ubiquitin

dooms
“And there are HUNDREDS of studies that show that vaccines cause Autism …”

Except that there aren’t, There were 11 that you provided. Most diditn discuss vaccines or autism (one discussed neither) and the few that did discuss both had major flaws.

“But Vaccine Industry is using the BILLIONS $$$ to Buy Congress to prevent a Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed Study”

I’m not sure what this means. Are you saying congress passed a law outlawing vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies?
and why didn’t that plan work for tobacco did they not have money to buy congress to outlaw smoking studies?

DY
“I’m referring to your musical chairs/island question.”

I don’t have a question regarding that

“I don’t see the relevance of that question to the disparity of boys to girls.”

Because the problem isn’t one of disparity. fine that MAY turn into a problem once the Dating Divide is fixed (I doubt it) but we will deal with that then .

“I don’t know why that question is relevant.” (reg whether anything changed)
Its relevant for 2 reasons:
1) Ive seen NASI advertising that they’ve been successful in getting people to marry closer in age, I’m curious whether it has helped (which was their argument)
2) I’m wondering how long we will have to delay actually doing anything while we harp on the Age Gap until we decide that this wasn’t the main cause, or that without putting guns to people’s heads you cant force people to marry based on age.
Regardless, I don’t think it’ll help, It is just a stall tactic (deliberate or not) to avoid real change. At some point I hope people will try something else 10 years 20 years, 30 ? At what point do you say ok time to actually change our dating?

DY
” My point still stands.”

Except that it doesnt.

the Age Gap TM might explain the shidduch crises on shidduch island or games of musical chairs wit ha fixed number of people.
IT does not explain the shidduch crises in the real world.
since this thread began more boys started dating.
This will be even more true by next week once the freezer opens.
(Of course more girls started dating too, and perhaps more girls than boys)

furthermore. Even on imaginary shidduch island where the numbers are absolutely fixed. It STILL doesn’t fully explain the crises since it doesn’t address the real cause of the Shiduch crises namely the Dating Divide TM.

some common sense
“I feel sorry for you and your lack of understanding.”

you shouldn’t. At this point it is clearly deliberate

Lol
“Klal Yisroel used to virtually across the board follow what’s today known as the Chasidish dating/marriage model until about a hundred or so years ago. ”

Sure we all recall laining about Moshe Rabbeinu’s Beshow ia few weeks back . Ot Yaakov’s a few months back.

Of course the Mishna at the end of Taanis sounds exactly like my chasidish neioghbor who found his wife while she danced in the vineyard saying (singing?) her praises.

yochy
“For all those that can not understand that this has to be the case from a simple mathematical analysis ”

I think you fall into Haimy’s group.

We have all heard the spiel over and over. and intelligent people can see right through it.

There are dozens of threads on this

Lets take an obvious flaw
you say
” Does he not believe most boys are marrying average 3 yrs younger?”
some mathematicians are saying most does not equal all.
So if as few as 5% of boys marry girls their age or older the theory kind of falls apart.

More importantly as I have demonstrated many many times (though it has been a while) the Age Gap TM doesn’t explain the real problem which is the Dating Divide TM

In the past 5 years has the Age gap improved?
Has the Shiduch Crises improved?

“Is there a way for him to earn the respect of the electorate ”

which part of the electorate? The vast majority knew he was unhinged. There are very very few people who think comments like “They say a wall is medieval, well so is a wheel. A wheel is older than a wall…The wheel is older than the wall, you know that? There are some things that work. You know what? A wheel works and a wall works” or ” “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.” are normal comments

Some voted against him because of that.
Some voted for him because of that.
some voted for him in spite of that either because they felt he was better than the alternative overall, or for some narrow specific reason like getting conservative judges
Some voted for him because they hoped he would change (why they thought a man in his 70’s who had been known to be unhinged for years is beyond me)

“& save his presidency?”

Hard to know
Group one above will vote against him again, group 2 will vote for him . group 3 will ( probably) vote for him.
Group 4 is hard to understand. On the one hand you’d think they might finally realize that he wont change, on the other hand if anybody ever expected anything different from this President . They are illogical enough to still hope that may be NOW he will change.

