But he isn’t that….

Um… you want the science from us, but you ‘don’t have time’ to debate any of us on it?

You can’t be bothered, you mean.

That’s just lazy.

I mean, Sue even said that she’s only picky about spelling when it involves poisoning babies’ brains.

And her whole Issue is that vaccines caused her child’s celiac disease and type 1 diabetes. Incidentally, those have been around for centuries, they just KILLED people more back then.

Glad to see such an…interesting…view of anatomy.

I respect Maria for trying to stick to the science, even if I don’t always agree with her references or her conclusions. It is perfectly acceptable to have an alternative viewpoint if you try to back it up with something other than “well, I believe it because this guy says so” or “I know that drug companies and the CDC are doing this” or “Paul Offit is a bad guy”.

No Sue, no one attempts to debate Maria because she doesn’t make claims that she can’t support. She is the first to admit that she is open to infinite possibilities and always willing to provide infinite volumes of literature to prove it.

On the rare occasion when Maria narrows her energy and makes a single claim she has and will be challenged.

Maria can think and fend for herself and she would probably prefer that you don’t drag her in to your mission or fight.

When you are able to understand and interpret the science and spend as much time scouring the literature as Maria, you won’t need to shift attention from your beliefs. You’ll be equipped to discuss the science in a civil and rational manner.

Expect to invest more than a year or two.

Well if it is at all convincing you won’t mind presenting it. Just because it leads you to believe doesn’t mean it has universal merit. I’m afraid you don’t set the bar very high.

If more evidence is presented which shows me that I am wrong … I will follow it. Do you have any?

Tell me the evidence you require to change your beliefs? Is there any? No one should have to show you that you are wrong. Assume you are.

You are only interested in things that help you to believe whereas I go out of my way to prove myself wrong. I’ll go with a hypothesis as long as it holds up but I am constantly looking for ways to dismiss everything I am tempted to believe. Just my nature, sorry.

I am willing to acknowledge the possibility that thimerosal triggered autism in some individuals but I can’t just believe because it makes sense to some people with a desire to believe. I need convincing. I need proof and I need evidence. Do you have any?

Sometimes it is about those things too Sue. Especially the ‘mice’ thing. That’s pretty important.

“I don’t have time to debate you on the science, because I know where it will go.”

That’s a cop-out. I specifically provided a science forum free from the heated atmosphere this blog generates. You were invited to come over and participate on numerous ocassions but never did.

“Why don’t you engage Maria with her science? Oops. Because you can’t.”

Maria has participated in the science forum and we regularly email each other back and forth. We are, in my opinion, on very good terms. This is because she engages in the science.

Maria has very good reasons for not always wanting to participate in this blog and so I make a point of not engaging her on here. If we want to take something further we do it via email, as she can readily attest if she wants to.

“As for reading too much into the papers, Kev. I really don’t think that I am. I have said MANY times that none of them PROVE anything but what can we learn from them? Where do we go from there?”

OK, good. Thats a start. I’m not asking that you prove anything or disprove anything. I’m simply asking you how you believe they support your theory that thiomersal can cause or lead to autism.

“On the contrary Sue – if we’re talking about what is essentially a science based question (is there an autism epidemic, does thiomersal cause autism, etc) then its always about science”.

– Right. Exactly my point. You guys always find a way to make it about how much money someone has, little baby autistic mice and other such nonsense. I don’t have time to debate you on the science, because I know where it will go. Why don’t you engage Maria with her science? Oops. Because you can’t. As for reading too much into the papers, Kev. I really don’t think that I am. I have said MANY times that none of them PROVE anything but what can we learn from them? Where do we go from there?

“What’s he got against the neurodiversity folks”?

– I imagine that he has nothing against you. Could it be possible that these people wouldn’t want to come into a situation like this where they get attacked left and right? Called a wacky PhD, called a threat? Come on. Could it be possible that Dr. Deth would rather sit face to face with Kathleen Seidel so he wouldn’t have his personal e-mail exchanges plastered over the internet?

Ms. Clark wrote:

“You don’t even have an autistic child. You don’t know what we are talking about when we talk about our kids”.

– Now, that is interesting Ms. Clark. We have already gone over (with as much detail as I care to give you) that my son improved greatly from the biomedical approach for “treating” his Sensory Integration Disorder (cough, cough)... SID which some may have considered PDD. It is ok, though, Ms. Clark if you want to make that an issue. I will say this, I don’t know anything about your child but I guarantee you that I know as much if not more of the physical medical issues (comordities if you will) of many autistic children as you do. It is wonderful that you don’t (if you don’t) have these problems with your child(ren) but of course many do and those are the ones I relate to the best… due to my own personal experiences.

Ms. Clark wrote:

“Can’t you find someone who actually can talk polymerase chain reaction and cytokines and chi-squares from the mercury parents to come here and not debate but discuss the finer points of the Hornig study, the Deth petri dish experiments, HBOT, urine injections.. chemical castrators for autism, IVIG, vitamin A… B12… someone who knows more than conspiracy theory”.

– A few months back there was someone on here posting who I have reason to believe was a particular DAN! practioner in my local area (One with a great reputation who has helped many children). He may have been able to help answer some of these questions for you (probably not all, but at least give you his personal experiences). Unfortunately the foolishness of this group drove him off… I include myself in the foolishness by the way. You say you want people to come here to post, but would you take time out of your day to be called a baby killer, a quack, a wacky PhD or whatever else may be thrown about? I wouldn’t.

I’m not asking you to defend your position Sue. I’m trying to get a sense of whether you actually have a position to begin with. And seeing as none of those papers were published 5 years ago, I fail to see how they could possibly not be up for debate.

“I have seen many people come and go here Kev, who have tried (some very calmly) to debate here about the science. Somehow it always gets back to something foolish like some “autistic mice” comment or some crack about Wakefield’s integrity or someone’s vast wealth or whatever… it’s never about the science. Ever.”

On the contrary Sue – if we’re talking about what is essentially a science based question (is there an autism epidemic, does thiomersal cause autism, etc) then its always about science. I’m sitting here right now asking you to debate the science with me. I’ve asked you to do this so many times I’ve actually lost count. You never do.

Its my position that neither teh Deth, Burbacher or Hornig papers support ther thiomersal/autism connection in the way I assume you think they do. So remove my assumption – tell me how you believe they
support your position. I can’t debate you without knowing where you stand on the issues can I?

“Certainly, I could give you my understanding of the papers but where would it get us? Be honest.”

Because I don’t get you Sue. I don’t think you’re stupid despite our ocassional cat fights but I really think you’re reading much more into these papers than is actually there. I want to understand what it is you believe, or think you know.