It must be true – Quincy Jones never lies after all.
Change comes to us all – for some of us it means radically rethinking what we once believed to be true and for some of us it might mean rethinking something that has brought us fame and adulation.
For those that don’t know him Citizen Cain is a blogger who challenged David Kirby’s interpretation of the numbers as they related to a rise/fall in the rate of autism. Kirby claimed that the rate was falling. Citizen Cain showed him why and where he was wrong.
And for the first time, Kirby responded.
Understandably, Kirby doesn’t seem interested in mucking around in the data with me too extensively, or in answering my detailed questions. But in an e-mail, he did address the key point, and concede that “if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis.†He also conceded that total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.
I suggest at this point you go and read the rest of Citizen Cain’s post from which I quote above. The links to the associated posts where he discusses his email correspondence with David Kirby are on that page too.
But lets reiterate. Kirby is not only admitting that if the _total cases_ of autism doesn’t fall then the jig is up, he’s also admitting that up until now his interpretation (and the source for that interpretation – one Rick Rollens) is wrong. Why? Because as he admits after Citizen Cain showed him his errors, whats important is the _total cases_ *not* changes in the rate.
After I read Citizen Cains latest post, I had a little niggle at the back of my head – something Kirby had said this year. So I checked my references and there it was. In an interview with the New York Times, Kirby said:
Because autism is usually diagnosed sometime between a child’s third and fourth birthdays and thimerosal was largely removed from childhood vaccines in 2001, the incidence of autism should fall this year.
*This* year. Not 2007. Why has Kirby added on 2 years to his interview? This interview with the NYT was conducted before Kirby’s admittance that it was the total case amount that was important not the rate change but thats the only real difference in the two statements. Now maybe I’m missing something but what are the extra two years for?
As far as I can see, when one takes the admittance Kirby issued to Citizen Cain and applies the same criteria to it then it should be the end of *this year* that we should see changes. Big changes.
Everything must change. We have 26 days before we know whether that change is something that I and a lot of others have to address or whether its something David Kirby and his followers have to address.
Left Brain Right Brain 
WR: “what *some* call the absence of scientific proof”
The “some” including all the scientists whose work was used misleadingly in the GR NYT ad.
It *is* a very strongly notable absence of evidence of a link between autism and any mercury compound.
The “some†including all the scientists whose work was used misleadingly in the GR NYT ad.
That was one study and I think they knew that they had to do a little bit of back peddling. Universities that they work for would feel the pinch from big pharma if their scientists are going to be associated with Generation Rescue and mercury poisoning from vaccines.
It is a very strongly notable absence of evidence of a link between autism and any mercury compound.
If Not Mercury Than What ?
777-300 can’t find a single scientific reference to back his claims up, can he?
I have sighted many here and on Diva’s blog. Look them up.
777-300: That was one study and I think they knew that they had to do a little bit of back peddling. Universities that they work for would feel the pinch from big pharma if their scientists are going to be associated with Generation Rescue and mercury poisoning from vaccines.
The letter was signed by several scientists involved with at least four of the studies cited in the GR ad. There was at least one other citation removed before the ad ran and there may have been other objections had the authors enjoyed advanced notice. There wasn’t any “Back peddling” because their research doesn’t support a role for mercury. Nothing to back peddle away from. It’s the interpretations that raised objections.
If you have cited a single scientific reference to back your claims, they haven’t been sighted around here. Would you mind posting them again?
“That was one study and I think they knew that they had to do a little bit of back peddling. Universities that they work for would feel the pinch from big pharma if their scientists are going to be associated with Generation Rescue and mercury poisoning from vaccines.”
They must have seen the van too.
This is where I give you references and you discredit the authors or label it as junk science but I will give it a go one more time.
Stand by for some references. I am trying to potty train my 4 year old mercury poisoned son in between these postings. I hope my references go over better than his potty training.
Stand by, references on the way soon…
777-300: “This is where I give you references and you discredit the authors or label it as junk science…”
If it hasn’t been subjected to peer review, and doesn’t fall within the protocols accepted as scientific method, then by definition it *is* junk science! That’s not my name for it, nor Kev’s, nor MsC’s, nor Andrea’s…. junk science is that which falls outwith the protocols involved in generating reliable and valid results from experiment or from correlation studies. I don’t care if it’s a case of “we did this, and this happened”… if that can’t be reproduced, it isn’t science. Sorry, but that is how science works. I didn’t make that rule up. So don’t have a go at me because I can’t accept shite as science.
