Instigator / Pro

Nevets

1557

rating

debates

52.86%

won

Topic

#1848

Pediatric study shows Dtap does not cause Autism in under 6 year olds

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!

Tags

Science

Parameters

Publication date: 04.02.2020 05:44PM
Last updated date: 05.05.2020 12:45AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: Two weeks
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

DrSpy

1490

rating

debates

42.86%

won

Description

Advisories

During this debate, wider issues revolving around vaccines in general, may be brought up, and should not be considered irrelevant. Though if wider issues do not get brought up, that is not a violation. If they do, it should not be considered irrelevant, though instead, if a debater fails to explore wider issues, then the voter is allowed to, at their discretion, decide that this is suggestive of their lack of enthusiasm in the subject they chose to debate.

While my opponent has freedom to express their own free-will regards to how they conduct the debate, the debate should be conducted by someone that already has a strong belief in this subject, before taking on the debate.
It should be evident in my opponents argument that this is a subject they are knowledgeable about. And that they would have been of the opinion they are assuming during the debate, before they accepted the challenge. My opponent should already be of the pre-conceived notion regards to his argument.
Ultimately, it should be an honest debate. And the main factor on how the debate is judged should not deflect away from the title.
The debate may verge in to sub-branches, or sub-topics, but there should be no pleas for voters to assume arguments revolving around sub-issues, have became the main argument.
The main argument is "what it says in the title".
My opponent would also be expected to try and also provide some proof for his or her arguments. Even though i do not specifically set this as a rule, as i am not my brothers keeper, and i believe everyone has free-will, it would however be expected,
"All cards should be on the table"
Also quotes with links should be clear. If my opponent is providing a limk for something, then at least one or two lines from the link should be provided as a quote, so that everyone can see what the source they are linking too says.
And if they cannot provide the quote, because the link is to a 535page book, then perhaps they should find a way of proving their source says what they say it says, by taking the time to surf the internet and find a copy they can quote from, or find another source that says this, rather than leave it to the opponent to do their research for them, and go searching for their links, and scowering the internet for their opponents claims.
It would be expected my opponent also has an argument of their own to present to the audience. And simply standing arms folded purely trying to deminish my argument, should somehow be considered a better argument, may be considered questionable. But again, this is just an advisory, and not explicitly demanded.
And of course my opponent should attempt to deminish my argument. But they should also have an argument of their own to present.
So ultimately, the voter should have at their discretion the ability to vote for an argument not being substantial enough.
By this i mean a "lazy" argument. Where-by" the Con assumes only the position of the defence, but appears to assume no need for also "proving" their side of the argument, with their entire argument revolving around purely disproving Pros claims.
This may be mistaken for a good argument.
But a voter has at their discretion the ability to decide it is not, and that Con also had the responsibility to prove their counter argument.
And this is not a wordplay debate.
There is no room in this debate for a debater that wishes to accept the challenge thinking they have spotted a loophole in the title or description that they can jump on and make this the main focus, and try to somehow persuade the voters that theirs was the better argument based upon a play on words that the instigator likely did not even mean.
Common sense must also prevail, and an argument such as this, does not even require responding too.
Failing to respond to certain types of arguments, or make any suggestion to the voters, does not equate to the opponents bad argument, or error, becoming validated.
The voter has the right to punish a debater for errors, even if the error was not highlighted by the other debater. It should be assumed that the other debater did in fact spot the logical fallacy, or the inaccuracy, or general misdemeanor, but chose not to highlight it and allow it to be self explanatory to the readers.
But ultimately, my opponent should have a good solid counter argument that can be weighed up against my own.
In the event my opponent fails to comply with any of my advisories, then the voters have at their dicretion the ability to enforce my advisories
And those advisories apply to me aswell, regardless of what term i used above

Now there is "no" hiding place for either debater. My opponent takes this on "knowing" he has expectations on him to also "provide" a counter argument. And also at least "attempt" to prove his counter argument, as well as disproving his opponent.

This goes for me aswell.

Round 1

Nevets

04.02.2020 11:37PM

Pro

I would like to begin by saying i got conned by the Con in the comment section.

DrSpy wrote...
"Pediatric study shows tdap does not cause Autism in under 6 year olds"
Is this one pediatric study, What is trap?
Do you mean "A pediatric study shows DTaP does not...

So i changed the topic of the thread for him. from Tdap, to Dtap.

However "Tdap" "is" actually what it is.

As we can clearly see beneath.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/3/e20180120

METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of mother-child pairs with deliveries January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals. Maternal Tdap vaccination

But i have changed the name of the thread title, to the wrong title, at my expert opponents advise, as he insists it is a Dtap vaccine.

Now about this study.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/3/e20180120

METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of mother-child pairs with deliveries January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals. Maternal Tdap vaccination from pregnancy start to delivery date was obtained from electronic medical records. A diagnosis of ASD was obtained by using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes. Children were managed from birth to first ASD diagnosis, end of membership, or end of follow-up (June 30, 2017). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between maternal Tdap vaccination and ASD, with inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for confounding.

I do not want to quote any more from the outside source as i do not wish to violate copyright.

But it is expected of my opponent to click on the link, and read the report.

I will however put the results in to my own words.

" Prenatal Tdap vaccination was not associated with an increased ASD risk".

Now i usually include in my threads extensive information. However i do not feel it is required on this occasion. So i am going to cut round 1 short.

