From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: For The Faggots Who Believed The mRNA Vaccine Was Safe And Effective - Just One of The MANY Articles On this Topic
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 09:25:07 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 10/1/25 22:55, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 21:49:00 -0400, -hh says...
>
>>
>> On 10/1/25 17:01, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2025-09-30 17:56, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 16:58:19 -0700, Alan says...
>>>>
>>>>> Where are his qualifications to assess the incidence of anything?
>>>>
>>>> Who says HE assessed the incidences?
>>>
>>> You had to cut out almost everything I wrote for that not to look stupid.
>>
>> He had to cut his own stuff too.
>>
>> Case in point, he's touting that there's a 1 in 12 rate based on 4 year
>> old boys born in 2014, and his subject line is about the mRNA Vaccine.
>
> No... it's not ONLY about the mRNA vaccine.
Your own subject line:
"Re: For The Faggots Who Believed The mRNA Vaccine Was Safe And
Effective - Just One of The MANY Articles On this Topic"
I see (emphasis added): "..THE mRNA Vaccine..", not 'Vaccines'.
> YOU didn't catch THAT, because you're an illiterate liberal,
> who jumps to conclusions about what Conservatives write, because
> you're a bunch of screaming Me-mes, who don't give much thought
> to what you're going to pounce on.
Nope. Stop whining & pissing in your pants trying to blame others on
what *you* chose to write.
> Show us, from the text below, that the study and article was ONLY about mRNA vaccines.
That's your job as the OP and you chose the subject as mRNA's. Note
that this means that the chronological element I pointed out means that
if there really is a dosage correlation that you supposedly have the
data by which you can show by how much the autism rates rates increased
with the addition of the mRNA CoVid vaccine. Yes, that means that since
1 in 12 was demonstrated prior to 2021, you have to show the proof of a
rate after 2021 that's higher than said 1 in 12. Good luck!
> Do that, and I'll retract and beg news servers across the globe to
> delete every article I ever wrote.
LOL, you'll never do any such thing: you'll keep on doing what you
always do: deleting points and moving the goalposts to never have to
publicly admit that you're wrong.
> The article was NOT only about the mRNA vaccine, but it IS included. I made
> the title to reflect MODERN vaccinations INCLUDING mRNA, but not exclusively,
> dumb ass.
So are you admitting that you made a mistake in misidentifying the topic
in the subject line?
> It's about vaccines in general.
>
> Autism Rates Reach Unprecedented Highs: 1 in 12 Boys at Age 4 in California,
> 1 in 31 Nationally Feed
> > ...
> In 2015, California enacted Senate Bill 277 (SB277), which went into
> effect on July 1,2016....While the primary intent of SB277 was to increase
> VACCINATION RATES and try to reduce outbreaks of communicable diseases, its
> implementation has coincided with a continued-and arguably accelerated-rise
> in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses in the state. Data...offer a
> timeline of prevalence rates before and after the law's enactment:
So your paper's hypothesis is that more vaccinations correlates to
higher rates of autism, as proven by California, correct?
Well heed carefully this part:
> While correlation does not imply causation, the magnitude and timing of
> California's autism surge post-SB277 should compel further
> independent investigation...
Because the causation that they (& you) are trying to imply is that more
vaccinations raise autism rates, so this hypothesis can be tested
through the natural experiment of looking at the rates of autism in
State with higher-than-California's 1:12 rate: those States with lower
vaccination rates should have lower autism rates and those States with
higher vaccination rates should have higher autism rates.
Well!
The top five States for highest rate of vaccinations are:
1 Rhode Island
2 Massachusetts
3 Maine
4 Washington
5 Maryland
<https://www.newsweek.com/us-states-vaccination-rate-ranking-highest-lowest-1953539>
Show us what the autism rates are in each of those States, because by
your (& your paper's) implied causality, they should all be higher than
California's 1 in 12 (8.3%).
But a quick literature search reveals:
RI: 2.34%
MA: 2.42%
ME: 3.2%
WA: 2.8%
MD: 1.7%
...all of which are less than half of CA's 8.3% rate.
> In light of these findings, California may now serve not only as a
> terrible national model for vaccine compliance-but also as a
> bellwether for unintended consequences of compulsory public health policy.
Not according to the data it isn't.
What the data is more likely showing is that CA has a more thorough
screening for diagnosis of autism, not that your claimed causal of
"vaccines" is at fault, because as per above, higher vaccination rates
result in *lower* autism rates vs CA: it . does . not . correlate !
Its time for you to post your retraction and beg news servers across the
globe to delete every article you ever wrote.
-hh