In 2025 a meta-analysis of 46 prospective studies was performed regarding the use of Tylenol during pregnancy and ADHD, autism and neurodevelopmental disorders.
The authors were from Harvard and other universities.
The findings were:
“Higher-quality studies were more likely to show positive associations. Overall, the majority of the studies reported positive associations”
“Previous systematic reviews and meta analyses[10,11,12,13,14,15], have examined the association” and found similar results.
For some people 5+ meta-analyses including 46 prospective studies would “suggest” otherwise.
When the vaccine funded IOM looked for evidence vaccines in infancy don’t cause autism they could only find 1 study and it showed the opposite.
When the worlds leading vaxxers Stanley Plotkin and Katherin Edwards were under oath and asked if there were any studies showing these vaccines don’t cause autism their answer was no.
I wonder if the “experts” want to apply the same standard of “definitive evidence” to the pharma products they make money from?
“and when you see any associations, they are very, very small,”
Is a 51% increased “very, very small”?
Is a 3.62 increased rate “very, very small”?
Using this “expert” definition smoking has a “very, very small association” with heart attacks. Likewise, asbestos has a “very, very small association” with cancer.
The “no definitive evidence” line seems familiar because it’s such a common industrial propaganda cliché that Hollywood jokes about it.
“Gentlemen, practice these words in front of the mirror: Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence”
–Tobacco propagandist Nick Naylor from the movie “Thank you for smoking”
“The evidence does not support a causal link”
“Suggesting otherwise may fuel misinformation and undermine confidence”
Maintaining “confidence” in the trillion dollar medical industry this “experts” income depends on is what is really important.
Half way through the article we finally get to any discussion of any evidence. This is a common propaganda strategy, start with a bunch of insults, logical fallacies and substanceless rhetoric to condition and bias the audience.
They mention the Ahlquivist 2024 study.
If you bother to go read table 4 in the meta-analysis, Ahlquivist was literally the lowest quality and most biased study on the topic. All the authors also happened to work at a pharma funded institute.
The study still found Tylenol was associated with increased autism, ADHD and NDD though it was “a “very small” difference”
Next they mention a Japanese study. The Nature article states it “found no link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and autism.”
If you don’t trust the experts you might go to the study and read “hazard ratios of 1.08 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.16) for composite neurodevelopmental outcomes, 1.22 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.36) for ADHD, 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.15) for ASD,”
A bit different than “no link” but don’t mention it because that would be “misinformation” that would “undermine confidence” in pharma products.
If you’re curious how that “no link” came about they ran a bunch of different models and adjustments to the data: “Similar findings were observed in adjusted models and IPTW methods” Those found a link as well, but alas they eventually ran a model and adjusted the data to find a result closer to what they wanted.
That’s how “expert” science is done. Run a bunch of models, plug in a bunch of assumptions and adjustments and when you find a result that supports your income keep it and throw out the rest. Then ad hominem anyone who points it out.
Finally the article gets to the meta-analysis. They devout two sentences to it one of which is to reject it because an analysis done by people paid by
“Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, UCB, GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi, Leo, Sun, Regeneron, Janssen, Takeda, Gilead, Novartis, Gerber Foundation” conclude:
“in utero exposure to acetaminophen is unlikely to confer a clinically important increased risk”
“Most studies that have reported positive findings are difficult to interpret”
“When unobserved familial confounding through sibling analysis was controlled for, associations weakened”
Think about what that means in the context of a conflict of interest analysis that cannot be viewed. “important increased risk”, “studies reported positive findings”, and “associations weakened” after “unobserved” confounders were “controlled for”
The Nature article then goes to quote –I shit you not– a spokesperson for the corporation that manufactures Tylenol.
There sure is misinformation and undermining confidence here.
——
“dogma always comes with a set of though-terminating clichés, which help believers hide their close-mindedness–mainly from themselves.” — Jeff Schmidt, Disciplined minds.
“Truth is a pathless land –the moment you follow (experts) you cease to follow truth.” –-Jiddu Krishnamurti
“Once men turned their thinking over to (experts) in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with (experts) to enslave them.” –Dune
So Scott Bessent, the Secretatary of the Treasury, announced they are going to give 20 Billion to support the Argentina Government prior to their October election. Yes, that is 20 BILLION. Surely there is a better application of these funds to support America.
Word on the street is that these funds will help bail out hedge funds that have invested heavily in Argentina. Ordinary Americans are being financially hurt with tariffs, inflation and job losses. This administration has lost its way!!
