That’s fine – if you’re into pointlessness (as you very well seem to be) then please go go be pointless somewhere else.

Buh-bye.

I am challenging you, but perhaps not in the way that you think. Because what I don’t understand is why you berate other people for putting forth weak arguments and then treat them to the very same logical fallacy that you exposed in them. This is the very definition of arrogance. Is this the kind of man you are?

You take a very condescending and superior posture with those people who disagree with you, even though your arguments are cut from the same cloth. What I am challenging you to do is to measure your own arguments against the same standard you hold others to. I think that this would make your blog much more honest, if less inflammatory, and much more meaningful as a source of information for those who, like yourself, are dealing with the issues and challenges that having a child on the spectrum offers.

Respectfully,
Brian

Sigh all you like, my friend, but your condescension does not obscure the nature of your arguments.

Respectfully,
Brian

sigh

That’s exactly what I am saying. Step away from the dictionary my friend :)

...In the absence of firm evidence one should always be skeptical. I am not suggesting that the Cedillo case has any correlation whatsoever to the Poling case. I am saying that in one case there is no firm evidence that a child was not autistic pre-vaccine administration and that in another there was no evidence but the parents were positive there[sic] child was not autistic pre-vaccine administration…

it seems that you are saying although there’s no correlation the similarities between the two situations bear notice, as this is the only reason that you have painstakingly given each time the matter of Hanah Polings pre-vaccination condition is brought up.

Therefore in the absence of any firm evidence we need to be skeptical. The experience of the Cedillo’s is merely an interesting aside which has a related point. It doesn’t illustrate the exact same point at all.

“Which has a related point”...well then, what is correlation, anyway? From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
cor·re·la·tion
Pronunciation:
?ko?r-?-?l?-sh?n, ?kär-
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Medieval Latin correlation-, correlatio, from Latin com- + relation-, relatio relation
Date:
1561
1: the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone 2: the act of correlating

I am saying that taken together a lack of surety about Hannah Polings neurological state prior to vaccination, coupled with the illustrative example of the Cedillo case showing how parents can be mistaken about their belief there were no signs of autism prior to vaccines we need to be careful.

Fact: “coupled with” is a term of correlation.

Fact: your correlation argument is by your own statements not logical. As you are quick to admonish: “Don’t introduce hypothetical data and expect it to have a bearing on what has been factually reported.”

If there is no correlation then you must admit that there is no greater likelihood that Hanah’s parents are wrong about her pre-vaccination condition than that they are right about her pre-vaccination condition, because as you have stated several times, there is an “absence of firm evidence” showing Hanah’s pre-vaccination condition. If there is a correlation, then you must admit that the argument is false.

To suggest otherwise puts one on the steep side of a very slippery slope; from such a position one could argue that because there is no firm evidence that your blog is not underwritten by the pharmaceutical companies, one must be very skeptical should you try to make a statement denying that it is. Of course, such a statement is ridiculous, as is your admonition that we should or must be skeptical regarding Hanah’s pre-vaccination condition.

Respectfully,
Brian

Not at all. In the absence of firm evidence one should always be skeptical. I am not suggesting that the Cedillo case has any correlation whatsoever to the Poling case. I am saying that in one case there is no firm evidence that a child was not autistic pre-vaccine administration and that in another there was no evidence but the parents were positive there child was not autistic pre-vaccine administration.

Therefore in the absence of any firm evidence we need to be skeptical. The experience of the Cedillo’s is merely an interesting aside which has a related point. It doesn’t illustrate the exact same point at all.

“Her main point of contention in that matter seems to be that it is logically inconsistent that if this is the only evidence known and you are right that it is not sufficient to substantiate a diagnosis of autism, neither the lawyers nor the Special Masters would have come to the conclusions they came to; therefore, there must be more evidence that is not currently available.”

The lawyers (by whom I assume you mean the HHS team?) effectively pled no contest to vaccine damage. The contention is – did the vaccine damage cause the autism? That has not been suggested by HHS. Special Masters have come to no conclusion whatsoever beyond accepting the report of the HHS.

