Number Of Early Childhood Vaccines Not Linked To Autism - NPR Report

  • 89 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

I cannot tell you how many times I've heard, in person, that vaccines are a direct cause of autism. The one study that had a link was debunked, and many other studies show no direct correlation between vaccines and an increased risk of autism.

Hopefully the studies mentioned in the articl will put this to rest. Shutting up Jenny McCarthy would help too.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/29/175626824/the-number-of-early-childhood-vaccines-not-linked-to-autism

"The study, by researchers at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, found no connection between the number of vaccines a child received and his or her risk of autism spectrum disorder. It also found that even though kids are getting more vaccines these days, those vaccines contain many fewer of the substances that provoke an immune response.

The study offers a response to vaccine skeptics who have suggested that getting too many vaccines on one day or in the first two years of life may lead to autism, says Frank DeStefano, director of the Immunization Safety Office of the CDC."

#2 Posted by Necrifer (10629 posts) -

Nah, it's all the drugs that the moms took.

#3 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -
You could have concrete proof of every single vaccine ever made. You know that won't stop them.
#4 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Jenny Funbags says there's a link, so there must be a link.

#5 Posted by Aljosa23 (24760 posts) -

Well they're not linked to Autism but everyone knows vaccines are used to control minds of children and indoctrinate them with Liberal ideology.

#6 Posted by Necrifer (10629 posts) -

Well they're not linked to Autism but everyone knows vaccines are used to control minds of children and indoctrinate them with Liberal ideology.

Aljosa23

Or inject them with CANCER!

#7 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7745 posts) -
Studies won't do anything to dissuade anti vaccine folk. Same mindset as conspiracy nuts in general, they'll say the study is junk and deny any evidence produced.
#8 Posted by Retro_Future (127 posts) -

Studies won't do anything to dissuade anti vaccine folk. Same mindset as conspiracy nuts in general, they'll say the study is junk and deny any evidence produced. HoolaHoopMan

They'll see that the study was done by the CDC and say the study was fabricated by HHS. 

#9 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
A government news organization claims that government mandated vaccinations do not cause autism. NPR has no credibility.
#10 Posted by Kickinurass (3357 posts) -

Lol at Lai.

Considering all the posts before his, I couldn't help but laugh.

#11 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

A government news organization claims that government mandated vaccinations do not cause autism. NPR has no credibility.Laihendi

So an association of scientific evidence with the goverment invalidates that science? Good to know. That means that every research study even partially funded by the government is invalid in Lai's eyes. So your talking a majority of scientific research done over the past century plus.

Lai, please explain your statement in a rational way, looking at the science in particular.

#12 Posted by Aljosa23 (24760 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]A government news organization claims that government mandated vaccinations do not cause autism. NPR has no credibility.jimkabrhel

So an association of scientific evidence with the goverment invalidates that science? Good to know. That means that every research study even partially funded by the government is invalid in Lai's eyes. So your talking a majority of scientific research done over the past century plus.

Lai, please explain your statement in a rational way, looking at the science in particular.

Don't bother. He's a troll/idiot who knows nothing about science and his positions are strictly political.

#13 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]A government news organization claims that government mandated vaccinations do not cause autism. NPR has no credibility.Aljosa23

So an association of scientific evidence with the goverment invalidates that science? Good to know. That means that every research study even partially funded by the government is invalid in Lai's eyes. So your talking a majority of scientific research done over the past century plus.

Lai, please explain your statement in a rational way, looking at the science in particular.

Don't bother. He's a troll/idiot who knows nothing about science and his positions are strictly political.

I can't help it. The baby is asleep and I need something to do until he wakes up and needs feeding.

#14 Posted by JML897 (33120 posts) -
A government news organization claims that government mandated vaccinations do not cause autism. NPR has no credibility.Laihendi
I love you
#15 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]A government news organization claims that government mandated vaccinations do not cause autism. NPR has no credibility.jimkabrhel

So an association of scientific evidence with the goverment invalidates that science? Good to know. That means that every research study even partially funded by the government is invalid in Lai's eyes. So your talking a majority of scientific research done over the past century plus.