I just had a row off my wee sis, because she thinks she knows more about the science than I do. The fact that I am an autism-specialist psychologist has fuck all meaning for her. Her son is autistic because of MMR, she said; and this is news to me, cos she never said so when I last saw her. But I saw the stuff written, and was okay… this may be so, but let’s see how it pans out. The MMR theory went tits up and landed the Lancet in serious shite, and that pillock Wakefield in deep shite with the GMC… the things that bedevil bought science, eh?
But I know nothing.
I hope your kid’s potty training goes better than my professional training seems to have gone. between them, my wee sis and Michelle Dawson could put a fucking quick end to my career in psychology.
I’m at the fuck-em point, 777-300, so pay no mind to me. I know nothing.
I’m autistic. I can’t know anything.
This is a waste of time. 777 linked to the patsullivan blog which kindly provides us a link to the sources. See it for yourself here.
777 – given my experience in dealing with that issue, I’d say working with your son is far more important than spamming these links.
I’ll be over in the science forum.
TripleSev300,
I am familiar with the polio vaccine association with cancer mentioned in your “vaccines are safe” comment.
Did you read about this study?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050509211018.htm
Most of my references are to Boyd Haley or the Geiers.
Some references:
Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Thimerosal-Containing Childhood Immunizations: A Follow-Up Analysis
Mercury in vaccines and potential conflicts of interest
Speaking of conflicts of interest, one of the bloggers here works for Rockefeller University. This university receives funding from big pharma and a lot of their graduates go to work for big pharma. I am not trying to make trouble but I think that needed to be pointed out. Go to the Rockefeller link, look what they’re working on, a new flu vaccine. Why? On average somewhere between 200 and 700 people die from influenza in this country each year.
An evaluation of serious neurological disorders following immunization: a comparison of whole-cell pertussis and acellular pertussis vaccines.
A two-phased population epidemiological study of the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a follow-up analysis.
Eli Lilly and Thimerosal. Come on, I had to throw in one reference from a journalist! Good article. Read the comments if you get a chance, I know not very scientific.
Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal
Last link is to the flu scare game. If you go down to the third paragraph and click on the “Deaths: Final Data for 2001” link, you will see the actual deaths due to influenza in 2001 from the CDC on page 31 of the 116 page PDF. It takes forever to load but the stat is there. I have a Pentium 4 with 512 ram and it almost brings my computer to it’s knees so depending on your OS it might not come up but John Keller gives you the info in that third paragraph anyway.
If you want me to provide a reference to something specific that I said recently that is not here, just ask.
I am not an expert on any of this. I am a Teamster and this is what I do for a living. Read “What is a Capacity Yard Truck” on the right side of the page. Not a big surprise considering my spelling and communication skills right? I know I am in over my head when it comes to trying to debate some of you that are scientists. I will admit that sometimes I try to come across as knowing more than I really do. I am just the father of a child diagnosed with autism and I never stop researching. Except for a few pee (potty training I mentioned earlier) accidents that I missed this afternoon while doing this, my son is getting better now through chelation and it’s all good! I’ve found out everything I know on this subject by going to autism conferences, books, and internet searches. My son is getting better now through chelation and it’s all good! I don’t want to have a pissing contest with any of you, pun intended!
There is no roadmap for this disorder. We pretty much found out you’re on your own when autism strikes your family. In my opinion, because the government doesn’t want to admit they were wrong about vaccines. Take a look at the conflicts of interest everywhere you turn. Chelation is the road we choose, and it’s working!
I know those of you that are scientists would rather be spared my personal story but I just thought it would help you know where I am coming from.
As I said earlier “it’s all good” now!
I posted some references just like I said I would but I must have had too many links because it’s gone.
Sev, why didn’t you answer my questions?
It’s not that hard, is it?
Did you address some questions to me Sotek?
I posted a very long response here today to clone3g and others that were asking for my references, but it was deleted or something because it’s gone.
Might have had to many links, or there may be other reasons that you will soon find out about.