And, Argentina scrapped its export tax on soy beans. This allowed China to shift soy bean purchases from the USA to Argentina. Thereby hurting American farmers. And Argentina is getting rewarded for hurting American farmers. This is nothing more than a bailout for hedge funds.
Yes, NGG, one has to wonder who’s interests are in mind here. Did I say “mind”? Priorities are being set by those who have lost theirs.
In other news Little Boy Marco Rubio has declared that water’s not wet because it turns to ice when it’s cold. Also Venezuela is a very bad actor so the good guys (us) have to blow fishing boats out of the water lest they carry out their nefarious plans and damage the good people of the USA with fentanyl and other powders and such shit.
Then I hear we’re on the cusp of doom and the eve of destruction through AI. It’s not enough that it’s an environmental disaster, but an economic one as well that’s going to bring us all down unless WWIII and Armageddon happen because reasons and false flags and Jesus died for your sins. What a weekend.
Cheers to you and your beverage of choice.
Re: Tucker Carlson and 9/11; Comey & Russiagate Origins; COVID-19 misinformation Social Media Moderation/Censorship; etc.
When I was just a wee little news junkie in the 1970s, the television evening news was a half-hour (it had expanded in the mid-1960s from 15 minutes) and that seemed adequate. We knew who was President, who had won WWII, who had landed on the moon and all that important stuff. We knew assassins had three names and were learning that conspiracy theories rot the brain.
When we found out stuff, that was that. Watergate and the investigations and Impeachment inquiry that followed unfolded at what seems in retrospect, a stately pace. Sure, now we know the Gulf of Tonkin Incident did not really happen and even back then, many suspected FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor. But, I think most people shared a common reality about most political things, even if they evaluated policies and personalities differently.
Now, things are a bit different. Every important news event comes wrapped in at least one but often several competing narratives. People “do their own research”, even doing detailed detective work on photographs and video, or plowing through statistics or through published scientific research, looking for still another narrative “truth”. People can doom-scroll for hours on YouTube or Substack. (I know this from personal experience.)
A lot of what passes for news is a continuing clash of competing narratives and some of these narratives are purposely generated extemporaneously by goldfish.
I, personally, find it difficult to even form a view on controversies, where in the past, I would have enjoyed having a polished, well-informed opinion to share with unwary friends. The game changed and I missed the change. Now, the thing to do is to embrace and extend a narrative, not a mere opinion. The right narrative is like an application to join a club, if not a gang training for combat.
I do admit I try to take some pleasure in attempting to torment the most determined goldfish, but I am seldom successful. Today, I ran across a post somewhere complaining that Trump’s prosecution of Comey seemed partisan and set a bad precedent. I averred in a comment that Russiagate had seemed partisan. I was accused of being a bot! Apparently, any sign of intelligence indicates AI is involved.
I do not have an opinion about COVID-19 issues anymore, but I maybe an exception. I saw Taibbi critiquing how MSM, including the New York Times, handled Google’s admission that Biden Administration had pressured them to censor critics of Biden COVID policy and vaccine skeptics on YouTube. The NY Times could not quite admit that the “misinformation” removed might have been true (at least arguably more true than what Biden himself was saying about vaccines). Of course, that was then and this is now, so Trump warning off pregnant Tylenol users is so much worse than anything we goldfish can remember Biden doing.
Tucker Carlson is an odd case. He seems to like conspiracy theories. He has happily platformed Catherine Austin Fitts, for example. Alex Jones. He will talk about UFOs. I assume, like any good executive editor, he knows his audience and how to cultivate their ripening awareness. Where 9/11 is concerned, he has some undisputed pegs to hang is hat on: the big one is that Bush invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam on the strength of an implicit and false narrative that blamed, not the Saudis, but Iraq. I wrote more than one angry letter to the NY Times Public Editor complaining about columnist William Safire’s lies in support of that false narrative. So, if Tucker does wade into deep water, there is plenty of dry land to come back to.
Oakchair is back once again with another AI-generated post that’s full of inaccuracies and misinformation. Particularly eye-popping was this line:
“When the vaccine funded IOM looked for evidence vaccines in infancy don’t cause autism they could only find 1 study and it showed the opposite.”
This is just straight-up false. I’d say Oakchair was lying here, but of course, he didn’t write anything in his comment. Chat GPT did, and not surprisingly, it got it wrong. For their 2011 report, the IOM looked at many different studies. Here’s a chapter about the MMR vaccine:
As stated before I will no longer read NR’s –as another common commenter put it– bullying and insults but when he does provide a link I will go to it and respond to that.
His link is of the MMR portion of the IOM report. Again the IOM is funded by pharma companies and the authors are paid by pharma.