Lai, please explain your statement in a rational way, looking at the science in particular.

Anything funded by the government is part of a government agenda. Any study motivated by political pull and funded by stolen money should not be trusted. Anything made possible by a state subsidy is the product of a dishonest and politically motivated means. You cannot find objective truth if your actions are dishonest and politically motivated. The government funded scientific "studies" are just going to say whatever the government wants them to say.
#16 Posted by Retro_Future (127 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Studies won't do anything to dissuade anti vaccine folk. Same mindset as conspiracy nuts in general, they'll say the study is junk and deny any evidence produced. Retro_Future

They'll see that the study was done by the CDC and say the study was fabricated by HHS. 

A government news organization claims that government mandated vaccinations do not cause autism. NPR has no credibility.Laihendi

Like clockwork. 

#17 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]A government news organization claims that government mandated vaccinations do not cause autism. NPR has no credibility.Aljosa23

So an association of scientific evidence with the goverment invalidates that science? Good to know. That means that every research study even partially funded by the government is invalid in Lai's eyes. So your talking a majority of scientific research done over the past century plus.

Lai, please explain your statement in a rational way, looking at the science in particular.

Don't bother. He's a troll/idiot who knows nothing about science and his positions are strictly political.

:lol: Please tell me about the philosophers you have studied. If you would trying educating yourself then you would not assume everyone who disagrees with you is a "troll/idiot".
#18 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]A government news organization claims that government mandated vaccinations do not cause autism. NPR has no credibility.Laihendi

So an association of scientific evidence with the goverment invalidates that science? Good to know. That means that every research study even partially funded by the government is invalid in Lai's eyes. So your talking a majority of scientific research done over the past century plus.

Lai, please explain your statement in a rational way, looking at the science in particular.

Anything funded by the government is part of a government agenda. Any study motivated by political pull and funded by stolen money should not be trusted. Anything made possible by a state subsidy is the product of a dishonest and politically motivated means. You cannot find objective truth if your actions are dishonest and politically motivated. The government funded scientific "studies" are just going to say whatever the government wants them to say.

Show me a privately funded research project that isn't biased towards the private company (or persons) aims. Science alwyas has some inherent bias, based on the research, if not the source of fund.

The goverment supports academic research through NIH and NSF grants. Almost every major research PI at almost every R1 level university (the largest public and private universities) has a goverment grant, sometimes more than one.

Does that invalidate their scientific research?

#19 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]A government news organization claims that government mandated vaccinations do not cause autism. NPR has no credibility.Laihendi

So an association of scientific evidence with the goverment invalidates that science? Good to know. That means that every research study even partially funded by the government is invalid in Lai's eyes. So your talking a majority of scientific research done over the past century plus.

Lai, please explain your statement in a rational way, looking at the science in particular.

Anything funded by the government is part of a government agenda. Any study motivated by political pull and funded by stolen money should not be trusted. Anything made possible by a state subsidy is the product of a dishonest and politically motivated means. You cannot find objective truth if your actions are dishonest and politically motivated. The government funded scientific "studies" are just going to say whatever the government wants them to say.

You should get off the internet then.

#20 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

So an association of scientific evidence with the goverment invalidates that science? Good to know. That means that every research study even partially funded by the government is invalid in Lai's eyes. So your talking a majority of scientific research done over the past century plus.

Lai, please explain your statement in a rational way, looking at the science in particular.

worlock77

Anything funded by the government is part of a government agenda. Any study motivated by political pull and funded by stolen money should not be trusted. Anything made possible by a state subsidy is the product of a dishonest and politically motivated means. You cannot find objective truth if your actions are dishonest and politically motivated. The government funded scientific "studies" are just going to say whatever the government wants them to say.

You should get off the internet then.

And he should refuse any medication, food, and other sundry product that he hasn't made himself.

#21 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

So an association of scientific evidence with the goverment invalidates that science? Good to know. That means that every research study even partially funded by the government is invalid in Lai's eyes. So your talking a majority of scientific research done over the past century plus.