Hi TripleSev300,
I just stumbled across one of your earlier posts.
I quote:
“twenty six (26) drug companies began, and originally funded, the current “quackbuster,†operation. For several years the “quackbusters,†were successful. Today, the “quackbusters,†those you see, are a motley lot, led, they would have you believe, by failed MD Stephen Barrett through his boring, and repetitive, “quackwatch.com†website. “Quackwatch. com†is the quackbuster’s “bible.†On that site, and their dubious “web-ring†you’ll find a condemnation of anything, and everything, that competes with the use of drugs, drugs, and more drugs.
Run out of a New York ad agency, the “quackbusters,†are one of Big Pharma’s tools, in the war between “health and medicine.â€
So, we have multiple ad hominem attacks (motley lot; failed MD Stephen Barrett ) several arguments from emotion which are completely irrelavent as to the veracity of
Dr. Barrett’s statements (through his boring, and repetitive, “quackwatch.com†website). Then we get to the false-equations (you’ll find a condemnation of anything, and everything, that competes with the use of drugs, drugs, and more drugs; the “quackbusters,†are one of Big Pharma’s tools, in the war between “health
and medicine.â€)
I would like to propose that maybe the authors of that statement should offer us something that is (a) logical (b) substantiated. I would like to respectfully further propose that you cite sources that are have these qualities.
Sev: Yes, I did address something to you.
I quoted some of your text, then asked two questions.
This is normally considered to be a question to the individual quoted, unless otherwise stated.
And okay, you missed it once. You couldn’t find it after I told you that it was there? All you have to do is search the page for “Sotek”. I don’t make all that many posts.
But for your convenience, here they are again:
1) What is the annual profit made by the pharmaceutical industry off of vaccines?
2) Why would the medical establishment want to suppress anything? That is – what do they have to gain?
I’ll make an addendum to #2 – when I say “medical establishment”, I refer to doctors, the AMA, etcetra. Basically, everything BUT the pharamecutical industry.
But I am including the insurance industry, who achieve the best profit from reducing medical costs while simultaneously maintaining or increasing premiums.
2) Drug manufacturers are major grant-makers and funders of medical schools. Pharmaceutical interests control medical research, and have brought entire health professions in their direct dependency. Increasingly, health care decisions in the USA are being mandated by small cadres of “specialists” who decide whether this or that medication will be made legal and available to the American public. Where scientific evidence once was the criteria for extended use of a new medication, such decisions are today being made more on the basis of the profits which can be made from a particular medication — too many of the top physician-bureaucrats working in the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), American Cancer Society (ACS), etc. are themselves often drug-company millionaires, with personal stock holdings or investments in the companies whom they regulate. Drug companies provide large sums to political campaigns so as to definitively influence legislation, and to various medical institutes, to “research” their products. Their full-page color advertisements for new drugs in medical journals essentially pay for those publications. Additionally, nearly every major medical organization and medical society in the USA, to include many governmental agencies like the FDA, NIH, and ACS, expend significant sums of money each year to fund unfactual, even slanderous propaganda against relatively inexpensive natural healing methods, which might otherwise substitute for the expensive and often toxic medications and surgical procedures pushed by the medical-pharmaceutical cartel. “Quack-busting” groups, such as the National Council Against Health Fraud, team up with various medical societies, licensing boards, and the FDA to efficiently snoop upon and “police” the medical community, making sure that only the most orthodox medical treatments will prevail.
Sotek,
What is the annual profit made by the pharmaceutical industry off of vaccines?
1) The latest figures I could find for this was 2001. Overall profits of Fortune 500 companies declined by 53% in 2001, while the top 10 US drug makers increased profits by 32% from $28bn to $37bn, according to Public Citizen’s analysis of the Fortune 500 data. Together the 10 drug companies in the list had the greatest return on revenues, reporting a profit of 18.5 cents for every dollar of sales, eight times higher than the median for all Fortune 500 industries, which was 2.2 cents.
Why would the medical establishment want to suppress anything? That is – what do they have to gain?
I’ll make an addendum to #2 – when I say “medical establishmentâ€, I refer to doctors, the AMA, etcetra. Basically, everything BUT the pharamecutical industry.
