But then again, so is ‘love’.
Do you know what? I’m tired of fighting with people. I’m coming off the worst flu I’ve had for nearly 6 years, my wife’s had it, our kids have all had it and I’m physically, emotionally and motivationally drained.
All I wanted when I started this was to document my autistic daughters progress, make the odd little web development post here and there and stand up for what I believe is right. What I believe is right is that autistic people should be respected. I believe society should change to accommodate difference. In the same way that women are equal to men, people of different cultures and creeds are equal to the dominant population in whichever country you live in, senior citizens are as important as young people, homosexuality is as normal (whatever the hell that is) as heterosexuality – people with a different neurology *irrespective of its cause* are just as valid and deserving of rights, consideration and an equal voice as those of us with a typical neurology.
_Is that really so difficult to deal with?_
Autism is not a childhood condition. It first _occurs_ in childhood. Take a look around you. Read the reports. Study the science. Examineour history.
Look, I’ll give you this – its entirely possible autism could be caused by mercury. In some cases. But please try and _think_. All the Amish in the world don’t add up to an autism/vaccine epidemic. All the recovered children in JB’s PDF’s and Erik’s AVI’s don’t add up to a cure.
Why? What is it you think you are curing? If your child doesn’t smear, or headbutt or have constipation – does that mean they are not autistic? _No_. It means they’re not constipated or headbutting or smearing anymore. If thats your child then I offer you my sincere congratulations. I don’t want your child to be in pain any more than I want my child in pain. But I would urge you to be very careful – your child almost certainly still thinks and interacts in ways that are very different than you do. Would that be enough justification for you to carry on ‘curing’? If so, why?
Ginger presents the best argument of all. She says that if a child is likely to grow into an adult that cannot communicate their needs – especially when that person is in danger – then it is worth it to attempt a ‘cure’. And she certainly has a lot of very good evidence that autistic people are routinely abused.
I have no easy answer to this argument. When I read it, I’ll freely admit it, I want to remove everything that threatens my daughter. But is that right? In one way its absolutely right – every parent has a duty to keep their kids safe.
But, I agree with Susan Senator who said:
The “must eradicate” attitude drives parents to be nothing but nutritionists, behaviorists, and therapists, for their children. These parents, however motivated by doing their children good, end up spending most of their parenting time trying to subjugate aspects of their children.
No child – of any neurology – can be kept 100% safe unless you want to take them and wrap them up in cotton wool. Pre-empting Ginger, I think she’d say that this isn’t a case of wrapping them up but of giving them every chance to be independent enough to recognise danger and be able to do something about it. Certainly when I read some of what Amanda Baggs has had to endure at the hands of ‘carers’ my blood boils and my heart quails.
But. I believe that autism is not the cause of this misery. Attitude is. Institutionalised and abusive staff are. The non-recognition of autistic people as having a valid existence causes these attitudes to grow. When someone says ‘all autism is mercury poisoning’, that is essentially taking someones existence and traducing it as poison and invalidating it as viable. As can be seen from the links provided – thiomersal cannot be responsible for all cases of autism. Autism existed before thiomersal. Thats simply a fact. To deny it is not only bizarre it is akin to taking someone by the scruff of the neck and telling them that because they are ill, they are not fit to make decisions and thus abuse is legitamised and around and around we go.
I don’t expect anyone who believes autism is mercury poisoning to give up on their idea. What I am asking is that you can try and at least meet those of us on the ‘other side’ halfway. Try and understand that painting everyone with one brush is tantamount to little more than bigotry. I asked JB once to recant just one aspect of his belief – that all autism is mercury poisoning now and forever. I ask him again, with all respect. If you are an advocate for autism then please try and see that in this one respect you are wrong. All autism is _not_ caused by thiomersal. This isn’t a game. Nobody’s keeping score. I’m more than happy to entertain the possibility that for some children who have become autistic that there is an environmental trigger. If there is ever science that conclusively demonstrates a causative link I swear to you that I will be as vocal in going after the guilty as I am now in going after people like Rashid Buttar. As I say, what I ask in return is that you _see_ that you truly look at the world of autism beyond your child. Look without melodrama and look without preconception. I am deathly afraid that one of the things you are doing is making the world for autistic people less safe. You’ve seen some of the things that a certain Rescue Angel of our mutual acquaintance has written here. JB himself expressed unease at what this person had said. Do you think that such a person is interested in advocating _for_ autistics?
