At least be man enough to tell the truth. The only reason that I earned the troll designation is that I don’t agree with your opinions. The messages that you deleted were in response to other messages. In some cases, I had been insulted. You know I am telling the truth.

You earned the troll designation for repeated off-topic comments and very tiny bit of nastiness to other posters (which I did not post). Yes, others had been insulting to you, and in some cases I moderated the messages of others too.

You are correct though, the topic has inappropriately turned to you.

All commenters, please make your comments relevant to the CDDS data.

At least be man enough to tell the truth. The only reason that I earned the troll designation is that I don’t agree with your opinions. The messages that you deleted were in response to other messages. In some cases, I had been insulted. You know I am telling the truth.

This will be another message that you delete and it has nothing to do with being off topic since I have become your topic.

I did not resort to insults. If you click on your name, a handsome troll appears. What are we to make of that?

Tom, that’s my doing. In my opinion, Sigma has earned it - it’s due to the number of times Sigma has been banned from individual posts for being off-topic/irrelevant, or otherwise trollish in my opinion.

I did not resort to insults. If you click on your name, a handsome troll appears. What are we to make of that?

You then posit yourself as somehow more in the know and open minded. It’s all a bit too much self flattery. And you keep coming back to vaccines as though we should now accept your authority. The approach is pretty transparent.

My mind is open to new science. But no one has provided any evidence that vaccines/mercury cause/contribute to autism. And until the time someone does, it’s a hypothesis that doesn’t fit well with the known science and clinical presentation.

Why do you resort to insults? Do you really feel that is an appropriate way to engage someone in a dialogue?

I think my views are quite obvious if you’ve read some of my previous statements. I’ll bet that they don’t differ substantially from yours. I think the biggest difference is that I am more open minded whereas your mind is most likely already made up.

Regarding Kirby, what’s the point of beating a dead horse? He’s a schlock artist out to make a buck. He’s not the first and he won’t be the last. He’s an authority only in the media’s eye (and his own). Why do you take him so seriously?

At the risk of feeding the troll, what do you believe?

This takes integrity. I would wager a guess that there are a few more advocates of a vaccine etiology of autism theory, who (based on their knowledge and beliefs) could create testable hypotheses, but have not taken Mr. Kirby’s step.

If you read my comments, I said exactly the same thing.

However, to the best of my knowledge, very few are claiming mercury is the sole cause of autism. Although, it does appear that some believe it is a very significant, if not predominant, cause.

I really don’t understand belaboring the point that Kirby is wrong. It’s not like he is some kind of rocket scientist.

A little history Mr Sigma.

A lot of us only got interested in the CDDS data when it was touted by the mercury militia leaders (Rollens, Schafer, Handley, Kirby etc etc) that it was the rising figures in CDDS that proved the ‘epidemic’ was caused by vaccines as they detected a downward blip at one point.

We pointed out to them that CDDS could not be used to prove or disprove. and then Kirby made his infamous statement about the CDDS data not dropping by 2007 causing a bad hit to the mercury hypothesis. We decided to hold him to his word.

So, your section about us establishing Kirby is an idiot is correct.

However, we have to acknowledge the reality. If mercury in vaccines is the sole cause of autism (as believed by same group above) then these data do in fact establish they’re wrong. What they believe would simply be impossible given the data.

Questions:

1) Do they want to now claim that CDDS data isn’t actually that good after all? Fine, but this undermines the ‘epidemic’ idea.
2) Do they want to claim it ‘other things’ other than thiomersal? Fine, but that undermines every sinlge point they’ve made based on that premise between 1992 and now.

LM (yet another Autism Mom)