/sci/ - Science & Math

Can you prove empirically that autism exists?

>>7050794
Not entirely, but for the sake of argument, let's say "proof that vaccines cause the symptoms of autism" or some shit.

>>7050789
The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms.

You're the one making the claim that they do, in fact, cause autism in this instance.

In order for me, the defendant, to present counterevidence and empirical proof that vaccines do not cause autism, I would be to be first presented with a claim backed with sufficient evidence to support it.

One cannot disprove a negative hypothesis. You may as well just tell me to prove that invisible unicorns with no weight or mass don't exist.

They don't cause autism because autism is a complex brain anomaly, much like being female or a child.

They do cause atheism, though. They let the devil in. They are, in fact, the modern equivalent of a witches mark. Satan himself suckles upon the blood of the children, resulting in swelling and deviant behaviour. Source: I'm an eyewitness.

>>7050807
>need to be*

>>7050807
the whole thing could had been simplified there hasn't been any evidence.

Here you go, OP. It's as "proof" as you're going to get.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367

>>7050807
this is dumb, please go learn what the word "proof" means

>>7050811
I am well aware, but I made it more complicated for no reason because I have become autistic due to being vaccinated.

>>7050807
I was worried that someone would say this, which is why I said "Do or do not" but maybe I could have worded it better.

I just ask that there be given any scientific proof that either side is correct or incorrect. No bias.

>>7050816
"Proof" is evidence of argument establishing truth to a statement. Since, at this time, there is no evidence of argument establishing truth to the statement, "Vaccines cause autism," to present counterevidence would be illogical and in many instances impossible.

You have now been educated.

>>7050816
Not all proofs are logic proofs, mang. In empirical proofs, the absence of evidence when looking in a place where evidence by all means should exist IS in fact the evidence of absence.

>>7050816

hes right though

assuming theres no proof presented you cant really come up with an argument as to why that proof is wrong.

>>7050821
Why exactly isn't it possible? Is it, more or less, because we don't know much about autism in the first place to make a hypothesis, or...? People say that it's too much mercury that does this, but is there any proof or counterpoint for that? Couldn't we just have a study or experiment with the vaccines?

>>7050789
>Hey, /sci/, can any of you provide empirical proof that vaccines do or do not cause autism? Thank you in advance

>empirical

>proof

English is a second language to you, right?

>>7050838
Explain what's incorrect about that.

>>7050836
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

>>7050815
Here's the abstract if anyone is lazy.

>There has been enormous debate regarding the possibility of a link between childhood vaccinations and the subsequent development of autism. This has in recent times become a major public health issue with vaccine preventable diseases increasing in the community due to the fear of a ‘link’ between vaccinations and autism. We performed a meta-analysis to summarise available evidence from case-control and cohort studies on this topic (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar up to April, 2014). Eligible studies assessed the relationship between vaccine administration and the subsequent development of autism or autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Disagreement was resolved by consensus with another author. Five cohort studies involving 1,256,407 children, and five case-control studies involving 9,920 children were included in this analysis. The cohort data revealed no relationship between vaccination and autism (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.06) or ASD (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.20), nor was there a relationship between autism and MMR (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01), or thimerosal (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.31), or mercury (Hg) (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07). Similarly the case-control data found no evidence for increased risk of developing autism or ASD following MMR, Hg, or thimerosal exposure when grouped by condition (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.98; p = 0.02) or grouped by exposure type (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.95; p = 0.01). Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, the components of the vaccines (thimerosal or mercury) or multiple vaccines (MMR) are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder.

>>7050855
Okay, I understand now; thanks again.

>>7050851
The two are mutually exclusive.
Empirical relates to data and investigation.
A proof is just a proof.

>>7050838
Man, people who have yet to understand how words work are so hard to talk to. Your personal favorite definition and context of the word "proof" is not the beginning and the end of language.

>>7050789
Everyone I know who has autism has also been vaccinated.

