Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

The vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study has been done roughly a dozen times. But none of those studies are like this one. We had someone who disagreed with us do the work and come to the same conclusion. Science gets stronger that way. That's what the scientific method actually demands......

87,838 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

114,992 views • 1 year ago

The Most Important Vaccine Safety Study Ever Suppressed. Henry Ford Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed Study: Vaccinated Kids Had 453% More Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Unvaccinated children had ZERO cases of brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities or tics. Soon To Be Released..."Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short- and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study" ICAN lead counsel Aaron Siri, Esq. revealed the results of an unpublished study from Michigan’s Henry Ford Health System. The study was done by infectious disease physician, Dr Marcus Zervos, MD. In 2016, journalist Del Bigtree issued a challenge to the head of infectious disease at one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the world: conduct the most thorough vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study that has ever been done. The expert, Dr Marcus Zervos MD, took up the challenge and ran the study to prove Del wrong. What the study revealed was so horrifying that it was locked away, hidden from the public...until now. Henry Ford birth cohort (n=18,468) tracked children from birth for 10 years. The Study Found... -4.29 times the rate of asthma -3.03 times the rate of atopic disease -5.96 times the rate of autoimmune disease -5.53 times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders which included 4.47 times the rate of speech disorder and 3.28 times the rate of developmental delay. Notably, the study also found the following: -Brain Dysfunction: 8 in the vaccinated group and 0 in the unvaccinated -Diabetes: 42 in the vaccinated group and 0 in the unvaccinated -ADHD: 262 in the vaccinated group and 0 in the unvaccinated -Behavioral Disability: 165 in the vaccinated group and 0 in the unvaccinated -Learning Disability: 65 in the vaccinated group and 0 in the unvaccinated -Intellectual Disability: 5 in the vaccinated group and 0 in the unvaccinated -Tics: 46 in the vaccinated group and 0 in the unvaccinated -Other Psychological Disability 9 in the vaccinated group and 0 in the unvaccinated 👇An Inconvenient Study: Premieres October 3👇 👇Figure #1 From The Unpublished Study👇 👇Vaccinated Study By Hooker & Miller👇 Credits: ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network Del Bigtree Aaron Siri Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH® McCullough Foundation Senator Ron Johnson The HighWire Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Valerie Anne Smith

87,981 views • 10 months ago

Had another interview with a reporter the other day and they asked me about the studies the government has done on the shots collectively given to infants in the first year of life, and whether they used a proper control group of children who didn't receive those shots. These studies are such a joke. What they end up doing with MMR, for instance, is saying they took children who got all the vaccines except MMR, then all the vaccines plus MMR, and didn't see a statistically significant uptick in autism, and therefore MMR doesn't cause autism. And that study is fine, if all the other vaccines have already been proven not to cause autism. Then you have a proper control group. But the Institute of Medicine states clearly there is no study that isolates the DTaP vaccine. And the CDC has suspected DTaP since the 1986 Act, which literally listed diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis as being associated with autism and as the first thing that should be investigated once they took on the liability. That investigation has never happened. I think we should ask ourselves why. Because if DTaP causes autism, it erases the validity of the MMR study entirely. Your control group had a product in it that can cause autism. That is the problem with the science that has been done so far. I have had both Dr. Stanley Plotkin and Kathryn Edwards on the stand in front of Aaron Siri, two of the most iconic figures in the vaccine space. When asked, listing every vaccine one by one, "Do you have a study showing it doesn't cause autism?" Kathryn Edwards had none. Stanley Plotkin stated the same thing under oath. What they both explained is that they made an assumption that vaccines don't cause autism. I have that on video on my website. These are the authors of Plotkin's Vaccines, considered the bible on vaccinations. So if your top vaccine scientists cannot provide a single study under oath, why are newspapers reporting there are mountains of evidence? I sued the CDC. I said show me the trials you relied upon for the first six vaccines in the first six months of life to conclude they don't cause autism. They had zero. Not for Hepatitis B. Not for polio. Not for DTaP. Zero. There is no two or three year placebo trial for these products like you would see with every other drug. And that is not an accident. Causation is established in a placebo trial. If you skip that trial, you remove your ability to ever get to causation. You are permanently stuck in the land of "associated with." And the agency that is required to do the safety studies is the same agency defending itself in court against me. They are not doing the science, so you cannot win. That is where we are.

Del Bigtree

29,919 views • 3 months ago