Some people think that if you can communicate you cease to be autistic. Again, I see that as a willful and purposeful denigration of people who’s crime seems to be that they can communicate – the punishment is excommunication from who they are. Invalidated people. And for what? Why would anyone think such a thing? As Tolkein said: “what can we do against such reckless hate?”.
At the core of who I am is a belief in personal responsibility. I take responsibility for who I am and what I do. I believe its the cornerstone of what makes us free people. I will do everything I can to ensure that my kids all have that same belief. We have a duty to our society as well as our children. And society has a duty to us and them. Everything in life works better when its driven by reciprocality. I say society must change for the good of all our children _and_ adults as well. I reciprocate by doing my best to raise self-aware, self-confident children to adulthood. I cannot do that if who they are is withdrawn from them on the basis of political need. I don’t try and stop you from curing (if thats the word you choose to use) your kids. All I ask in return is that you stop insulting mine. If you are right and thiomersal causes autism then I will fight beside you. Will you fight beside me if I ask you to advocate _for_ autistics, instead of _against_ autism? Can you turn some of that energy and anger I see in chatrooms and blogs directed into action to enhance the lives of adult autistics? Can you do it without talking about mercury?
I’m not asking you to change your beliefs. We both know you don’t agree with mine and I don’t agree with yours. But there should be lots we can agree on. Can we?
Left Brain Right Brain 
Kim: Let me say it once more, just for you – *do not* post full length articles without author permission. It is illegal.
If you want to discuss either the post in question or the comments leading off the post in question then please *quote and cite* from the article.
Kev.
Sue M. said: “Go to the “What Am I Missing†thread here. You will see my science and you will also see that those from “your side†had NO legit science on their side.â€
I did take a look Sue and the funny thing is very little of that can be claimed as your science. Of the list of citations that served as the backdrop to the pathetic NYT ad, more than half of the scientists don’t think their research supports the mercury hypothesis, and most of them don’t think thimerosal causes autism. Take away the quality scientists, with the possible exception of Butbacher, and you are left with the B List. Blaxill, Binstock, Boyd, Bernard, Bogus.
Simply listing citations is easy but in this case irrelevant. Who should we trust, the self described non-scientist, parent rescue angles, or the scientists that performed the research? There is no ‘OUR SIDE’ unless you mean all of the science that GR doesn’t care to cite. That would be far to many for single full page ad.
Kim Clark said, “found this testimony by a-champ’s Liz Birt to the Illinois General Assembly. It’s excellent, if you dare read all of it.”
Ahhh, more testimony to the government. So the government is not to be trusted (the gov’t meaning the sanitation employees, the parks and rec department, and every custodian and secretary that works at the NIH) however, this piece is to be accepted as peer-reviewed gospel?
No, I don’t think so. Yes, I dared to read it.
Here’s an interesting bit:
Dr. Thomas Burbacker’s [sic] research demostrating that thimerosal in the brains of primates converted to inorganic mercury at a much greater rate than methylmercury (fish mercury) is in Phase II of funding despite the efforts of the federal government to stop this research.
An interesting use of the word “phase”. Given the fact that it’s capitalized, I think it’s safe to assume that Ms. Birt is trying to conjure up the image that Burbacher’s work is part of a current clinical trial. Further, I can say that if I were to testify before some gov’t body, I’d make sure I was going to correctly spell the names of researchers whose work I cited (my assumption is that Kim Clark is providing us an unmodified version of the testimony).
Can someone please link some of “your evidence”? I would be interested in seeing references to studies that autism is ONLY genetic. I would also be interested in seeing any research in regards to thimerosal in vaccines. Studies that show that thimerosal does not cause adverse effects, etc. Can someone/anyone provide this information? The only one so far who has tried was HN. I found her information to be insufficient (and I gave explanations as to why I held this belief). I would be happy to read any such evidence that you have and I promise NOT to immediately toss it aside as garbage. Listen, I keep getting interesting comments from people such as this from David:
“and still you can’t handle science, so you prefer to resolve cognitive dissonance by rejecting the evidence…”.
