Kevin Leitch’s Left Brain Right Brain autism blog closed today. Click the link and you will discover why:
The reason LB/RB is shutting is because I cannot continue to allow my beautiful eldest girl to be exposed to the hatred and bullying she is recieving from John Best. John has seen fit to compare my beautiful child to a trained monkey because he didn't like the fact she was progressing. He has made numerous jokes at her expense on that theme. He has assumed her identity online. He has encouraged others to do the same.
Let me be clear. I do not care one iota what this cowardly idiot thinks of me. He can write whatever he wants. But he has involved my daughter. Not to reference her progression. Not to quote me. But to laugh at her and to put words in her seven year old mouth.
I genuinely fear for her safety at the hands of this person (I will refrain from calling someone who picks on children 'a man'). Three days running he has posted blog entries about her, two of which assume her identity and one of which is attempting to gain money in her name. I do not know where he would stop. Therefore the only way to make her safe is to remove us from his presence.
More at the link.
This is sad. Kevin’s blog has been a source of much thoughtful and useful information on autism and autism quackery over the years, and all of this information is now lost (the wayback machine notwithstanding). But Kevin has to put the safety of his family first and I can’t fault him for doing so. I don’t know too much of this John Best, except that he posts numerous comments to blogs under the name “Fore Sam”, and is well known in the autism anti-quackery blogosphere. For example, this appears to be a sample of John Best aka Fore Sam’s thought on a variety of subjects. This is his blog.
Whatever your views on the causes of autism, it’s a sad day when a blog has to close due to fears for the safety of its author and/or his family.
I will be calling John Best a thug every opportunity I get. I knew the bastard was evil, but he's topped himself.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 15, 2007 at 06:24 AM
Damn, this is a new low. I knew the guy was a troll, but to think he'd stoop this far? I'd go on, but I'd probably have to invent a few new swear words to do so.
Posted by: Infophile | October 15, 2007 at 07:14 AM
If the thug put as much effort into caring for his own son as he has on maligning a seven-year-old disabled girl, think how much better off everyone would be.
Of course, that assumes he has some kind of personal fund of love and devotion. Maybe the most logical inference is that he has neither of these to give, only hate.
Posted by: isles | October 15, 2007 at 08:44 AM
I am disgusted and gutted. LB/RB was one of the blogs I pointed people at for reliable quack-free information on autism. And Kevin's posts about his daughter shone with his love for her and delight in her achievements.
Now what will John Best do?
Posted by: sophi8 | October 15, 2007 at 12:22 PM
http://gas1.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/john-best-what-a-cunt/
Please excuse the blatant plug. But I had to share...
Posted by: Gas1 | October 16, 2007 at 09:01 AM
For easy clicking.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 16, 2007 at 09:28 AM
please do not give john best a link from your blog it only improve his pagerank.
Posted by: somebody | October 16, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Don't click on Gas1's link... adware alert!!
And nothing to share, just links to other blogs we know about.
Posted by: HCN | October 16, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Links that you know about - but not everybody knows them.
Anyway, what adware? It's hosted by wordpress.com, who loathe adware. Possibly the wordpress stats image produced a false positive?
But I agree that NOBODY should link to JB's blog.
Posted by: sophia8 | October 17, 2007 at 05:18 AM
fyi, the link has the property "nofollow". Look it up.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 17, 2007 at 07:43 AM
That's the default WP property for links. See: http://codex.wordpress.org/Nofollow
Posted by: sophia8 | October 17, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I'm really hurt that anyone would call me a thug. I don't think that's very nice.
Posted by: John Best | October 17, 2007 at 01:41 PM
How about "cretin"? Nicer?
Posted by: Martin | October 17, 2007 at 03:10 PM
You're not a nice person. That's why you're not called nice things.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 17, 2007 at 06:11 PM
Far too polite Martin.
Best, you're about as welcome as a rectal fissure and just as unpleasant so do yourself a favour and sod off. Besides, we're all adults and so a little too old for you to pick on, you noble warrior for truth you.
Try a reptile house instead, I'm sure you'll fit right in.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 17, 2007 at 06:19 PM
Please, wise skeptics, tell me how I can improve myself.
