Most hits on Google from "thimerosal." I don't think it's "thimoseral"

I think vaccines should be subjected to honest testing.

Who should do the testing in your view, and who should pay for it?

newberry wrote:Most hits on Google from "thimerosal." I don't think it's "thimoseral"

CDC.gov uses thimerosal, so that has to be right. There are many hits for erroneous spellings, including at some major publications. That's not good.

I think vaccines should be subjected to honest testing.

Who should do the testing in your view, and who should pay for it?

Uncorruptible scientists. Justice should be blind and isn't, and public health concerns are not decided in vacuum free of marketplace factors. Just as the rich never go to the electric chair, I assume that when greedy pharmaceutical companies let their greed overstep their concern for public safety, they can buy their way out of the execution.

My point is that neither government or university scientists can be automatically assumed to be uncorruptible. To say otherwise pretty much bars you from discussing capitalism, since even mild critics of capitalism concede that money buys influence and favors from government, including the so-called 'watchdog' agencies.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:

clocker bob wrote: TTC, what is the cause of autism? If you know it, why are they looking for it?

Ah, now you are asking me about something usefull, about time.

I explained that on page four. go there and search for "Etiology of autism".

Is that what you're referring to?

TTC on pg 4 wrote:In the recent years some of the myths regarding the etiology of autism have waned and been abandoned by the scientific community. Waned and been replaced with purely scientific causes.

Of course the research isn't complete yet, and there are probably more causes to be found in the future.

Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you lead with the word 'myths' ( your opinion ), and then you state your opinion that these 'myths' have been replaced with purely scientific causes.

TTC, that's a very broad term, and I hate to break this bad news to you, but you don't get to decide what gets placed into the myth category and what gets placed into the scientific causes category. Most people without an agenda like you would classify mercury poisoning as a potential scientific cause of neurological disorders, based on the fact that mercury poisoning is a known cause of other neurological disorders. Are you claiming that an environmental cause is not a scientific cause?

Then, because you know that the cause of autism has not been determined, you finish with this giant waffle:

TTC wrote:Of course the research isn't complete yet, and there are probably more causes to be found in the future.

Whoa there, TTC. Reads to me like a pretty clear statement of agreement with me: the cause of autism is an open question.

TTC, if Thimoseral is not a potential cause of neurological disorders, why was it removed from vaccines?

Ok, and where did i claim that research on the etiology of autism was complete?

Oh wait.. I DIDN'T. I never claimed that the research was complete.

What the post DOES say is that "a lot of myths have been replaced by scientific evidence, though the complete etiology of autism isn't complete yet" which part of that don't you understand?

It was removed because public outrage required the politicians to step in and do it, though it gained nothing. If you go back to page 4 you can see how after the removal of Thimerosal the number of people diagnosed with autism increased.

clocker bob wrote:National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) Says IOM Played Politics In Report On Autism And Vaccines

Washington, D.C. May 18, 2004 - The nation's largest and oldest parent-led vaccine safety organization is charging that today's report on autism and vaccines issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) seriously jeopardizes the credibility of IOM to make an objective scientific analysis of vaccine risks.

Read the whole new release here at nvic.org

Wait, so research by scientists can be ignored because it is funded by pharm companies(never mind the security in place), but a report from an openly biased group is aok to you?

hm

My point is that neither government or university scientists can be automatically assumed to be uncorruptible. To say otherwise pretty much bars you from discussing capitalism, since even mild critics of capitalism concede that money buys influence and favors from government, including the so-called 'watchdog' agencies.

Who has said that government or university scientists can be "automatically assumed to be uncorruptible"? I don't think you can say this about anyone.

Please tell us how vaccine studies should be paid for, and how we should find "uncorruptible scientists."

newberry wrote:

My point is that neither government or university scientists can be automatically assumed to be uncorruptible. To say otherwise pretty much bars you from discussing capitalism, since even mild critics of capitalism concede that money buys influence and favors from government, including the so-called 'watchdog' agencies.

Who has said that government or university scientists can be "automatically assumed to be uncorruptible"? I don't think you can say this about anyone.

Please tell us how vaccine studies should be paid for, and how we should find "uncorruptible scientists."

And also why a report from a clearly biased source, like the nvic stuff, can be accepted without question.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:Ok, and where did i claim that research on the etiology of autism was complete?

I didn't claim that you did. I said that you claimed that a cause for autism had been determined, and then I laughed at your attempts to substitute lists of symptoms for a cause.