— So, I ask again, WHAT SCIENCE and what EVIDENCE are you referring to?? Seriously. If you have it, present it… What’s so difficult about that?
Special note to HN: Please do not send me links to why vaccinations are the only means of erradicating disease, how they are all so safe and necessary, etc. I THOUGHT that we had moved on from that but then I see you felt it necessary to send info on the pertussis vaccine (AGAIN).
-Sue M.
I would be interested in seeing references to studies that autism is ONLY genetic.
I, for one, have never contended autism is ONLY genetic. I contend that we don’t know what triggers autism – it certainly could be an environmental cause. However, it is woefully premature and presumptious to assume it’s related to thimerosal in vaccines based on the current research.
I would also be interested in seeing any research in regards to thimerosal in vaccines. Studies that show that thimerosal does not cause adverse effects, etc. Can someone/anyone provide this information?
I’m sorry the studies HN provided don’t meet your standard, but they meet the scientific community’s standard. The reality is that there’s no real solid evidence thimerosal has anything to do with autism. There’s evidence that thimerosal in large quantities (far larger than what you’d find in a vaccine) can cause mercury toxicity.
Here’s the thing. YOU might not like the Verstraeten study, YOU might not like the Denmark studies or the other epidemiology, and YOU might not like the IOM report that basically exonerated thimerosal as a cause of autism. That’s fine. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
But the reality is that the IOM report didn’t create an uproar in the scientific community. Medical practitioners right and left weren’t screaming “OMG this evidence is flawed and corrupt”. No, the only people who raised a stink were the activists, chelationists and trial lawyers who were pushing for this research in the first place.
The reality, Sue, is that the problem isn’t with the quantity of research, but that you don’t like the answer the mainstream research has come up with. I mean, it would be tremendous if there was conclusive scientific evidence that said thimerosal was a major contributor to autism. And while the drug companies (like the tobacco companies) might hide from it for a while the truth would eventually come out and families affected by autism would be compensated appropriately.
But that’s not the case. I know how easy it is to want to paint Big Pharma with the same brush many paint Big Tobacco with. And believe me, pharmaceutical companies aren’t exactly the most sympathetic or blameless organizations on the planet. But in this case, I think their protesting (and the protesting of the medical community, public health officials, et al.) is appropriate.
Sue, it is the anti-thimerosal activists who have made the extraordinary claim that thimerosal is a cause (or the only cause) of autism. Now they need to ante up the proof.
As long as no one is claiming that autism is ONLY genetic, no one is expected or required to provide references to support such a claim. There are several studies that discuss the adverse effects of thimerosal as an irritant and contact allergen. You seem to feel that the absence of research exonerating thimerosal strengthens the argument that it causes autism. I’m sorry but science doesn’t work that way. If you, or anyone else, wants to state that autism = mercury poisoning you are expected to present scientific evidence that it is. The burden of proof is yours.
Jonathan wrote:
“That science you referred to; would you include Dr. Buttar’s study that he presented to the US Congress. That study was not only never peer reviewed, it wouldn’t meet qualifications even for a quasi-experimental design. It was pre-experimental in design”.
– Am I going to say that each and every one of the 26 reports/studies/etc. stand on their own as absolute proof of the autism is mercury poisoning? No. Absolutely not. Together as a package, they add up to significant “evidence”. Our government (in the US) has tried to sweep this evidence under the rug and pretend it is not there. Unfortunately (for them), too many people are involved now. It won’t go away.
Jonathan wrote:
“That said, you are correct, the Danish epidemiology had some significant flaws and some of the criticisms of it have had merit”.
— Thank you for at least acknowledging that truth. The problem is, these studies always seem to come up as “evidence” for “your side”. How can that be?
Jonathan wrote:
“I understand that the use of thimerosal was discontinued in the UK some time ago. The prevalence rate of autism in the UK is 1 per 166. This rate is high and stable since the 90s. I refer you to Chakrabarti and Fombonne (2005) for the details”.
— I will follow up with that and try to look at the Fombonne (2005) study. Some of the things that would need to be looked at (hopefully they will have addressed the issues) would be the following.
1) When did the UK completely abandon thimerosal in vaccines? By that I mean start shipping only thimerosal-free vaccinations. As we saw in the US just because a mfg. starts producing a thimerosal-free version does not mean that the infants in that country start receiving the free versions. We have to look at the expiration dates, etc.