Posted by: John Best | October 17, 2007 at 07:42 PM
I'd suggest improving your reading comprehension skills, given your past misrepresentations of everyone's point of view and actual arguments.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 17, 2007 at 08:05 PM
Stop harassing and insulting children, for starters.
Posted by: Martin | October 17, 2007 at 09:55 PM
"Please, wise skeptics, tell me how I can improve myself."
Stop posting your supporters names addresses and phone number would be a start you twit. Given what you posted I now know full personal information on your little crew. If you are that stupid how can we trust you not to be and idiot about other things.
Posted by: vlad | October 18, 2007 at 06:00 AM
Not only are you a coward and a thug your an idiot. Why not fix one of those to start with?
Posted by: vlad | October 18, 2007 at 06:02 AM
Well Best you could make a start by acting like a man and not picking on children, but I doubt you have the courage or wit to do so.
Did it make you feel big? Real macho guy aren't you?
However, since reading through some of your drivel it is apparent that there really is no improving you, unless of course we have geological timescales and the processes of natural selection to work with.
Or am I being unfair to single celled organisms?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 18, 2007 at 10:21 AM
"I'm really hurt that anyone would call me a thug. I don't think that's very nice.
Posted by: John Best | October 17, 2007 at 01:41 PM"
Sure you are Mr Best. You love the attention, and being called a thug is attention none the less. You love it really - you crave any attention as long as you aren't actually physically harmed. Such a brave little boy aren't you. But you're still a dick-headed, shit-for-brains fuckwit who attacks disabled children. An attention seeking whore!
Posted by: | October 19, 2007 at 03:33 PM
I didn't attack any children. I tried to help a child by educating the idiot father. I can only presume it worked and the kid is now getting the help she needs.
Posted by: John Best | October 19, 2007 at 08:54 PM
"Please, wise skeptics, tell me how I can improve myself."
A tenth grade science course couldn't hurt.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Does 10th grade science teach that mercury causes autism?
Posted by: John Best | October 20, 2007 at 06:17 AM
No, tenth grade science teaches that pronouncements must be backed up with evidence, or their proponents look like stupid, arrogant kooks.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 20, 2007 at 07:55 AM
Since nobody ever tested thimerosal for safety, I have to agree with you that the companies who use it in vaccines look like stupid, arrogant kooks.
Posted by: John Best | October 20, 2007 at 08:54 AM
Bls. Best,
"Does 10th grade science teach that mercury causes autism?"
No, and there is a good reason for that. It doesn't.
Could you please explain why children given jabs of MMR vaccine without thimerisol have a higher rate of autism?
could you explain the mechanism by which after thimerosal was phased out in Quebec in 1996, the autism rate rose from 59.5 per 10,000 to 82.7 per 10,000.
Maybe you can explain why the autism rate keeps rising in the US even though thimerisol has been eliminated from most US childhood vaccines since 1997, and totally eliminated from new hampshire (and other states) vaccines.
Perhaps you can explain to me how the ravages of measles is somehow better for the children than the non-effects of the vaccination that prevent them?
You, and other nonsense people like you, increase suffering in the world by allowing preventable and eliminatable diseases like this to spread. You are a miserable excuse for a human being. Its too bad you can't recognize this past your overinflated ego.
I cant wait for the nonsense answer. Please don't bother posting links to previously debunked studies by wakefield or the greier's, that is just tiresome.
We know it is not vaccines. If people like you would pull your heads out of your asses, maybe we could actually get some work done on finding what the actual causes are.
(Mr. = mister, Mrs.=misses, Bls.=brainless)
Posted by: | October 20, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Incidentally, perhaps you can explain the mechanism by which thimerosal causes mercury poisoning, since thimerosal "contains" mercury in the same way that salt "contains" deadly chlorine gas and explosive sodium. Last I checked, eating salt neither suffocated nor exploded me.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 20, 2007 at 02:08 PM
Dear Brainless,
Autism keeps increasing because, even though some thimerosal was removed, the key is that it is still getting to infants and fetuses before they have a blood brain barrier via the flu shots to the mother. This has the added benefit of making Pharma look innocent since the kids are born with scrambled brains. Parents don't watch them regress and do not become suspicious.
