 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2005Autism epidemics: beginning of the end?
From AP (http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.17663.html): ----------------------------------------------------------- The number of new cases of autism in California has fallen for the first time in more than 10 years in what may be a bellwether for autism rates nationwide, according to new data compiled by the state Department of Developmental Services. The total number of autistic children receiving special education services from the state continues to grow - bringing the current total to 28,046 - but the rate of increase peaked in 2002 and has dropped slightly since then. California has the best reporting system for autism in the United States because it guarantees special education services for autistic children. Because of its tracking system, the state is generally considered a predictor of what is to come for the rest of the country. Experts said, however, that they don't know what's causing the numbers to fall off. "Perhaps whatever caused (the number of cases) to go up ... is no longer present," said Dr. Robert Hendren, executive director of the University of California, Davis MIND Institute, which researches neurodevelopmental disorders. "It's all speculation. I wish we had good studies." Parent activist Rick Rollens of Sacramento, who played a key role in the creation of the MIND Institute, said that the trend roughly corresponds to the removal of mercury preservatives from pediatric vaccines. Many activist groups say that the use of mercury in the vaccines caused the sudden increase in autism cases. Federal scientists, however, have continually said that the evidence does not support such a link. The state data do not include children under the age of 3. About 90 percent of all autistic children are entered into the system before the age of 6, the department said. According to the state data, 2002 was a record year for new autism diagnoses, with 3,259 cases. In 2003, the number of new cases slipped to 3,125. In 2004, the number was 3,074. -------------------- end of AP story ------------------------ So... Thimerosal exposure up, autism rates go through the roof. Thimerosal out, autism rates down. The use of thimerosal was gradually declining since it was removed from the US distribution in 2001. Now we see the autism rates for children age 3 and up beginning to decline as well. Just as expected. And those who poisoned the children for years will not get even a slap on the wrist. http://www.geocities.com/autistry/epidemic.html > http://www.geocities.Quack quack >> http://www.geocities.Quack quack >From: jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) >Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> I have never snipped to change the meaning. >> I don't play nonsense games, rather I am straight forward. Poor Jan. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>> http://www.geocities.Quack quack > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Rich LOL... she changed the name of the website which showed a very amusing poster to something else! I wonder what she things of http://vaccinealiens.org/ ? <snip> ><snip> The dishonesty and hypocrisy of Jan Drew comes out in bold relief. Jan Drew is unable to explain how she can say she never snips to change meaning when I posted one of her posts that does just that. So she simply snips my response. Jan Drew cannot use the excuse that she did not read my post. Soon she will say that I am kill filed so she can use that excuse. But she will not kill file me. She will read every post I make and then when someone else responds to it, she will use that opportunity to attack me. Her behavior is very predictable. Aloha, Rich PS: Cue Jan to start a new thread gratuitously attacking me. Just watch. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>http://www.geocities.Quack quack >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I wonder what she things of http://vaccinealiens.org/ ? Yes, she *things* as there is no evidence she *THINKS*. ...>> >> I wonder what she things of http://vaccinealiens.org/ ? > > Yes, she *things* as there is no evidence she *THINKS*. AAAGH... stupid typo. But it is kind of appropriate. > http://www.geocities.com/autis try/epidemic.html It is a couple of stupid cartoons poking fun at those who states that there is a drastic increase of autism prevalence. When you cannot argue with a message you poke fun at the messenger. Apparently there are no better arguments. And there is a link to a quackwatch article. The author tries to dismiss the data of Dept of Ed about autism. He does not say autism is not on the rise, just that USDE data is not reliable. He says the numbers are different for different states though the graphs unequivocally show the steep increase in every state. Looks like obfuscation. Here is a prediction. From now on, all the reports across the US will show decline of new autism diagnoses. In one year, they will decline by 40% or more; in 3 years, by 90%. No hypotheses other than thimerosal will be credible any more. "Awareness" theory will not be able to explain the coming drop, neither will "mercury in the environment". So what will the deniers be saying? Easy to predict, too: it will be "The cause is impossible to determine, why waste our time trying to find it, don't we have urgent needs? Let's concentrate on helping those affected" (not at the expense of vaccine makers of course). >> http://www.geocities.com/autis try/epidemic.html > > It is a couple of stupid cartoons poking fun at those who states Drawn by an austistic. > that there is a drastic increase of autism prevalence. > When you cannot argue with a message you poke fun at the messenger. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to find it, don't we have urgent needs? Let's concentrate on helping those > affected" (not at the expense of vaccine makers of course). >Here is a prediction. From now on, all the reports across >the US will show decline of new autism diagnoses. In one year, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to find it, don't we have urgent needs? Let's concentrate on helping those >affected" (not at the expense of vaccine makers of course). OK, mike, here's a proposition for you -- I'll bet you US$100 that in three years, autism rates will have either climbed or have declined less than 10% overall. Put your money where your mouth is. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe The Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns." -- Steve Martin >>Here is a prediction. From now on, all the reports across >>the US will show decline of new autism diagnoses. In one year, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > three years, autism rates will have either climbed or have declined > less than 10% overall. Put your money where your mouth is. Fine, how can I do it? If Wall Street were selling such kind of options I would buy much more than $100. Just in case: I mean the rates of new diagnoses if it is not clear. How do we go about it? Last but not least: these days, you never know who your next employer might be; sometimes there are layoffs and the only offer comes from a drug company, so I do not want to reveal my name publicly. Any proposals on how to proceed? >>Here is a prediction. From now on, all the reports across >>the US will show decline of new autism diagnoses. In one year, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > three years, autism rates will have either climbed or have declined > less than 10% overall. Put your money where your mouth is. Any proposals on how to proceed with that? A written agreement, notarized or what? How can I make sure you will pay? Are you interested in ensuring my payment? Just in case: a) I mean autism rates in the USA, not elsewhere. b) I mean the rate of new diagnoses if this was not clear. Those who have been already diagnosed with autism will remain autistic. >> In article <pan.2005.07.15.04.45.25.117705@xyz.com>, mike ><xyz@xyz.