2) Does the UK continue to use (or have they ever used) the thimerosal containing flu vaccination? Even after the US supposedly stopped vaccinating infants with thimerosal containing vaccinations, they did start recommending that infants over 6 months of age start being vaccinated against the flu (some may have been thimerosal-free, but who knows) .
3) What diagnostic criteria did the study use to address the concern. Did they only look at “classic” autism cases, did it include pdd, etc. What are we looking at AND did the criteria stay the same throughout the years of the study? As seen with the Danish studies, this was a big problem.
– None of the above questions are meant to discredit the Fombonne study (alas I have not read it). I just ask the questions because these are the questions that would minimally need to be addressed in order to evaluate the study. Would you all agree?
-Sue M.
Clone wrote:
“If you, or anyone else, wants to state that autism = mercury poisoning you are expected to present scientific evidence that it is. The burden of proof is yours”.
— The good news is that the evidence is continuing to come in about the tragedy of thimerosal in vaccine. Interesting that the burden of proof is mine (or ours). It seems that the CDC, et all would need to prove to me that a preservative in vaccinations (basically mandated by the government) is safe for our infants. Who knew the burden of proof would fall on us? Interesting take on the situation, Clone.
-Sue M.
JP wrote:
“I’m sorry the studies HN provided don’t meet your standard, but they meet the scientific community’s standard”.
— Here lies the problem, JP. The scientific community is willing to base their standard on flawed epidemiological studies based on lies. Scary.
– Sue M.
Sue M. When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof lies on them.
Also, when one throws out the epidemiology and relies upon experimental data, then the experimental data must be hole-free in order to support the theory. The experiments cited on the talking points bibliography are not hole-free. To be fair, it’s rare that experimental data are perfect, but the claim that mercury either is the cause of autism or is a major component of autism is a huge claim to make – it requires solid data.
Again, if there doesn’t exist a silver bullet then the wall must be built up with smaller studies. When that happens, it’s actually more difficult because each piece of evidence is up for scrutiny separately. The bar is high.
Lastly, you seem to have taken the criticism of Burbacher et al personally. As a scientist, I will warn you that taking valid criticism of others’ research personally will make you a very unhappy person.
Ken wrote:
“When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof lies on them”.
— Exactly. As I stated before, it is up to our government officials to prove to me that an ingredient that they have put and continue to put in vaccinations (and mandate) is safe and effective. Period.
-Sue M.
Sue M. wrote, “—The good news is that the evidence is continuing to come in about the tragedy of thimerosal in vaccine.”
Where? Surely not from those papers on the talking points bibliography?
“Interesting that the burden of proof is mine (or ours). It seems that the CDC, et all would need to prove to me that a preservative in vaccinations (basically mandated by the government) is safe for our infants. Who knew the burden of proof would fall on us? Interesting take on the situation, Clone.”
Unlike the GR members, the government scientists actually value the existing epidemiology studies so from their point, they don’t need to fall back on data that would likely get published in the journal of negative results. And don’t forget that these people also value the experiments that went into the development and early assessment of thimerosal.
GR doesn’t believe the epidemiology studies so the experimental evidence must support the theory, and support it well. It doesn’t.
Personally, as an bench scientist, I value good old fashioned experiments. Although I don’t discount epidemiology, I’ll let others joust over these studies.
clone3g sorry, I didn’t refresh before the last post.
/shakes fist at the one who beat him to the punch
Sue M said “Special note to HN: Please do not send me links to why vaccinations are the only means of erradicating disease, how they are all so safe and necessary, etc. I THOUGHT that we had moved on from that but then I see you felt it necessary to send info on the pertussis vaccine (AGAIN).”
It is obvious you did not read the last link. It was an editorial opinion about the increasing vaccine costs due to the actions of _lawyers_.
Ad hominem alert: Next time you are in need of medical attention, skip going to the hospital, medical clinic or to a doctor’s office. Just head straight for an attorney’s office. They should fix you up just fine and dandy. Also, remember to request treatment that has been evaluated _only_ by an MBA (reference to Blaxill’s Master’s in Business Administration).