I'm not interested in playing games with statistics. I'm only concerned with removing mercury from childrens' brains. We know that chelation cures some kids and dopes like you fail to accept that fact.
Posted by: John Best | October 20, 2007 at 02:14 PM
Dear Brainless,
Autism keeps increasing because, even though some thimerosal was removed, the key is that it is still getting to infants and fetuses before they have a blood brain barrier via the flu shots to the mother. This has the added benefit of making Pharma look innocent since the kids are born with scrambled brains. Parents don't watch them regress and do not become suspicious.
I'm not interested in playing games with statistics. I'm only concerned with removing mercury from childrens' brains. We know that chelation cures some kids and dopes like you fail to accept that fact.
Posted by: John Best | October 20, 2007 at 02:14 PM
That's something JB never, ever acknowledges, Tom. I suppose he thinks all of chemistry is part of the Illuminati conspiracy, which is busy covering up the fact that the oceans, containing explosive sodium and water, which it reacts violently with, is busy exploding 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
More bizarre is that he seems to raz on the institutions that have systems of accountability and international transparency, while he gives a free pass to any quack who agrees with his insane chemistry denialism, regardless of how little (if any) record keeping the quack does.
In short, in JB's world sloppiness, neglect, and secrecy equal honesty. Rigor, professionalism, and openness to the world mean "cover up!"
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 20, 2007 at 02:28 PM
It's jaw-dropping how the mercury militia tries to weasel out of the fact that thimerosal was removed from pediatric vaccines by suggesting it's because of the flu vaccine (or more creatively, because of crematoriums, forest fires and mercury plumes from China.) Did pediatric vaccines have anything to do with it, yes or no?
You can't explain this by citing a switch from pediatric vaccines to the flu vaccine, or any of the other nonsense hypotheses. It just doesn't add up, and we keep beating a dead horse here. The closed-mindedness of the believers is showing big time on this one.
Even though they are not publicly admitting it, some organizations are quietly changing their tune though. See Generation Rescue's new message.
Posted by: Joseph | October 20, 2007 at 05:07 PM
Joseph,
I think you should show a graph of autism among the Amish or among that medical practice in Chicago that doesn't vaccinate.
I'd trust the CA #'s if I supervised the manufacture of the vaccines to be certain zero thimerosal was used in the process. I don't believe that is the case.
Posted by: John Best | October 20, 2007 at 07:13 PM
2. How does thimerosal cause mercury poisoning?
3. If removing thimerosal from childhood vaccines had no effect on reducing autism (because it's still coming from the parents' flu shots) then how do you know it was ever caused by childhood vaccines? A lot fewer people get flu shots than get their children MMR vaccines; still fewer I imagine get it while they're pregnant. How long does it stay in the mother's system?
4. What evidence do you have that chelation cures autistics?
5. So, were autistic kids born with "scrambled brains" before, due to the flu shots? If so, again, how could you blame childhood vaccines? If not, why has the flu vaccine started causing autism earlier than the mercury crowd used to claim?
6. Have you ever even heard of Occam's Razor?
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 20, 2007 at 09:17 PM
Bls. Best,
even though some thimerosal was removed, the key is that it is still getting to infants and fetuses before they have a blood brain barrier via the flu shots to the mother
I see, so its in fact, not childhood vaccines like you have previously tried to tell people. It's the flu vaccine now. So are you going to apologize to the Left-Brain Right-Brain guy (and everyone else) now because you were being so idiotic?
Sadly, you are of course wrong again, not all flu vaccines have thimerisol. Less than 1/2 the population even gets flu vaccines, and even a smaller percentage of pregnant women get the vaccine. So even if your ridiculous, baseless statement were true, there should have been a marked drop in autism rates, when it was eliminated from childhood vaccines. But it just keeps rising, doesnt it?
California banned flu shots with thimerisol in it (probably because of ridiculous people like you) in 2006. Wanna bet what happens to the autism rate? By your theory it should stop altogether in CA. Right? There are no vaccinations with thimerisol in it in CA available to children under 3 or pregnant women. Are you going to write down here that the Autism rate will now drop dramatically in CA?
