@metal-brain said
@kevcvs57
My parents vaccinated me when I was a child.

You are certainly proof of your own premise!

@divegeester said
You are certainly proof of your own premise!

That was before 1986

@shavixmir said
I did in my first post.

No, you did not. You said this:

"However, many things could have triggered it. A flu, diabetes, an accident, basically anything which could undercut the body’s ability to create enough energy."

So you are saying the vaccine court paid for an injury and there is no proof the vaccine caused the injury. Why did the vaccine court pay for something that has no proof the vaccine caused it? Are you saying the vaccine court made a mistake by paying for the injury? Then you said this:

"The court seems to have judged that the vaccines (9 in one time) triggered the underlying condition. I guess that is a possibility"

So in that statement you admit it is a possibility that the vaccine caused autism. You are contradicting yourself. No proof, but possible? LOL.

Will you now state for the record that vaccines might cause autism?

@shavixmir said
The court decided that the underlying medical condition could have been triggered by the vaccine.
And ordered a payment.

R
E
A
D

I know. Are you claiming they were wrong or right for making that decision?
Vaccines can possibly trigger all sorts of underlying medical conditions. Should vaccine courts pay for all possibilities without proof?

Maybe vaccines caused your mental illness. Will they pay for that too?

@divegeester said
You are certainly proof of your own premise!

If that is possible maybe the vaccine court will pay me for that too. Where will it end?
Payoffs for possibilities. Such a slippery slope.

Perhaps that was a good way to avoid a lawsuit putting vaccines on trial for autism. Good way to hide the ugly truth they have lied about for so long.

@metal-brain said
No, you did not. You said this:

"However, many things could have triggered it. A flu, diabetes, an accident, basically anything which could undercut the body’s ability to create enough energy."

So you are saying the vaccine court paid for an injury and there is no proof the vaccine caused the injury. Why did the vaccine court pay for something that has no proof the ...[text shortened]... o proof, but possible? LOL.

Will you now state for the record that vaccines might cause autism?

The article even says the government and health authority state the vaccine didn’t cause autism.

R
E
A
D

Seriously. Your own bloody article, kid.

@shavixmir said
The article even says the government and health authority state the vaccine didn’t cause autism.

R
E
A
D

Seriously. Your own bloody article, kid.

Of course. They have been lying about Vaccines all along. If liars saying so is proof to you how do you know anything you are told is a lie? Do you take a poll?

Here is an idea. Don't believe known admitted liars. They all admitted they lied about face masks. Then they told you which time they lied and you believed them. Stop it! Stop taking the word of admitted liars!

@metal-brain said
The proof: Hannah Poling

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/

Retrospective meta-analyses have been conducted on millions of people, grouped only by whether or not they have been vaccinated. Guess what the difference is between these two groups when you ask what are the rates of autism?

Zero. There's no difference.

Vaccines don't cause autism.

@metal-brain said
The proof: Hannah Poling

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/

Nope.

From your own link:

In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't "cause" her autism, but "resulted" in it.

@soothfast said
Nope.

From your own link:

In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't "cause" her autism, but "resulted" in it.

You did what I couldn't be arsed doing.

MB just posts and posts and posts and posts and there's no plot, rhyme or reason to it. It's just garbled nonsense, like listening to a number's station.

@soothfast said
Nope.

From your own link:

In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't "cause" her autism, but "resulted" in it.

Resulted?

Explain to me the difference between cause and resulted.

@wildgrass said
Retrospective meta-analyses have been conducted on millions of people, grouped only by whether or not they have been vaccinated. Guess what the difference is between these two groups when you ask what are the rates of autism?

Zero. There's no difference.

Vaccines don't cause autism.

If vaccines did not cause autism why did the vaccine court pay out to Hannah Poling?
The vaccine court is supposed to pay for vaccine injuries, not unrelated illnesses. Why the payout for zero difference?

Cocaine does not cause heart attacks. Cocaine just results in heart attacks. Did I use those terms the way you would?

@metal-brain said
If vaccines did not cause autism why did the vaccine court pay out to Hannah Poling?

Funny double standard here. When Fox News settled with Dominion Voting Systems to the tune of almost $800 million recently, you did not accept that as proof that Tucker Carlson lied about anything. You started a whole flippin' thread about it, or maybe seven.

Anyway, hide behind the apron of childish wordplay, why don't you, by pretending not to know the difference between a "cause" and a "result" (also known as an effect).

@soothfast said
Funny double standard here. When Fox News settled with Dominion Voting Systems to the tune of almost $800 million recently, you did not accept that as proof that Tucker Carlson lied about anything. You started a whole flippin' thread about it, or maybe seven.

Anyway, hide behind the apron of childish wordplay, why don't you, by pretending not to know the difference between a "cause" and a "result" (also known as an effect).

No, because you have not proven he lied about Dominion voting machines. You merely assume he did because you falsely believe he was fired. He was not fired because he is still under contract with FOX NEWS and getting paid to do nothing.

Tucker was not the person Dominion took main issue with in their defamation lawsuit. That was Pirro. She was the main liar according to Dominion. Was Pirro silenced?

There you go. Tucker was silenced for the same Reason Phil Donahue was fired from MSNBC, for opposing stupid wars. Tucker was silenced by the military industrial complex just like Donahue was.

And remember, Tucker was not fired, he is on paid leave. He is getting paid to be silent. That is why Tucker is not complaining.

https://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/21/phil_donahue_on_his_2003_firing

@soothfast said
Funny double standard here. When Fox News settled with Dominion Voting Systems to the tune of almost $800 million recently, you did not accept that as proof that Tucker Carlson lied about anything. You started a whole flippin' thread about it, or maybe seven.

Anyway, hide behind the apron of childish wordplay, why don't you, by pretending not to know the difference between a "cause" and a "result" (also known as an effect).

Cocaine does not cause heart attacks. Cocaine just results in heart attacks. Did I use those terms the way you would?