Now my opponent is not enjoying the narrow scope he enjoyed in the previous debate.

And there are certain expectations expected of him during this debate. As written in the description.

Also, i did state in the description that this debate is suitable for a person with knowledge in this subject.

And therefore i have no choice but to conclude this round by making a claim.

I claim that my opponent approaching me before the debate, telling me my title was wrong, when in actual fact it was right, was a terrible way for him to enter a debate in to which he is insisting he has extensive knowledge regarding. This needs to be considered a huge black mark. Not just a little one.

He is now going to continue to debate for the scientific community.

So i will end this now, by going to wikipedia, for final confirmation, that it is infact Tdap.

TheJackeil could have won her argument in just 3 words.

There should be no coming back from this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPT_vaccine#Tdap

Tdap, (also dTpa), is a tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine. It was licensed in the United States for use in adults and adolescents on June 10, 2005.

Now regards to Dtap

My opponent has failed to recognise that Dtap is the wrongful usage of the word.

The conspiracy theory is, that "Tdap" given to pregnant women, causes autism in infants

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/tdap-vaccine-not-linked-to-autism#1

Autism rates were slightly lower in infants born to women who had the Tdap shot.

A new study published in the journal Pediatrics has found that Tdap vaccinations for pregnant women do not increase the risk of autism spectrum disorder in their children.

Now there is only one way back from this for my opponent.

And that is to provide "extraordinary evidence" that his "Dtap" conspiracy theory, even exists.

DrSpy

04.03.2020 03:49AM

Con

Well, my opponent believes they were conned, That is not the case. I accept the opponent's focus on TDAP instead of DTAP. I did not advise as was claimed. TDAP and DTAP are different

I suggested the change because TDAP is not approved in use for children under the age of 7. (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/tdap.html)

Tdap is only for children 7 years and older, adolescents, and adults.
Adolescents should receive a single dose of Tdap, preferably at age 11 or 12 years.
Pregnant women should get a dose of Tdap during every pregnancy, to protect the newborn from pertussis. Infants are most at risk for severe, life-threatening complications from pertussis.

The topic of the debate was about autism in children under 6. It appeared to be a very highlight restrictive position to take. The description of the debate says put all cards on the table. I was not going to play off a technicality and just asked for confirmation. So I will focus on TDAP as originally stated as that is the article presented.

We agree a focus is on TDAP, and by the CDC the only way a 6-year-old or under can be exposed is via the mother.

We agree that an additional focus is on demonstrating that "Pediatric study" does not cause autism in TDAP children born to TDAP recipient mothers.

In my previous debate, it was commented that I only focused on the definition of the debate and did not support my position with non-definition related elements. I am going to stick to the debate subject. However Pro made it clear that the debate is and should be judged. because

"The main argument is "what it says in the title"."

=============

My opponent claims this study matches the criteria of the debate.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/3/e20180120

I accept the study is from a reputable source.

I accept my opponent's concern of over quoting

I accept my opponent's statement form the conclusion of the Abstract.

I will add that the study presented by my opponent, that is less than 2 years old, states:

No study to our knowledge has been published examining the risk of ASD after prenatal exposure to the Tdap vaccine.

Unless there is an additional study released in the last 2 years, this study is all there is to prove Pro's point.

The objective of the debate is to look at one study and the title of this debate therefore, language is very important, most important the language of the study.

So let us look at the two claims.

STUDY:

Prenatal Tdap vaccination was not associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children

DEBATE TOPIC:

TDAP vaccine does not cause autism in children under 6 years old."

The two claims are very different. The study is an association, the topic is causal.

Scientific studies use statistics and statistical rules to convey findings. (https://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-Science/49/Statistics-in-Science/155)

To cause something means there is a direct association between one item and another. A direct act that results in effect. Or as defined by MWD

(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/causation)

Association on the other hand association is (statistics) any relationship between two measured quantities that renders them statistically dependent (but not necessarily causal or a correlation). https://dictionary.babylon-software.com/association%20(statistics)/. In short, out of the three options; cause, correlated, or associated, associated is the least persuasive from a statistical perspective.

If this study was intended to assert or dispute cause, it would say so. It does not. The reasons why this study cannot conclude a causal relationship between Dtap and autism is based on the limited construct of the study. So let us look at that.

STUDY STRUCTURE:

The study has a few significant issues which would prevent it from asserting a causal relationship, or even a correlated relationship vis-a-vis am association.

The study is broken up as follows.

Methods
Study Population and Design
Maternal Tdap Vaccination
ASD's
Covariates
Statistical Analysis
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

I will point out areas in the various sections, from the titles stated above, that demonstrate this is not a casual study, and therefore cause cannot be inferred.

STUDY POPULATION AND DESIGN

This study was restricted to one hospital group in one part of the US. This does not make it broad enough to state there is a causal relationship to all children.

The study restricted the population by eliminating the following from the cohort:

Eligibility was restricted to pregnant women who did not have assisted conceptions (in vitro fertilization) and gave birth to live singleton infants at 22 to 45 weeks’ gestation
.........
Pairs were excluded if children were diagnosed with chromosomal or congenital anomalies.