If there is additional evidence that illustrates that her vaccines caused seizures then that is interesting but in terms of autism causation, meaningless. Beyond that, it is entirely speculative what might be in this document. Lets wait and see.

You might further note that the case study by Zimmerman and Poling was not limited to either autism or seizures or any particular medical condition. It simply listed all medical symptoms that they felt were caused by her vaccines. As I stated, they cannot – either individually or together – be enough to offer a diagnosis of autism according to DSM (IV).

“As I have been at great pains to repeatedly point out MJ, * am not saying it is* – I am saying that taken together a lack of surety about Hannah Polings neurological state prior to vaccination, coupled with the illustrative example of the Cedillo case showing how parents can be mistaken about their belief there were no signs of autism prior to vaccines we need to be careful.”

This is not logical, as you pointed out here:

Correlation does not equal causation. Or, to put it another way:

Then you have a diagram displaying an oversimplified table allegedly demonstrating the invalid correlation of the arguments. Yet in the very next sentence, you go ahead and make the very correlation-dependent statement that:

I’d also reiterate my original point: that the Cedillo’s also genuinely believed their daughter showed no signs of autism prior to vaccination but subsequent questioning of autism diagnosticians established that she did. We therefore have to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims Hannah Poling displayed no symptoms of autism prior to her vaccinations.

Why do you insist that other’s arguments be held to a higher level of analysis for logical consistency than you hold your own? The correlation you attempt is obvious—1)these children have autism (or autism-like symptoms) and have parents; 2)these parents were wrong about early signs of autism in their child; 3)parents with children that have autism (or autism-like symptoms) are wrong about early signs of autism in their children.

But you didn’t say they were wrong about Hanah’s pre-vaccination state, did you? You said that we must be skeptical of it, for the reasons stated above. Yet the argument you put forth for this skepticism relies on a correlation argument that you have just demonstrated is not logical.

I have to say MJ that I think you seem to be muddying the waters unnecessarily here.
Your main point of contention seem to be that:
There is more evidence that is locked up that shows more symptoms of Hannah Poling’s autism caused by vaccinations.

I disagree. Her main point of contention in that matter seems to be that it is logically inconsistent that if this is the only evidence known and you are right that it is not sufficient to substantiate a diagnosis of autism, neither the lawyers nor the Special Masters would have come to the conclusions they came to; therefore, there must be more evidence that is not currently available.

For evidence of the fact that more information exists other than the single document leaked is here:

http://video.google.com/videop.....5318250499

Note that their lawyer states there were two decisions handed down, the second after additional evidence was submitted showing that her seizures were also caused by her vaccinations. Therefore there is more evidence which is not covered in the original leaked document.

I do not know or have any contact with MJ, I just think you are intentionally redefining her query and that you are not rigorous in the analysis of your own arguments before stating them.

Respectfully,
Brian

which is known to be far from complete therefore rendering an verdict based on incomplete information is not a good idea.

No, MJ, it is not known to be incomplete. You think it is incomplete. I see no reason to suppose it is. We are talking solely about Hannah Polings medical and behavioural symptoms here, nothing else.

This is not true – I have seen mention of pediatricians notes saying that the child showed no signs.

Link please?

Also how would you prove a lack of signs? If you have any evidence that there were any signs prior please mention them. Otherwise you cannot conclude that a lack of evidence means that one condition is true.

As I have been at great pains to repeatedly point out MJ, * am not saying it is* – I am saying that taken together a lack of surety about Hannah Polings neurological state prior to vaccination, coupled with the illustrative example of the Cedillo case showing how parents can be mistaken about their belief there were no signs of autism prior to vaccines we need to be careful.

Why would it? The study had a specific purpose and goal. The study was not a general dump all for the entire case history of the child.

Once more MJ, no one says it is. What it is however, is a recording of the signs, symptoms that Hannah Poling underwent and/or displayed after her vaccination. That seems pretty conclusive (and inclusive) to me.

This whole thing is very simple. You and I either agree that the HHS statement coupled with the Zimmerman/Poling paper contains all of Hannah Poling’s medical symptoms following vaccination or we don’t.

If you don’t, you need to offer some reasons as to why you think that. Or move on.