Good gravy. Don’t use data in that way. If you say 1 in 36 of all kids get autism with the vaccines and then use a sample size of 5 and say 1 in 5 die of not getting vaccines, you just make the data sound stupid. 1 in 5 out of the full number of unvaccinated children aren’t dying… I also doubt 1 in 36 out of all vaccinated children are getting autism from the vaccine, but it is posited in the statement as a fact so the logic of the next statement has to match. Suppose a family has one child who dies of an unexpected allergic reaction to the vaccine, and their family tells others that they really should still get vaccinated, is she saying that despite there being a 100% death rate for vaccines because 1 out of 1 children died? Is she stupid?.. Keep to the high road and keep the rhetoric out of it…
Good gravy. Don’t use data in that way. If you say 1 in 36 of all kids get autism with the vaccines and then use a sample size of 5 and say 1 in 5 die of not getting vaccines, you just make the data sound stupid. 1 in 5 out of the full number of unvaccinated children aren’t dying… I also doubt 1 in 36 out of all vaccinated children are getting autism from the vaccine, but it is posited in the statement as a fact so the logic of the next statement has to match. Suppose a family has one child who dies of an unexpected allergic reaction to the vaccine, and their family tells others that they really should still get vaccinated, is she saying that despite there being a 100% death rate for vaccines because 1 out of 1 children died? Is she stupid?.. Keep to the high road and keep the rhetoric out of it…