Mark Van Deel wrote:TTC wrote:
I argue for the fairy dust link to remain part of the debate, and I also clearly state that it is an open question; fairy dust has not been proven to be the cause or proven not to be the cause.
Erm ... basic reading comprehension skills should tell you that he's making a point here about how silly "it's not been proven or disproven" is when used by itself as any argument for anything. And not actually calling anything 'fairy dust'.
Sorry, not true. Tobias claims that the vaccine link has been erased from consideration, based on studies that have been called biased and politically influenced by critics with credentials in the field of brain disorder study. The fact is, four years after the removal of mercury from the vaccines is far too early to look at the autism numbers and say, "Oh look, they didn't drop like a rock, that means the vaccine is completely absolved of blame for the past 70 years of rising autism diagnoses". The pharmaceutical industry and their gov't cohorts are trying to stamp 'Case Closed' on the vaccine link based on completely inadequate data; we won't have the data we need for at least another decade. And Big Pharm is denying the credibility of data that supports the vaccine link, basically because they own the government and the media, so they can get away with it.
So, it is entirely appropriate to base an argument against discarding the vaccine link on the fact that it has not been proven or disproven, because sufficient time has not passed to decide that question. And he used a non-existent substance like 'fairy dust' for his analogy, which exposes his bias. And then he lied about the comparison, which was dumb, because his analogy is right there in black and white.