This possesses a significant problem with assertive causal relationship claims. By trimming the participation group you are eliminating all hormone treatment, IVF, IUI, ICSI, and Surrogacy. (https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a4093/assisted-conception-treatments). We also know there is a direct inverse relationship between age and fertility https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/age-and-fertility. Eliminating all babies that had fertility assistance disproportionally excludes older mothers. Interestingly this study does not address the age demographic of the group, which I would note as slightly odd. This elimination excluded the plausibility that the vaccine as an effect on this part of the population.

The study also eliminated another 25% of the children born that appear to qualify, for a variety of reasons. (enrollment issues and congenital issue). This elimination further restricts the cause and effect of plausibility. It eliminates the possibility that the vaccine has an effect on that population.

The enrollment issue also presents another problem, as it could have a disproportionate effect on poorer populations. Membership of the health plan is not free. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente), and anyone who did not maintain their membership. If people lost their health coverage, or if the mothers no longer had custody, the children were not considered paired and therefore excluded. I certainly do not think this is intentional marginalization. The study required integrated electronic health records, and if they are no longer a member, followup would not be possible. This study was performed absent consent. Consent was not required by the ethics committee at KPH.

We see there are a number of issues with the population, and the exclusion of the population that renders this type of study impossible to draw a cause and effect conclusion with respect to autism

MATERNAL TDAP VACCINATION

No precautions or verifications were taken to account for a woman enrolled in multiple health units, or who moved from one health unit to another. While this may not be statistically relevant, it does highlight an area that would need to be addressed to establish a causal relationship.

RESULTS

The mean age of vaccine introduction was 29 weeks gestation. Over 50% of mothers had the vaccine in the third trimester. For there to be a true cause-effect on Tdap, the gestation mean would need to be lower. Statistically relevant (5%.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance ) of the cohort should be represented in each significant gestational section. This gap is another reason why a causal relationship could not be established.

On a side note to show my bipartisan analysis, I would like to comment that the rate of diagnosis appears to be consistent with other epidemiological data. The prevalence rates diagnosed through the member group was 1.6%, between 2011 and 2014. However, the CDC rate for children born in 2008 was 16.1 per thousand--- 1.6%. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html. It was good to see a concerted effort was taken in diagnostic definitions, as that is an area that can get pedantic in some studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of ASD occurred up to and beyond 7 years of age, not under 6 as the debate states. Further, there is nothing in the conclusion that specifically addresses the association of age and ASD.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP CONCERNS

A study like this would need to be corroborated as there are a few possible conflicts that some may question the integrity of the data. This is taken straight from the study. I am certainly not questioning their integrity or motives. I am stating a clear fact. A causal relationship could not be established off a single study with apparent conflicts.

Drs Becerra-Culqui and Tseng and Ms Sy received funding from GlaxoSmithKline for a separate study of a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccine (Boostrix) during pregnancy;

Drs Becerra-Culqui and Tseng and Ms Sy received funding from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals for a separate study of a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccine (Boostrix) during pregnancy; Dr Getahun has received research grant support from Bayer AG for unrelated studies; Drs Tseng and Getahun and Ms Sy received research funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the Vaccine Safety Datalink project

For the following reason, I reject my opponent's submission that the study demonstrates a cause-effect relationship with autism and Tdap. This study does not prove the Tdap does not cause autism in children or is it restricted to children under 6.

Round 2

Nevets

04.04.2020 01:42AM

Pro

DrSpy wrote....
Well, my opponent believes they were conned, That is not the case. I accept the opponent's focus on TDAP instead of DTAP. I did not advise as was claimed. TDAP and DTAP are different

I suggested the change because TDAP is not approved in use for children under the age of 7.

Let us be clear. My opponent asked for the title of the thread to be changed for no other reason than he thought the conspiracy is known as the "Dtap conspiracy".

Now it does not matter how much my opponent wishes to play on words, this thread is in direct response to another thread he published

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1831/dtap-vaccines-for-children-under-6-months-of-age-may-cause-autism

DTaP vaccines for children under 6 months of age may cause autism.

So by rights, in fact, the title of this thread should actually be "DTaP vaccines do not cause autism in children under 6 months". Not 6 years.

I got 6 years from my opponents description.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1831/dtap-vaccines-for-children-under-6-months-of-age-may-cause-autism

"Give infants and children 5 doses of DTaP. Give one dose at each of these ages: 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 15 through 18 months, and 4 through 6 years.

So therefore we are discussing the effects of those vaccinations up to the age of 6 years, as described in my opponents description.

Now, i ended my last round asking my opponent to prove that this "Dtap" conspiracy theory he is alleging, "even exists".

If he does not prove this, in this round, then i ask him for round 3, to go away, and find sources and information from the internet that show their is in fact a valid, publicised, genuine concern about Dtap vaccines causing autism.

Because i am almost certain that it is the "Tdap" conspiracy theory. And the theory alleges that the autism is caused "not by" giving infants or toddlers injections, but by Tdap injections given to the pregnant mothers.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/3/e20180120
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of mother-child pairs with deliveries January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals. Maternal Tdap vaccination from pregnancy start to delivery date was obtained from electronic medical records.

Now even in the event that my opponent "is" able to prove that there is an actual well publicised "Dtap" conspiracy theory regards to autism, this is a "loooooooong" way off proving that the allegations are true, and therefore my opponent should not be assumed to be the winner of a debate that is claiming "Dtap or Tdap vaccinations do not cause Autism", just because he was able to demonstrate he does have minimal reason to be concerned about the subject.

