"This makes absolutely no sense if SIDS isn’t caused by vaccines; the rates cannot depend on vaccine type; it should only depend on which vaccines are given the most under age 1 and be only proportional to the frequency the vaccine is given."
This one had me scratching my head. I think it means, if SIDS cases were uniformly distributed ov…
"This makes absolutely no sense if SIDS isn’t caused by vaccines; the rates cannot depend on vaccine type; it should only depend on which vaccines are given the most under age 1 and be only proportional to the frequency the vaccine is given."
This one had me scratching my head. I think it means, if SIDS cases were uniformly distributed over time (i.e., not correlated to any vaccine) as they claim, and you had just one vaccine given during 3/4 of that time, then you would expect 3/4 of the SIDS cases to be in the vicinity of that one vaccine. The fact that the correlation is not to frequency but instead to type means something is rotten in Denmark.
I, too, couldn't understand that sentence. The following from argument 4 was also beyond my comprehension:
"The last vaccination was at 9 months so there were 12 weeks for the 9 cases to happen if they were random which is a rate of 9/12 in a week. Yet 3 events happened. That would happen by pure chance less than 4% of the time."
"This makes absolutely no sense if SIDS isn’t caused by vaccines; the rates cannot depend on vaccine type; it should only depend on which vaccines are given the most under age 1 and be only proportional to the frequency the vaccine is given."
This one had me scratching my head. I think it means, if SIDS cases were uniformly distributed over time (i.e., not correlated to any vaccine) as they claim, and you had just one vaccine given during 3/4 of that time, then you would expect 3/4 of the SIDS cases to be in the vicinity of that one vaccine. The fact that the correlation is not to frequency but instead to type means something is rotten in Denmark.
I, too, couldn't understand that sentence. The following from argument 4 was also beyond my comprehension:
"The last vaccination was at 9 months so there were 12 weeks for the 9 cases to happen if they were random which is a rate of 9/12 in a week. Yet 3 events happened. That would happen by pure chance less than 4% of the time."