From memory, only one peer-reviewed article ever substantiated this claim. Ironically, the publishing company of this article retracted it, which does not make a difference, as most people do not read the current evidence and if they do, it is selectively used. So, as >>7050807 says you need to support your claims.

>Let's use an article focused on supporting X, but we take view point Y and use that source to argue it without any additional evidence against X's viewpoint.
>Muh opinion.

>>7050877
Well I guess what I was trying to emphasize was "actual documented experimental studies" as opposed to people who attempt to resort to the drastic growth in autism diagnoses, over the years, as proof. Then again, that can be defined as proof anyway, so that makes it kind of redundant. Oh well.

>>7050881
Don't be a dick. I wasn't trying to say that my usage of the word was perfect and correct, and that's why I asked what was wrong about the sentence. I asked so I could see what I did wrong and prevent a stupid mistake, for the future.

>>7050901
I'm was never claiming anything. I was asking for others to make their own claim that vaccines can cause autism, with actual proof, or debunk other claims made with actual proof.

I don't see how else I can clarify this.

>>7050883
Everyone I know who has autism has eaten food.

Therefore food causes autism.

>>7050908

It must be hard being so lazy. I had to go to Wikipedia to find additional information, then I Googled the journals name and the "autism". This is the only evidence used to support the claim, please note the retraction:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract

>>7050918
Nevermind, forget it.

>>7050883
And everyone I know has been vaccinated, you hick.

If anything this hints that autism is a disease of non-hickness, probably related to lack of cousin marriage and excessive inter-ethnic marriage.

>>7050925

I do not think you get it. There is no evidence to support such a claim that vaccines cause autism. The point is, that the evidence used to support such claims does not exist with academia*, which requires any argument to claim otherwise with the appropriate evidence. The media started this by talking about this article and its results, which was retracted from the journal, as a result their is no evidence to date to support such a claim.


>*Anecdotal evidence from a group of individuals against vaccination is not evidence: note their lack of evidence. These are the only people continuing these claims, which is where additional research is undertaken on these groups.

>>7050789
>can any of you provide empirical proof that vaccines do or do not cause autism

Simple, autism doesn't exist therefore no one has ever gotten it by a vaccine

>>7050938
No, I get that now. It's just that I was saying "nevermind, forget it" because I pretty much understood, by that point. My previous post before that was just me trying to say that I didn't have any claims, because I thought you were trying to imply that I had a preconceived opinion (Protip: I didn't) when I made this thread.

Regardless, thank you for actually sitting down to explain this, instead of calling me a faggot or some shit.

Ahem.

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Healthcare/mmr_vaccine_may_actually_cut_autism_risk_2012090738.html

>>7050815
Dude you're a dumbass, it's not that easy to define. There is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to questions like what proof is.

>>7050789

OP, vaccines have induced autism , but it can also has cured it so it is basically a neutral effect overall.

>>7051520

>>7050789
If vaccines caused autism and almost everyone has been vaccinated then why hasn't everyone been diagnosed with autism

QED

>>7050901
> only one peer-reviewed article ever substantiated this claim
Well, there has been more than one study showing some link, but upon further review (replication, study of methods, or larger sample size), the link has always gone away. I'm sure there are a few out there that no one's bothered to try to replicate yet. You can probably get a big list at mercola.com.

The really funny thing about the Wakefield study is that it's dubious that some of the twelve original study participants even had autism.

>>7051488
> you're a dumbass, it's not that easy to define
> that poster didn't try to define anything
> in fact, he was the only person to post anything actually relevant to the original request

>>7051520
I like this and I am stealing it for my next IRL discussion of the matter. "Actually, several recent studies have shown...."

>>7050855
> is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist.
You're abusing this definition. You can "prove" a negative correlation, a positive correlation or no correlation with statistics. No one is asking for the existence of autism, and the only thing that would fit the bill of "missing" is if it's said "there should be a correlation with autism" to which there would be statistics "proving" that there are missing cases of autism correlated with vaccines. But, we aren't talking about "shoulds" either.