KY

“Who cares if he is trolling”

not me, thats for sure. I enjoy a good troll post almost as much as I enjoy satire (sometimes its hard to tell which is which. Was this OP a troll post or satirically making fun of people who make those kind of arguments I assume the former but I’m not 100% sure)
Its funny I enjoy his posts. This one I chose to ignore. the Last one “voting democrat” was funnier to me so I engaged.

I’m just confused by people who don’t recognize trolling , and give meaning that clearly wasnt there, to a nonsensical post. Again I don’t care about that either, I just find it amusing .

for example when someone says “If the answer is yes ” to a question about “Stalin supporting yeshivos” It is genuinely funny to me. If someone says” I like circles with corners”, then by definition he either doesn’t know what a circle is or doesnt know what a corner is. similarly if someone ponders the possibility of Stalin supporting yeshivos.

AJ
Fair enough (I searched “cheating” he said “cheat” so i missed it)

Again though, it isn’t that they don’t trust the OU.

Lets use the tuna fish example. R’ Moshe requires each fish needs to be inspected for fins/scales. (Earlier Rav Henkin required the same) The OU under R’ Shachter disagrees and allows intermittent supervision based on chazakah that the fisherman doesnt want to ruin his trade and other factors.

As you can imagine , many “heimish Hashgachas” wont accept OU tunafish. Do they not trust the OU? Of course not, they just don’t accept their standards regarding inspecting tuna fish.

1.
“and there’s nothing short of a Stalin that would change the minds of liberal Jews. ”

i’m not so sure even that would change our minds,

note how you couldn’t get a straight answer to your excellent OP “If Stalin promised yeshiva funding, would you still endorse him and vote for him in a primary? ”

““Ask more stupid questions and prove what a fool you are””

Wait are we all just pretending that the OP’s question was a good or intelligent question?

Am I the only one who thinks it was just meant to stir people up?
And it succeeded and CTL got stirred up satisfying the goal of this thread

* I didn’t mean “that you (or your Rav wouldnt hold of) ”
should read “…MAY not hold of”

Joseph

by following R’ Avigdor Miller

“Let me give you a mashal. Suppose you see two candidates: One is being backed by, let’s say, all the Nazis. All the Nazis say to vote for this candidate. Now the other man does not have the endorsement of the Nazis. Are you going to ask, “What did this other candidate do for me?” No – you don’t ask any questions! If this candidate is being endorsed by the Nazis then the other candidate is the one.”

Avi

You have to get better at recognizing trolling/satire (its often hard to tell the difference).

You seem to take “1”‘s posts a bit seriously. Lines like “If Stalin promised yeshiva funding…” or “Is it Assur to vote for a Democrat? Every issue on the party platform, is against Torah Jewry.” Aren’t meant to be taken seriously.

lighten up.
and recognize when standing by a comment that doesn’t make any sense, hurts your position rather than helps it.

Avi
“the O.P. specifically addressed Democrats and asked their views on the leftward, antisemitic lurch of their party.”

Are we reading the same op?.

I thought he was asking about the general education in our yeshivos, given that he raised the possibility of “Stalin promised Yeshiva funding”

In order for that sentence to make any sense you have to not know who Stalin or not know what Yeshiva is. (I suppose you can also not know what funding means for the sentence to work)

“I must have said a dozen times a RETROSPECTIVE study”

A retrospective fully vaxxed vs unvaxxed study would suffer from healthy user bias, Certainly more than the MMR study which you hate so much

Though worse noting healthy user bias, like any bias doesn’t automatically invalidate a study its just points out the inconsistency of your position

dooms

Healthy user bias is a known bias, while you misapply it as I tried to explain earleir in the study you cleary don’t understand), it is a real well-known bias It isnt a manipulation.

Its cute that you think that “tricks cannot be played in vaxxed vs unvaxxed study”

You believe the CDC is deliberately misleading the pubic and are all liars trying to trick us into giving children autism, so that they can make a buck. (IS this your belief? I dont recall if you’ve said it outright )

Why can’t they completely falsify a study?