Of course you wont... because time and time again it is shown there is no link between the two. You'll just make something else up.
Your baseless rhetoric is hurting people and making them sick. Your baseless rhetoric is killing people.
Posted by: Techskeptic | October 20, 2007 at 09:53 PM
LOL tom,
sorry, I didn't see your post, Looks like I just parroted you. Apologies.
Posted by: Techskeptic | October 20, 2007 at 09:56 PM
I think you should show a graph of autism among the Amish
OK, lets say the rate of autism among the amish is zero (it isnt). How does that prove that vaccines are causing the problem?
The amish dont live in cities, they don't eat McDonalds, The dont have air conditioners running, the dont use Suave shampoo, they don't breath as much car exhaust, they dont stare at a TV or computer scsreen all day, they generally breed from within their own group, .... but for some reason, you just know its vaccines.
you really aren't used to the use of logic and reason are you?
Posted by: Techskeptic | October 20, 2007 at 10:07 PM
I see you people are a little slow. How about we use a graph from the last million years? It will show no autism until 1943 with a slow rise for about 40 years and an increasing rise as the number of vaccines with thimerosal increased.
Then we'll see a condition that was incurable until 1999 when we learned that mercury had caused it and some smart doctors found a way to cure it. Yup, I know, all of those kids who had always had no hope of a cure magically started becoming normal. Nitwits!
Posted by: John Best | October 21, 2007 at 02:33 AM
Best:
I see you people are a little slow. How about we use a graph from the last million years? It will show no autism until 1943 with a slow rise for about 40 years and an increasing rise as the number of vaccines with thimerosal increased.
Of course the word Autism wasn't actually coined as we use it today until 1938, when Hans Asperger used it in a lecture on child psychology. And then of course autism wasn't really used in its modern English sense until, you guessed it, 1943, by Leo Kanner in a report on 11 children who had similar behavioral problems.
Then of course, if we look back in history, we do have possible autism cases: people described as being under the possession of devils/daemons.
Autism won't appear on a graph before 1943, because the term didn't mean what it does now until 1943 genius. You are either spectacularly dishonest, or an idiot. Which is it?
Let's take your argument here and play with it shall we? How about you do a graph for the number of cases of consumption. How do you explain the massive decline in reported cases of consumption since the 16th century?
Could you be any more ridiculous.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 21, 2007 at 07:20 AM
Hey Jimmy,
Are you trying to tell me autism existed before 1943? If your ridiculous assertion is true, you should be able to show me 77 year olds at the rate of 1 in 150 with autism. If you can do that, I'll blow you.
Posted by: John Best | October 21, 2007 at 07:41 AM
So do you deny that the term autism was not used until 1943?
Do you deny that there are many reported cases of people with behavioral problems that match the symptoms of autism from before 1943?
I asked you first though, when you give me the data on consumption since the 16th century, I'll give you the autism rates for the elderly.
You might get away with switching the focus of your arguments with other people, but it won't work here.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 21, 2007 at 07:54 AM
Oh and I forgot, of course your figure of 77 year olds with an autism rate of 1 in 150 takes into account mortality rates right?
And the fact that they may have been misdiagnosed when they were young because autism was not a common diagnosis back in the 1940s. You know, what with it only just coming into use as a term never mind recognised condition.
You did think about all this, right?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 21, 2007 at 07:57 AM
Oh, and you were aware that autism was only generally recognised as a seperate condition in the late 1960s, after sufferers constantly being misdiagnosed under other conditions such as infantile schizophrenia?
You knew all this, right?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 21, 2007 at 08:00 AM
Sorry Skeptico, I'm not going for a record of repeat posts or anything.
Does anyone have a subscription to the British Journal of Psychiatry?
This article:
Epidemiology of psychiatric disorders in elderly compared with younger adults with learning disabilities
Appears to be what Best is looking for.