Ken wrote:
“Unlike the GR members, the government scientists actually value the existing epidemiology studies…”
— Even if they are flawed? That should be disturbing to anyone — on either side of the fence.
Ken wrote:
“And don’t forget that these people also value the experiments that went into the development and early assessment of thimerosal”.
— Wow, Ken. Not sure just how much you know about this controversy but I assure you that you do not want to get into the experiments that went into the development and early assessment of thimerosal. You really don’t. For kicks, what do you know of these early experiments in regards to thimerosal?
– Sue M.
HN wrote:
” It is obvious you did not read the last link. It was an editorial opinion about the increasing vaccine costs due to the actions of lawyers”.
— No, HN, I read it. It is just irrelavant to the question of thimerosal/autism. Completely irrelavant. As for your other point about going to a lawyer instead of a doctor, you probably have a point there. Maybe I will.
Sue M., I’m neither a government scientist nor a defender of thimerosal. I’m simply someone who has read the literature listed by those who have developed this autism-mercury theory and have come away completely underwhelmed.
If you look at this from the point of view of some government scientist who makes decisions about what should and should not go into a vaccine then it looks a bit different. S/he believes the epidemiology. So from that, any call for further evaluating the compound’s safety will be put on the same level as those demanding an end to any vaccination.
This is the real problem here for GR. You’ve got a group of people with wildly differing opinions – fluoride, mercury, dental fillings, fish, secretin, herbs, algae, IR saunas, magnets, RNA, epsom salts, aluminum, and the list goes on and on and on. I commend JB for trying to get a single message out, but given that the evidence is not great, he might be shooting himself in the foot. The GR line is either they’re right or wrong, autism is either mercury poisoning or it isn’t.
The ice is cracking.
Ken –
Two problems:
1) The epidemiological studies upon which the “scientists” base their decisions on are FLAWED. What is your feeling on that?
2) So did you do a little google search to find out that NO STUDIES were EVER done on thimerosal to indicate that it was a safe and effective preservative to be put in vaccines? What is your opinion of that?
You are right, Ken, the ice is cracking… The safe little iceberg that the CDC, et all thought that they were on … is sinking into the abyss… Grab a life preserver!
– Sue M.
SueM: “The safe little iceberg that the CDC, et all thought that they were on … is sinking into the abyss… Grab a life preserver!”
Oh, come on… grow up!
“1) The epidemiological studies upon which the “scientists†base their decisions on are FLAWED. What is your feeling on that?”
Show me studies that are not in one way or another flawed! If a study is flawed, it does not necessarily mean that the study has absolutely no validity; indeed, the study may well still be valid. The apparent validity may well be lower, when the range is restricted (regarding the variables under investigation). But it may well still be valid. Science never uncovers certainties. Even in physics, we have to deal with uncertainty: the more accurately we know a particle’s position in space, the less accuracy we can have on its momentum (and therefore velocity) at that point in space, and this goes for knowing energy and the time for which it has that energy. It’s called Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. It was how physicists have tried to deal with the fact that science doesn’t give certainties… just support for theories. At least, when it is done right. Get used to it.
“2) So did you do a little google search to find out that NO STUDIES were EVER done on thimerosal to indicate that it was a safe and effective preservative to be put in vaccines?”
I don’t think that Ken was actually claiming one way or t’other on that issue (safety). He was stating the likely point of view of a government scientist. You seem to be taking things very personally when he says something you don’t like or you don’t agree with. That isn’t going to help *any*one in all this. He’s disagreeing with the autism=Hg-poisoning idea because he finds no reason to believe it: insufficient evidence. And that is why I don’t go with it anymore.
You built up a straw man there; Ken is not a supporter of thimerosal (which he has stated). But he reads the science.
All you are doing is trying to find someone to blame when the best thing one could be doing is finding ways to enable the autistic kid to learn, and to enjoy life, and to feel good about who s/he is. Feeding such a kid crap like “you’re damaged and until you’re fixed, you’ll never be a whole human being” is a very abusive thing to say to a kid. And I am not saying that *you* say that to your kids; but JBJr does to his. He said so on this blog one time. At least.