Doomsday

“There is virtually ZERO deaths from Mumps and Measles (Rubella) in First World Countries!”
B”H!!

and I will continue to do my best to keep it that way in spite of the evil people trying to eradicate vaccines ,

“and your randomized trials only followed adverse events for six weeks.”
well yes, I’ts hard to follow RCT for too long.
Thats why we also have “one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case-control studies, five time-series trials, one case cross-over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies”
At that was only by 2012, there are more since.
several of these looked over a decade

don’t worry I didn’t actually expect you to accept that there was no link. As I have told you time and time again when you keep asking “why no studies were done”

CA
do you disagree with the content of the op ed?

(Note I’m not asking if you disagree with having the content published or broadcasting it)

Dooms
” When a NEW Drug is tested, do they test for safety using another DRUG as a Placebo?
Or do they use a Sugar Pill or Saline Solution?”

Don’t answer your questions when they are so easy to disprove

Both it depends on the what phase trial we are talking, what is being looked at
It also depends on the standard of care. for example Cyclophosphamide has been the standard of care in treating ANCA associated vascultis for several decades.
now I think rituximab might be better or as good but with less side effects.
It would be wrong to test rituximab against a placebo, and not give some patients ANY treatment.
This study was done (RAVE ) and is shifting our management. (though granted THIS example wasnt about the safety of rituximab it is just the first example that comes to mind. As for safety look up Phase 4 trial.

Drug vs Drug studies are done all the time.

More to the point though, Even if we are developing a new drug for a treatment without a standard of care, adn we are comparing it to a placebo.

We dont stop all drugs the placebo arm is taking, in order to do a “DRUG VS NO DRUG” study
The study arm gets Drug X the control arm gets placebo. And it doesn’t matter if the two groups are also taking Drugs A, B, C.
i’m not sure why you are under the impression that in order to study the effects of MMR the control arm cant have received ANY vaccine.

dooms

“Folks, when Someone claims they answered your question, but is EMBARRASSED to write again the
explanation,”

not embarrassed, I just (mistakingly ) assumed you read my posts. copying and pasting the same thing over and over isnt helpful, and frankly makes you seem silly.
but if you insist on my repeating myself sure thing here we go (though forgive me I wont just copy and paste my prior posts, that seems to silly to me)

(and there are NOT five, and it was not repeated dozens of times)
There are 5, and I ditn count them but they were certainly reepated over 20 times by variosu posters

1. There WERE Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed Studies!
“Ubiquiton gets Mad that Antivaxxers won’t accept that Vaxxed Children should be called “Unvaxxed” (because they did not receive ONE Vaccine out of Many).”

I dont get mad, I laugh it is a silly distinction that you (ie the pro-disease camp) made up that has zero basis in reality
If I want to prove an apple a day keeps the doctor away, it doesn’t matter if both groups are also eating oranges. (do you really not recall my using this very example several times)

“2. You won’t accept the results of a Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed Study anyway.
Another LIE! Because Antivaxxers refuse to accept FLAWED Studies such as Vaxxed vs Vaxxed,”

you make up flaws when they dont exist
see #1 above.

#3 all studies have flaws If you dont accept the MMR study for made up flaws a real vaccine vs non-vaccine study would have more flaws.
Take healthy user effect which yoiu misapply to the MMR study.
In someone who never vaccinated, it would apply. In order for someone not to vaccinate they must be either very brain damaged, not care about their kids health /not see doctors regularly. Both of which are MORE likely to be associated with diseases than the actual vaccine.
(even if you disagree with the specific premise, the flaw is still there)
you conclude with “In these studies it is NOT RANDOMIZED (who stops vaccinating) so the studies are BOGUS!”
Well any ethical vaxxed vs fully unvaxxed study wouldnt be randomized either. why would you accept that but not this?

“”CDC gives NO Explanation on why they will not make this Study”

Which brings us to #4 . why should they do one?
theres a guy on my street corner who insist the moon is made of green cheese . NASA wont investigate why?
(Granted, it isnt the best comparison because there is so much more data testifying to the safety of vacciens than the composition of the moon, but the idea still holds)

And finally #5 See truth is hidden’s comment “there are many, many more reasons NOT to vaccinate.”

