This Just in! Vaccines STILL Do Not Cause Autism

[Corona688]

Let me guess... that wasn't on the first page?

[F-X]

The point that study made, which seems obvious, is that in mice, even a whole lot of thimerosal, and a lot of thimerosal and vaccine didn't cause the mice neurological problems, except for the female mice, but it was, according to the researchers, minor damage.

At least it was an animal study. That's a start.

[F-X]

My thoughts on something won't change the facts about it.

[Demimonde]

And the facts of something apparently will not change opinion...

[F-X]

That would be stupid.

[LadyShea]

I posted a survey comparing vaccinated and non vaccinated kids autism rates. You had asked for that, as well. Seems there are a lot more "starts" than you first realized.

[F-X]

Are talking about this one?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In this survey http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/survey.pdf
4% of unvaccinated children were ASD and 5% of fully vaccinated children were ASD

[LadyShea]

yep

[F-X]

(edit)

[F-X]

That study (actually a survey, not a study), shows vaccinated kids have twice the level of diagnosis for all conditions.

Either it has serious problems with the survey, or there is some factor skewing the statistics.

Problem with surveys like that, it could be healthy parent effect, rather than the vaccines causing the numbers.

[F-X]

It doesn't tell us anything about mercury in vaccines. Does it? Or mercury from any source.

[LadyShea]

That study (actually a survey, not a study), shows vaccinated kids have twice the level of diagnosis for all conditions.

I said it was a survey.

They included asthma and other diagnoses, but we were talking specifically about autism in this thread, so I thought it was worth posting the raw data.

It doesn't tell us anything about mercury in vaccines. Does it? Or mercury from any source.

Nope, it tells us the difference in autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated kids in that survey. It's just data.

[erimir]

Oh hey, it's mickthinks.

I wonder why he's coming in here to criticize me...

Anyway...

Originally Posted by mickthinks

No, I think that was pulled out of yours.

Do you sprinkle abnormal concentrations of chloride ions on your food, erimir? Because I'm sure I don't.

You forgot the context.

Which was:

Originally Posted by F-X

It was exactly normal concentrations of chloride ions that was mentioned.

The point was that when I said that "chlorine is toxic" I was talking about elemental chlorine, and that somehow interpreting it to mean that I was saying that the chloride ions you get from salt are toxic (in normal amounts) is idiotic.

When I said that sprinkling NaCl on your food is fine, I think it's pretty clear that I don't mean to say that "normal concentrations of chloride ions" are toxic. In fact, the whole point was to demonstrate the contrast between the toxic nature of chlorine gas and the fact that chlorine, in NaCl, is normally not toxic.

That is, sure I brought up normal concentrations of chloride ions. It was mentioned. But there's no way it could have meant what F-X suggests that it meant.

So, you see the quote there, where I'm saying that "chlorine is toxic" can only be interpreted as "elemental chlorine is toxic" and not as referring to normal concentrations of chloride ions (such as you get from salt). F-X then responds saying that I mentioned normal concentrations of chloride ions.

Now, how can we make sense of that response? As I see it, either F-X was saying something completely non sequitur - that is, he's merely saying that I mentioned it, and this is not meant to be taken as somehow counter to what *I* said - or he was suggesting that when I said that "chlorine is toxic" that I meant that that "normal concentrations of chloride ions" are toxic. I think it makes sense, in the context, to view it as a counter to my claim that when I said "chlorine is toxic" I meant (and can only be reasonably interpreted to have meant) that elemental chlorine is toxic. But using that as a counter to what I said simply doesn't make sense, unless he's claiming that I said something which I plainly did not say.

So, mick, do you think that when I said "chlorine is toxic" that I meant that "chloride ions in normal concentrations are toxic", or do you agree with me that F-X's response doesn't make sense? And that at best, it was a misinterpretation of my earlier posts?

[F-X]

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by F-X

I guess you're right.

Everyone knows you're either stupid or a troll by now, no need to go over it any longer.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by erimir

I guess you're right.

Everyone knows you're either stupid or a troll by now, no need to go over it any longer.

Bingo!

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by erimir

Oh hey, it's mickthinks. I wonder why he's coming in here to criticize me...

LOL Clever of you to suggest I've gone out of my way to target you, erimir, when all I've done is read a thread on a forum I visit regularly. I'm criticising you because you dismissed what I think was a fair comment with an insult.

Originally Posted by erimir

[...] you just pulled that out of your ass.

So, mick, do you think that when I said "chlorine is toxic" that I meant that "chloride ions in normal concentrations are toxic" ...
No, I think that when you said "Sprinkling NaCl (i.e. table salt) on your food is just fine" you established the context for F-X to discuss normal concentrations of substances that are only toxic in high concentrations.

And then you denied it and started to throw a hissy-fit at the outsider. I think it is good to challenge that kind of behaviour.

[F-X]

Nice catch mickthinks. A pleasure to read ya.

[Doctor X]

"Fools of a feather flock together."

Methinks he would have gotten along with Slobbering.

--J.D.

[Sock Puppet]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, regardless of whether he's a narcissistic aspie prat.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

LOL Clever of you to suggest I've gone out of my way to target you, erimir, when all I've done is read a thread on a forum I visit regularly. I'm criticising you because you dismissed what I think was a fair comment with an insult.

Oh it's fine. You often make the same accusation towards me if I post in a thread with a counter to something you said, so just thought I'd return the favor.

So, mick, do you think that when I said "chlorine is toxic" that I meant that "chloride ions in normal concentrations are toxic" ...
No, I think that when you said "Sprinkling NaCl (i.e. table salt) on your food is just fine" you established the context for F-X to discuss normal concentrations of substances that are only toxic in high concentrations.

Yes, and how does that make sense as a response to what I said? I said that I never claimed that normal concentrations of salt were toxic, and that saying "chlorine is toxic" must refer to elemental chlorine. THEN F-X responded.

I don't deny that I mentioned sprinkling salt, I denied that it was a relevant response to what I said - and the only way it could be relevant is if F-X was trying to misrepresent me. It's either a true non sequitur, or simply wrong.

[Sock Puppet]

So yesterday, I went to get my flu vax. My company offers it for free, so I figured what the hell. I managed to squeak under the age cutoff to get the snortable vax rather than the injectable. I then found out that the snortable version doesn't have any thimerosol in it.

Needless to say, I was pretty pissed.

[mickthinks]

I don't deny that I mentioned sprinkling [normal concentrations of] salt ...

Originally Posted by erimir

When? By who? Please point it out specifically, preferably with a link (or a quoted post that thus links) to the original post. Because you just pulled that out of your ass.

That looks like a denial that it was mentioned, and if you knew that you'd mentioned it all along, I don't understand why you would put F-X to prove it like that.

Mick
You often make the same accusation towards me if I post in a thread with a counter to something you said, so just thought I'd return the favor.
So it was a bullshit insinuation made in a spirit of petty revenge? LOL Go figure! It's a good job you can provide specific links to back up this tu quoque because otherwise it would look very shabby. You can provide links, can't you? ...

[F-X]

Is this a private fight? Or can anyone jump in?