Lai, please explain your statement in a rational way, looking at the science in particular.

jimkabrhel

Anything funded by the government is part of a government agenda. Any study motivated by political pull and funded by stolen money should not be trusted. Anything made possible by a state subsidy is the product of a dishonest and politically motivated means. You cannot find objective truth if your actions are dishonest and politically motivated. The government funded scientific "studies" are just going to say whatever the government wants them to say.

Show me a privately funded research project that isn't biased towards the private company (or persons) aims. Science alwyas has some inherent bias, based on the research, if not the source of fund.

The goverment supports academic research through NIH and NSF grants. Almost every major research PI at almost every R1 level university (the largest public and private universities) has a goverment grant, sometimes more than one.

Does that invalidate their scientific research?

A rational private individual/company cannot be biased against objective reality. A rational private individual is an honest man who lives in accordance to the nature of reality. He understands that if he lies to himself and the world about a study then no good will come from it. He understands that life can only be sustained by productive action, and that a lie can only destroy. A private individual with no claim of authority on anyone else will never lie. A person with illegitimate authority will lie at any opportunity he has, because he knows that he has no right to the authority he possesses and can only maintain it through deception and brute force. A corrupt government will steal money from the people and use it to fund studies by scientists who they claim to have "prestige" (prestige by what standard?) and get whatever results they want. They will never fund a study that undermines their pretense of a right to authority.
#22 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Anything funded by the government is part of a government agenda. Any study motivated by political pull and funded by stolen money should not be trusted. Anything made possible by a state subsidy is the product of a dishonest and politically motivated means. You cannot find objective truth if your actions are dishonest and politically motivated. The government funded scientific "studies" are just going to say whatever the government wants them to say.Laihendi

Show me a privately funded research project that isn't biased towards the private company (or persons) aims. Science alwyas has some inherent bias, based on the research, if not the source of fund.

The goverment supports academic research through NIH and NSF grants. Almost every major research PI at almost every R1 level university (the largest public and private universities) has a goverment grant, sometimes more than one.

Does that invalidate their scientific research?

A rational private individual/company cannot be biased against objective reality. A rational private individual is an honest man who lives in accordance to the nature of reality. He understands that if he lies to himself and the world about a study then no good will come from it. He understands that life can only be sustained by productive action, and that a lie can only destroy. A private individual with no claim of authority on anyone else will never lie. A person with illegitimate authority will lie at any opportunity he has, because he knows that he has no right to the authority he possesses and can only maintain it through deception and brute force. A corrupt government will steal money from the people and use it to fund studies by scientists who they claim to have "prestige" (prestige by what standard?) and get whatever results they want. They will never fund a study that undermines their pretense of a right to authority.

Jesus, you really don't pay attention to anything, do you?
#23 Posted by Aljosa23 (24760 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

So an association of scientific evidence with the goverment invalidates that science? Good to know. That means that every research study even partially funded by the government is invalid in Lai's eyes. So your talking a majority of scientific research done over the past century plus.

Lai, please explain your statement in a rational way, looking at the science in particular.

Laihendi

Don't bother. He's a troll/idiot who knows nothing about science and his positions are strictly political.

:lol: Please tell me about the philosophers you have studied. If you would trying educating yourself then you would not assume everyone who disagrees with you is a "troll/idiot".

But I don't assume that nor have I ever said it.

At least you agree that your positions are strictly political.

#24 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7745 posts) -

Anything funded by the government is part of a government agenda. Any study motivated by political pull and funded by stolen money should not be trusted. Anything made possible by a state subsidy is the product of a dishonest and politically motivated means. You cannot find objective truth if your actions are dishonest and politically motivated. The government funded scientific "studies" are just going to say whatever the government wants them to say.Laihendi

Man, your parents really fvcked up with you.

#25 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Don't bother. He's a troll/idiot who knows nothing about science and his positions are strictly political.

Aljosa23

:lol: Please tell me about the philosophers you have studied. If you would trying educating yourself then you would not assume everyone who disagrees with you is a "troll/idiot".

But I don't assume that nor have I ever said it.

At least you agree that your positions are strictly political.