This is according to them the best, largest, most comprehensive, highest quality and most trustworthy study on the topic.
Conflicts of interest: This study was funded by organizations which either manufacture, sell and/or promote vaccines (In the notes section at the end of the study).
The authors also received money from these organizations.
One of the authors –Poul Thorsen– is on the FBI’s most wanted list for committing over 20 counts of fraud and stealing a million dollars from the CDC while working on this study.
Methods:
“children were assigned to the nonvaccinated group until they received the MMR vaccine.”
What this does is falsely classify all children with early diagnosis as “non-MMR vaccinated” even if they were.
When a study openly admits they falsely classified the groups, imagine what they did that they won’t tell you.
Results:
Even with the false classification, table 1 shows that the MMR vaccinated group had a 17% higher rate of autism cases.
The study still managed to find a way to claim MMR vaccines aren’t associated with autism by using “person-years” instead of autism cases.
“Person-years” counts rates depending on when the diagnosis was made. Autism diagnosed at 4 years counts as a lower rate of autism than a case diagnosed at 3 years. Since all the early cases of autism were falsely classified as “non-vaccinated” this category error gets compounded.
With the false classification and using person years instead of MMR being associated with an increased 1.17 OR the authors get a 0.92 OR
The study authors have also refused to publish their raw data or further “adjustments” they made.
Can you say moral depravity? How about suffer the children? What about criminal and fraud?
I remember when NR (and President Biden) claimed COVID-19 mRNA vaccines protected against infection and transmission.
Medical “experts” have earned their credibility deficit.
The “experts” on autism have retreated into a fog bank of confusion and uselessness. Many, disparate environmental and genetic factors may be causative, they say, and diagnostic criteria have broadened and been applied so widely, that no one has any idea what the rates of autism in the population are or how those rates are trending. (If you cannot say who has autism or how many have autism, it is going to be very difficult to find any association between incidence and any factor. One might begin to suspect that your claim to expertise has been swallowed by a fashion for nihilism. ymmv)
I do not subscribe to the thesis that autism might be associated with the adjuvants in the exploding number of recommended childhood vaccines and never have. Of course, I am also not an “expert” — just that increasingly rare creature in “our democracy”, the educated citizen.
What I have observed in my long life, encompassing more than a half-century of political awareness in the U.S., is rising polarization of opinion accompanied by increasing corruption of institutions.
Experts on political history tell us that polarization of popular political opinion correlates through time with rising inequality. With increasing concentration of wealth comes increasingly bitter partisan conflict and rhetoric. The “other side” is the worst, you see. Reason and compromise are lost to name-calling and intransigence.
It is also something of a truism that as inequality approaches an extreme, increasing economic inequality is associated with increasing institutional corruption and incompetence. Which way the arrow of causation may point I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
I am not confident enough in the remaining shreds of integrity on the partisan left to join my erstwhile Party in any campaign on any topic. That things have reached such an extreme that Republicans, of all people, volunteer for “the good, old cause” whatever it may be today, is genuinely disturbing to me at times.
During the Covid pandemic multiple frequent commenters at this blog said they were no longer going to comment because of bullying.
This blog is one of the most allowing towards questioning the pharma complex. Elsewhere you just get censored yet multiple people left this blog because they were bullied.
That is the environment this entire topic resides in. Publish a study that doesn’t support pharma like Dr. Paul Thomas? Lose your license. Dr. Marcus Zervos refused to publish a study because he was afraid he’d get fired for doing so.
Despite this environment there are still 100’s of studies published rejecting the pharma narrative. Despite this even pharma funded studies reject the pharma narrative if you bother to actually look at the study.
But therein lies the problem. Most everyone has been so conditioned that
Following orders is morality
Refusing to think is intelligence
Paid opinion is science
Notice how Oakchair doesn’t even address the fact that he was proven to have posted false information when he said “When the vaccine funded IOM looked for evidence vaccines in infancy don’t cause autism they could only find 1 study and it showed the opposite.” He regularly posts false information generated by AI and when it’s proven false, he doesn’t apologize or even acknowledge it. The contempt he has for everyone here is pretty astounding.
I could refute his AI-generated “critique” of one single study of many showing no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, but there’s no point. He’s shown himself to be fundamentally dishonest and only interested in spreading propaganda. Showing facts to someone like that is pointless.
Form is emptiness, emptiness also is form . . .
Just quoting a line from the Heart Sutra.
Then, there’s the chicanery of Big Pharma and the medical industrial complex. Everyone knows the truth of that outside the oblivious masses.