2) Increasingly, health care decisions in the USA are being mandated by small cadres of “specialists” who decide whether this or that medication will be made legal and available to the American public. Where scientific evidence once was the criteria for extended use of a new medication, such decisions are today being made more on the basis of the profits which can be made from a particular medication — too many of the top physician-bureaucrats working in the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), American Cancer Society (ACS), etc. are themselves often drug-company millionaires, with personal stock holdings or investments in the companies whom they regulate. Drug companies provide large sums to political campaigns so as to definitively influence legislation, and to various medical institutes, to “research” their products. Their full-page color advertisements for new drugs in medical journals essentially pay for those publications. Drug manufacturers are major grant-makers and funders of medical schools. They are integrally involved in the training of an entire generation of doctors, what else do you expect these doctors to tell you is the only way to treat disease?
Additionally, nearly every major medical organization and medical society in the USA, to include many governmental agencies like the FDA, NIH, and ACS, expend significant sums of money each year to fund unfactual, even slanderous propaganda against relatively inexpensive natural healing methods, which might otherwise substitute for the expensive and often toxic medications and surgical procedures pushed by the medical-pharmaceutical cartel. “Quack-busting” groups, such as the National Council Against Health Fraud, team up with various medical societies, licensing boards, and the FDA to efficiently snoop upon and “police” the medical community, making sure that only the most orthodox medical treatments will prevail.
Sotek,
1) What is the annual profit made by the pharmaceutical industry off of vaccines?
The latest figures that I could find are from 2001. Overall profits of Fortune 500 companies declined by 53% in 2001, while the top 10 US drug makers increased profits by 32% from $28bn (20bn; 31bn) to $37bn, according to Public Citizen’s analysis of the Fortune 500 data. Together the 10 drug companies in the list had the greatest return on revenues, reporting a profit of 18.5 cents for every dollar of sales, eight times higher than the median for all Fortune 500 industries, which was 2.2 cents.
2) Why would the medical establishment want to suppress anything? That is – what do they have to gain?
I’ll make an addendum to #2 – when I say “medical establishmentâ€, I refer to doctors, the AMA, etcetra. Basically, everything BUT the pharamecutical industry.
Increasingly, health care decisions in the USA are being mandated by small cadres of “specialists” who decide whether this or that medication will be made legal and available to the American public. Where scientific evidence once was the criteria for extended use of a new medication, such decisions are today being made more on the basis of the profits which can be made from a particular medication — too many of the top physician-bureaucrats working in the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), American Cancer Society (ACS), etc. are themselves often drug-company millionaires, with personal stock holdings or investments in the companies whom they regulate. Drug companies provide large sums to political campaigns so as to definitively influence legislation, and to various medical institutes, to “research” their products. Their full-page color advertisements for new drugs in medical journals essentially pay for those publications. Drug manufacturers are major grant-makers and funders of medical schools. They are integrally involved in the training of an entire generation of doctors, what else do you expect these doctors to tell you is the only way to treat disease. Continued…
I also asked this in regard to the Quackwatch site a few days ago:
“The Quackwatch.org site actually has verifiable references, unlike the whale.to site (which often has misinterpreted and OUTdated references). Please list ONE quackwatch.org site that is deliberately misleading, including the misleading references. Please.”
So far there has been no response.
By the way, I know that Quackwatch is considered a “bad” site by lots of folks. So what I have been known to do is check out a subject there, and then actually use the references that are at the bottom of each paper.
777-300: Most of my references are to Boyd Haley or the Geiers.
I know you don’t want to hear why some may see those as dubious sources but perhaps you will consider a few references from more mainstream publications. Are you familiar with Medlin at all?
http://medlineplus.gov/
Oops, of course I meant Medline
quote 777-300
“….too many of the top physician-bureaucrats working in the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), American Cancer Society (ACS), etc. are themselves often drug-company millionaires, with personal stock holdings or investments in the companies whom they regulate…”
NIH scientists sue to keep drug stocks
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050421-07084800-bc-us-nih.xml
Does anyone know if the Assembly of Scientists who challenged the new conflict- of -interest rules were allowed to keep industry-related stocks?
Does anyone know if the Assembly of Scientists who challenged the new conflict- of interest rules were allowed to keep industry related stocks?