So, i think it is important, for my opponents argument, to find proof that the "Dtap" conspiracy theory even exists.

DrSpy wrote....
The topic of the debate was about autism in children under 6. It appeared to be a very highlight restrictive position to take. The description of the debate says put all cards on the table. I was not going to play off a technicality and just asked for confirmation. So I will focus on TDAP as originally stated as that is the article presented.

Please do not tell me what the topic of the debate is about.

Please also state why you feel this is highly restrictive? Do you want me to increase the issue to range up to 100? then go ahead.

Are you trying to suggest to a voter that may not understand the nature of the debate, that i have somehow restricted you from being able to prove that Tdap or Dtap vaccinations cause Autism in 6 month old babies?

You are displaying the wordplay and dishonest debate tactics, looking for loopholes, that i intrinsically stated in my description should be avoided.

If you are being honest, you know damn fine what this debate is about. and that me cutting it off at 6 years, was to remain consistent with "your" argument, on your other thread.

Dont pretend you dont know.

And do not make out there are restrictions on you.

There are "none".

DrSpy....
We agree a focus is on TDAP, and by the CDC the only way a 6-year-old or under can be exposed is via the mother.
We agree that an additional focus is on demonstrating that "Pediatric study" does not cause autism in TDAP children born to TDAP recipient mothers.

No, we do not agree the focus is on Tdap.

The focus is on Tdap, Dtap, and even the wider vaccinations cause autism, or do not, if you so wish to include those in your argument.

Now i repeat, i will be looking to see evidence your Dtap conspiracy theory exists. In the next round.

DrSpy....
In my previous debate, it was commented that I only focused on the definition of the debate and did not support my position with non-definition related elements. I am going to stick to the debate subject. However Pro made it clear that the debate is and should be judged. because

Not at-alll. This is a wide-scope debate. Not a narrow scope debate.

You have no hiding place.

I advise for the betterment of your argument, in this debate, you provide evidence which supports your belief that there is a legitimate Dtap causes autism conspiracy theory.

After-all this thread is based upon "your thread", but with your narrow restrictions removed.

And this thread "is" now named, at "your" request, the Dtap thread.

I "agreed" to "your" request.

My opponent then highlights a quote from my study, that he "thinks" supports "his" argument

No study to our knowledge has been published examining the risk of ASD after prenatal exposure to the Tdap vaccine.

So this is just yet more reason for my opponent during next round to "prove" his Dtap conspiracy theory exists. As no study has been published examining the risk of ASD exposure to the Tdap vaccine after birth.

So the conspiracy theory holds that the autism is caused by vaccines given to the mother during pregnancy, and that there has been a study done which suggests there is no truth in this theory.

And as my opponent already acknowledged himself, at top of this page that Tdap is not given to children under 7, perhaps this is why there has never been a study of this nature done. Because there is no actual valid concerns that Tdap, outwith whilst in the womb, could possibly cause Autism in a child under 7.

DrSpy wrote....
I suggested the change because TDAP is not approved in use for children under the age of 7

DrSpy wrote...
Unless there is an additional study released in the last 2 years, this study is all there is to prove Pro's point.

I produced a study. You attempt to refute this by claiming you want to see another study before you will consider believing it.

No, sorry, but it is now "your" turn to go away and get a source that shows where your concern comes from. And to show the study conducted that proves there is a correlation between Tdap vaccines and autism.

I would prefer you show a scientific reputable study. More than one of possible. But one will be enough.

However if you are unable to find a contemporary reputable scientific study which shows there is a reason to suspect Tdap causes autism, then i will let you off with providing a source from an alternative news site, or alternative medicine site.

Alternatively you could produce and article, whether it be a newspaper article, or a David Icke article.

It is important for you to also show some sources.

If you cannot provide one source, that supports and explains your position, then i suggest it is rather disingenuous for you to ask me to go away and get more scientific studies, because one is not enough for you.

DrSpy wrote....
The objective of the debate is to look at one study and the title of this debate therefore, language is very important, most important the language of the study.

That is good advise. Whilst looking for your source that you are going to provide next round, to support your claim, and show where you are getting your ideas from, you should also look at the language. As like you say, it is very important.

DrSpy wrote....
So let us look at the two claims.

STUDY:

Prenatal Tdap vaccination was not associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children

DEBATE TOPIC:

TDAP vaccine does not cause autism in children under 6 years old."

My opponent is seeing things that do not exist. And trying to create elusions.

The elusion being that he is trying to suggest that there is anything of significence to be had in what he is pointing out.

Or it somehow prevents him from being able to prove what it is he is unable to prove.

He is seeing a contradiction that does not really exist outside of the LSD induced world.

And any contradiction that there actually is, is purely words. And of no meaning nor consequence whatsoever.

I dare say he will continue to maake something like this his main focus for the remainder of the debate.

But i encourage readers to keep an eye out for this.

And remember, it is of "no consequence".

It does not negate his responsibility to attempt to prove Dtap and Tdap cause autism, or attempt to refute they dont.

DrSpy.....
Scientific studies use statistics and statistical rules to convey findings.

And what Science are you using to prove that Tdap and Dtap cause Autism.

I ask again, you provide in the next round a source with information to support your concerns.

Scientific if possible

DrSpy...
To cause something means there is a direct association between one item and another. A direct act that results in effect. Or as defined by MWD

Those are good guidelines for you to bare in mind when checking your source. You might want to do this before providing it.