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >b) I mean the rate of new diagnoses if this was not clear. >Those who have been already diagnosed with autism will remain autistic. I was assuming that was your meaning. And as for payment, shucks, just drop me a line. You have no guarantee I'd pay up, of course, but then I don't have one for you, either. If you're willing to announce here on m.h.a that you accept the wager, that's good enough for me. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe The Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns." -- Steve Martin "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message >>> OK, mike, here's a proposition for you -- I'll bet you US$100 that in >>> three years, autism rates will have either climbed or have declined [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > then I don't have one for you, either. If you're willing to announce > here on m.h.a that you accept the wager, that's good enough for me. I'm in for a hundred as well. A public wager is a legally binding contract. And the thing wagered on should be unambiguous. You might want to agree on a source for the stats. moo >"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message >>>> OK, mike, here's a proposition for you -- I'll bet you US$100 that in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >And the thing wagered on should be unambiguous. You might want to agree on >a source for the stats. Mike has remained curiously silent about this wager. One wonders why. Does he lack the courage of his convictions? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message >>I'm in for a hundred as well. A public wager is a legally binding >>contract. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Mike has remained curiously silent about this wager. One wonders > why. Does he lack the courage of his convictions? I asked Randi why he doesn't use the ready resources to make it two million. He said that the point works well enough at a million. I could go in for a grand on this. And I considered it. But this loser has been effectively shut up by our beer money. And that was the point. Non? le m3 > "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message >>>I'm in for a hundred as well. A public wager is a legally binding [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Mike has remained curiously silent about this wager. One wonders >> why. Does he lack the courage of his convictions? My news server does not get all the postings; and gets some posting with delays. So I did not know about this "public wager" until today. Now: I do not to disclose my identity to the members of "ratbags posse team". Having one's name on the Usenet in a certain context may jeopardize one's employment, current or future. "mike" <xyz@xyz.com> wrote in >> "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message >>>>I'm in for a hundred as well. A public wager is a legally binding [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > team". Having one's name on the Usenet in a certain context may jeopardize > one's employment, current or future. Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about yourself? I'm happy to send my money any place you like if you win. So, how about it? moo >Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about yourself? >I'm happy to send my money any place you like if you win. So, how about it? > >moo Try rec.gambling or some other trailer park. This is misc.health.alternative. Take it to email. What idiot would believe that you or anyone else would honor some anonymous internet bet?? No need to answer. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about >>yourself? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Try rec.gambling or some other trailer park. This is > misc.health.alternative. Take it to email. It's completely on topic. > What idiot would believe that you or anyone else would honor some > anonymous internet bet?? No need to answer. I'm not anonymous. Neither's DW. moo >>>Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about >>>yourself? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It's completely on topic. A private bet is on topic?? Wrong group. Wrong trailer park. >> What idiot would believe that you or anyone else would honor some >> anonymous internet bet?? No need to answer. > >I'm not anonymous. Neither's DW. In that case please post your full name, address and phone number so your true identity can be verified. I am of course being facetious but hopefully my point is understood. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about >>>>yourself? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Best defense to logic is ignorance <Rich.@.> wrote in message news: >>It's completely on topic. > > A private bet is on topic?? Wrong group. Wrong trailer park. The thread is about autism. The bet is a challenge for a poster to reveal whether they really believe their claim. >>> What idiot would believe that you or anyone else would honor some >>> anonymous internet bet?? No need to answer. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > your true identity can be verified. I am of course being facetious but > hopefully my point is understood. It's been posted many times. moo ><Rich.@.> wrote in message news: >>>It's completely on topic. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The thread is about autism. The bet is a challenge for a poster to reveal >whether they really believe their claim. I see. So your purpose is just to reveal whether they believe their claim. And what makes you think that the person taking the bet will pay off if they lose?? No need to answer. And if they have no intention of paying off in the first place maybe their accepting the bet means nothing. Have you really thought this through?? Maybe you will take them to a collection agency:-) >>>> What idiot would believe that you or anyone else would honor some >>>> anonymous internet bet?? No need to answer. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It's been posted many times. I never saw it. Please post it in this thread since you are making a bet and saying you are not anonymous. I bet Happy Dog won't. Any takers?? Aloha, Rich >moo ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance <Rich.@.> wrote in message news: >><Rich.@.> wrote in message news: >>>>It's completely on topic. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > bet means nothing. Have you really thought this through?? Maybe you > will take them to a collection agency:-) He'll never bet because he doesn't even believe his own claim. >>> In that case please post your full name, address and phone number so >>> your true identity can be verified. I am of course being facetious but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bet and saying you are not anonymous. I bet Happy Dog won't. Any > takers?? Sure. Me. How much? moo ><Rich.