No, they are philosophical. Philosophy is the study of existence and man's relation to it. Science is the result of philosophy. You cannot have science without philosophy.
#26 Posted by PannicAtack (21021 posts) -
Laihendi, please tell me that you just hate NPR on principle and that you don't believe vaccines cause autism. Both of those positions are stupid, but one of them is at least bearable.
#27 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
Laihendi, please tell me that you just hate NPR on principle and that you don't believe vaccines cause autism. Both of those positions are stupid, but one of them is at least bearable.PannicAtack
I have not done research on a potential link between vaccines and autism, but I do not believe anything that NPR says just because they say it. It is not a legitimate source of news.
#28 Posted by sSubZerOo (43082 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Anything funded by the government is part of a government agenda. Any study motivated by political pull and funded by stolen money should not be trusted. Anything made possible by a state subsidy is the product of a dishonest and politically motivated means. You cannot find objective truth if your actions are dishonest and politically motivated. The government funded scientific "studies" are just going to say whatever the government wants them to say.Laihendi

Show me a privately funded research project that isn't biased towards the private company (or persons) aims. Science alwyas has some inherent bias, based on the research, if not the source of fund.

The goverment supports academic research through NIH and NSF grants. Almost every major research PI at almost every R1 level university (the largest public and private universities) has a goverment grant, sometimes more than one.

Does that invalidate their scientific research?

A rational private individual/company cannot be biased against objective reality. A rational private individual is an honest man who lives in accordance to the nature of reality. He understands that if he lies to himself and the world about a study then no good will come from it. He understands that life can only be sustained by productive action, and that a lie can only destroy. A private individual with no claim of authority on anyone else will never lie. A person with illegitimate authority will lie at any opportunity he has, because he knows that he has no right to the authority he possesses and can only maintain it through deception and brute force. A corrupt government will steal money from the people and use it to fund studies by scientists who they claim to have "prestige" (prestige by what standard?) and get whatever results they want. They will never fund a study that undermines their pretense of a right to authority.

  And here is why we are having a re-emergence of polio because of morons like you.. 

#29 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7745 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Laihendi, please tell me that you just hate NPR on principle and that you don't believe vaccines cause autism. Both of those positions are stupid, but one of them is at least bearable.Laihendi
I have not done research on a potential link between vaccines and autism, but I do not believe anything that NPR says just because they say it. It is not a legitimate source of news.

What is a legitimate news source then?
#30 Posted by Retro_Future (127 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Laihendi, please tell me that you just hate NPR on principle and that you don't believe vaccines cause autism. Both of those positions are stupid, but one of them is at least bearable.HoolaHoopMan
I have not done research on a potential link between vaccines and autism, but I do not believe anything that NPR says just because they say it. It is not a legitimate source of news.

What is a legitimate news source then?

Russia Today
Some dude on his ham radio ranting about the Reptillian overlords. 

#31 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

Laihendi, you have proven to me that you can do nothing but repeat talking points and a philosphy that has little basis in reality.

You assume that private individuals and companies adhere to the Objectivist philosophy, but I challenge you to find more than a tiny percentage that have read Ayn Rand. Most are typical capitalists who want to make a profit, and use the science to do so.

To me, that doesn't invalidate the science. Nor does government involvement. You really have no idea about how scientific research is performed in this country (and others). 

Please stop discussing topics that you have idea about.

#32 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Laihendi, please tell me that you just hate NPR on principle and that you don't believe vaccines cause autism. Both of those positions are stupid, but one of them is at least bearable.HoolaHoopMan
I have not done research on a potential link between vaccines and autism, but I do not believe anything that NPR says just because they say it. It is not a legitimate source of news.

What is a legitimate news source then?

http://reason.com/

http://www.cato.org/

http://www.forbes.com/

Those are legitimate news sources.

#33 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

There use to be some amusment in tearing down Laihendi's posts. Not anymore though. It's kinda become like a canned hunt - no sport in it.

#34 Posted by sSubZerOo (43082 posts) -

Laihendi, you have proven to me that you can do nothing but repeat talking points and a philosphy that has little basis in reality.

You assume that private individuals and companies adhere to the Objectivist philosophy, but I challenge you to find more than a tiny percentage that have read Ayn Rand. Most are typical capitalists who want to make a profit, and use the science to do so.