Charlie Kirk received more likes in death than in life. Occupy This mofo.
Gonna turn your city, turn your life upside down.
Lots of rabbits in the neighborhood this season. Wondering where their predators are. Camping in DC with the predator class I guess.
These rabbits that cross my path are fascinating in their diverse camouflage markings. Some have mottled gray and brown spots that blend with the rocks and brush in one location. Others in the forest canopy have subtle shades of brown with a gray streak. In an open hillside their coat blends with the dirt.
How does this happen? Chameleons of the rodent world. Those from the cute side of the family.
Random Sunday night observations, because sometimes you gotta let your silent voice hit the air.
All his 9/11 relevant articles are listed under the category titled: 9/11.
Here is a copy of the article titles. I don’t know if they will come up linkable or not.
9/11
It’s the Real Thing
A Dot Too Far
No Guru, No Teacher, No Method
That Body Snatchers Moment
Secret Agent Man
Inside, Outside
Area 9/11
If I Only Had a Plane
Flight of Capital
That Bill Hicks Moment
Money doesn’t talk
Springtime for Atta
Back to Black
Plan 9 from Saudi Arabia
The trouble with normal
Don’t get used to it
The sound of one-hand slapping
Cynical, sophisticated and subtle
Let me put it this way
The guns of 9/11
The difference it makes
Sibel’s Way
Oh, the Places You Go (When You Follow the Money)
Do You Know this Woman?
9/11 in the Courts. Sort of
Michael Chertoff and the Sabotage of the Ptech Investigation
Ten Things We Learned in 2004 about 9/11
Rumsfeld Goes off Message
“Give Me a Good Reason”
TIA Was Ready Before 9/11
Another “Timely Alert”
Binge, Purge and Repeat
Report: WTC Black Boxes Were Recovered
Bushthink, and the Strength of Venezuelan Steel
9/11 Truth or Consequences
The Riddle of the Transponders
The Flying Wedge
Remembering September 10
Dick Cheney, Terrorism Czar
“Where Drugs, Arms and Oil Intersect”
The Coincidence Theorist’s Guide to 9/11
Well, it looks like they did not come up linkable. But there the titles are.
It would be interesting to see how what Tucker Carlson presents compares to what Jeff Wells presented in these articles.
I first heard about these “Prince Rupert’s Drops” in college by some other name. You pour molten glass into cold water in such a way that it forms these big drops with long tails. The stresses inside are huge. If you squeeze or try breaking them at the blunt round end, they are very hard to break. If you break off the very finest tip of the tail, they explode.
I’m waiting for it to all explode. AI, Israel, influencers and the political class along with the transhumance movement and the authoritarians and fascists and everyone and everything whose ideologies and activities are contrary to basic human goodness and that which promotes the welfare and well being of the environment and humans and non humans alike.
May the minds of all be filled with love for one another.
Whew. Glad I got that off my chest.
I see that Trump said in his speech on Tuesday that Canada should be the 51st state.
In previous statements he was never so specific as to how many states Canada should be if it joined the US.
Expecting Canada to be one state is even more unreasonable than expecting that Canada should be independent. Canada has no more right to indepedence than Ukraine does. But it should not have to join the United States and Mexico as one state.
I have a devine counter proposal. The Mainetime Provences along with Greenland and and Denmark would join as the 51st state. That would give people who live in Denmark a life raft, which they will soon be needing.
Then Quebec will be state number 52. Ontario would be number 53. Manitodta, Alberta and Sasquaschland would be 54. And British Columbia would be 55.
Oakchair
Did anyone envision Tucker Carlson making a documentary on how 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the American and Israeli spy agencies?
Due Dissidence discusses the first two episodes of it in the videos below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr7npszy2Wk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyy__pDKIe4
Oakchair
In 2025 a meta-analysis of 46 prospective studies was performed regarding the use of Tylenol during pregnancy and ADHD, autism and neurodevelopmental disorders.
The authors were from Harvard and other universities.
The findings were:
“Higher-quality studies were more likely to show positive associations. Overall, the majority of the studies reported positive associations”
“Previous systematic reviews and meta analyses[10,11,12,13,14,15], have examined the association” and found similar results.
Dose dependent relationships were found:
“Dose response: 10% higher odds for each doubling of acetaminophen”
“2nd tertile: OR = 2.14 (95% CI: 0.93–5.13) 3rd tertile: OR = 3.62”
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01208-0
Here is how the “experts” recently reported this when RFK/Trump brought it up.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02876-1
“There is no definitive evidence”
For some people 5+ meta-analyses including 46 prospective studies would “suggest” otherwise.