Sue,
I’ve noticed that you have a difficult time staying on subject. Somehow the discussion has drifted over to why thimerosal was approved for use in vaccines. Isn’t the issue whether or not it causes or caused autism? The requirements for drug approval have become more stringent in US and I doubt thimerosal would be approved under today’s standards and neither would aspirin. It’s probably best that it’s been/being removed from vaccines, though I’m sure you will argue that it’s isn’t or too slowly. Once again, I am not pro-thimerosal, neither is anyone else I know, and it should be clear that Kev (remember the original topic?) isn’t either. I’m pretty sure that none of us were involved with the approval process that put thimerosal in vaccines so if that’s your beef, why vent here?
You think that autism = mercury poisoning, many disagree. Simple enough?
David wrote:
“Oh, come on… grow up”!
— Coming from you that means… nothing. Have you looked at the foolishness that went on when John Best was around? Now that was childish.
David wrote:
“Show me studies that are not in one way or another flawed! If a study is flawed, it does not necessarily mean that the study has absolutely no validity; indeed, the study may well still be valid”.
— Not in this case. This is obviously coming from someone who knows nothing about the Danish studies and why they are bogus. Ask Jonathan to help you out here.
Here’s the quote from Ken that prompted me to get more into the safety of thimerosal. Ken wrote:
” And don’t forget that these people also value the experiments that went into the development and early assessment of thimerosal”.
— I took his comment to mean that he actually thought that there were some experiments that went into the development and early assessment of thimerosal. So, I was pointing out the fact that there were no such studies. Did I misinterpret what he was saying?
-Sue M.
SueM
“David wrote:
“Oh, come on… grow upâ€!
—Coming from you that means… nothing. Have you looked at the foolishness that went on when John Best was around? Now that was childish.”
”
Um.
Yeh. So, I had a good time taking the piss out of him because he couldn’t be civil… so what? Coming from you, your comment means as much. As you might well know.
“—Not in this case. This is obviously coming from someone who knows nothing about the Danish studies and why they are bogus. Ask Jonathan to help you out here.”
Did I mention the Danish studies? I don’t think so. I was referring to studies generally. Did you not get that?
if not, why not?
I think SueM’s here to convert. Not to discuss.
David wrote:
“Did I mention the Danish studies? I don’t think so. I was referring to studies generally. Did you not get that”?
— Uh, David, no I didn’t get that because you started off by using my quote, which was:
“1) The epidemiological studies upon which the “scientists†base their decisions on are FLAWED. What is your feeling on that?â€
— I ASSUMED that you were answering my question in regards to epidemiological studies as they relate to thimerosal and autism. Was that too big of a leap for me to take? I’ll try to be more careful in the future.
Is it your bedtime yet, David? You seem a bit “off”.
-Sue M.
SueM:
“Was that too big of a leap for me to take? I’ll try to be more careful in the future.”
Yes. Do.
“—I ASSUMED that you were answering my question in regards to epidemiological studies as they relate to thimerosal and autism.”
I wrote this: Show me studies that are not in one way or another flawed! If a study is flawed, it does not necessarily mean that the study has absolutely no validity; indeed, the study may well still be valid. The apparent validity may well be lower, when the range is restricted (regarding the variables under investigation). But it may well still be valid.
At no point in there did I mention specific studies. You assume too much. Why?
“Is it your bedtime yet, David? You seem a bit “offâ€.”
Keep treating someone with obvious disrespect, and you’ll get ‘off’ answers. I suspect you know that. If you don’t, I suggest you might want to learn it now. You’ve had a seriously condescending attitude towards me since you said anything here, and you do it with everybody here. You wanna know why I might not reply all “yes, ma’am, no ma’am”? Because you don’t get that over me. So stop treating me as if you did.
The argument is getting stale; it’s like watching an expert ping-pong game — the ball goes back and forth, back and forth. I’m not seeeing that any real dialog is going on.
People just keep repeating themselves thinking that they only need to make things CLEAR enough, or DETAILED enough and the other person will see the rationality and henceforth agree.
Well, it’ isn’t going to happen, obviously. Everyone seems to be pretty sure of their stance, and their facts.
Time for something new, eh what, Kevin?
andrea
I’m spending time here, trying to find ways to explain to SueM why a study may be flawed but still retain validity. Why evidence needs to be properly researched… and why we have a protocol in scientific research to deal with that in order to reduce the risk of validation loss.