To me, that doesn't invalidate the science. Nor does government involvement. You really have no idea about how scientific research is performed in this country (and others). 

Please stop discussing topics that you have idea about.

jimkabrhel

 It is pretty hilarious that he is trying to suggest this bullsh!t after we have seen how industries like the tobacco industry has dealt with studies they don't like for decades.. 

#35 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I have not done research on a potential link between vaccines and autism, but I do not believe anything that NPR says just because they say it. It is not a legitimate source of news.Laihendi

What is a legitimate news source then?

http://reason.com/

http://www.cato.org/

http://www.forbes.com/

Those are legitimate news sources.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/03/29/vaccines-not-linked-to-autism-again/

Ok, Lai. Now what?

#36 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7745 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I have not done research on a potential link between vaccines and autism, but I do not believe anything that NPR says just because they say it. It is not a legitimate source of news.Laihendi

What is a legitimate news source then?

http://reason.com/

http://www.cato.org/

http://www.forbes.com/

Those are legitimate news sources.

lol. Cato institute and 'Reason'.com.
#37 Posted by sSubZerOo (43082 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I have not done research on a potential link between vaccines and autism, but I do not believe anything that NPR says just because they say it. It is not a legitimate source of news.Laihendi

What is a legitimate news source then?

http://reason.com/

http://www.cato.org/

http://www.forbes.com/

Those are legitimate news sources.

........  How the hell is the Cato institution non bias when they literally say they are Libertarians from the very first paragraph of their about article.. 

#38 Posted by PannicAtack (21021 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] What is a legitimate news source then? sSubZerOo

http://reason.com/

http://www.cato.org/

http://www.forbes.com/

Those are legitimate news sources.

........  How the hell is the Cato institution non bias when they literally say they are Libertarians from the very first paragraph of their about article.. 

It's not a bias if it's an agenda he agrees with.
#39 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

Laihendi, you have proven to me that you can do nothing but repeat talking points and a philosphy that has little basis in reality.

You assume that private individuals and companies adhere to the Objectivist philosophy, but I challenge you to find more than a tiny percentage that have read Ayn Rand. Most are typical capitalists who want to make a profit, and use the science to do so.

To me, that doesn't invalidate the science. Nor does government involvement. You really have no idea about how scientific research is performed in this country (and others). 

Please stop discussing topics that you have idea about.

jimkabrhel
Calling his drivel a philosophy gives it too much credit.
#40 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

Laihendi, you have proven to me that you can do nothing but repeat talking points and a philosphy that has little basis in reality.

You assume that private individuals and companies adhere to the Objectivist philosophy, but I challenge you to find more than a tiny percentage that have read Ayn Rand. Most are typical capitalists who want to make a profit, and use the science to do so.

To me, that doesn't invalidate the science. Nor does government involvement. You really have no idea about how scientific research is performed in this country (and others). 

Please stop discussing topics that you have idea about.

jimkabrhel
Objectivism is the philosophy of objective reality. You do not need to read Ayn Rand to live according to her philosophy, because any rational person who lives according to the nature of reality will live according to her values. And of course a businessman using science does not invalidate the science. If a businessman makes some scientific discovery and successfully capitalizes on it within a free market then that is proof of the truth/validity of his discovery. Production can only be the result of acting in accordance to objective reality. An authoritarian government that can suspend economic competition will not suffer if it lies - the people will.
#41 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

Oh thank you CDC for making it painfully obvious that vaccines don't have any correlation to the causation of autism.

I also find it funny that as autism awareness has increased so have the numbers of people who have it.

#42 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Laihendi, you have proven to me that you can do nothing but repeat talking points and a philosphy that has little basis in reality.

You assume that private individuals and companies adhere to the Objectivist philosophy, but I challenge you to find more than a tiny percentage that have read Ayn Rand. Most are typical capitalists who want to make a profit, and use the science to do so.

To me, that doesn't invalidate the science. Nor does government involvement. You really have no idea about how scientific research is performed in this country (and others). 

Please stop discussing topics that you have idea about.

-Sun_Tzu-

Calling his drivel a philosophy gives it too much credit.