When the vaccine funded IOM looked for evidence vaccines in infancy don’t cause autism they could only find 1 study and it showed the opposite.
When the worlds leading vaxxers Stanley Plotkin and Katherin Edwards were under oath and asked if there were any studies showing these vaccines don’t cause autism their answer was no.
I wonder if the “experts” want to apply the same standard of “definitive evidence” to the pharma products they make money from?
“and when you see any associations, they are very, very small,”
Is a 51% increased “very, very small”?
Is a 3.62 increased rate “very, very small”?
Using this “expert” definition smoking has a “very, very small association” with heart attacks. Likewise, asbestos has a “very, very small association” with cancer.
The “no definitive evidence” line seems familiar because it’s such a common industrial propaganda cliché that Hollywood jokes about it.
“Gentlemen, practice these words in front of the mirror: Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence”
–Tobacco propagandist Nick Naylor from the movie “Thank you for smoking”
“The evidence does not support a causal link”
“Suggesting otherwise may fuel misinformation and undermine confidence”
Maintaining “confidence” in the trillion dollar medical industry this “experts” income depends on is what is really important.
Half way through the article we finally get to any discussion of any evidence. This is a common propaganda strategy, start with a bunch of insults, logical fallacies and substanceless rhetoric to condition and bias the audience.
They mention the Ahlquivist 2024 study.
If you bother to go read table 4 in the meta-analysis, Ahlquivist was literally the lowest quality and most biased study on the topic. All the authors also happened to work at a pharma funded institute.
The study still found Tylenol was associated with increased autism, ADHD and NDD though it was “a “very small” difference”
Next they mention a Japanese study. The Nature article states it “found no link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and autism.”
If you don’t trust the experts you might go to the study and read “hazard ratios of 1.08 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.16) for composite neurodevelopmental outcomes, 1.22 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.36) for ADHD, 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.15) for ASD,”
A bit different than “no link” but don’t mention it because that would be “misinformation” that would “undermine confidence” in pharma products.
If you’re curious how that “no link” came about they ran a bunch of different models and adjustments to the data: “Similar findings were observed in adjusted models and IPTW methods” Those found a link as well, but alas they eventually ran a model and adjusted the data to find a result closer to what they wanted.
That’s how “expert” science is done. Run a bunch of models, plug in a bunch of assumptions and adjustments and when you find a result that supports your income keep it and throw out the rest. Then ad hominem anyone who points it out.
Finally the article gets to the meta-analysis. They devout two sentences to it one of which is to reject it because an analysis done by people paid by
“Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, UCB, GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi, Leo, Sun, Regeneron, Janssen, Takeda, Gilead, Novartis, Gerber Foundation” conclude:
“in utero exposure to acetaminophen is unlikely to confer a clinically important increased risk”
“Most studies that have reported positive findings are difficult to interpret”
“When unobserved familial confounding through sibling analysis was controlled for, associations weakened”
Think about what that means in the context of a conflict of interest analysis that cannot be viewed. “important increased risk”, “studies reported positive findings”, and “associations weakened” after “unobserved” confounders were “controlled for”
The Nature article then goes to quote –I shit you not– a spokesperson for the corporation that manufactures Tylenol.
There sure is misinformation and undermining confidence here.
——
“dogma always comes with a set of though-terminating clichés, which help believers hide their close-mindedness–mainly from themselves.” — Jeff Schmidt, Disciplined minds.
“Truth is a pathless land –the moment you follow (experts) you cease to follow truth.” –-Jiddu Krishnamurti
“Once men turned their thinking over to (experts) in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with (experts) to enslave them.” –Dune
NGG
So Scott Bessent, the Secretatary of the Treasury, announced they are going to give 20 Billion to support the Argentina Government prior to their October election. Yes, that is 20 BILLION. Surely there is a better application of these funds to support America.
Word on the street is that these funds will help bail out hedge funds that have invested heavily in Argentina. Ordinary Americans are being financially hurt with tariffs, inflation and job losses. This administration has lost its way!!
NGG
And, Argentina scrapped its export tax on soy beans. This allowed China to shift soy bean purchases from the USA to Argentina. Thereby hurting American farmers. And Argentina is getting rewarded for hurting American farmers. This is nothing more than a bailout for hedge funds.
mago
Yes, NGG, one has to wonder who’s interests are in mind here. Did I say “mind”? Priorities are being set by those who have lost theirs.