Quote from the abstract:
RESULTS: Elderly people with learning disabilities have a greater prevalence of psychiatric morbidity than younger controls (68.7 v. 47.9%). Rates for depression and anxiety disorders are high, and dementia is common: there are equal rates for schizophrenia/delusional disorders, autism and behaviour disorders in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The higher psychiatric morbidity among elderly (compared with younger) people with learning disabilities has not previously received adequate recognition. This warrants further investigation by service planners and clinicians.
And how do you explain this Best:
Autism rates appear to be high amongst immigrant families
What do we think immigrant families, probably from non-developed countries, might not get? Vaccines perhaps?
Have a read of this article:
Autism and aging
Best, perhaps you can explain this:
Why do more boys develop autism than girls?
Or perhaps Best knew that studies of autism rates in adults are either not done or hard to find:
How many people have autistic spectrum disorders
Money quote for the UK:
No prevalence studies have ever been carried out on adults.
Numpty.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 21, 2007 at 08:33 AM
For Best's answer to the boy/girl ratio, he'll bring up testosterone sheets or whatever, since we all routinely boil our kids in hot benzene, the only circumstance these sheets have been observed in, right?
He'll also start going on about the human body is no more complex than flashlights or toasters, and claim that children have no need for testosterone before puberty, when the human body magically flips from one binary state to another with no transitions, middle grounds, or multiple purposes and states beforehand.
Suppose that latter part of his stupidity may stem from Intelligent Design, which does a routine job of presuming that everything has a singular purpose and the biological equivalent of multi-tools and jury-rigging is impossible because they say so.
Oh, and I just love the "words are reality" bit where he seems to think that entities and conditions cannot exist independently of their labels. Kind of reminds me of this one art woo who claimed the London fog didn't exist until someone painted it.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 21, 2007 at 09:28 AM
Jimmy,
We're discussing autism, not consumption. You switched topics, not me.
While the word autism was used, Kanner told us that what he described as autism had NEVER been seen before. A few cases with similarities don't make your argument useful.
Screw mortality rates, just find me the 77 year olds, dead or alive.
Posted by: John Best | October 21, 2007 at 10:20 AM
I think you should show a graph of autism among the Amish or among that medical practice in Chicago that doesn't vaccinate.
John, are you unaware of the phone survey your pals at Generation Rescue conducted where they located over 900 unvaccinated children, out of which 37 were reported to be autistic? If you can't do the math on that one, that is about 6 times the prevalence reported in a prior CDC phone survey of the general population.
Posted by: Joseph | October 21, 2007 at 11:02 AM
awww.. BLS. Best, you ignored my post and then started writing more drivel to someone else. I'm so hurt. In your nonsense to Jimmy you said:
you should be able to show me 77 year olds at the rate of 1 in 150 with autism
While I have no idea what sort of logic path you could possibly be following... you seem to be acknowledging that the autism rate is around 1 in 150 now. A rate higher than ever. Some of this has to do with recatagorization, but lets say none of it is since that seems to be your stance.
Why is the autism rate increasing when thimeresol has been driven out of childhood vaccines? Because its in the flu vaccines? Well its been driven out of than too in CA and NH, notice there is no drop in autism in either of those states (nor in Quesbec).
Further, only 1/2 the population even gets flu shots, an even lower percentage of pregnant women get it. So how come there wasn't a huge drop in autism since there was no mercury to pass to anyone in most of the population?
Why didn't you answer me about why you think Amish don't get autism when they aren't exposed to tons of other things that we are besides vaccines?
Every bit of your so-called logic falls apart becuase you have chosen to be harmful to human beings. Your actions are causing suffering and death.
I've never really corresponded with anyone before that could be described as a nitwit. But boy do you fit that description to a tee!
Posted by: Techskeptic | October 21, 2007 at 01:36 PM
Techskeptic,
Your comments were too absurd to merit my attention...as is most of what is said on this blog. I think I've seen enough of you bunch of jerks.
Posted by: John Best | October 21, 2007 at 02:10 PM
Analogy isn't always the most effective form of argument. However Best's idiot logic lends itself perfectly to demolition by analogy. What the halfwit is saying is that something cannot exist prior to its recognition or discovery. According to the logic of Best, prior to Copernicus and Galileo the Earth was at the centre of a geocentric system. The Solar system only came into existence afterwards. At some point in the past the Earth was actually flat. At some point in the past the stars were actually painted on the sky, etcetera.