@.> wrote in message news: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Sure. Me. How much? Gentleman's bet. This will be my last post in this thread because it is obvious that even though you said that you have posted your name, address and phone number many times that you won't post it here. Of course I certainly hope that you are not stupid enough to post that information on the internet generally and in this newsgroup specifically where stalkers abound. So I will let you have the last word. And I am 99.99% sure that your last word will NOT be your name, address and phone number. Aloha, Rich >moo ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance <Rich.@.> wrote in message news: > Gentleman's bet. This will be my last post in this thread because it > is obvious that even though you said that you have posted your name, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So I will let you have the last word. And I am 99.99% sure that your > last word will NOT be your name, address and phone number. Wesley Thuro. Like I said, it's old news. And anyone truly interested can google my name to find out more. I really don't know what the big deal is. moo >> I see. So your purpose is just to reveal whether they believe their >> claim. And what makes you think that the person taking the bet will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >He'll never bet because he doesn't even believe his own claim. That is one possibility. Another is that he did not trust that you would pay up. Another is that he did not want to reveal his personal identity to you. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance Now Rich is stalking HD! He is so arrogant, HOW DARE anyone criticize the master of stalking. LOL!!!!! Jan > <Rich.@.> wrote in message news: >>>It's completely on topic. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > moo >Now Rich is stalking HD! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Jan >n MY world, we do NOT tell jokes at others' expense! Poor Jan. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about >>>>yourself? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Rich Do I detect the beginning of a *gang* kookfight? Who'da thunk it?  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > >>>>Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about > >>>>yourself? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Who'da thunk it? You can bet PeteyB will find it more sinister evidence of them being 'pharmabloggers'. It's all a ruse... Cathy > -- > Peter Bowditch aa #2243 > The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles > Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au > Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com [snip] > > Do I detect the beginning of a *gang* kookfight? > > > > Who'da thunk it? > > You can bet PeteyB will find it more sinister evidence of them > being'pharmabloggers'. It's all a ruse... But of course: they're only disagreeing so that "casual" readers will be duped into thinking they're just "casual" posters... makes perfect sense! :) Vashti >> >>>>Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about >> >>>>yourself? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Cathy You can bet cathy b would bring up a diversion. PeterB has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. In fact it is all about the FACT Richard H Jacobson is obsessed and can't control himself. "Happy Dog" <happy...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:lW2Ee.5805$Qi4.838954@news20.bellglobal.com... > <Rich.@.> wrote in message > news:7ar0e1tlvj8blf9r23c9r1c6ssjl2qfmif@4ax.com... >> Fact: Jan Drew > Idiot. > Find another trailer park to squabble in. > m ROTFLOL. Even the old debunkers are tired of Richard's old tired worn out posts since 1999. I wrote: The nice person you found is exactly who I am. I do get riled when others' >treat me badly, such as using my dead and ill parents to belittle me. David Wright wrote: I'm not too big on that one myself, and I'm pretty sick of Rich's armchair analyses of you (In a discussion with Rich, and Rich STILL does not get the message, because he is sooooo obsessed!) *****However, I disagree that there is any point to responding to every damn thing she writes****** . Unless you're just into consuming bandwidth, I mean. *****Why does it need to be done every time? ***** ****You just admitted you're not going to have a positive result, short of going out and shooting all her "enablers." Since one of the definitions of insanity is to do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result, where does that leave you?****** RJ I am not wasting my time repeatedly exposing her lies and >hypocrisy to show lurkers the kind of person she is. I realize that it is >unlikely that Jan will leave this group especially with all of her enablers >including unwitting ones like you. Oh, save it. I'm not one of her "enablers." Poor, poor obsessed Rich, he just can't help himself. Jan >> -- >> Peter Bowditch >>>>Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about >>>>yourself? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >your true identity can be verified. I am of course being facetious but >hopefully my point is understood. That depends. Is your point that the purpose of this n.g. is primarily to hold your voluminous, endlessly repeated screeds about Jan's nonexistent amalgam recovery? I think a little diversion into the question of thimerosal causing autism, and whether or not the proponents of this theory really believe it enough to put money on it, is quite welcome. You'll notice that "mike" is not willing to accept the bet. I think that's a lot more interesting than the 10,000th article about Jan (who is not only in my killfile by author -- so is any article with "jan drew" in the subject line). -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin >>>>>Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about >>>>>yourself? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >primarily to hold your voluminous, endlessly repeated screeds >about Jan's nonexistent amalgam recovery? No. My point is that it is stupid to put out personal information on the internet especially in this newsgroup where there are stalkers who are all too willing to intrude into one's personal life to harass and do harm. If you find my endless repeatedly screeds objectionable I wonder why you don't just kill file me. My posts are more for the uninitiated lurker/reader/poster than it is for the regulars here. I have made an effort to help the regulars here by changing the subject title (which you did NOT do here but I will) so that they don't have to read it. >I think a little diversion into the question of thimerosal causing >autism, and whether or not the proponents of this theory really >believe it enough to put money on it, is quite welcome. Great. Then you are an idiot also. It is quite easy for an individual to take a bet and then not pay up especially if they are anonymous. Also just because someone does not take a bet does not mean that they don't really believe the theory. They may not want to reveal their private information. They may not be betters. They may not trust that the other person will pay up. There are probably other reasons why someone may not want to bet although I realize that you think that the ONLY reason is that they don't believe in their theory. > You'll >notice that "mike" is not willing to accept the bet. See above. > I think that's a >lot more interesting than the 10,000th article about Jan (who is not >only in my killfile by author -- so is any article with "jan drew" in >the subject line). So kill file me and any article that has "Jan Drew" in it. Somehow I think you won't but will continue to unwittingly enable Jan Drew by criticizing those who decide to take her to task for her misinformation, lies, and hypocrisy. The choice is yours but if history is any predictor I know what you (and Happy) will do. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 05:20:26 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net (David >>I think a little diversion into the question of thimerosal causing >>autism, and whether or not the proponents of this theory really [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > someone may not want to bet although I realize that you think that the > ONLY reason is that they don't believe in their theory. Your grasp of logic is usually better than this. As is your restraint from insulting people until they've done so to you. Anyway, none of the above is a refutation of the fact that a simple bet, or cinancial challenge, is a credible brand of shut-up medicine. Particularly when it applies to easily verified claims. In this case, it directly addresses an absurd claim made by a poster and appears to have been met with diversion and stonewalling. That's a telling thing for both casual observers and regular contributing skeptics. I can't see any legitimate objection to it. > So kill file me and any article that has "Jan Drew" in it. Somehow I > think you won't but will continue to unwittingly enable Jan Drew by > criticizing those who decide to take her to task for her > misinformation, lies, and hypocrisy. The choice is yours but if > history is any predictor I know what you (and Happy) will do. I think that if the few posters here who compulsively respond to her posts simply killfiled her and stopped responding to anything she posts that the number of her posts would plummet. Wanna bet? moo >> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 05:20:26 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net (David > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Your grasp of logic is usually better than this. Please identify the flaw in my logic above. Be specific. > As is your restraint from >insulting people until they've done so to you. Anyway, none of the above is >a refutation of the fact that a simple bet, or cinancial challenge, is a >credible brand of shut-up medicine. Of course it is a refutation that an offer to make a bet on the internet is a credible brand of shut up medicine. I explained that there are many reasons other than the person not believing that he will win the bet. Find the flaw in my logic. Do you think that any of the possibilities that I offered are not credible or even more likely than the person not taking the bet. REmember that it is very easy for someone to make an internet bet and not pay up. So if a person accepts the bet it does not necessarily mean he believes in his theory any more than if he does not accept the bet that he does not. > Particularly when it applies to easily >verified claims. In this case, it directly addresses an absurd claim made >by a poster and appears to have been met with diversion and stonewalling. >That's a telling thing for both casual observers and regular contributing >skeptics. I can't see any legitimate objection to it. Many people believe crazy things. When their beliefs are challenged you may be met with diversion, not necessarily because the person does not really believe their claim but because cognitive dissonance prevents them from seeing it. >> So kill file me and any article that has "Jan Drew" in it. Somehow I >> think you won't but will continue to unwittingly enable Jan Drew by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >simply killfiled her and stopped responding to anything she posts that the >number of her posts would plummet. Wanna bet? No I don't. I am more interested in exposing Jan Drew's lies about mercury poisoning from amalgams to prevent someone with an unanswered health problem who may be scientifically illiterate and think that mercury poisoning from amalgams may be the reason for their illness and then have their amalgams removed possibly causing a worsening of their health. Wrt to your assertion that if no one responds to her that her posts would decrease (don't know about plummeting) I don't disagree since she won't be responding to criticism of her. However this would allow her to make her bullshit mercury poisoning claim without anyone challenging her. She wants this to happen. Sadly you and David are unwittingly enabling her by making such a suggestion. We have been through this discussion before. It is clear that you and David at all costs want to let Jan Drew spew her bullshit unchallenged. So be it. I am not going to go along with an idea that will certainly increase the chances of some unsuspecting person having their amalgams unnecessarily removed. You and David obviously don't give a f.ck if some lurker reads Jan's posts and links and concludes that *maybe* their unanswered health problems are due to mercury poisoning from amalgams. You just don't want to keep reading my refutation. Of course both of you can just kill file me. I am sure that you are not going to be missing so much from the posts where I am not confronting Jan DRew to make it worth a difference. Missing some of my posts is minor compared to the obvious distress that my posts are causing you and David. There are countless people with unanswered health problems and of these people, the great majority have amalgams. I don't know how many people in this category read this newsgroup and just lurk and neither do you. But if my persistent refutation of her bullshit claim saves just ONE person from having their amalgams unnecessarily being removed then I will be happy with that result. Based upon the number of private emails I received (when I did make my email address public) I suspect that there are far more than one who I may have helped to not make that decision. Aloha, Rich >moo ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance <Rich.@.> wrote in message news: >> As is your restraint from >>insulting people until they've done so to you. Anyway, none of the above [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the bet it does not necessarily mean he believes in his theory any > more than if he does not accept the bet that he does not. The point is that they won't accept the bet. They've been called on their BS. The challenge ended the issue. < snip the rest while I go and perfect my touch typing > moo ><Rich.@.