In other news Little Boy Marco Rubio has declared that water’s not wet because it turns to ice when it’s cold. Also Venezuela is a very bad actor so the good guys (us) have to blow fishing boats out of the water lest they carry out their nefarious plans and damage the good people of the USA with fentanyl and other powders and such shit.
Then I hear we’re on the cusp of doom and the eve of destruction through AI. It’s not enough that it’s an environmental disaster, but an economic one as well that’s going to bring us all down unless WWIII and Armageddon happen because reasons and false flags and Jesus died for your sins. What a weekend.
Cheers to you and your beverage of choice.
bruce wilder
Re: Tucker Carlson and 9/11; Comey & Russiagate Origins; COVID-19 misinformation Social Media Moderation/Censorship; etc.
When I was just a wee little news junkie in the 1970s, the television evening news was a half-hour (it had expanded in the mid-1960s from 15 minutes) and that seemed adequate. We knew who was President, who had won WWII, who had landed on the moon and all that important stuff. We knew assassins had three names and were learning that conspiracy theories rot the brain.
When we found out stuff, that was that. Watergate and the investigations and Impeachment inquiry that followed unfolded at what seems in retrospect, a stately pace. Sure, now we know the Gulf of Tonkin Incident did not really happen and even back then, many suspected FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor. But, I think most people shared a common reality about most political things, even if they evaluated policies and personalities differently.
Now, things are a bit different. Every important news event comes wrapped in at least one but often several competing narratives. People “do their own research”, even doing detailed detective work on photographs and video, or plowing through statistics or through published scientific research, looking for still another narrative “truth”. People can doom-scroll for hours on YouTube or Substack. (I know this from personal experience.)
A lot of what passes for news is a continuing clash of competing narratives and some of these narratives are purposely generated extemporaneously by goldfish.
I, personally, find it difficult to even form a view on controversies, where in the past, I would have enjoyed having a polished, well-informed opinion to share with unwary friends. The game changed and I missed the change. Now, the thing to do is to embrace and extend a narrative, not a mere opinion. The right narrative is like an application to join a club, if not a gang training for combat.
I do admit I try to take some pleasure in attempting to torment the most determined goldfish, but I am seldom successful. Today, I ran across a post somewhere complaining that Trump’s prosecution of Comey seemed partisan and set a bad precedent. I averred in a comment that Russiagate had seemed partisan. I was accused of being a bot! Apparently, any sign of intelligence indicates AI is involved.
I do not have an opinion about COVID-19 issues anymore, but I maybe an exception. I saw Taibbi critiquing how MSM, including the New York Times, handled Google’s admission that Biden Administration had pressured them to censor critics of Biden COVID policy and vaccine skeptics on YouTube. The NY Times could not quite admit that the “misinformation” removed might have been true (at least arguably more true than what Biden himself was saying about vaccines). Of course, that was then and this is now, so Trump warning off pregnant Tylenol users is so much worse than anything we goldfish can remember Biden doing.
Tucker Carlson is an odd case. He seems to like conspiracy theories. He has happily platformed Catherine Austin Fitts, for example. Alex Jones. He will talk about UFOs. I assume, like any good executive editor, he knows his audience and how to cultivate their ripening awareness. Where 9/11 is concerned, he has some undisputed pegs to hang is hat on: the big one is that Bush invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam on the strength of an implicit and false narrative that blamed, not the Saudis, but Iraq. I wrote more than one angry letter to the NY Times Public Editor complaining about columnist William Safire’s lies in support of that false narrative. So, if Tucker does wade into deep water, there is plenty of dry land to come back to.
NR
Oakchair is back once again with another AI-generated post that’s full of inaccuracies and misinformation. Particularly eye-popping was this line:
“When the vaccine funded IOM looked for evidence vaccines in infancy don’t cause autism they could only find 1 study and it showed the opposite.”
This is just straight-up false. I’d say Oakchair was lying here, but of course, he didn’t write anything in his comment. Chat GPT did, and not surprisingly, it got it wrong. For their 2011 report, the IOM looked at many different studies. Here’s a chapter about the MMR vaccine:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190025/
They summarize the results of studies looking for links between the vaccine and autism. Here’s what the studies said:
“The authors concluded that MMR vaccination is not associated with autism.”
“The authors concluded that there is no association between MMR or measles-containing vaccines and autism diagnosis any time after vaccination.”
“The authors concluded that MMR vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of autistic disorder or other autistic-spectrum disorders.”
“The authors concluded that MMR vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of autism.”
“The authors concluded that administration of MMR or single-antigen measles vaccine is not associated with an increased risk of autism in children.”
If only actual medical experts were as smart as Oakchair and just used Chat GPT for everything, we’d all be so much healthier, I’m sure.
