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
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 15:47:01 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 10/2/25 14:21, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 09:25:07 -0400, -hh says...
Well, this is AlleyCat's THIRD rant off of a single post I made;
let's see if he has anything of actual merit to say in this one.
>
>>> No... it's not ONLY about the mRNA vaccine.
>>
>> Your own subject line:
>
> Is it the title of the article and/or study?
>
> Nope.
So then you were misleading from the Start.
Strike one.
>> "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'.
>
> There is no "emphasis", stupid. mRNA is mRNA, not Mrna.
The emphasis I added was changing the "the" to be "THE".
Strike two.
> All I "asked", was for those who believed the mRNA vaccine was safe.
Which has been discussed at length ages ago, with nothing new added here.
Strike three.
> Incidences and rates of Autism HAVE risen since the mRNA
> vaccine was introduced, so fuck off.
Your own cite said they had increased to 1 in 12 in CA by 2018, which
was years prior to the mRNA vaccine being released to the public.
Strike four.
> I never said the article was ABOUT mRNA vaccines only.
Yet that was your misdirection attempt. Despite how your own cited data
predated the introduction of the mRNA CoVid vaccines.
Strike five. This is getting boring.
> If you wouldn't have creamed your panties and salivated at the
> chance to prove me wrong, you would have CAUGHT it that the article
> I posted was NOT about the mRNA vaccine specifically.
But I did catch it, by noting that the reported incidence rate of 2018
predated the mRNA vaccine of 2021.
Plus I've also subsequently noted that you failed to show mRNA-based
causal increase in autism incidence rates since 2021.
Strike six.
> I've never seen you whine and cry as much over your fella [giggle]
> fellas here write subject titles that are a little click-baity.
Oh, so you're revising your subject line "mistake" to be nothing less
than a deliberate troll? How ... unsurprising. Strike seven.
> If I would have titles the subject "Autism Rates Reach Unprecedented
> Highs: 1 in 12 Boys at Age 4 in California, 1 in 31 Nationally
> Feed"... who the fuck would CARE?
>
> OK... now YOUR assignment is to tell me that "I admit that the subject
> line was "wrong" and "click-bait."
You already admitted that; see above.
> Not really, because the mRNA vaccine IS included in the study.
Because in addition to microchips, the mRNA vaccine has a TIME MACHINE!
Strike eight.
>>> 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.
>
> There aren't any fucking "jobs" here for ANY of us to do, you fucking moron.
Oh, my apologies: I forgot that being able to hold down a job has been
a "triggering" and sensitive subject for you.
(BTW, how does one even get fired from being a Wal*Mart greeter?)
> There's NO protocol regarding what I can name a subject, either.
Actually, there has been one for over 40 years: RFC850 and RFC1036:
<https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc850/rfc850.html>
<https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html>
Strike nine. Side retired.
>>> 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.
>
> Then, do as I said, and find out, chicken shit.
Even more lame & impotent avoidance from Catturd, as he's just so amply
shown again with multiple false claims & dodges...again.
And notice what's missing because he deleted it?
[quote]
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!
[/quote]
and:
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
-hh