Comments on: Autism Clusters Found: areas with high incidence of autistic children

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:58:25 +0000

Yes, Robin, your last comment was just deleted. I hope it is your last attempt to pollute this blog with the HIV/AIDS denialism.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:57:02 +0000

Could you also include not approving the comments that are so far off topic? That would make it much easier, thank you.

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:54:59 +0000

Robin P Clarke,

I am not going to be dragged into the argument you so dearly want. Denialists love to argue. Vaccine denialists, HIV/AIDS denialists.

I will no longer approve your comments mentioning HIV/AIDS. Complain that I am “censoring” you if you want. I don’t care.

By: Robin P Clarke

Robin P Clarke — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:43:02 +0000

Sullivan, You persist in repeating these assertions here about hiv/aids, while giving no supporting evidence. My mind is wide open to any explanations of why the arguments detailed in the aids hoax video are wrong, why Duesberg’s rebuttal re the Africa deaths is wrong, why the point that there is no genuine test of hiv positive is wrong, etc, etc. Wide open but no such responses are forthcoming, from others or now from yourself.

I only change my scientific opinions when presented with new facts or reasonings for doing so. Doesn’t that sound a reasonable approach? As I said, I personally have no interest in the aids (would-be-)debate other than as a purely scientific question, I just see the facts as I see them and say what I see. Why does that make me reprehensible?

How about the nasty NHS charlatanism exposed here?:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/.....isoning_is and

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/....._known_use
Shouldn’t you express equal outrage about that?

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:30:30 +0000

It has been rigorously shown that two individuals sharing common priors (i.e. data), cannot honestly “agree to disagree”.

Aumann RJ. Agreeing to disagree. The annals of statistics, vol. 4, No. 6 (Nov., 1976), 1236-1239.

This is why denialists need to find fault with whatever data does not match the conclusion they want to draw and why denialists can never agree as to what constitutes good data. They need to reach a certain conclusion, so they can only agree to data that is compatible with that conclusion.

This is the fundamental dishonesty of denialists.

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:53:12 +0000

Robin P Clarke,

I don’t really care what you agree to. It isn’t a disagreement that you are wrong on HIV/AIDS. It is a fact. It isn’t a disagreement that people like you cause harm, it is a fact.

As the saying goes, you have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. When you are factually incorrect, there is no “agree to disagree”. It isn’t a matter of opinion.

By: Robin P Clarke

Robin P Clarke — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:45:37 +0000

Cheers re my comments that I do now see on here – I guess we are just going to have to “agree to disagree” for a while, and just conceivably some or other views in the autism controversies will eventually change.

By: Robin P Clarke

Robin P Clarke — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:00:55 +0000

Sullivan, pathetic that you have to resort to censorship of reasonable replies in an attempt to cover your arse and mislead readers here. Do you seriously think I am going to take your protestations of being n intellectually serious honourable person seriously again?

By: stanley seigler

stanley seigler — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:44:11 +0000

re: the book I mentioned…

“Schuyler’s Monster is more than the memoir of a parent dealing with a child’s disability. It is the story of the relationship between a unique and ethereal little girl floating through the world without words, and her earthbound father”

my little girl is now 46…and is still my teacher…thanks for the link…

stanley seigler

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:33:44 +0000

Mr. Seigler, the book I mentioned does not involve California. You might actually try clicking on the link and checking out the blog. I still cannot understand what you are saying becasue you continue to use odd punctuation and refuse to employ full sentences.

The main point is that there are better services in a wealthier area, and people who can afford it will move to get those services.