clocker bob wrote:

newberry wrote:This is a discussion forum. Most of us know little or nothing about the people we are conversing with. If a Scientologist or drug company shill or major label a&r dude join the discussion, who cares? Listen to what they have to say, and agree or disagree or ignore them.

Did I say that his participation is not welcome here? It is. When I asked him about Eli Lilly, he could have said, "I'm well aware of Eli Lilly's connection to thimoseral and to Bill Frist and the rider in the Homeland Security Act", but instead he told a cute lie: "Who is Eli Lilly?" Don't front. Having an agenda is one thing, but hiding your agenda is different. That implies a willingness to deceive.

On an Internet forum it's what people say that is most important, not who they are or where they came from.

No, sorry, it's both. Here's an example: I have established myself as a conspiracy theorist on the forum. Anything new I post is seen through the prism of, "Oh, that's Bob, the conspiracy theorist". I don't get a clean slate for each new topic.

That's one thing I like about forums like this, you can talk about politics or religion or whatever with people from all over the world, with all kinds of different backgrounds. And you usually don't know (at least not right off the bat) their race or gender or social or economic status, religion, job, political preferences, etc.

That's a different argument. Race or gender don't mean anything to an autism discussion. Operating a website called autismmyths.com and having hundreds of autism posts on a different forum makes TobiasThe Commie a salesman. Again, nothing wrong with that, but also, nothing wrong with us knowing that.

Again, further proof that you just won't accept defeat even though you know my data is correct

clocker bob wrote:

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?

what what WHAT?? Are you accusing me of trying to cancel out the discussion? I've actively engaged and participated in this discussion. Nothing i have said have even insinuated that i want the discussion to stop.

You, on the other hand, have stopped the discussion by your irrelevant ad homin attacks that gets none of us anywhere. If anyone is trying to stop the discussion it is you. I guess it is the way you are trying to save face since my evidence is sound and you know it.

You are trying to stop the discussion of the real issue because you can't defend your position. So please, stop attacking me for doing stuff that i am not doing, but you are.

Could we get back on topic and discuss the facts and evidence regarding mercury, vaccines, and autism?

I second that.

Uhh, corporal now

*toby updates his uniform*

TobiasTheCommie wrote:It is evident that you haven't even read my posts since i HAVE explained how i got here..

No shit. You're responding to a post I made early yesterday. I remain of the opinion that you were aware of Eli Lilly and pretended that you weren't.

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.

That's my final word on autism and the vaccine. The cause of autism is an open question, and because of that, the vaccine is a factor that cannot be ruled out. Neither you or newberry or Antero has acknowledged that the cause of autism is undetermined, so you remain too biased for me to waste time on. Continue your flood.

clocker bob wrote:The cause of autism is an open question, and because of that, the vaccine is a factor that cannot be ruled out. Neither you or newberry or Antero has acknowledged that the cause of autism is undetermined, so you remain too biased for me to waste time on. Continue your flood.

OK, so, I've been passively reading this thread as an interested observer and, Clocker Bob, I gotta say, your above statement of open-mindedness is belied by the title you chose for this thread. You don't say that the cause of autism is an open question, you say that the vaccines ARE the reason for the escalation. That you have since stated a different position as having always been your position, you damage your credibility in this discussion. I for one think that you've made some interesting points and that the jury is still out, but you've gotta admit that your original position is not accurate.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:It is evident that you haven't even read my posts since i HAVE explained how i got here..

And what would i earn form lying? How would it gain me? If i worked for them i could just have pretended to know about them and lied about that, wouldn't that have been a lot better from my position than what i did if your story was true?
No shit. You're responding to a post I made early yesterday. I remain of the opinion that you were aware of Eli Lilly and pretended that you weren't. [/quote]

I notice you attacked me and not my evidence, i take that as proof that my argument is sound and you can't argue against it, and that you won't admit defeat and try to silence my message by drowning it in ad homin attacks.

clocker bob wrote: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.

false,
evidence: http://www.autism-resources.com/autismfaq-defi.html

clocker bob wrote: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.

