

It is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty. Science is a system based on probabilities and never yields static conclusions. Experimental evidence must be the work product of an experimental design that stipulates a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with a protocol that minimizes bias, selects subjects compatible with the stated hypothesis, and uses a large enough number of test cases to enable statistical analysis to yield a threshold of probability to be labeled as "significant" proof that either supports or rejects the hypothesis being tested. That conclusion gains credibility when the results are confirmed by repeated experiments using the identical experimental design. It is an error in understanding the scientific method to claim that something has been or has not been unequivocally ruled out. What may seem highly likely when first examined may turn out not to be so as additional information is obtained. When a scientist reports the results of well designed studies, what is not explicitly stated but possibly should be is that the results represent that best information available to date but are always subject to change when additional information is learned about the issue. As we were told many times during training, "the retrospectascope is always in sharp focus." Don't blame a scientist for promoting a theory or a policy based on the best available knowledge that was available when that promotion was made but has since been superseded by additional information that has been learned.

Oh don't go gettin' all rational and science-y on us .. ... the MAGA folks don't like it one bit. :-) John T.

They sure don't! They seem to believe that education and rational analysis will enable the masses to see right through them. It's one of the few things they believe that I suspect is logical.

As for my frame of reference, I'm a trained scientist with a doctorate degree who did more than 5 years of additional post-graduate training at an ivy league university. A substantial part of my career was spent managing and coordinating a very large budget I controlled to fund and monitor scientific research. Sorry but I can't get more detailed.

Hunter Biden?

I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words of more than six letters.

There's a word for that... "faith".

Super, Doc! I have a measly BSChem with a C average. I'm still smart enough to know that when politics enters science, everyone scrambles to promote the money and cover their ass. Money and power! As a big cheese, you have to be familiar with the concept.

You're creating transgender frogs, right?

So you actually follow government healthcare advise?

Or are you trolling me?

I'll do me, you do you. No tyrannical BigPharma mandates.

Now get out of my face and go social distance yourself. ;-)

Heh. Good one.

Call me a rare exception to that rule. In several of my positions, I had the power to select which proposals were funded and at what $ level. Don't think for a minute that I didn't get angry phone calls from an occasional loser in that competition. ("I've got 3 post-docs with families that I'll have to let go unless you fund this proposal, etc.") I had to remind them that my job to ensure that the $$ I was trusted with were used to fund the best proposals, and that my organization was not in the business of subsidizing post-docs. I was threatened many times with Congressional complaints and indeed did receive a few. I kept my records well organized for all the bids for proposals that had been advertised in the Commerce Business Daily, and the peer review comments and grades from all reviews that I received. I never had a problem justifying my choice of proposal for funding. Also, many times I was offered significant tangible benefits as bribes to fund a proposal. I always politely but firmly rejected those bribes. One of the reasons why my opinions and assistance was sought by many outside my organization was the reputation I developed for honesty and integrity.

Don't put yourself down by comparing yourself to anyone else. And, academic credentials usually only get you as far as your first job. If you develop the reputation as a screw-up, those pieces of parchment won't mean a thing. If you can look yourself in the mirror and say to yourself that you are being the best person you can be and doing the best you know how, you are highly successful.

Do you have a sworn affidavit signed by 51 Biden intelligence agents?

That project wasn't in my program. My organization dealt with much more important issues. And, at this point in my life, I do exactly whatever I want. I'm retired.>

C'mon Cindy. I thought you knew better than to throw around ad hominem insults!

Maybe you should stick to 5 letter words. The word you were looking for instead of "suites" is "suits". The word "suite" means a group of related things intended to be used together; a set. My goal wasn't to confuse you, merely to try to correct your erroneous thinking. I apologize for using a vocabulary that exceeds your comfort zone.

Don't need one. That idiot Kennedy told us everything.