Oakchair
As stated before I will no longer read NR’s –as another common commenter put it– bullying and insults but when he does provide a link I will go to it and respond to that.
His link is of the MMR portion of the IOM report. Again the IOM is funded by pharma companies and the authors are paid by pharma.
The largest study which the IOM report “judged to have negligible limitations” was Madsen et al. 2002.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421889/
This is according to them the best, largest, most comprehensive, highest quality and most trustworthy study on the topic.
Conflicts of interest: This study was funded by organizations which either manufacture, sell and/or promote vaccines (In the notes section at the end of the study).
The authors also received money from these organizations.
One of the authors –Poul Thorsen– is on the FBI’s most wanted list for committing over 20 counts of fraud and stealing a million dollars from the CDC while working on this study.
Methods:
“children were assigned to the nonvaccinated group until they received the MMR vaccine.”
What this does is falsely classify all children with early diagnosis as “non-MMR vaccinated” even if they were.
When a study openly admits they falsely classified the groups, imagine what they did that they won’t tell you.
Results:
Even with the false classification, table 1 shows that the MMR vaccinated group had a 17% higher rate of autism cases.
The study still managed to find a way to claim MMR vaccines aren’t associated with autism by using “person-years” instead of autism cases.
“Person-years” counts rates depending on when the diagnosis was made. Autism diagnosed at 4 years counts as a lower rate of autism than a case diagnosed at 3 years. Since all the early cases of autism were falsely classified as “non-vaccinated” this category error gets compounded.
With the false classification and using person years instead of MMR being associated with an increased 1.17 OR the authors get a 0.92 OR
The study authors have also refused to publish their raw data or further “adjustments” they made.
Can you say moral depravity? How about suffer the children? What about criminal and fraud?
bruce wilder
I remember when NR (and President Biden) claimed COVID-19 mRNA vaccines protected against infection and transmission.
Medical “experts” have earned their credibility deficit.
The “experts” on autism have retreated into a fog bank of confusion and uselessness. Many, disparate environmental and genetic factors may be causative, they say, and diagnostic criteria have broadened and been applied so widely, that no one has any idea what the rates of autism in the population are or how those rates are trending. (If you cannot say who has autism or how many have autism, it is going to be very difficult to find any association between incidence and any factor. One might begin to suspect that your claim to expertise has been swallowed by a fashion for nihilism. ymmv)
I do not subscribe to the thesis that autism might be associated with the adjuvants in the exploding number of recommended childhood vaccines and never have. Of course, I am also not an “expert” — just that increasingly rare creature in “our democracy”, the educated citizen.
What I have observed in my long life, encompassing more than a half-century of political awareness in the U.S., is rising polarization of opinion accompanied by increasing corruption of institutions.
Experts on political history tell us that polarization of popular political opinion correlates through time with rising inequality. With increasing concentration of wealth comes increasingly bitter partisan conflict and rhetoric. The “other side” is the worst, you see. Reason and compromise are lost to name-calling and intransigence.
It is also something of a truism that as inequality approaches an extreme, increasing economic inequality is associated with increasing institutional corruption and incompetence. Which way the arrow of causation may point I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
I am not confident enough in the remaining shreds of integrity on the partisan left to join my erstwhile Party in any campaign on any topic. That things have reached such an extreme that Republicans, of all people, volunteer for “the good, old cause” whatever it may be today, is genuinely disturbing to me at times.
Oakchair
RE: Bruce wilder
During the Covid pandemic multiple frequent commenters at this blog said they were no longer going to comment because of bullying.
This blog is one of the most allowing towards questioning the pharma complex. Elsewhere you just get censored yet multiple people left this blog because they were bullied.
That is the environment this entire topic resides in. Publish a study that doesn’t support pharma like Dr. Paul Thomas? Lose your license. Dr. Marcus Zervos refused to publish a study because he was afraid he’d get fired for doing so.
Despite this environment there are still 100’s of studies published rejecting the pharma narrative. Despite this even pharma funded studies reject the pharma narrative if you bother to actually look at the study.
But therein lies the problem. Most everyone has been so conditioned that
Following orders is morality
Refusing to think is intelligence
Paid opinion is science
NR
Notice how Oakchair doesn’t even address the fact that he was proven to have posted false information when he said “When the vaccine funded IOM looked for evidence vaccines in infancy don’t cause autism they could only find 1 study and it showed the opposite.” He regularly posts false information generated by AI and when it’s proven false, he doesn’t apologize or even acknowledge it. The contempt he has for everyone here is pretty astounding.