As for autism, Best hasn't heard of those unfortunates throughout time known as village idiots (most probably because he is one) and idiot savants (which he certainly isn't). In medieval times unfortunate souls who had the nerve to suffer from being psychologically or neurologically different would have been regarded as being possessed by devils and the like, and treated accordingly.
Really Mr Best, it's hard to find someone quite so arrogant and wilfully ignorant as yourself. You are truly a shit-for-brains fuckwit, and you demonstrate it with every keystroke, every word, every fantastic bit of ignorant drivel that emanates from your single grey cell. Frankly you give morons a bad name.
Posted by: pv | October 21, 2007 at 02:32 PM
Like I said, it reminds me of an art woo who said the London fog didn't exist until someone created it with a painting.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 21, 2007 at 02:40 PM
Best wrote:
"Your comments were too absurd to merit my attention...as is most of what is said on this blog. I think I've seen enough of you bunch of jerks."
That's very revealing about what you describe as your "attention" - as if anyone could be so desperately hopeless as to actually want it. What it means dear boy is that you are congenitally incapable of coherent thought. As for your non-existent manners...
What a piece of excrement!
Posted by: pv | October 21, 2007 at 02:42 PM
Your comments were too absurd to merit my attention...as is most of what is said on this blog. I think I've seen enough of you bunch of jerks.
LOL! I knew it. God forbid we actually ask you to back up your ridiculous claims and show the logic in your nonsense reasoning.
Pathetic. That was almost too easy.
Posted by: Techskeptic | October 21, 2007 at 03:45 PM
(Cough)
At this point I should draw everyone’s attention to The Woo Handbook #20.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 21, 2007 at 05:24 PM
Or, maybe you'll find that the rates of autism rise as diagnostic tools and definitions of the disorder improve and expand.
Incidentally, if there were no cases until 1943, then I guess when Hans Asperger described 400 patients in 1938 as "autistic psychopaths," due to the disorder which now bears his name, he was just making them up.
So...why aren't the rates dropping? That's eight years ago, there's no more thimerosal in childhood vaccines, there are significantly fewer people getting flu shots than there were getting MMR, and there aren't any doing so in California. And on top of all that, you claim there's a cure. Why, then, do the rates keep rising?And, to reiterate (since you have yet to answer):
1. What reason do you have not to believe that all the thimerosal has been removed from vaccines?
2. How does thimerosal cause mercury poisoning?
3. If removing thimerosal from childhood vaccines had no effect on reducing autism (because it's still coming from the parents' flu shots) then how do you know it was ever caused by childhood vaccines? A lot fewer people get flu shots than get their children MMR vaccines; still fewer get it while they're pregnant. How long does it stay in the mother's system?
4. What evidence do you have that chelation cures autistics?
5. So, were autistic kids born with "scrambled brains" before, due to the flu shots? If so, again, how could you blame childhood vaccines? If not, why has the flu vaccine started causing autism earlier than the mercury crowd used to claim?
6. Have you ever even heard of Occam's Razor?
I await more than dodges, John, especially since you claim not to be a kook.
Why should he be able to demonstrate that? Nowhere did Jimmy say that autism was prevalent at the same proportion in the population pre-1943 as it was in the population post-1943. The fact that the diagnostic standards for autism were set in 1943 proves that autism existed before 1943, because it takes time to develop a diagnostic definition for a disorder. Kanner didn't just make up a bunch of symptoms in 1943, he based the work on a study dating back at least as far as 1938, and using patients born as far back as 1931. Don't just take my word for it, read his paper yourself. Really?See why it's important to back up your claims with evidence?
..."which is why I responded to them." Absurdity suits you, John. "I'm taking my ball and going home!"Go suck on a thermometer, John. If you decide to peek in again, make sure you're ready to answer my questions and/or back up your claims.
Bronze Dog:
Reminds me of a woo movie (woovie?) which claimed that Native Americans couldn't see Columbus's ships because they didn't know what they were.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 21, 2007 at 06:08 PM
Best:
Jimmy,
We're discussing autism, not consumption. You switched topics, not me.