Sev: Well, you’ve provided a reasonable answer for #2.
Unfortunately, you avoided #1 so thoroughly that your entire argument goes down in flames.
I did not ask how much the pharmaceutical industry makes off of drugs – indeed, I think there’s plenty of shenanigans going on.
I asked how much they make off of VACCINES. If your only answer is overall profits, then you ignore the question of why they’d WANT to lie to sell vaccines.
Hn,
Watching The Quacker
Hn,
Watching The Quacker
I screwed up the link the first time.
Wouldn’t have mattered anyways….. I get nothing from that link. But the site looks like an alternative medicine site until you read the intro-page….
“In a report based on erroneous assumptions and discredited references, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) has called for amendments to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). See why this is still a serious threat to our freedom to choose a natural alternative to healthcare.”
This gives the whole thing away, doesn’t it?
Under science…. not a single scientific paper! In anecdotes… quite a few.
Their visitor feedback site has no submit button! That is not a sign of a site that wants to help and respond to issues… it’s purely a bullshit merchant’s propaganda site. The survey page has a submit button, but the feedback one doesn’t.
I was going to leave this comment: “Get real.
Medicine is far from perfect. True. I won’t argue with that. But your ideas here aren’t even good enough to be wrong!
For example…
Aromatherapy has its place in healthcare. The lovely smells help to create an environment in which someone can feel relaxed and pampered (which is not actually a bad thing).
Aromatherapy will not, however, miraculously cure a depression, whether that depression is a recent reactive phenomenon or based on a deep-seated issue going back years. I also have reservations about the use of pharmaceuticals. But that is reservations, not (as your site seems to wish to propagate) an all out phobia of them.
This site is knee-jeck reaction stuff, presented with emotive language, and having little or no actual substance.
Did I hear a duck when I looked into this site?”
I have no choice but to leave it here since a very stupid aeroplane left the link here.
What a bag of shite!
TripleSev300,
I just got done reading “Watching the Quackerâ€.
I find personal attacks, strawmen, red herrings, false equations, and emotive accusations. These cover the major points in that PDF.
I suggest that you only cite arguments that have some sort of merit (This being the second time I have suggested this). “Watching the Quacker†is not an example of an argument with merit.
I like Jonathan’s stuff.
Always have.
Reckon I always might 🙂
I couldn’t even get the file for that WtQ…. but looks as if it’s a good fuckin job.
777-300, best ye find better refs.
Otherwise you’ll continue to look a fair aul’ prick, an’ nae worries.
(Juomassa Karhuolutta 8%:ia… loistavaa kaljaa…. mahdollisesti Suomen parasta!)
Thanks for the suggestions Jonathan, I will keep those in mind. Can I give you one?
Stop terrorizing children with ABA!
Maybe he was unclear to the question:
“The Quackwatch.org site actually has verifiable references, unlike the whale.to site (which often has misinterpreted and OUTdated references). Please list ONE quackwatch.org site that is deliberately misleading, including the misleading references. Please.â€
I did NOT ask to find a website crititizing Quackwatch (also please note that lawsuits don’t count as references).
I meant that you take one article on the Quackwatch site and explain how it is wrong and give GOOD references to why – _in your own words_. References from qualified people, people who have actual training to comment on the subject. For instance: Don’t use references from a veternarian about a article on human medicine.
TripleSev300,
You may give me a suggestion if you like. I have learned quite a bit from people being critical (and rationale).
You write “Stop terrorizing children with ABA!”.
Tu Quoque?
When someone offers criticism there are a couple of ways to respond to it.
(a) Scour it for merit and concede the point (or make a logical rebuttel).
(b) Ignore it/walk away
(c) Toss out some ad hominem or Tu quoque attacks.
My criticisms were legitimate and attacked your citations/logic not your character.
You selected to attack my character and I am calling you on it. This is not okay and ultimately it harms you more than it ever does me.
With that in mind, what will you select (a) (b) or (c)……
HN,
I know what you asked for. I don’t care what you asked for.
Stephen Barrett is the quack!
The End
Jonathan,
Are you trying behavioural psychology on me?
I choose (d). None of the above.
I bet I don’t get my reward now.