I am not commenting on specific studies here, just general issues, since one such issue seems to be bugging her about the Denmark studies. And I’m trying to be cautionary about writing something off in case one “throws baby out with bathwater”…. but it isn’t sinking in there.
Just about everyone I deal with in my work here in Finland gets that point.
And this is people whose first language isn’t English!
My serious question here: SueM… you’re pissing up my back and telling me it’s raining, aren’t you?
Frankly, I rather like it when David stays up late, as I enjoy reading his posts and it’s still really early my time . BTW, clone3g and Ken: I’ve really liked reading your well-reasoned replies … very informative and quite explanatory.
Oh, and btw, which was the study that found that those who’d rec’d the most Hg actually had the lowest incidence of ASDs? Recall that one clone3g?
hollywoodjaded: “Frankly, I rather like it when David stays up late, as I enjoy reading his posts and it’s still really early my time .”
Thank you.
Godwin and Nazis were invoked earlier in this thread. Could have been over right then but andrea is right.
David shame on you. You actually read my post. 😉
“I don’t think that Ken was actually claiming one way or t’other on that issue (safety). He was stating the likely point of view of a government scientist.”
g’nite
hollywoodjaded wrote:
“Oh, and btw, which was the study that found that those who’d rec’d the most Hg actually had the lowest incidence of ASDs? Recall that one clone3g”?
— Ha, ha, ha, ha … Now that is funny.
I’m done here for now. You guys are hilarious. Good luck to you all!
-Sue M.
Ken: “David shame on you. You actually read my post. ;-)”
*blush*
Yeh 😀
I do try to be well informed…
Say G’nite Gracie
Good night, Gracie!
andrea (old enough to remember Burns & Allen a little)
yo .. par-tay is over? ; ~ ] g’nitey
Sue, is your name Sue, or is your handle a riff on “sue them”?
You need not answer. Obviously. If I had to guess, who Sue is, I’d guess that she is the same person who made up the character “Ashleigh Anderson” who tried to pass him or herself off as a real person with that name.
Besides mentioning Hitler and Godwin’s law, things are getting bad when someone get’s accused of being a pharmco shill or when someone speculates on the real identity of someone else. For that, I must apologize.
Still, Sue M, take heart. At least you aren’t being accused of being a pharmco shill, out their making your “supposed” side look silly and sad before the public.
What I would like to know is: in the Danish study, they followed the population of children who got diagnosed with autism after they took the thimerosol out of the vaccines.
The rates went up (and Sue and the rest howl in rage; “The study was cooked of course the rates went “up” “) OK, so maybe the rates didn’t go up. But what you will never, ever answer is. Why didn’t the rates go down?
They haven’t gone down. Everyone seems to have the same rate worldwide, anyway (1 in 166). Sorry. Can’t change the fact that the usage of thimerosol is different world wide but everywhere they measure the rate of autism (using the same definition of autism), it’s the same.
Why is that so hard to understand? Thimerosol is not implicated. Notatol.
Hi Sue,
I have had a chance to carefully review the 26 studies.
Some have more merit than others. 14 can be considered observational research, of one type or another. 6 are opinion/testimonial pieces. 3 are pseudo-epidemiological meta-analyses, 1epidemiological study. 1 pre-experimental design testimonial and 1 review.
Epidemiology is my area of greatest knowledge. I have some serious points of concern re the 4 studies that ventured into this area from that list.
In addition, I am aware of criticisms of the other works presented in this list. In fact some of the best criticisms have been made by people who visit this list.
We can look at a study and find it to poorly designed. If that theory the poorly designed study supported was later proven to be fact, the study does not become legitimate. The study could have just as easily been a false-negative. Also, in poorly designed research (even when it turns out to be correct) it is hard to shake the suspicion of inadvertent bias or even unethical practice. This is one of the Dr. Wakefield will face an inquiry this summer.
I wouldn’t be the first researcher (well, learning to be one in my case) who learned to choke down an unpleasant truth. That is part of being a researcher. The first few times I proposed a study, I got shot down for a variety of reasons and my research design was criticized quite strongly. I have tried to learn to grow up and not take it personally. I have been told by another scientist that part of being a scientist is looking stupid sometimes. I guess that is where being responsible comes in. My point is, when the evidence is strong, most researchers (and me) don’t mind acknowledging a truth.