TTC wrote:What the post DOES say is that "a lot of myths have been replaced by scientific evidence, though the complete etiology of autism isn't complete yet" which part of that don't you understand?

What part of "Tobias doesn't get to decide which potential causes are classified as myths" do you not understand? Do you comprehend that when you begin a sentence with the phrase "a lot of myths", you are asking us to trust you to decide what an autism myth is, and I prefer not to do that, since you are harboring a raging bias? People with a raging bias often fancy themselves as objective. Again, thanks for the comedy.

TTC wrote:It was removed because public outrage required the politicians to step in and do it, though it gained nothing.

So basically, you hate public activism and you accuse all the parents who petitioned for the vaccine change of being idiots.

TTC wrote:If you go back to page 4 you can see how after the removal of Thimerosal the number of people diagnosed with autism increased.

So what? I've said that mercury poisoning is one of a number of cumulative potential causes of autism. Since we do not know what causes autism, we do not know what isn't causing autism. Since we do not know what causes autism, we cannot measure the severity of the other envoronmental factors, since we do not know what they all might be. We do not even have a complete survey of national autism rates- the most recent study focused on 14 states, I think. We do not know if cases of autism are being reported accurately- there could be over-reporting or under-reporting taking place. We don't know if there is a lag in reports that can be traced to victims hurt by vaccines.

Because of all that we don't know about the causes of autism and about the accuracy of the autism numbers, we can't say, "look, the rate is still rising, no link to vaccine", because first, five years does not make a trend, and second, the cause is still undetermined, and everything follows that first giant step, determination of cause.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:Ok, and where did i claim that research on the etiology of autism was complete?

I didn't claim that you did. I said that you claimed that a cause for autism had been determined, and then I laughed at your attempts to substitute lists of symptoms for a cause.

TTC wrote:What the post DOES say is that "a lot of myths have been replaced by scientific evidence, though the complete etiology of autism isn't complete yet" which part of that don't you understand?

What part of "Tobias doesn't get to decide which potential causes are classified as myths" do you not understand? Do you comprehend that when you begin a sentence with the phrase "a lot of myths", you are asking us to trust you to decide what an autism myth is, and I prefer not to do that, since you are harboring a raging bias? People with a raging bias often fancy themselves as objective. Again, thanks for the comedy.

TTC wrote:It was removed because public outrage required the politicians to step in and do it, though it gained nothing.

So basically, you hate public activism and you accuse all the parents who petitioned for the vaccine change of being idiots.

TTC wrote:If you go back to page 4 you can see how after the removal of Thimerosal the number of people diagnosed with autism increased.

So what? I've said that mercury poisoning is one of a number of cumulative potential causes of autism. Since we do not know what causes autism, we do not know what isn't causing autism. Since we do not know what causes autism, we cannot measure the severity of the other envoronmental factors, since we do not know what they all might be. We do not even have a complete survey of national autism rates- the most recent study focused on 14 states, I think. We do not know if cases of autism are being reported accurately- there could be over-reporting or under-reporting taking place. We don't know if there is a lag in reports that can be traced to victims hurt by vaccines.

Because of all that we don't know about the causes of autism and about the accuracy of the autism numbers, we can't say, "look, the rate is still rising, no link to vaccine", because first, five years does not make a trend, and second, the cause is still undetermined, and everything follows that first giant step, determination of cause.

*sigh* I hoped you were beyond your childish ad homin attacks.

First of, the list of symptoms linked by me was, for the third time now, A MISTAKE. I missunderstood what you asked for. I've apologized for it already, and i don't understand why you want to be so childish as to constantly attack me for a simple mistake that i have admitted to.

Ok, so if i haven't claimed that the etiology of autism is complete, then why do you attack me for stating that the etiology of autism isn't complete?

As for me deciding which parts a myths, that is easy a myth is "a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people ", so defining it as myth doesn't state if it is true or not, just that it is the accepted opinion of people. Then that can be verified and upgraded to science. Which happened, for some of them, like genetics, and not for others, like mercury, cold mothers, watching television, overly male brain, etc. Some are still in limbo. But here is the kicker.. You don't act on something until you know if it is true. You don't start treatment if there is no proof it works, like chelation against mercury in people with autism.

Please substantiate this claim "So basically, you hate public activism and you accuse all the parents who petitioned for the vaccine change of being idiots. "

Where did i even insinuate this? All i said was that public activism got it removed. And then i said it gained nothing. I didn't state any feelings on the issue, i didn't accuse anyone of being idiots. That is you being disingenious and putting words into my mouth. Words i disagree with by the way. Would you please stop doing that.

