Penn and Teller lies about Autism to cover big pharma

Meh. If any response to a contrary viewpoint and evidence thereof is "it is a conspiracy" then one must assume that the issue in question is in the realm of quackdom.

reply to post by maddog3n8


Your arrogance is truly through the roof.

Do you even bother to self regulate when you write? To not go overboard with your insults? To wonder whether you're even being fair?

Lets simplify this conversation and move away from the ad hominems.

There's a study on lab mice showing that overstimulation of the micro hairs in the inner ear prematurely closes the BDNF processes leading to cognitive impairment.

These studies were conducted by the leading researcher on neuroplasticity Michael Merzenich.

As I mentioned before, I am not denying the role of chemicals in our foods, or in our vaccines, that may contribute to the formation of autism. What I am contending is that to assume as much as you're assuming (yet you amazingly mention occams razor, yet apparently dont know how to use it), such as: 1) there is only one explanation for autism, chemicals in vaccines 2) these chemicals were deliberately put there 3) Penn and Teller are being paid by pharmaceutical execs, is irrational.

I don't want to offend your clearly very large ego, but bear with me. Occams razor implies the theory of probability. If two things are suggested as explanations, the one that is more probable (based on previous evidence), according to occams razor, the more probable explanation is the more logical solution. This is because what is more probable requires less assumptions of unknowns. So, in the case of Penn and Teller, two relatively educated atheists, skeptics, who share their views on just about anything and seem to be very opinionated - what is more likely, that they are simply giving another of their opinions, expressing yet again their skepticism, or, as you suggest, that the pharmaceutical companies are in contact with them, and to boot, bribing them with money.

The irrationality of your thinking is obvious to anyone with a good education.

How you can read up on the research of Simon Baron Cohen, Michael Merzenich, understand alternative explanations, deny the hard science those explanations are founded upon, in favor of your own tendentious preference, is inane.

figur8.net...

Read this article, since clearly you're not satisfied with my explanation of how the premature closing of BDNF during early development interrupts normal brain development, and thus, helps explain the formation of autism.

Originally posted by maddog3n8
In order to accomplish the answer to your questions, testing would have to be done, to find what is the threshold were mercury or aluminum starts to have visible effects on humans, find out by decade how many of those with autism or encepholy were vaccinated to include frequency, dosage, type, and ingredients, data mine by region the environmental sources for heavy metal, etc....the list goes on and on.

To me you either did not read my evidence or you don't wish to factor it into the equation. I would submit the reason that you do not want to consider this is that the alternative answer is so repugnant that it is easier to believe.

What with the increase in autism rates during the simultaneous decrease of these metals in vaccines, I think your research is looking at the wrong things.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, there is a possibility that the MMR vaccine itself might be causing some of the autism rate increase. MMR vaccine has never containe mercury or aluminum to my knowledge so I assumed that, if MMR vaccine is causing some of this, it may well be because it is being given at earlier ages than before and the virus used for the vaccine is the culprit.

I've aluminum and mercuried myself out on this subject. I'm certain that neither is causing any autism at all. The symptoms of mercury poisoning differ very significantly from any autism symptoms I'm aware of.

Obviously, I'm not aware of all autism symptoms. Very few people are. It doesn't help that they made major changes to the definition several years ago, and still change it now on almost a yearly basis. I would certainly concede that such a circumstance makes it very difficult to analyze past autism rates versus more modern ones.

In my own case, I'm convinced of what caused my son's autism - he was born 3 months early to a father over 45. In addition, he got a nasty strep infection in the NICU that they had to use Vancomycin on - for 2 weeks. God knows what that medication did to the little guy, but him being a preemie and my age both correlate well enough to account for it without even considering the risks from that antibiotic of last resort.

Harte

reply to post by dontreally

Your arrogance is truly through the roof. Do you even bother to self regulate when you write? To not go overboard with your insults? To wonder whether you're even being fair? Lets simplify this conversation and move away from the ad hominems.