False, evidence on page 4 as provided by me.

clocker bob wrote:Now, Bob can agree with both these statements:

Mercury in vaccines has not been proven to cause autism.

true

clocker bob wrote:Mercury in vaccines has not been proven to not cause autism.

true, but nor have space aliens been proven to not cause autism so that doesn't mean anything.

clocker bob wrote:The people on the pharmaceutical cheerleading team cannot. They're biased.

Cannot what? In any case it is irrelevant, i am not from a pharmaceutical
cheerleading team so please argue against the evidence I have provided.

clocker bob wrote: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.

What epidemic?

clocker bob wrote: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.

Oh, having high thoughts about yourself???

clocker bob wrote: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.

Got any evidence of a link? if so, please provide it.

clocker bob wrote: 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.

Ok, then please help all of us deciding by providing some EVIDENCE.

clocker bob wrote: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.

No one claimed to have proved all of the causes, where did anyone claim that? got evidence to back up that claim? And got any evidence that anyone here, besides for you of course, is trying to cover anything up?

clocker bob wrote: That's my final word on autism and the vaccine.

I seriously doubt that

clocker bob wrote: The cause of autism is an open question, and because of that, the vaccine is a factor that cannot be ruled out.

Yes it can, and have been.

clocker bob wrote: Neither you or newberry or Antero has acknowledged that the cause of autism is undetermined, so you remain too biased for me to waste time on. Continue your flood.

They aren't flooding, nor is the failure to acknowledge that the cause of autism is undetermined an error.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:

clocker bob wrote:

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?

what what WHAT?? Are you accusing me of trying to cancel out the discussion? I've actively engaged and participated in this discussion. Nothing i have said have even insinuated that i want the discussion to stop.

If you look at the motives with which Clocker Bob believes you are here, the emphasis is probably on "unwanted discussion" i.e. discussion which would be unsupportive to prevailing arguments given by pharmaceutical companies. His response made sense to me, even if his attitude or viewpoints do not.

Tobias, as CB says, most people here view his forum posts through a prism of expectation and prejudice. Sidestep the personal attacks, as you see them. For a greater understanding of why the CB attitude has evolved within this forum, do a search for "truesoul", or go to the "Is Israel in the midst of perpettrating terror attacks?" thread. I think he mentioned them earlier.

Personally, I enjoy reading this Autism argument, and I enjoy CB's attempts to call you out and your defense, whether he or you are "right" or not. It adds flavour to the argument.

but it adds no information to the issue.

stevenstillborn wrote:

clocker bob wrote:The cause of autism is an open question, and because of that, the vaccine is a factor that cannot be ruled out. Neither you or newberry or Antero has acknowledged that the cause of autism is undetermined, so you remain too biased for me to waste time on. Continue your flood.

OK, so, I've been passively reading this thread as an interested observer and, Clocker Bob, I gotta say, your above statement of open-mindedness is belied by the title you chose for this thread. You don't say that the cause of autism is an open question, you say that the vaccines ARE the reason for the escalation.

Read my words closely:

clocker bob wrote: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.

I will argue for the vaccine link because this issue is a tug of war. There is a lot of pharmaceutical money and government power that is doing the mirror image of what I'm doing: putting up web sites that make the claim that "conclusive proof- no link between vaccines and autism exists". I argue for the vaccine link to remain part of the debate, and I also clearly state that it is an open question; the vaccine has not been proven to be the cause or proven not to be the cause.

It's the same policy I follow regarding 9/11. The events have not been proven to be the result of an inside job, and neither has the official story that it was entirely organized by al Qaeda been supported by sufficient data. If they had, I'd be done. I argue for the explanation of inside job, because the government has tried to close the case on flimsy evidence, same as with the vaccine=autism link- the data is not yet available to pronounce 'case closed'. As with 9/11, holes remain in the data, contradictions remain in the data, data has been ( I suspect ) withheld, data has been interpreted with bias, and outright lies have been used to paper over the faulty data.