And for your last rant about us not knowing. That statement shows you to be extremely childish in your refusal to look at my evidence. Again, back at page four i showed that there is a lot of evidence that says that there is NO link between mercury and autism, i describe a lot of the problems regarding a link between mercury and autism(why it isn't feasible).

oh, btw do you know what i just noticed? i noticed that this is still true:

OK, since i joined this discussion on page 4 you have yet to argue against my evidence. I take this as proof that you can't argue against it and that i am correct and you just won't accept defeat.

And since i joined this discussion on page 4 you have just chosen to make personal attacks which does nothing except making you look like insecure little boy that don't know how to behave.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:
First of, the list of symptoms linked by me was, for the third time now, A MISTAKE. I missunderstood what you asked for. I've apologized for it already, and i don't understand why you want to be so childish as to constantly attack me for a simple mistake that i have admitted to.

Ok, so if i haven't claimed that the etiology of autism is complete, then why do you attack me for stating that the etiology of autism isn't complete?

Forget the word 'etiology'. Focus on what I asked you. Here, I'll make it simple: Sign your name to the statement below. Don't argue with it, don't modify it.

Statement: "The cause of autism is not determined."

Sign that.

As for me deciding which parts a myths, that is easy a myth is "a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people "

I didn't ask you to define 'myth'. I told you that I am not accepting your jurisdiction over the word 'myth' for use in this argument about the causes of autism.

Where did i even insinuate this? All i said was that public activism got it removed. And then i said it gained nothing. I didn't state any feelings on the issue, i didn't accuse anyone of being idiots.

You did insinuate that they were idiots. You said that believing that Thimerosal was a potential cause of autism was the same as believing that fairy dust was a potential cause of autism. There is no such thing as fairy dust, so therefore, you are accusing the parents who petitioned for the removal of Thimerosal of being the same as people who ask for protection from fairy dust. That is an insinuation against their intelligence.

Again, back at page four i showed that there is a lot of evidence that says that there is NO link between mercury and autism.

I saw it. I've also seen studies that say otherwise. And I've seen the HSA rider, and I know my government. Tough shit, the case is not closed, you can flood this thread until it reaches nine hundred pages, you will not make me discard vaccines as a potential cause of autism.

OK, a few things i want done.
First, you say i am your enemy, why do i have to be your enemy? I certainly have no interest in having you as my enemy, i just want to discuss this and get the facts straight, and just because we disagree on something it doesn't make us enemies, we are only enemies if one of us wants it. I don't want it, do you?


Also, you have so far slandered me about the following:

- That i am a liar.
- That i work for Eli Lilly
- That i have received money from pharm companies.
- That i am part of a rapid response team.
- That i am a salesman(though you didn't say what i sold)
- That i am a slimeball
- That i am insane
- That i gloat

Please either withdraw the claim and apologize for making it, or provide evidence to substantiate it.

Your failure to do so will show to everyone that you have no interest in getting to the heart of the matter, and are too insecure to admit that you might be wrong about something.(you notice how i have already admitted to making an error? you notice that nothing bad happened?)

Also, you have failed to support the following of your claims:

- That mercury is a more likely cause of autism than fairy dust
- That mercury is the second most dangerous metal on earth

As i said on page 9 :

You're failure to show that my evidence is wrong or even biased or untrustworthy should make it evident for everyone that you have nothing to base your argument on.

Also, you continued and unprovoked personal attacks make you look like a bad and insecure person.

I am sure that you can't just accept defeat or argue against the data.

There is nothing embarrassing about being wrong on an issue. You don't have to feel bad about being wrong on this, or any other, subject. I won't boast if you admit that my evidence is sound, i won't rub it in.

You have nothing to loose by admitting that my data is sound. Nothing at all. You won't be less of a man, it isn't embarrassing, there is nothing wrong with it. We have all been wrong on some issue at some point or another, that is how we learn, and better ourselves.

If, on the other hand, you choose to be stubborn and not learn, well, then nothing can be done, and you will forever be at this place in your life, never improving yourself, never getting anywhere, because you refuse to see any point besides your own. And without new ideas nothing will change.

I hope you will see reason soon and either step down from this discussion, or actually start having a discussion instead of attacking me.

And i would like to add that i have yet to attack you as a person