newberry wrote:Bob: please show me where I defined "unbiased."

You defined 'unbiased' by including the word in your request. Who made you arbiter of 'biased' and 'unbiased'? Your assumption that you can fill that role shows that you are biased. You will continue to see these government studies as free of prejudice, and I will not. You can increase the volume of your claim that they aren't biased, but I still won't hear you.

I don't know why you are struggling to understand my position. I have chosen the position that is less supported by 'approved' studies. I will either be proved accurate or not at some point in the future. I believe that evidence of the vaccine link will exist someday, or exists today and is being suppressed.

Quit arguing like the case is closed. My case is not closed. i have chosen the position that is less popular as of today- deal with it.

And why did the rate of autism increase after mercury was removed from the vaccines?

Why did the rate of autism increase immediately after the thimoseral content was increased? Like I said, we do not have a thermometer in the ass of the total pre-school population of america, responding immediately to every fluctuation in diagnoses of autism. There is a lag time in these statistics, and a margin of error, and reporting bias.

clocker bob wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:

clocker bob wrote: Do you find his claims to have 'not known who Eli Lilly was' before yesterday credible?

I don't know, and I don't really care.

Well, I care, because it's preposterous to think that someone could have that much data on autism and vaccines at his fingertips and not know that Eli Lilly is a giant pharmaceutical company. It's like someone who researchs gas stations saying, "Exxon who?". I don't like being lied to.

Bob, it's obvious why I said I don't care, if you read the rest of my statement. I do suspect, as a layman, that Tobias does have at least some of the characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder. As such, they are extremely focused mentally. Like the difference between a laser beam and a regular lightbulb.

For anyone who is interested, there was an interesting article in Scientific American a few months back about Autism. It sounds like they are closing in on the root defect in the brain that causes Autism to happen. Not the root cause, just the root defect.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:If you have any specific questions please ask.

My question: you joined the forum on February 9, 2007, and you were armed and loaded with info on the autism question. Are you part of the Eli Lilly 'rapid response' team that goes around the web trying to put out any Thimerosal brushfires?

Have you gone absolutely idiotic?

Seriously, what the hell.

"FUCK MAN THOSE NOISE ROCK GUYS ON THE EA FORM ARE TALKING ABOUT THIMEROSAL. QUICK, SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING

AND TELL THE SECRET MASTERS THAT CLOCKER BOB IS BACK"

chernobyl was in 1986, pretty close to the same time they started using the thimoseral. That seems to correspond nice to the curve, as well as the fact that radiation often has delayed effects that show up much later in life.
What about food preservatives? Insecticides? Artificial food? What if it's a combination of all of these- maybe it's the new cancer with tons of causes. I'm not a doctor or a biologist, I don't know, I can't say. I haven't done the research myself.

Those are all studies that know where their next meal is coming from- the industry they study. You think university studies are objective?

It seems apparent that they would get a much bigger "meal" if they find out there is a problem in a current vaccine that they can fix. Time and funding are on their side, believe it or not.

Have you seriously been to academia? Or is it just a nice place you like to visit with your books? With all your knowledge in everything, it's a miracle you have time in your day to take a shit.

Antero wrote:

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:If you have any specific questions please ask.

My question: you joined the forum on February 9, 2007, and you were armed and loaded with info on the autism question. Are you part of the Eli Lilly 'rapid response' team that goes around the web trying to put out any Thimerosal brushfires?

Have you gone absolutely idiotic?

Have you? You don't think that there are people who work for corporations and attempt to cancel out unwanted discussions on the web? It's the opposite of viral marketing. As it turned out, Newberry went and brought him here from some other forum.

Jesus, Antero, I used to think you were a cut above the other kneejerk assholes who swarm around my posts because they're obsessed with me, but I'm starting to wonder. My question above is legitimate. Stop and think next time.

Time for Bob to summarize his position, and then stand back and see if it finally sticks.

There is no definitive cause for autism. Agreed? Agreed.

Therefore, the cause of autism is an open question. If people want to rule out bullfrogs or santeria as the cause of autism, I'm not going to fight over it. But if people want to rule out mercury, then no- mercury is a known agent of neurological disorders. It would be profoundly premature to rule out mercury ( or mercury in vaccines ) at this date. The people who do want to rule out vaccines are in denial about the fact that the cause of autism is an open question. The case is not closed.

Now, Bob can agree with both these statements:

Mercury in vaccines has not been proven to cause autism.

Mercury in vaccines has not been proven to not cause autism.

The people on the pharmaceutical cheerleading team cannot. They're biased.

The people on the government side want this to be case closed. What dicks. We're seeing an autism epidemic unfold before our eyes, an epidemic that has no certain cause. These dicks want to start ruling out known poisons, known poisons that happened to be in the vaccines.

God damn. What a bunch of Flat Earth bullshit. I am the one with the soundest and least-biased position, because I say open question. I am more than happy to argue for the mercury side, which is why I put that in the title of the thread, and I do that because all the money and all the government power is trying to state 'no link' like it is a resolved issue. It's the same mentality that gave us the Warren commission and the 9/11 Commission. The government hopes it can close debate by rubber stamping the early returns as 'proof'. This is a long race, not a sprint. Nothing is decided until the cause of autism is decided.

Okay then. All you members of the Conventional Wisdom Protection Team can go back to claiming that you have ruled out the vaccine as a cause of autism when you have not proved what is the cause. It makes me fucking laugh, you good servants of the cover up.

Bob does not work for the clampdown. Bob's Uzi weighs a ton.

We're seeing an autism epidemic unfold before our eyes

Whether that's even happening is also an open question.

Mark Van Deel wrote:

We're seeing an autism epidemic unfold before our eyes

Whether that's even happening is also an open question.

Are you in the camp that attributes the 1200% increase over the past 15 years to 'a broader diagnosis'? Or are you in the camp that doesn't call a 1200% increase an epidemic?

clocker bob wrote:

Mark Van Deel wrote:

We're seeing an autism epidemic unfold before our eyes

Whether that's even happening is also an open question.

Are you in the camp that attributes the 1200% increase over the past 15 years to 'a broader diagnosis'? Or are you in the camp that doesn't call a 1200% increase an epidemic?

I think that the increase is believiable. Asperger's Syndrome only began to get recognized widely and diagnosed around 13 years ago. Autism in all level of severities looks like a lot of other things, too. Depression (due to rejection from lack of social skills), OCD (obsessiveness), PTSD (sensory sensitivity, rejection of certain situations/things), deafness (sensory problems), etc. Those were all possible diagnoses prior to Asperger's being recognized after being put in the DSM-IV. And they're all fairly common, what if increasing understanding of ASDs are causing proper diagnoses to be made, increasing the amount of cases reported?

mineral wrote:I think that the increase is believiable. What if increasing understanding of ASDs are causing proper diagnoses to be made, increasing the amount of cases reported?

That is certainly some of it, but it isn't likely to be all of it, not in my opinion. While there is a grey area between autism and other conditions, and that raises the possibility of over-diagnosis or misdiagnosis, I think that if you threw that survey error out, you would still have a very large increase taking place.