Triplesev300 – I wouldn’t get that sort of repsonse from my 13 year old son. Did you come on here to argue your case or to make noise? If the former then step up. If the latter then I think you can probably find better uses of your time don’t you?
TripleSev300,
No, I am not using behavior analysis to try to get you to stop making personal attacks.
You did not choose (d) you choose to red herring the issue. You ran away, so you selected (b).
So, to echo Kev; do you have something of relevance for us? Or should we expect more of (b) and (c )?
TripleSev300,
As someone on “your side”, do yourself a favor and don’t waste too much time here. I regret it. All you will get is talk of strawmen, red herring, ad hominem, etc. (foolishness). They are really not interested in hearing what we have to say. It’s one thing to disagree and discuss it’s another to just be completely closed-minded and RUDE. I still check in once in a while to see what’s going on – but that’s about it. That’s pretty much the same for many of us. It’s a shame, really.
-Sue M.
_”They are really not interested in hearing what we have to say”_
On the contrary Sue. I’m very much interested in what you have to say. I’d love to read a cogent argument that thiomersal or MMR = autism or a good explanation as to what ‘your side’ thinks about Kirby’s boundries. They never seem forthcoming though and said arguments always seem to dissolve into frantic rants (Ã la Evelyn Pringle) about the evils of vaccines.
I find it interesting how desperate you are to appear blasé about how little what we say or do matters and yet you feel the need to comment publicly – that bit of reassurance of seeing it in ‘blackk and white’ really matters eh Sue? – the fact that you left a comment to say how little you cared about commenting is both amusing and revealing.
Kev –
As you can see, I was actually posting to TripleSev300. If there was a way to have done that privately, I would have. I just feel as if I wasted a lot of time here trying to present some information to this group, and from what I can tell, the group is not very interested in discussion, it is more interested in attacking. I was attempting to save TripleSev300 some grief. This is not necessarily a slam against this group. I understand that if you (or anyone from here) were to post on the EOH group the attacks would have been from “our side” towards you. I guess it’s just the nature of the discussion. That’s why I wrote that I believe it’s a shame. A shame that people can’t discuss without insults and foolishness coming out of it. That’s all. This group could do some good, but it quickly turns people off who have dissenting views (as does the EOH group).
-Sue M.
Hi Sue,
You have made a public statement. It will be commented on.
When one makes a point, whether one is a parent, a child, a teenager, a lawyer, or a researcher, the burden falls on them to make sure it has merit. Merit is established by ethics, accuracy, and logic. In my observation, one without the other is generally worthless. To leave out any one of these is irresponsible and will likely lead to someone getting hurt.
To state that it is foolish of us to have problems with those who misrepresent someone else’s argument (straw man) just dumbfounds me. The same is true for name calling which would have gotten any of us in trouble in debate class in middle school. There is a reason for that, and the reason is, it has no merit, and doesn’t establish truth.
I have listened politely to what was said Sue, by both yourself and TripleSev300. I have read the articles, books, and PDFs, that were recommended. I have thought about them carefully and critically. I have critiqued them or admitted them to have merit when applicable.
I am not convinced that all of your arguments have much merit (same for TripleSev300), for the exact reasons you can go and read my posts.
Is that frustrating or discouraging to you?
Maybe this will help. Let me present a true dilemma: Some people who visit this blog have found problems with certain statements in the autism world. The potential harm genuinely scares us. Would you like us to:
1) Keep quite and not mention things that are potentially dangerous or false.
2) Present our problems and debate the issues.
To be open minded, only means one is not an absolutist. It doesn’t mean one can not take a stance, please, keep that in mind.
Sue M.,
You’re right, this is a waste of time. You’re also right about the “RUDE” thing. I have given up valuable time to just go round and round in circles here. Some of you are on this blog and several others 24 hours a day 7 days a week and it’s really sad. If they only applied this much time and effort in getting to the bottom of what autism is really about.
Jonathan asked,
So, to echo Kev; do you have something of relevance for us? Or should we expect more of (b) and (c )?
Go back and read all the relavence I presented. You didn’t bring a substantial argument on any of it, and I hit it out of the park when I answered question number 2) Why would the medical establishment want to suppress anything? That is – what do they have to gain?
Go back and read that!