But dont feel you have to. If you are not able to. Please simply provide the best you can find.

DrSpy...
Scientific studies use statistics and statistical rules to convey findings.

For this revelation, DrSpy provided a link.

And his link also said this.

https://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-Science/49/Statistics-in-Science/155

Both of these studies found much higher rates of lung cancer among cigarette smokers compared to nonsmokers, however, not all individuals who smoked contracted lung cancer (and, in fact, some nonsmokers did contract lung cancer). Thus, the development of lung cancer is a probability-based event, not a simple cause-and-effect relationship.

To prove my opponents next scientific revelation, he produced the merriem webster dictionary, which said this

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/causation

the act or process of causing

To prove this

DrSpy...
To cause something means there is a direct association between one item and another. A direct act that results in effect.

Am i supposed to be reading from all this that my opponent is a scientific genius with revelational scientific understanding?

My opponent then continues to produce a dictionary again, which says this.

https://dictionary.babylon-software.com/association%20(statistics)/

In statistics, an association is any relationship between two measured quantities that renders them statistically dependent. The term "association" is closely related to the term "correlation." Both terms imply that two or more variables vary according to some pattern. However, correlation is more rigidly defined by some correlation coefficient which measures the degree to which the association of the variables tends to a certain pattern. Sometimes the pattern of association is a simple linear relationship (as in the case of the popular Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (commonly called simply "the correlation coefficient"), although other forms of correlation are better suited to non-linear associations.

But why on earth my opponent chose to retranslate the above, in to the incomprehensible way in which he explains such a simply thing

DrSpy wrote.....
Association on the other hand association is (statistics) any relationship between two measured quantities that renders them statistically dependent (but not necessarily causal or a correlation). In short, out of the three options; cause, correlated, or associated, associated is the least persuasive from a statistical perspective.

Because i can understand quite clearly what his source is saying. But what my opponent is saying is truelly incomprehensible.

For this reason he would be better providing the quotes.

My opponent next says this

DrSpy....
This possesses a significant problem with assertive causal relationship claims. By trimming the participation group you are eliminating all hormone treatment, IVF, IUI, ICSI, and Surrogacy.

For this, he produces this link

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a4093/assisted-conception-treatments

If you’ve spent a long time trying for a baby but haven’t yet been successful, it may be time to consider assisted conception treatments.

And his link is about advising women on conception treatments.

Noweher does his link state any of what he said.

Whilst the link may include the word IVF, it is not about what DrSpy is stating.

Nowehere does his link say "This possesses a significant problem with assertive causal relationship claims. By trimming the participation group you are eliminating all hormone treatment,"

Nor even imply such.

So i am closing it here. No more going through anymore of his links.

What DrSpy now has to do.

(1) Prove Dtap conspiracy theory even exists.

(2) provide a scientific study that suggests tdap, or, dtap likely causes autism..failing a scientific study, then just the best source he can find.

(3) Show were about in the link you provided, to support what you said, where it said this, and also how the article was even connected to the subject you were talking about.

(4) Do not use any dishonest bureaucratic nonsense to try and suggest you have found a loophole in my title, or description, that absconds you from having to do so

DrSpy

04.04.2020 02:31AM

Con

I won't engage in a side dispute about the origins of the debate title. Other debates do not matter. Pro issued this debate title ad description. the debate topic facts around its creation are already clear.

My opponent says the topic of the debate is

The focus is on Tdap, Dtap, and even the wider vaccinations cause autism, or do not, if you so wish to include those in your argument.

I, unfortunately, do not see that in the title, or description. Therefore I can only argue what is in front of me, not what is speculated by mu opponent. The judges will determine if this is an appropriate modification of the title.

Pro asked for me to prove there is a conspiracy around Dtap. As mentioned that is not the subject of the debate.

My opponent demonstrates some questionable logic.

And as my opponent already acknowledged himself, at top of this page that Tdap is not given to children under 7, perhaps this is why there has never been a study of this nature done. Because there is no actual valid concerns that Tdap, outwith whilst in the womb, could possibly cause Autism in a child under 7.

My opponent's logic is, "No study is done because there is no valid concern". Studies are not all performed after the fact. Studies are often done in advance such as wear and tear tests on planes because it cannot be performed after the fact. (https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/)

If my opponent's logic is correct, and the reason only one study was performed because of a lack of apparent need, the study does not meet the debate description. It does not prove there is no causal relationship.

My opponent states

And what Science are you using to prove that Tdap and Dtap cause Autism.

That is an irrelevant statement, and I never made that claim, in this debate or anywhere else on record here or abroad.

My opponent disputes the scientifically and evidence supported definitions of cause, correlation, and association. My opponent has not demonstrated any scientific foundation for these rebuttals,

My opponent appears to question my source about IVF, IUI, etc. I apologize to my opponent for not making it clear that the purpose of that source was to demonstrate the other types of fertility treatment that are available, and it is not just IVF.

My opponent has not addressed the facts. I methodically went through the study that they claim shows Tdap does not cause autism in children under 6 years old.

My opponent has not met the criteria of the debate topic they provided.

I respectfully submit that the further information request by my opponent to produce is irrelevant, and not material to the subject of the debate,

I agree to waive all future rounds without penalty if my opponent would like to.

Clearly my opponent is frustrated and angry with me. I respectfully submit that I am sticking to the definition and this is not personal.