Same thing goes for my “sideâ€. I don’t think of it, as a “sideâ€. A theory either has strong research support or it doesn’t, that determines my view.
I also wanted to mention that you have it backwards on me explaining things to David. In practice it has been the opposite. If David criticizes one of my arguments (even very gently) it is an indication that I need to take some time out and rethink the issue. Ditto, for Michelle Dawson and a lot of other folks. Doesn’t mean I will agree after rethinking it, just means that I will take the time to really rethink it.
I am in error on the UK lacking thimerosal, I apologize for this error. It has been used in only 1 vaccine (the DTP) which was implemented in the fifties. I understand that the amount of thimerosal in that vaccine has never risen since it first implementation. The vaccinations schedule has been altered since that time and that was after the rise in the UK autism prevalence.
I do not know the answer to your flu shot question. I would assume that is does not contain mercury, as the only vaccination mentioned in UK that contains thimerosal is the DTP. You might have to dig a bit to find that answer.
I would agree that your questions were necessary. The Chakrabarti & Fombonne study used the same criteria over the years in this study. The criteria was the DSM-IV. They addressed all PPDs except for Rett’s, which is not typically included in the ASD epidemiology and the epidemiology for which is (a) hard to find and (b) stable over the decades at roughly 3 girls per 10,000.
That thoroughly gentlemanly gentleman: “I also wanted to mention that you have it backwards on me explaining things to David. In practice it has been the opposite. If David criticizes one of my arguments (even very gently) it is an indication that I need to take some time out and rethink the issue.”
(blush)
Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you.
Damn…. 13hrs6mins since my comment.
Is this the bit where the doctor comes to pronounce the thread dead?
sorta seems like some kinda ‘virtual last rites’ are in order first though . . . .
Interesting how quickly things die around here when “we” aren’t around… I suppose you guys like that. Have fun talking about nothing again.
-Sue M. (my real name is Sue and last initial is M. You guys sure are paranoid).
….it is like watching an expert ping-pong game but Sue is playing with a feather duster..
Stop, it tickles
At least I’m playing. You guys are standing there with your heads up your butts (with the exception of Jonathan) … Do some homework people. If your going to have a debate about if thimerosal plays a role in autism, the LEAST that you can do is read up on the other side of the argument. It is obvious (very obvious) that most of you have not done this.
-Sue M.
SueM: “You guys are standing there with your heads up your butts (with the exception of Jonathan)”
Hasn’t read his post yet, it seems…..
SueM: “If your going to have a debate about if thimerosal plays a role in autism, the LEAST that you can do is read up on the other side of the argument.”
Um…. you might wish to learn to read….. this thread *isn’t* about if thimerosal plays a role in autism. Others might be, but this one isn’t.
hollywoodjaded: “sorta seems like some kinda ‘virtual last rites’ are in order first though . . . ”
In nomine Patris, et Filis, et Spiritus Alcoholicus….. ” 😉
Sue M.,
Science is a self-correcting body of knowledge, and researchers expect to critique each other’s stuff. That’s the way it works. Just like editors edit writer’s stuff — that’s the way it works.
It’s NOT PERSONAL. When other scientists express doubts about someone’s research methods or findings or analysis, it’s not a mass plot to persecute them or a cover-up. As Johnathan says, every scientist expects others to review their stuff. That’s how it’s self-correcting. That’s why peer-review journals are more highly rated than editorial rags where anyone can get most anything printed.
andrea, a writer and a biological science researcher
As I said before, go back to talking about nothing…
Sue M, a mom with some common sense… jeesh…
in my above post, I was talking specifically to SueM… not to Andrea, who is a very good friend.
SueM: “As I said before, go back to talking about nothing…
Sue M, a mom with some common sense… jeesh…”
Why are you here then?
Can’t stay away????
If this ‘nothing’ is your only entertainment, you have a very sad life.
I don’t mind debate, but I do not like disparagement. Critique I can get anytime… from Jonathan, from Glenys (my supervisor at Uni), and a number of people who read what I write; the only people whom I have ever had attack me ad hominem fashion are the ABA-Autism-Industry lot and the Mercury-Mum/Dad lot.
Um…. not the most scientifically aware lot, from what I have managed to read.
Good question David. Why are you here Sue?