doomsday
‘But in EVERY Clinical Trial, who gets the Tested Ingredient is ALWAYS RANDOM ”
This is absolute nonsense
Of course that is the gold standard, in particular when used to determine efficacy. (and of course RCT’s exist for vaccines eg Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomized and placebo controlled trial. Published in BMJ
Do you accept that one? of course not . how about rotavirus
Randomized placebo-controlled trial of rhesus-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine for prevention of severe rotavirus gastroenteritis published in LAncet. I know I know no good because of “Many many more reasons”
Retrospective studies are done all the time you really have to stop guessing at these facts. Particulary when looking at rare r adverse events whcih you would need a large number of enrolees (eg 95,000) to identify which is impossible in a prospective RCT.
“there are MORE Children who developed Autism in the NO MMR Group /partially Vaxxed because the parents refused MMR when they saw SIGNS OF AUTISM.”
So the possibility that they would get the MMR retroactively increased their risk of autism?
Remember this study is looking at specifically MMR, whether IT increases the risk of autism.
I’m happy to go through the study slowly with you, but you have to follow along and not skip[ ahead because you still dont seem to understand this very basic point .
you keep repeating empty buzz words and fake scientific rules that you think make you sound smart