Round 3

Nevets

04.04.2020 01:17PM

Pro

DrSpy...

DrSpy has been presented with a Scientific study which concluded that Tdap vaccines given to pregnant women do not cause autism.

My opponent uses links and sources to refute this claim, and yet the links and sources do not support his arguments.

They do not even say what he says they say.

They are not even pertaining to the subject he is talking about.

As i showed in the previous round.

DrSpy....

This possesses a significant problem with assertive causal relationship claims. By trimming the participation group you are eliminating all hormone treatment, IVF, IUI, ICSI, and Surrogacy.

For this, he produces this link

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a4093/assisted-conception-treatments

If you’ve spent a long time trying for a baby but haven’t yet been successful, it may be time to consider assisted conception treatments.And his link is about advising women on conception treatments.

Noweher does his link state any of what he said.
Whilst the link may include the word IVF, it is not about what DrSpy is stating.
Nowehere does his link say "This possesses a significant problem with assertive causal relationship claims. By trimming the participation group you are eliminating all hormone treatment,"

My opponent then accused me of showing some questionable logic.

DrSpy...
My opponent's logic is, "No study is done because there is no valid concern". Studies are not all performed after the fact. Studies are often done in advance such as wear and tear tests on planes because it cannot be performed after the fact.

However the questionable logic would be on him.

Quite simply. If Tdap inoculations are not given to children under the age of 7.

Then how on earth could anyone come to the conclusion that Tdap inoculations that are not given to children under 7, could possibly cause autism in infants?

Why would they need to do a study on this?

The rest of my opponents argument is invalid. because of this.

Quite simply, Tdap inoculations are not given to children under 7.

So there does not need to be a study in to the possiblility that Tdap inoculations may cause autism in children under 7, 6, 5, or any age under that. Quite simply, they are not given.

My opponent has failed to provide proof that his Dtap conspiracy theory exists.

He is now going to have to give proof that he understands the meaning of Tdap vaccinations not being given to children under 7

"Tdap vaccinations are not given to children under 7".

For next round my opponent must:

(1) Provide a good argument as to why he feels there needs to be a study conducted in to the possibility that Tdap inoculations that are not given to children under 7, might cause autism in children under 7. And also if he does not understand this concept. Explain why he still feels there should be a study in to this, even though the inoculations are not given to children under 7

(2) Prove that his Dtap conspiracy theory of children becoming autistic via inoculations even exclusively exists, and is not just part of the wider vaccinations cause autism umbrella.

(3) Quote passages from the links and sources he provided, and explain how those correlate with what he is saying, and support his conclusion that there should be a study to prove tdap inoculations "not" given to children under 7, do not cause autism in children under 7.

Ultimately. "explain". Why there should be concerns that Tdap vaccinations "not given to children under 7" might cause autism in children under 7.

Then get back to me.

DrSpy

04.04.2020 08:34PM

Con

The study presented by my opponent does not meet the debate criteria.

The study must be a "Pediatric study shows Dtap does not cause Autism in under 6 year olds". Both my opponent and I agree Dtap should read Tdap.

Here is a summary of the reasons, as highlighted in round 1.

1. The conclusion of the study refers to associated, not caused. I established those are very different words. Causality is never claimed in the study.

2. Causality could not be determined by this study because the population cohort eliminates too many classes

3. Causality could not be determined by this study because protocols where not put in place to eliminate those who may have taken a vaccine at another IHM or HMO.

4. Causality could not be determined by this study because the region of the cohort was not diverse enough to account for environmental or other factors.

5. Causality could not be determined by this study because there are financial, conflicts nd conflicts of interest. The results would need to be confirmed in an environment absent from those conflicts.

6. Causality could not be determined because the mean gestation period was in the third trimester, not effectively representing doses given in earlier trimesters.

7. Causality could not be determined as the study monitored children up to 7 years of age, yet the debate requirement is for those under 6 years of age. The cohort is the wrong age demographic

As established in RD1. TDaP is given to children over 7, adolescents and adults. It is given to pregnant mothers as an inoculative treatment for pertussis of the unborn child. (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pregnancy/hcp-toolkit/tdap-vaccine-pregnancy.html. The CDC claims on their site (without source)

Fewer babies will be hospitalized for and die from pertussis when Tdap is given during pregnancy rather than during the postpartum period.

Taking medications during pregnancy is a big concern of the CDC.

Treating for Two: A national strategy to improve the health of mothers and babies through safer medication use in pregnancy.

https://www.cdc.gov/pregnancy/meds/treatingfortwo/infographic_large.html

There is one part of the graphic that shows fewer than 10% of medications have been tested to determine fetal risks. That is the crux of the problem.

Medications should be properly tested if they are going to be recommended to any population, pregnant woman included.

Studying drugs is very important and a mandate in the US by the FDA, and the CDC.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective

My opponent is trying to divert from the debate, a debate that they set. If my opponent wants to have a debate about the legitimacy of the concern over vaccines, including "anti-vaxxers" are in fact stating something without foundation, I would be happy to entertain that.

I have established clearly, with reference, why the study presented by the Institgaor does not meet the requirements of the debate.

Round 4

Nevets

04.04.2020 10:31PM

Pro

The study must be a "Pediatric study shows Dtap does not cause Autism in under 6 year olds". Both my opponent and I agree Dtap should read Tdap.