> wrote in message news: >>> As is your restraint from [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >The point is that they won't accept the bet. They've been called on their >BS. The challenge ended the issue. The point is NOT that they won't accept the bet. The point is that the failure to not accept the bet proves nothing. I explained my reasoning why and you said my logic was impaired. I asked for you to explain why my reasoning was specious. Your reply was "they won't accept the bet". It is noted that you could not find a flaw in my logic. I never questioned that he would not accept the bet. I was *trying* to explain why not accepting the bet was pretty meaningless wrt drawing conclusions about whether the failure meant that the person did not believe his assertion. YOu simply said "the point is that they won't accept the bet". BFD. I find it ironic that you talk about how his response to accepting the bet was met with diversion. You are doing the exact same thing wrt discussing why his failure to accept the bet does not mean he does not believe his theory. You did the exact same thing when you were called on your assertion that delusions are characteristic of personality disorders. You never admitted that you were wrong about that either but created diversions and rationalizations. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>>>Bullshit. In any case, who's asking you to reveal anything about >>>>>>yourself? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >are all too willing to intrude into one's personal life to harass and >do harm. There is that. However, neither HD nor I suggested that Mike put his personal info into the newsgroup, and I stated publically that if he mailed me, I wouldn't post the info. So if I did, what happens to my credibility? I'd have no reason to sacrifice it for such a small wager. >If you find my endless repeatedly screeds objectionable I wonder why >you don't just kill file me. Because they aren't your only postings. If all you ever did was refute Jan, you'd have joined her in the killfile long ago. >My posts are more for the uninitiated >lurker/reader/poster than it is for the regulars here. I realize that. But you don't need to meet her every posting with a refutation. Anyone with an IQ higher than that of a sea slug (which doesn't include Jan, but does include most other readers) will have figured her out pretty fast. Her postings get more demented every week; anyone who takes her seriously, especially after seeing even an occasional refutation, is too far gone to be saved anyway. >I have made an >effort to help the regulars here by changing the subject title (which >you did NOT do here but I will) so that they don't have to read it. Um, exactly why is this helpful? >>I think a little diversion into the question of thimerosal causing >>autism, and whether or not the proponents of this theory really >>believe it enough to put money on it, is quite welcome. > >Great. Then you are an idiot also. Thanks. Love you too, especially your resistance to using insult where none was offered and none is called for. >It is quite easy for an individual to take a bet and then not pay up >especially if they are anonymous. Yes, it is. But if Mike takes the bet and doesn't pay off if he loses, you don't think I'd remain silent about that, do you? >Also just because someone does not take a bet does not mean that they >don't really believe the theory. They may not want to reveal their >private information. They may not be betters. But if they refuse to take it and make no convincing explanation of why, that's interesting information. >> You'll notice that "mike" is not willing to accept the bet. > >See above. Ditto. >> I think that's a >>lot more interesting than the 10,000th article about Jan (who is not >>only in my killfile by author -- so is any article with "jan drew" in >>the subject line). > >So kill file me and any article that has "Jan Drew" in it. Killfiling by character strings in the body is extremely slow on my interface, or I long since would have done it, thanks. >Somehow I think you won't but will continue to unwittingly enable Jan >Drew by criticizing those who decide to take her to task for her >misinformation, lies, and hypocrisy. As if Jan needs to be enabled. I don't notice any positive changes in her behavior as the result of your actions. I'm not trying to stop you. I'm merely irritated that you are unable to see any value in my exposing mike's hypocrisy. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin > I don't notice any positive changes in >her behavior as the result of your actions. Have we not went through this before? If you have her kill filed and if you have her name in subject kill filed how can you possibly determine with any degree of accuracy of any positive changes. Yes, you can see the responses of people but without reading her posts unfiltered you are just speculating about whether there have been positive or negative changes. But let us leave that aside for the moment. It is **not^^ my primary intent to have Jan Drew change in a positive way. If she does great, but I doubt it. She is far too disturbed and in too much denial for any hope of that to be reasonable. My primary intent is to expose her lies about mercury poisoning. If Jan Drew posts 100 times about having mercury poisoning and I only refute it say 30 times then there are 70 out of 100 that go unrefuted. An unsuspecting lurker may read her claim and not read the refutal. I realize that you think it is obvious that her claim of mercury poisoning is bogus. I hardly think that true especially with scientifically illiterate people. And the reason Jan DRew is becoming more and more crazy in her posts is because of the number of people who are confronting her. If no one confronted her, then her posts would likely not seem as bizarre as they do. This is another reason why confronting her is useful when you consider the goal which is to discredit her completely bogus claim of mercury poisoning. > I'm not trying to stop >you. I'm merely irritated that you are unable to see any value in my >exposing mike's hypocrisy. When did I say there was no value in exposing Mike's hypocrisy? I am all for exposing hypocrisy as you can clearly see in my responses to JD. I was simply stating that just because someone does not want to take a bet does not mean that they don't believe in their theory. I won't make ANY monetary bets on the internet regardless of what it is about. Does this mean that I have no faith in any of my assertions?? I only make monetary bets when I know the person who I am betting with and am confident of getting paid if the person loses. So this pretty much rules out internet bets. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >> I don't notice any positive changes in >>her behavior as the result of your actions. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >unfiltered you are just speculating about whether there have been >positive or negative changes. Not really. There's a subset of readers on m.h.a who simply cannot resist replying to Jan's postings; the odds that I'm missing any of them are vanishingly small. >But let us leave that aside for the moment. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > My primary intent is to expose her lies about mercury poisoning. Then why do you post so many articles about her LYING via, say, snipping or using unattributed quotations or whatever? Hey, you know she's doing it, and so do I. So does everyone. But she won't admit it. <enter Bob Dole mode> You know it. I know it. The American people know it. <exit Bob Dole mode> Jan doesn't understand sarcasm, irony, figurative language, or any other concept more advanced than those used in day care -- by the kids. Or maybe she does and is just playing dumb, but I don't think she's playing. I don't think she's playing with a full deck, either, but there's nothing you or I can do about that. >If Jan Drew posts 100 times about having mercury poisoning and I only >refute it say 30 times then there are 70 out of 100 that go unrefuted. Your math is unquestionable. Do you really skip 7 out of 10? >An unsuspecting lurker may read her claim and not read the refutal. I >realize that you think it is obvious that her claim of mercury >poisoning is bogus. I hardly think that true especially with >scientifically illiterate people. I don't either, but anyone who sticks around here more than a few days is going to find out. >And the reason Jan Drew is becoming more and more crazy in her posts >is because of the number of people who are confronting her. If no one >confronted her, then her posts would likely not seem as bizarre as >they do. This is another reason why confronting her is useful when you >consider the goal which is to discredit her completely bogus claim of >mercury poisoning. So does this include confronting her on every damn thing she says, or just the mercury stuff? >> I'm not trying to stop >>you. I'm merely irritated that you are unable to see any value in my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I was simply stating that just because someone does not want to take >a bet does not mean that they don't believe in their theory. Granted, it's not proof. But all we got out of mike was one rather vague and wimpy excuse for why he didn't want to take the bet, and then he seems to have slithered away. It's not proof, but it's a strong indication of his sincerity. That's good enough for me on this issue. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin <snip> > Not really. There's a subset of readers on m.h.a who simply cannot > resist replying to Jan's postings; the odds that I'm missing any of > them are vanishingly small. <snip> Yup. Guilty. Sorry. Doing my best to cut down. But she's so funny! And then there's PeteyB... Cathy ><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Doing my best to cut down. It wasn't my intention to single out any one person. I was speaking in broader terms. >But she's so funny! And then there's PeteyB... He's not so prolific as Jan. He also differs from Jan in that Jan screams "Liar!" at anything and everything, whereas PeterB just calls everyone a Pharma Blogger. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin >><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > screams "Liar!" at anything and everything, whereas PeterB just calls > everyone a Pharma Blogger. You are lying. You are a liar. I only call people liars, when they lie, just as you did, just now. Jan > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and > natural things that money can buy." > -- Steve Martin > >><snip> > >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Jan Oh my. > > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > > "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and > > natural things that money can buy." > > -- Steve Martin >> >><snip> >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Oh my. You can say that again. I often follow threads in google and Jan hasn't been replying to me much lately, but this latest one sure makes up for it. Wow. Well, we already knew Jan didn't understand figurative language, hyperbole, etc. This is just an illustration of the fact. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin >>> >><snip> >>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > hasn't been replying to me much lately, but this latest one sure makes > up for it. Wow. You have me killfiled, so you wouldn't know if I replied to you or not. Now who is lying? > Well, we already knew Jan didn't understand figurative language, > hyperbole, etc. This is just an illustration of the fact. We all know, no such thing. That is just another repeated lie. Jan > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always belittling > "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and > natural things that money can buy." > -- Steve Martin >>>> >><snip> >>>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Now who is lying? David "apparently" kill files in his newsreader but then reads Jan's responses in Google. So now Jan knows that if she responds to David's posts that he will be sure to read them because he follows threads in Google. I think David needs to make up his mind about whether he really wants to not read Jan's threads. >> Well, we already knew Jan didn't understand figurative language, >> hyperbole, etc. This is just an illustration of the fact. > >We all know, no such thing. > >That is just another repeated lie. Well I would not call it a lie but I don't agree since occasionally Jan Drew uses figurative speech. I think she just pretends to not understand it so that she could discredit posters she does not like by compulsively calling them liars. Aloha, Rich >Jan > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> natural things that money can buy." >> -- Steve Martin ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>> >><snip> >>>>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >Google. I think David needs to make up his mind about whether he >really wants to not read Jan's threads. Dear me, Rich, are you taking reading comprehension lessons from Jan? I didn't say I responded to postings in google, I said I follow threads (the ones I contribute to) in google. Big difference. My newsreader at home is indeed set up to killfile Jan (and a lot of other stuff). I don't have google set up that way, and I don't even know if it *can* be set up that way. I don't post responses through google, ever. I responded to cathyb in this case, because she'd responded to Jan. All my responses come through my home account and I use trn to read and to post. So, by following the threads to which I have contributed, I know that Jan hasn't been responding much to me of late, though this happy trend has suddenly altered. >>> Well, we already knew Jan didn't understand figurative language, >>> hyperbole, etc. This is just an illustration of the fact. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >understand it so that she could discredit posters she does not like by >compulsively calling them liars. Maybe she only understands it when she does it. I don't read enough of her contributions to recall any figurative language on her part, but if you say she's done it, I'll believe you. Though it'd make me fit in better on the thread if I just screamed "Liar!" at you a few times. :-) -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin >>>>>> >><snip> >>>>>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > Though it'd make me fit in better on the thread if I just screamed > "Liar!" at you a few times. :-) I won't advise calling one a liar, unless they really lied. The above is a lie, I do not discredit posters I do not like by calling them liars. I only call people liars when they lie. You see the word liar often because of the many lies told here. If you are tired of seeing it, then stop lying. Speaking of posting personal information in this ng. JohnDoe, who is chicken to use he real name, thinks I should post my medical records. He is a buddy of Rich's. I note, Rich was silent on the matter. Oh, what a *gang* Jan > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and > natural things that money can buy." > -- Steve Martin >I won't advise calling one a liar, unless they really lied. The above is a >lie, I do not discredit posters I do not like by calling them liars. I only >call people liars when they lie. To see Jan's ORIGINAL POSTING, go here: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20040310000815.25804.00001173%40mb-m01.aol.com Jan wrote: > >From: Mark Thorson nos...