Boy did that one just pass you by completely. I guess this must have been a little overwhelming for you, poor boy.
Anyway, re-read, I said switching focus not topic. Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your strongest skill?
Now, pay attention because I am going to explain why I brought up consumption.
1. There is no data on declining rates of consumption, just like there is no data (or it is hard to come by) on the elderly and autism rates, something backed up by the articles I cited and you completely ignored.
2. The significant point is that consumption was used as a catch all for a variety of illnesses now given more modern medical terms. Those illnesses still existed prior to the newer terms, but they were called something else. I thought that was pretty obvious, but I guess not. Don't worry, maybe you were having an off day. I mean, do you really think the effects attributed to special relativity didn't exist until 1905?
While the word autism was used, Kanner told us that what he described as autism had NEVER been seen before.
Frikking awesome. You mean Kanner had access to the medical records of everyone who ever lived from the first Homo Sapiens up to 1943? I mean, wow. Where are they now though? And how come no-one else knew? I don't suppose you have a citation do you? I mean, I know you would never lie about something like that, and it's not like anyone else could find a quote directly from a paper by Kanner that shows you are full of shit. Oh.....
A few cases with similarities don't make your argument useful.
And yet they seemed to be good enough for Kanner. Strange that.
Screw mortality rates, just find me the 77 year olds, dead or alive.
Yes, screw anything that you might have to take into account to gain meaningful results. Just make shit up like you do, right? But anyway, you first, figures on consumption rates please.
Your comments were too absurd to merit my attention...as is most of what is said on this blog. I think I've seen enough of you bunch of jerks.
What a petulant jackass. Anyway, why did you come back to read this? Someone as arrogant as you simply couldn't resist coming back, could you?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 21, 2007 at 07:05 PM
Sorry again.
Best, one question.
If autism did not exist before 1943, then how did Kanner diagnose patients with it in 1943?
Did they develop autism because he studied them? Is autism a result of Kanner discovering autism?
Ok, two questions:
If the mercury in vaccines (via thimerasol) was a cause of autism, then why was there no autism between 1931 (when thimerasol was first used in a vaccine) and 1943?
Do you not think that perhaps your position might be contradictory? Not a surprise for us skeptics at least, but a little embarrasing for you I am sure.
So, does the mercury in thimerasol cause autism? If so, why did it not cause autism for 12 years between 1931 and 1943, but then did afterwards? But only after Kanner had used the term autism to describe autism. Obviously.
You are definitely the funniest woo for a while. And then I remember your position on this kills people.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 21, 2007 at 07:45 PM
The lot of you go to great pains to conjure up excuses for poisoning babies. As one of you said, autism was named in 1943 but nobody who was diagnosed with it was born before 1931 when Eli Lilly caused the first case of it. So, you want to split hairs about whether it existed between 1931 and 1943? How absurd can you be? Of course, the kids who Kanner diagnosed had their brains scrambled at some point before Kanner saw them.
"but is probably more frequent than is indicated by the paucity of observed cases. It is quite possible that some such children have been viewed as feebleminded or schizophrenic. In fact, several children of our group were introduced to us as idiots or imbeciles, one still resides in a state school for the feebleminded, and two had been previously considered as schizophrenic." --Leo Kanner, "Autistic
I see you need help here. You shot yourself in the foot. All this shows is that Kanner knew that autism should be differentiated from these other conditions. It doesn't show that anyone previously called schizo was autistic...OR... Kanner would not have said it had NEVER been seen before.
A paucity of cases does not mean it had been around before. It just means that what was a new condition was not being recognized as such by anyone before Kanner. Since most autistics are not idiots or retarded like those who belong to the cult of Neurodiversity, the fact they can't speak could have had them lumped in with otherwise brain damaged kids for a short time. Having met many idiots in my life, I would never confuse one of them with an autistic person. The behavior is impossible for anyone to miss. I can see that some of you are definitely idiots but you don't come across as autistic.
And, what happened to discussing that slimeball, Leitch?
Posted by: John Best | October 21, 2007 at 09:06 PM
Jimmy,
Is autism a result of Kanner discovering autism?