And this point most people who dont vaccinate isnt based on any real concerns it is based on “many many more reasons” No study in the world , no matter how well designed and how few flaws which as mentioned is impossible) can ever overcome “many many more reasons”

(I do concede that arguably some of these reasons overlap, though I do think each stands alone, if you want to quibble that there arent actually 5 reasons but rather they are 2 I accept that)

doomsday
“Please continue.”

gladly!
Ok on to the study
Theri objective is “To report ASD occurrence by MMR vaccine status in a large sample of US children who have older siblings with and without ASD.”

with me?
So here is what they did.
They did a retrospective cohort study. what this means , is they look back (retrospective) at an exposure (vaccines) and then look to see if the disease (autism) developed. They look at 2 groups one exposed to the risk and one that wasnt .

note these people are already vaccinated , we aren’t randomizing them to the vaccine vs non-vaccine groups. The exposure already occurred long ago, the disease also occured already (as opposed to a prospective cohort study)

Still with me?
It gets just a bit more complicated, because this study has a twist it isnt a straight retrospective cohort study) .
so lets pause and make sure the general design is clear .

At the same time lets keep the definition of “healthy user bias” tucked in the back of our minds “it is a sampling bias: the kind of subjects that voluntarily enroll in a clinical trial and actually follow the experimental regimen are not representative of the general population. They can be expected, on average, to be healthier”

So far so good?

Dooms
“Wikipedia: The healthy user bias i… is a sampling bias: the kind of subjects that voluntarily enroll in a clinical trial and actually follow the experimental regimen are not representative of the general population. They can be expected, on average, to be healthier”

Yes! you nalied it
Now before we go on to the MMR study which you seem to have never never even glanced at, lets make sure this point is clear. This is a simple point and as APY helpfully pointed out we are 1300 posts in. Focus on this point with a little effort we can do it!
Try not to get distracted with irrelevant side distractions like confusing caring “More education” with caring about health, or “organic” with being healthy. These are nonsense and are distractions.
Set them aside and focus on healthy user bias, as you correctly said it is a “sampling error”
What this means (again from wikipedia”) “sampling error is incurred when the statistical characteristics of a population are estimated from a subset, or sample, of that population. Since the sample does not include all members of the population, statistics on the sample, such as means and quantiles, generally differ from the characteristics of the entire population, which are known as parameters. For example, if one measures the height of a thousand individuals from a country of one million, the average height of the thousand is typically not the same as the average height of all one million people in the country. Since sampling is typically done to determine the characteristics of a whole population, the difference between the sample and population values is considered an error”

Or another example if I recruit for my study using the internet, then the sample that I study would have this sample bias, I am automatically excluding those who may not have the internet.

With me so far?

Now lets look at the specific sampling error known as “healthy user bias”
If I look at whether Prostate cancer screenings save lives, A possible flaw is the healthy user bias, those who go to doctors to get screened are more likely to care about their health and live longer

Or with vaccines (from some anti-vaccine website:)
“Most vaccine safety studies are observational, and accordingly, do not include researcher control of vaccine exposure. …. A big problem is that vaccinated and unvaccinated people are not matched. Critical differences include:
1) Healthy people are more likely to choose to be vaccinated. People with chronic diseases or health issues tend to avoid the risk of vaccination.
2) People that choose vaccination tend to have other “health seeking” behaviors, such as having a better diet and exercising, or getting regular screenings and medical tests.

These differences create “healthy user bias” (HUB) or the “healthy user effect” in vaccine studies”

Lets now look at the MMR study,
Are you with me so far?
No changing of definitions later, can we agree to “lock in” this definition.

doomsday

” I am going to explain Healthy User Bias again to show how it HIDES the HARM of Vaccines!”
Before y u explain that, lets take it one step at a time

Youre next line (” the studies are NOT RANDOMIZED ” ) is nonsense as well but lets take it one post at a time.

first what is “healthy user bias” ?
Don’t use this study as an example,(since you will get it wrong) just in general terms what is it ?

Feel free to copy/paste wikipedia It is a short easy to understand entry.

“You have to understand Science to understand what Healthy User Bias means.”

A. I do “understand science” it’s part of my job.
B. It isnt hard to understand wikipedia has a good easy to understand explanation.
C. For the 4th time you clearly dont understand it, it has nothing to do with a retrospective study.