@sonic.net > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That would be ANOTHER LIE from Mark Thorson. I have NEVER accused anyone of > any such thing. > > So do prove your claim Mark!!!!! > > You can't YOU JUST LIED AGAIN!!!!!!! ----- example quotes of Jan accusing people of being paid shills ----- Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030415173745.18794.00000646%40mb-fn.aol.com Any time alt. health is mentioned the personal trashing starts. Mostly comes from paid shill Mark Probert. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030412210802.08778.00000680%40mb-fw.aol.com Internet bully Mark Probert who is a paid shill and lives off his wife. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030410170838.14245.00000347%40mb-ct.aol.com As for Mark, he is a paid shill and lives off his wife. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030325123827.25124.00000246%40mb-mn.aol.com As long as Mark is here, the paid shill will call names when in fact he is the one who is a bigot. Speaking of his own people. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>>> >><snip> >>>>>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >Dear me, Rich, are you taking reading comprehension lessons from Jan? No. Are you? >I didn't say I responded to postings in google, I said I follow >threads (the ones I contribute to) in google. Big difference. And I never said or implied that you did respond to postings in Google. The reason for kill filing is so you don't read/see the posts of those you kill file. Reading threads in Google defeats the purpose of the kill file. That was my point. >So, by following the threads to which I have contributed, I know that >Jan hasn't been responding much to me of late, though this happy trend >has suddenly altered. She responds to your posts fairly frequently as I recall. >>>> Well, we already knew Jan didn't understand figurative language, >>>> hyperbole, etc. This is just an illustration of the fact. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Maybe she only understands it when she does it. It is often said that children hear what they want to hear. The same could be said about Jan Drew. > I don't read enough >of her contributions to recall any figurative language on her part, >but if you say she's done it, I'll believe you. I have specifically made reference to Jan's use of analogy to illustrate this on a number of occasions. Maybe you missed my posts about this. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>>>> >><snip> >>>>>>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >No. Are you? What a clever response. I look forward to its successor. >>I didn't say I responded to postings in google, I said I follow >>threads (the ones I contribute to) in google. Big difference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of those you kill file. Reading threads in Google defeats the purpose >of the kill file. That was my point. But you also implied that my use of google causes me to see all of Jan's posts, which is wrong. I only see the ones in the threads in which I am participating. And until the last week or so, Jan hadn't been in most of those threads much, if at all, for quite some time. >>So, by following the threads to which I have contributed, I know that >>Jan hasn't been responding much to me of late, though this happy trend >>has suddenly altered. > >She responds to your posts fairly frequently as I recall. There have been times in the past when that was true. Until this week, there'd been quite a lull. >It is often said that children hear what they want to hear. The same >could be said about Jan Drew. No argument here. >> I don't read enough >>of her contributions to recall any figurative language on her part, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Maybe you missed my posts about this. Quite possibly. Often, when a posting starts out such that I can see it's a reply to Jan, that's enough to get me to bag it and move on to the next posting. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin Is this thread about Jan Drew? Isn't it strange Rich started it, yet he has remained silent when JohnDoe suggested I post my medical records? Uh Hmmmmmmmm. Jan >>>>>>>> > In article >>>>>>>> > <1122469874.471822.206390@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > natural things that money can buy." > -- Steve Martin >You are lying. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Jan > >Soon, she may accuse you of being on the payroll of the > >pharmaceutical companies, etc. That's the way Jan works. > > That would be ANOTHER LIE from Mark Thorson. I have NEVER accused anyone of > any such thing. > > So do prove your claim Mark!!!!! > > You can't YOU JUST LIED AGAIN!!!!!!! >Jan ----- example quotes of Jan accusing people of being paid shills ----- Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030415173745.18794.00000646%40mb-fn.aol.com Any time alt. health is mentioned the personal trashing starts. Mostly comes from paid shill Mark Probert. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030412210802.08778.00000680%40mb-fw.aol.com Internet bully Mark Probert who is a paid shill and lives off his wife. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030410170838.14245.00000347%40mb-ct.aol.com As for Mark, he is a paid shill and lives off his wife. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030325123827.25124.00000246%40mb-mn.aol.com As long as Mark is here, the paid shill will call names when in fact he is the one who is a bigot. Speaking of his own people. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>> I don't notice any positive changes in >>>her behavior as the result of your actions. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >resist replying to Jan's postings; the odds that I'm missing any of >them are vanishingly small. So then it is pointless for you to kill file her if you believe that you are reading nearly all of her posts. It is curious that you don't kill file all the people who simply can't resist replying to her postings. Are missing these people's posts that important in your life that you don't kill file them?? I suggest you think about why you choose not to kill file them by comparing benefit to annoyance. After all you really seem to get bent out of shape because you are forced to see all the folks who respond to her. >>But let us leave that aside for the moment. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Then why do you post so many articles about her LYING via, say, >snipping or using unattributed quotations or whatever? Are you stupid or are you just pretending to play stupid. Obviously if you can demonstrate that she frequently lies, that calls into question her credibility about her claim of mercury poisoning. >Jan doesn't understand sarcasm, irony, figurative language, or any >other concept more advanced than those used in day care -- by the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Your math is unquestionable. Do you really skip 7 out of 10? Once again are you stupid or just playing stupid. I gave this not as an accurate number of how many I skip but an illustration of the point that the more frequently her lies about mercury poisoning are exposed the less likely some lurker will mistakenly read some of her links and buy into her claim. >>An unsuspecting lurker may read her claim and not read the refutal. I >>realize that you think it is obvious that her claim of mercury [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I don't either, but anyone who sticks around here more than a few days >is going to find out. Yes, because I consistently post her lies. If I did not do that it would not be so obvious after a few days. You just can't seem to get that through your head. The more frequently people confront JD and her lies, the more likely that a lurker will see after a few days that she is not to be trusted. You are making my point for me. Let us take the extreme of no one ever confronting her and JD posts about almost dying of mercury poisoning and giving links to the anti-amalgam sites. Would you admit that a scientifically illiterate person might buy into her claim?? Or do you think it would be obvious that she is a loon if *no one* confronted her?? >>And the reason Jan Drew is becoming more and more crazy in her posts >>is because of the number of people who are confronting her. If no one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >So does this include confronting her on every damn thing she says, or >just the mercury stuff? Now you sound like Jan Drew. You really are an unwitting enabler of hers. Kill file me. Or keep repeating yourself and whining about how I respond so much to Jan Drew. Your choice. But you have been complaining about this for years and persist in not putting me in your kill file. Either you are a masochist or you really do want to read Jan's posts vicariously. >>> I'm not trying to stop >>>you. I'm merely irritated that you are unable to see any value in my [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Granted, it's not proof. And that is all I was saying. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >> "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message >>>>I'm in for a hundred as well. A public wager is a legally binding [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >team". Having one's name on the Usenet in a certain context may jeopardize >one's employment, current or future. But I'm not part of "ratbags." That's Peter Bowditch's gig. And I didn't ask you to post your info publicly. Emailing me will be fine and I promise not to post your info. So, if you're so damn sure that thimerosal-free vaccines will cause autism rates to plunge, put your money where your mouth is and take the bet. Or put a sock in it. I don't care which option you pick, though the first one would be more lucrative for me. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin >"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message >>>I'm in for a hundred as well. A public wager is a legally binding [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >grand on this. And I considered it. But this loser has been effectively >shut up by our beer money. And that was the point. Non? Hell no. I wanted to take his money. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin > >Here is a prediction. From now on, all the reports across > >the US will show decline of new autism diagnoses. In one year, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > three years, autism rates will have either climbed or have declined > less than 10% overall. Put your money where your mouth is. Even if Mike took the bet and LOST under scenario 2, such an overall reduction of cases would support the claim of an autism-thimerosal link. I know it's too much to ask that you discuss the topic scientifically, I just wanted to point out that this challenge is meaningless. PeterB >> In article <pan.2005.07.15.04.45.25.117705@xyz.com>, mike ><xyz@xyz.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >reduction of cases would support the claim of an autism-thimerosal >link. The hell it would. Ten percent, versus the removal of essentially *all* thimerosal from childhood vaccines, says that the vaccines were at most a minor contributor. In any case, it doesn't matter. Rates have not started to decline, and they would have by now if thimerosal were the culprit. >I know it's too much to ask that you discuss the topic >scientifically, Oh, you *are* a card, PeterB. >I just wanted to point out that this challenge is meaningless. You can "point it out," but since your supposed refutation is nothing of the sort, you've done nothing. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin > >Here is a prediction. From now on, all the reports across > >the US will show decline of new autism diagnoses. In one year, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > three years, autism rates will have either climbed or have declined > less than 10% overall. Put your money where your mouth is. Even if Mike took the bet and LOST under scenario 2, such an overall reduction of cases could be supportive of the claim for an autism-thimerosal link. I know it's too much to ask that you discuss the topic scientifically, I just wanted to point out that this challenge is meaningless. PeterB Thanks for the posting. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org Another coverup > From AP (http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.17663.html): > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > nationwide, according to new data compiled by the state Department of > Developmental Services. ... Actually, not really. From: http://citizencain.blogspot.com/2005/07/kirby-flubs-autism-data.html ... it seems that the numbers for 3 to 5 year olds are increasing at the same rate. Here is the raw data: http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/quarterly.cfm >> From AP (http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.17663.html): >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Here is the raw data: http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/quarterly.cfm The link shows that the caseload for 3-5 year olds is increasing. Yes, it is increasing. It simply means that more children enter this group than move to the next age group. Which does not say much about the number of newly diagnosed children. 5446 children in this group in the 2nd quarter of 2005 is more than 5307 in the first quarter, so 139 more children moved into this group than out of it, that's it. Very blurry. Besides, most of 5 year olds got full thimerosal exposure (that makes it even more blurry). By the way, it is instructive that the author attributes the numbers to David Kirby. "Kirby claims that new data indicates that 'fewer children with full-blown autism entered the system' of California social services provided to autistic persons in 2003 than in 2002, and fewer in 2004 than in 2003". The title is "Kirby Flubs the Autism Data". Well, then it should be "Associated Press Flubs the Autism Data", for this is where the numbers and this particular statement came from. Not surprizingly, AP is not mentioned. My response is kind of late because my news server got it only today. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|