The same could be said for Ayn Rand.

#43 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Laihendi, you have proven to me that you can do nothing but repeat talking points and a philosphy that has little basis in reality.

You assume that private individuals and companies adhere to the Objectivist philosophy, but I challenge you to find more than a tiny percentage that have read Ayn Rand. Most are typical capitalists who want to make a profit, and use the science to do so.

To me, that doesn't invalidate the science. Nor does government involvement. You really have no idea about how scientific research is performed in this country (and others). 

Please stop discussing topics that you have idea about.

sSubZerOo

 It is pretty hilarious that he is trying to suggest this bullsh!t after we have seen how industries like the tobacco industry has dealt with studies they don't like for decades.. 

Dude, he worships Ayn Rand, who insisted that the link between smoking and cancer was a lie (even after getting lung cancer).

#44 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] What is a legitimate news source then? sSubZerOo

http://reason.com/

http://www.cato.org/

http://www.forbes.com/

Those are legitimate news sources.

........  How the hell is the Cato institution non bias when they literally say they are Libertarians from the very first paragraph of their about article.. 

Being biased in favour of liberty is synonymous with being biased in favour of objective reality. To criticize a news organization for exposing the human rights violations promoted and carried out by statists is absurd.

And Jim the study mentioned in the article you linked was funded by the CDC which is a government organization.

#45 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Laihendi, you have proven to me that you can do nothing but repeat talking points and a philosphy that has little basis in reality.

You assume that private individuals and companies adhere to the Objectivist philosophy, but I challenge you to find more than a tiny percentage that have read Ayn Rand. Most are typical capitalists who want to make a profit, and use the science to do so.

To me, that doesn't invalidate the science. Nor does government involvement. You really have no idea about how scientific research is performed in this country (and others). 

Please stop discussing topics that you have idea about.

jimkabrhel

Calling his drivel a philosophy gives it too much credit.

The same could be said for Ayn Rand.

Have you even read Atlas Shrugged?
#46 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

http://reason.com/

http://www.cato.org/

http://www.forbes.com/

Those are legitimate news sources.

Laihendi

........  How the hell is the Cato institution non bias when they literally say they are Libertarians from the very first paragraph of their about article.. 

Being biased in favour of liberty is synonymous with being biased in favour of objective reality. To criticize a news organization for exposing the human rights violations promoted and carried out by statists is absurd.

And Jim the study mentioned in the article you linked was funded by the CDC which is a government organization.

So how does that change your view of Forbes as a news source if they are posting news with government funded research on their site?

#47 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

........  How the hell is the Cato institution non bias when they literally say they are Libertarians from the very first paragraph of their about article.. 

jimkabrhel

Being biased in favour of liberty is synonymous with being biased in favour of objective reality. To criticize a news organization for exposing the human rights violations promoted and carried out by statists is absurd.

And Jim the study mentioned in the article you linked was funded by the CDC which is a government organization.

So how does that change your view of Forbes as a news source if they are posting news with government funded research on their site?

You are trying to impose an appeal to authority on me. Forbes is a legitimate news organization but that does not mean that they do not make honest mistakes. They published that story on the false premise that they were responding to a legitimate study, and they of course were not. The difference between Forbes and NPR is that Forbes works to provide objective journalism, whereas NPR works to promote statism.
#48 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -
#49 Posted by SaaayWhaaaaaaa (22 posts) -
Well, what is causing it then?
#50 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Being biased in favour of liberty is synonymous with being biased in favour of objective reality. To criticize a news organization for exposing the human rights violations promoted and carried out by statists is absurd.

And Jim the study mentioned in the article you linked was funded by the CDC which is a government organization.

Laihendi

So how does that change your view of Forbes as a news source if they are posting news with government funded research on their site?

You are trying to impose an appeal to authority on me. Forbes is a legitimate news organization but that does not mean that they do not make honest mistakes. They published that story on the false premise that they were responding to a legitimate study, and they of course were not. The difference between Forbes and NPR is that Forbes works to provide objective journalism, whereas NPR works to promote statism.

For the last time, please learn the definitions and meanings of logical fallacies.