I would ask, do you know what ad hominem means? Because I believe that you clearly you do not! Why do I think that way? Let's dissect your above statements. You tell me I am arrogant, that I can't control myself, and that I am irrational. And then you say lets move away from ad hominem? LMFAO!!! Why do you think that I have repeatedly stated that your statements are ironic? Because you have no idea how stupid you really sound, saying one thing and doing another. You sir, are truly clueless!!

And then, to guild the lily, you continue with more ad hominem comments:

What I am contending is that to assume as much as you're assuming (yet you amazingly mention occams razor, yet apparently dont know how to use it), such as: 1) there is only one explanation for autism, chemicals in vaccines

I don't want to offend your clearly very large ego

The irrationality of your thinking is obvious to anyone with a good education.

However, it would appear that I have at least been somewhat effective as now you have stopped w/the circular logic and actually told me where you are getting your theory. Up to now I was supposed to know where you were getting your information through osmosis:

How you can read up on the research of Simon Baron Cohen, Michael Merzenich, understand alternative explanations, deny the hard science those explanations are founded upon, in favor of your own tendentious preference, is inane.

figur8.net...

Read this article, since clearly you're not satisfied with my explanation of how the premature closing of BDNF during early development interrupts normal brain development, and thus, helps explain the formation of autism.

Ok…let be clear here, I never said that I wasn’t satisfied w/your premise. Could this be a possibility? Sure. But for me, and I unlike you am going to tell you I haven’t read the article, and for four reasons: 1) What of cases of autism that were not around loud noises? 2)What of the cases that happen immediately (within less than 24 hours up to 72 hours) 3) You haven’t shown one modicum of respect (Instead of say read this, try please read this) 4) You haven’t done one bit of debunking of my evidence which actually supports reasons 1 & 2

since clearly you're not satisfied with my explanation

So I’m just to take this theory which doesn’t apply to all case or I would present very many and ignore other evidence for a theory that does explain it in all cases. And before you even attempt with more circular logic, my reasoning is this; if we go w/the latest study that says its 1 in 50 (read back on my earlier posts for the source) surely you are not advancing the notion that 1 in 50 kids live near an Airport or equivalent environments that produce that level of noise.

Further, you haven’t answered a single question that I have asked about your position. If you look at my initial post to you, while I will admit I was a little sarcastic but was in direct proportion to how you opened up with the denials using a condescending tone. Please go back and read it. Look at what you said, then read how I responded with what you wrote in context. I think that I have very patient with you clear and out right refusal to back your claims up. You’re trolling or clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Also, respect only works if it's given both ways.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Here is your proof

Originally posted by craig732
reply to post by kerazeesicko

 

Here is your proof

"Proof" of what? The OP specifically claimed mercury was causing the problem, whereas, as I stated, mercury has never been part of the MMR vaccine, which is what your link is about.
Your linked "proof" (it's certainly not proof of anything at all) itself links us to a webpage of the Liberty Beacon, where we find several other links to other news stories on the topic. All of these describe the victim as having special and specific conditions that caused brain inflammation due to the vaccines.

IOW, pre-existing conditions mixed with the vaccine can cause "autism-like" symptoms or pathology in certain, specific children.

There is a list of links to medical and scientific publications in the lower section of the "Beacon" webpage, all of which (the site claims) "support Dr. Wakefield’s research," and they do.

Problem is, they all support Wakefield's research showing a link between autism and lower GI problems like IBS. I didn't click on them all, but I went down the list almost to the end. Nothing about vaccines, just the part of Wakefield's research concerning lower GI.

That, to me, is a misrepresentation of the facts and such behavior only makes the problem worse for people who believe that vaccines cause autism, because the website seems to say these publications support that idea, whereas the fact is they don't. At least, not the articles that site linked to.

I think people with autistic children - people such as myself - can do without smarmy half-lies on the subject from people that simply desire to be vindicated in their conspiracy theories.

Harte