This should be a conduct violation and an assumption my opponent is conceeding the debate.

The study alleges that it proves that Tdap vaccinations given to pregnant mothers do not cause autism "at-all".

That would include under 6 year olds.

My opponent has yet to provide a study of his own that shows why he feels his concerns are justified.

My opponent also needs to explain why he feels "tdap inocculations "not" being administered to children under 7"

Contradicts my title?

The Tdap vaccination is given to 7 year olds and older.

So "under 6" is correct.

Any objections to that are meaningless.

DrSpy Here is a summary of the reasons, as highlighted in round 1
.1. The conclusion of the study refers to associated, not caused. I established those are very different words. Causality is never claimed in the study.
2. Causality could not be determined by this study because the population cohort eliminates too many classes
3. Causality could not be determined by this study because protocols where not put in place to eliminate those who may have taken a vaccine at another IHM or HMO.
4. Causality could not be determined by this study because the region of the cohort was not diverse enough to account for environmental or other factors.
5. Causality could not be determined by this study because there are financial, conflicts nd conflicts of interest. The results would need to be confirmed in an environment absent from those conflicts.
6. Causality could not be determined because the mean gestation period was in the third trimester, not effectively representing doses given in earlier trimesters.
7. Causality could not be determined as the study monitored children up to 7 years of age, yet the debate requirement is for those under 6 years of age. The cohort is the wrong age demographic

The problem i am having here, is sorting out his lies.

He lies so much.

It is almost "all" lies.

He did not quote in round one where the study says the things he attributes to it.

And it didn't.

To begin with

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/3/e20180120

4 Given the seriousness of the matter, this recommendation was amended in October 2012 to include all pregnant women regardless of previous vaccinations, and the optimal vaccination period was defined between 27 and 36 weeks’ gestation

Yet according to DrSpy the study said it only included some women

Eligibility was restricted to pregnant women who did not have assisted conceptions (in vitro fertilization) and gave birth to live singleton infants at 22 to 45 weeks’ gestation
.........
Pairs were excluded if children were diagnosed with chromosomal or congenital anomalies.

He did not quote where in the study he found this. Unlike what i did above.

And the study does not actually say the things he attributes to it.

Quite simply. He lied.

Yes, thats right

(1) My opponent asked me to change the thread to Dtap, from Tdap, then requested to instead talk about Tdap, again.

(2) My opponent appears to be under the impression "under 6" is of any consequence

(3) My opponent has produced no serious counter arguments. And produced not one single source that remotely supports Tdap causing autism

(4) My opponent has failed to establish that a Dtap conspiracy theory even exists. Quite simply, that is because, it doesn't.

(5) My opponent produced no quotes from the study to show where-about the study said the things he attributed to it. He should produce those in the final round, as i cannot find the,

(6) It would appear my opponent lied about what the study said.

My opponent has lied from start to finish.

Even before accepting the challenge, he was "lying" in the comment section

Lying is serious.

DrSpy

04.05.2020 12:14AM

Con

There is nothing new added by my opponent other than baseless attacks of character.

The question about this debate was based on the instigator providing one study that shows cause and effect. I spent a significant amount of time explaining why that study doesn't accomplish the objective es of the debate.

I then analyzed, qualified and summarized the issues I had with the study.

It is clear my opponent has not read the information I provided, or the study, as he has misquoted them.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/3/e20180120
4 Given the seriousness of the matter, this recommendation was amended in October 2012 to include all pregnant women regardless of previous vaccinations, and the optimal vaccination period was defined between 27 and 36 weeks’ gestation

Yet according to DrSpy the study said it only included some women

Eligibility was restricted to pregnant women who did not have assisted conceptions (in vitro fertilization) and gave birth to live singleton infants at 22 to 45 weeks’ gestation
.........
Pairs were excluded if children were diagnosed with chromosomal or congenital anomalies.
He did not quote where in the study he found this. Unlike what i did above.
And the study does not actually say the things he attributes to it.
Quite simply. He lied.
Yes, thats right

The first part quoted says that the definition of the study as it relates to vaccination status was modified to include those who had been vaccinated prior to week 27 of gestation.

The second part is a direct quote from the study. If you go to the study link provided by my opponent and Ctrl-F search for eligibility, you will see the quote is in fact there.

There is no lie. Accusing me of lying when the evidence is right there is not a way to win a debate. This baseless ad hominem attack does not change the fact that the study presented does not meet the criteria claimed.

My retorts.

(1) My opponent asked me to change the thread to Dtap, from Tdap, then requested to instead talk about Tdap, again.

Complete misrepresentation. I asked if the instigator meant DTAP or TDAP. As they are very very different. I would have argued either side. Opponent protested about the definition change, so I accepted the original Tdap.

(2) My opponent appears to be under the impression "under 6" is of any consequence

It is. That is what the debate title says.

(3) My opponent has produced no serious counter arguments. And produced not one single source that remotely supports Tdap causing autism

I don't have to. I only have to prove that your study does not claim what you state. I don't claim the other. I never said there is a causal relationship. What I have CLEARLY shown is that people misunderstand studies. As my learned opponent has clearly misunderstood this study.

(4) My opponent has failed to establish that a Dtap conspiracy theory even exists. Quite simply, that is because, it doesn't.

I don't need to. It is not part of the debate.