I could refute his AI-generated “critique” of one single study of many showing no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, but there’s no point. He’s shown himself to be fundamentally dishonest and only interested in spreading propaganda. Showing facts to someone like that is pointless.
mago
Form is emptiness, emptiness also is form . . .
Just quoting a line from the Heart Sutra.
Then, there’s the chicanery of Big Pharma and the medical industrial complex. Everyone knows the truth of that outside the oblivious masses.
Charlie Kirk received more likes in death than in life. Occupy This mofo.
Gonna turn your city, turn your life upside down.
Lots of rabbits in the neighborhood this season. Wondering where their predators are. Camping in DC with the predator class I guess.
These rabbits that cross my path are fascinating in their diverse camouflage markings. Some have mottled gray and brown spots that blend with the rocks and brush in one location. Others in the forest canopy have subtle shades of brown with a gray streak. In an open hillside their coat blends with the dirt.
How does this happen? Chameleons of the rodent world. Those from the cute side of the family.
Random Sunday night observations, because sometimes you gotta let your silent voice hit the air.
Once Upon a Time in the West.
Great movie.
different clue
Canadian blogger and journalist Jeff Wells wrote a bunch of 9/11-related articles on his Rigorous Intuition 2.0 blog. Here is a sample one called ” Flight of Capital”.
https://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/06/flight-of-capital.html
All his 9/11 relevant articles are listed under the category titled: 9/11.
Here is a copy of the article titles. I don’t know if they will come up linkable or not.
9/11
It’s the Real Thing
A Dot Too Far
No Guru, No Teacher, No Method
That Body Snatchers Moment
Secret Agent Man
Inside, Outside
Area 9/11
If I Only Had a Plane
Flight of Capital
That Bill Hicks Moment
Money doesn’t talk
Springtime for Atta
Back to Black
Plan 9 from Saudi Arabia
The trouble with normal
Don’t get used to it
The sound of one-hand slapping
Cynical, sophisticated and subtle
Let me put it this way
The guns of 9/11
The difference it makes
Sibel’s Way
Oh, the Places You Go (When You Follow the Money)
Do You Know this Woman?
9/11 in the Courts. Sort of
Michael Chertoff and the Sabotage of the Ptech Investigation
Ten Things We Learned in 2004 about 9/11
Rumsfeld Goes off Message
“Give Me a Good Reason”
TIA Was Ready Before 9/11
Another “Timely Alert”
Binge, Purge and Repeat
Report: WTC Black Boxes Were Recovered
Bushthink, and the Strength of Venezuelan Steel
9/11 Truth or Consequences
The Riddle of the Transponders
The Flying Wedge
Remembering September 10
Dick Cheney, Terrorism Czar
“Where Drugs, Arms and Oil Intersect”
The Coincidence Theorist’s Guide to 9/11
Well, it looks like they did not come up linkable. But there the titles are.
It would be interesting to see how what Tucker Carlson presents compares to what Jeff Wells presented in these articles.
different clue
Here is an interesting physics video. ” Prince Rupert‘s Drop breaking the hydraulic machine ”
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1ntj3hn/prince_ruperts_drop_breaking_the_hydraulic_machine/
I first heard about these “Prince Rupert’s Drops” in college by some other name. You pour molten glass into cold water in such a way that it forms these big drops with long tails. The stresses inside are huge. If you squeeze or try breaking them at the blunt round end, they are very hard to break. If you break off the very finest tip of the tail, they explode.
Here is a wikipedia entry about Prince Rupert’s Drops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert%27s_drop
mago
I’m waiting for it to all explode. AI, Israel, influencers and the political class along with the transhumance movement and the authoritarians and fascists and everyone and everything whose ideologies and activities are contrary to basic human goodness and that which promotes the welfare and well being of the environment and humans and non humans alike.
May the minds of all be filled with love for one another.
Whew. Glad I got that off my chest.
Curt Kastens
I see that Trump said in his speech on Tuesday that Canada should be the 51st state.
In previous statements he was never so specific as to how many states Canada should be if it joined the US.
Expecting Canada to be one state is even more unreasonable than expecting that Canada should be independent. Canada has no more right to indepedence than Ukraine does. But it should not have to join the United States and Mexico as one state.
I have a devine counter proposal. The Mainetime Provences along with Greenland and and Denmark would join as the 51st state. That would give people who live in Denmark a life raft, which they will soon be needing.
Then Quebec will be state number 52. Ontario would be number 53. Manitodta, Alberta and Sasquaschland would be 54. And British Columbia would be 55.