Hi TripleSev300,
You write “If they only applied this much time and effort in getting to the bottom of what autism is really about.â€
Tu quoque? I am also counting this as a hit for the illogical argument number two, which I delineated yesterday on “A Fertile Breeding Ground†post.
Some of us spend our days working in research (yes on autism) we spend what would be our down time online to discuss/debate/learn more. Please remember we are not all in the same time zone as well.
You will be pleased to know I read all of your posts and links the same day you posted them. I did take the time to go back and read them again just now.
You say that my points were not substantial; I would be interested to know why they lacked merit?
I will offer critique of your answer to question number 2.
“Increasingly, health care decisions in the USA are being mandated by small cadres of “specialists†who decide whether this or that medication will be made legal and available to the American public. Where scientific evidence once was the criteria for extended use of a new medication, such decisions are today being made more on the basis of the profits which can be made from a particular medication—too many of the top physician-bureaucrats working in the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), American Cancer Society (ACS), etc. are themselves often drug-company millionaires, with personal stock holdings or investments in the companies whom they regulate. Drug companies provide large sums to political campaigns so as to definitively influence legislation, and to various medical institutes, to “research†their products. Their full-page color advertisements for new drugs in medical journals essentially pay for those publications. Drug manufacturers are major grant-makers and funders of medical schools. They are integrally involved in the training of an entire generation of doctors, what else do you expect these doctors to tell you is the only way to treat disease?â€
Okay, this totally violates the principle of charity. This states that one should attack the strongest possible from of an opponents position. This excludes attacks on potential motive. This is done because such arguments do not address points of logic.
The final sentence was a false-equation. There are numerous other reasons why a doctor may focus on allopathic medicine.
Why, oh why, are you citing articles that seem to be one long personal attack? There is no merit to this, this is not logical. This doesn’t prove your point. It answers the question that was addressed to you, but this isn’t a logical answer. I can’t supress this feeling that at some point, somone has mentioned this to you before. I hope I am wrong about that.
I notice too, that you quoted this without crediting the author. That really isn’t a particularly ethical practice.
The author is Dr. James DeMeo, Director of Research, Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory.
He has a site here http://www.orgonelab.org/
Please everyone read it and draw your own conclusions.
Okay, well then on to the second quote:
“Additionally, nearly every major medical organization and medical society in the USA, to include many governmental agencies like the FDA, NIH, and ACS, expend significant sums of money each year to fund unfactual, even slanderous propaganda against relatively inexpensive natural healing methods, which might otherwise substitute for the expensive and often toxic medications and surgical procedures pushed by the medical-pharmaceutical cartel. “Quack-busting†groups, such as the National Council Against Health Fraud, team up with various medical societies, licensing boards, and the FDA to efficiently snoop upon and “police†the medical community, making sure that only the most orthodox medical treatments will prevail.â€
Okay, we have a more lack of charity. We have accusations of the FDA doing their legitimate job. If orthodox means “scientifically provenâ€, then I am on board.
So, what it the merit of this? Can you explain it, I don’t see it?
You borrowed this from Russell L. Blaylock, by the way.
He is pretty sure that autism and ADHD is caused by “excitotoxins†like what is found in
glutamate and aspartate. So, diet soda causes autism.
Yes, TripleSev300, you hit it out of the park with this. It is a shame we were playing basketball.
Here, I fixed it for you: “I [tried to bunt but missed]
hit it out of the parkwhen I answered question number 2”Here we go again with the same old tired nonsense: ‘No academic scientist should ever consult for a for-profit company. Let’s not let the best minds in the world help make medicines better.’ Maybe it’d be better if some venture capitalist MBA type was the chief scienctific advisor for these companies. Now that’s the recipe for scientific competence and compassion. Will we feel better if only Donald Trump and Jack Welch wannabes steer the development of new drugs?
Nope.
Sev: The fact you provide a motive for people to lie is not enough.
I asked TWO questions, and you ignored the first one, answering a completely different question instead.
You said how much money the pharmaceutical industry makes. Okay.
BUT THAT IS NOT HOW MUCH THEY MAKE OFF OF VACCINES.
You have presented no reason to believe the healthcare establishment would like about the efficacy of vaccination, because you have not yet established that they would make a profit by doing so.