(5) My opponent produced no quotes from the study to show where-about the study said the things he attributed to it. He should produce those in the final round, as i cannot find the,

This is blatantly incorrect. When I directed the study in great detail I provided proof of what my conclusions were based on the study and its narrative.

(6) It would appear my opponent lied about what the study said.

This is blatantly incorrect again.

My opponent has accused me of lying eight times in this round alone. While I am sure my opponent is passionate about this subject, I would appreciate more civility to truly address the issues.

I have established clearly, with reference, why the study presented by the Institgaor does not meet the requirements of the debate. No pediatric study for TDAP has been presented which states there is no causal relationship between TDAP and Autism in children under 6.

Round 5

Nevets

04.05.2020 12:31AM

Pro

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/3/e20180120

.3 In response, in October 2011 the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that unvaccinated pregnant women receive the Tdap vaccine after 20 weeks’ gestation.4 Given the seriousness of the matter, this recommendation was amended in October 2012 to include all pregnant women regardless of previous vaccinations, and the optimal vaccination period was defined between 27 and 36 weeks’ gestation

DrSpy wrote...
The first part quoted says that the definition of the study as it relates to vaccination status was modified to include those who had been vaccinated prior to week 27 of gestation.

I am not sure if my opponent is lying. Or lacks the ability to evaluate correctly.

In actual fact he is correct. Number 3 on the list at the top does say what he says.

But then number 4 absolutely rubbishes what he says.

Because number 4, ruled out number 3, and my opponents claims are based on the 2011 practises.

Those were ruled out by the 2012 practises, on number 4.

There is nothing else to say.

My opponent is either lying, or.i dont know.

But here it is again for those that missed it.

Read carefully

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/3/e20180120

.3 In response, in October 2011 the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that unvaccinated pregnant women receive the Tdap vaccine after 20 weeks’ gestation.4 Given the seriousness of the matter, this recommendation was amended in October 2012 to include all pregnant women regardless of previous vaccinations, and the optimal vaccination period was defined between 27 and 36 weeks’ gestation

And here is what DrSpy wrote

DrSpy....
The first part quoted says that the definition of the study as it relates to vaccination status was modified to include those who had been vaccinated prior to week 27 of gestation.

So perhaps he is not lying.

Perhaps he just did not bother to read past the first line of the report, and continue to number 4....

No honest voter can vote for him.

DrSpy

04.05.2020 12:45AM

Con

#10

I thank my opponent for the quick turnaround. I will keep this short.

My opponent has not taken the entire study into consideration. I clearly dissected the study, and contrary to the claims by my opponent, everything stated by myself is quoted from source or supported by the sources. Nothing is factually incorrect.

My opponent's final statements claim that the study was all-inclusive, which it was not. I demonstrated that from the narrative of the study itself. Regardless that does not negate the other reasons why the study is invalid for its claimed purpose.

My lists of reasons the study fails to support its claim are repeated here for convenience. This is not new information. It is demonstrating that my opponent has not addressed any of these issues.

1. The conclusion of the study refers to associated, not caused. I established those are very different words. Causality is never claimed in the study.

2. Causality could not be determined by this study because the population cohort eliminates too many classes

3. Causality could not be determined by this study because protocols where not put in place to eliminate those who may have taken a vaccine at another IHM or HMO.

4. Causality could not be determined by this study because the region of the cohort was not diverse enough to account for environmental or other factors.

6. Causality could not be determined because the mean gestation period was in the third trimester, not effectively representing doses given in earlier trimesters.

7. Causality could not be determined as the study monitored children up to 7 years of age, yet the debate requirement is for those under 6 years of age. The cohort is the wrong age demographic

Therefore, even amongst the baseless accusation of poor conduct, implied concession, and lying, my opponent has not proved the debate subject.,

Barney

05.04.2020 07:09PM

Only 6 hours remain for anyone to vote.

Nevets

04.25.2020 01:38AM

-->

@DrSpy

DrSpy needs to come back and start debating. His debate tactics are sorely missed.
If he comes back and starts debating again, he can have my CD collection of Bob Mar lee.

Nevets

04.02.2020 10:18PM

-->

@DrSpy

tdap is a typo
However i have changed it, and it is not the topic of the argument.
And i am not discussing anything in comments.
If you take the challenge you read the description first.
I will reveal the study in round 1.
If you are not happy with the study. Then it is a bit different to your other debate.
There are expectations on you to prove why "your" doubts should be considered worthy over that of Scientific consensus

DrSpy

04.02.2020 08:28PM

-->

@Nevets

I do not understand the title.

"Pediatric study shows tdap does not cause Autism in under 6 year olds"

Is this one pediatric study, What is trap?

Do you mean "A pediatric study shows DTaP does not........"

Barney

05.04.2020 11:40PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

I have a platelet donation to get to, so not enough time to properly grade things. I will however offer a little non-scored feedback.
Scientific writing has conclusions which are muddied under doubt. We could cure aids, and the description of the cure would probably only claim it shows a connection to the decreased detection of the virus.

There will always be a sliver a doubt about causality. A study on increased death rates connected to being shot, will still speak of correlations. The confidence interval correlation coefficient will be telling, but only to educated individuals.

Also generally debates should stand by themselves. Getting even one real vote for this debate with its length and complexity is hard, when trying to get a potential voter to read the other debate (while not being unduly influenced by it), is hard. If doing this type of thing again, I would copy some key statements of dispute, but make it clear that reading the other debate is not needed to understand this one.