>>7051593

>Well, there has been more than one study showing some link, but upon further review (replication, study of methods, or larger sample size), the link has always gone away. I'm sure there are a few out there that no one's bothered to try to replicate yet.

>>Citation needed.

That is my problem, I am ready to read any evidence presented and the argument of not finding it is simply laziness. You either have the evidence to support your argument or you do not. Since I have not seen 'the evidence' proving a link between autism and vaccines, I can conclude that their is no link based upon the current evidence.

>I do not deny the fact that vaccines CAN cause harm, but such evidence of it causing autism is unavailable and the benefits of vaccines often out way the negatives. You always have a choice and I have a right to criticize such as choice: as you hae towards my argument which are judged on their quality (i.e. evidence presented and or lack thereof).

>>7051622
There's an entire literature of this stuff. Literally journals of it. If you can't be bothered to go through a citation index, find a review article. It's not that hard.

> I am ready to read any evidence presented
Then read the article posted 11 hours ago >>7050815 and the references in that. It has what you need.

> Since I have not seen 'the evidence' proving a link between autism and vaccines, I can conclude that their is no link based upon the current evidence.
That is extremely faulty logic (and bad grammar, but that's a lesser sin).

The conclusion is likely correct: a lot of studies have been done, mechanisms have been proposed and rejected, and reasonable alternative explanation for observed effects have been made; the bulk of evidence is that there is no link. But you're a gullible fool if you accept that conclusion simply because you haven't heard anything different, and not because you are confident in the vast bulk of evidence supporting it.

>>7051650
not that anon but if it's not that hard then throw a link you fucking asshole

>>7051650

Oh no! We have triggered the independent thought alarm, which has led to several miscalculation:

>find a review article

This is not research within the field. It is simply finding research that has already been used then reporting on it. I have presented an article showing that a link was found in a review article, which was later retracted. As such, no new evidence has found a link between autism and vaccines within my research.

>Then read the article posted 11 hours ago >>7050815 and the references in that. It has what you need.

From the article itself:

“Discussion
This meta-analysis of five case-control and five cohort studies has found no evidence for the link between vaccination and the subsequent risk of developing autism or autistic spectrum disorder…” Page 3627 in the article.

To reiterate that point:
>"...has found no evidence for the link between vaccination and the subsequent risk of developing autism or autistic spectrum disorder…"
>"...has found no evidence for the link..."
>"...no evidence..."

>That is extremely faulty logic

If this was an academic domain, I was be highlighting the current evidence and other research conducted which is misappropriated (i.e. selecting the portions that please their argument and ignoring the overall substance).

However, this is 4chan and I am not going to do this.

> (and bad grammar, but that's a lesser sin).

Incoherent grammar not found.

Reference to 'the evidence' inferring a link a research body is correct, as I am referencing to an idea and several argument for this single quotation usage exists. This is for and against its usage interchangeably: assuming I am later using "quote" to quote an author/s perspective word for word.

Also, I am using the magic comma to show that my independent clause is linked to my dependent clause. I can reverse these clauses and the same meaning is inferred upon the reader. Please highlight the particular error.

>>7050819
>I just ask that there be given any scientific proof that either side is correct or incorrect. No bias.

There are no sides, and even asking the question is in and of itself a bias. It assumes that something which proposed entirely without evidence becomes a debate. There is no debate, because there was never any argument. For example, if I said "chewing bubble gum causes hurricanes" and offered zero support for that claim, and then somebody said "what side of the bubblegum-hurricane thing are you on? I mean can it be proven one way or the other?", then the person asking that--just by asking it alone--has given undue credence to a retarded idea.

One piece of shit hoaxed a study for his personal financial gain, and freaked enough people out that they won't shut up even though he was totally, incontrovertibly shown to be a fraud. That's what sparked all this, and that's why it's still on the airwaves today.

So in response to your question, fuck you I ain't gotta prove shit.

>>7050851

Proofs are absolute, and exist only in math. There are no proofs outside of math. In science, you just have evidence, and the side with the more solid evidence is considered correct until the other position gathers sufficient evidence.