LOL! Oh No! Its Quantum autism!
Posted by: Techskeptic | October 22, 2007 at 07:28 AM
So, no, he's not just saying that the two disorders need to be distinguished from one another, he's saying that two of his patients had previously been misdiagnosed as schizophrenics when they are in fact autistic, and that suggests there are others in similar conditions.
You keep referring to that. Where are you getting it from? Provide a citation, please. No, you need help. Look up "paucity" in the dictionary, genius. It means "a small quantity." What Kanner means is that they have observed very few cases, which might lead some to conclude that there are very few cases. To the contrary, Kanner believes that people with this condition have previously been misdiagnosed, and provides evidence of that from his own study group.In other words, your claim that it was a brand new disorder which no one before Kanner recognized requires some support. Kanner's claim that the disease is not necessarily new, and has previously been mistaken for other ailments, also requires support, which he provides from his own study. Where's your evidence to the contrary, John?
You do realize that "idiot" used to be a clinical term, right? When Kanner talks about "idiots" and "imbeciles," he's not being intentionally denigrating, he's using the accepted psychological terms. An "idiot" was someone with severe mental retardation and a very low IQ, and an "imbecile" was someone with less extreme retardation. No, clearly no autistic person could ever be mistaken for someone with some degree of retardation or schizophrenia....because now we recognize that there is a distinct pattern of behavior. Ye gods, you're stupid. In 1931, they didn't have well-defined categories for the mentally deficient. They had "the feeble-minded," anyone who wasn't of normal intelligence, and they had subcategories therein describing how severely impaired the people were. Then, by golly, Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger come in and do some studies because they notice that some of these feeble-minded kids have symptoms in common. And wouldn't you know it, they develop a diagnostic model from those common symptoms. Now, anyone can recognize the behaviors associated with autism, because now they're associated with autism. Talking to the mirror again? I thought you were going to back up your claims with evidence, since you think you're not a stupid, arrogant kook. Once again:
1. What reason do you have not to believe that all the thimerosal has been removed from vaccines?
2. How does thimerosal cause mercury poisoning?
3. If removing thimerosal from childhood vaccines had no effect on reducing autism (because it's still coming from the parents' flu shots) then how do you know it was ever caused by childhood vaccines? A lot fewer people get flu shots than get their children MMR vaccines; still fewer get it while they're pregnant. How long does it stay in the mother's system?
4. What evidence do you have that chelation cures autistics?
5. So, were autistic kids born with "scrambled brains" before, due to the flu shots? If so, again, how could you blame childhood vaccines? If not, why has the flu vaccine started causing autism earlier than the mercury crowd used to claim?
6. Have you ever even heard of Occam's Razor?
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 22, 2007 at 09:29 AM
I wonder why JB won't let us in on his sources that we keep demanding. I'm guessing A) he doesn't want his sources revealed to the blinding light of open public scrutiny (which is why a lot of quacks make a note to never, ever keep records except when something goes their way), or B) he's so overflowing with hubris, he expects the world to just take his word for it, like a revelation from Heaven, where any questioning of his data (which he hides all the relevant, meaningful bits), motives, or interests is tantamount to heresy.
So, why do you refuse to cite your evidence, JB?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2007 at 10:22 AM
I was thinking that someone should have warned the folks here who've never met the delightful JBjr of the multitude of amazing insights awaiting them.
However, no need - he seems to have loped off to his little corner of the lunatic fringe.
Posted by: Alyric | October 22, 2007 at 11:28 AM
I was thinking that someone should have warned the folks here who've never met the delightful JBjr of the multitude of amazing insights awaiting them.
However, no need - he seems to have loped off to his little corner of the lunatic fringe.
Posted by: Alyric | October 22, 2007 at 11:28 AM
I was thinking that someone should have warned the folks here who've never met the delightful JBjr of the multitude of amazing insights awaiting them.
However, no need - he seems to have loped off to his little corner of the lunatic fringe.
Posted by: Alyric | October 22, 2007 at 11:28 AM
I was thinking that someone should have warned the folks here who've never met the delightful JBjr of the multitude of amazing insights awaiting them.
However, no need - he seems to have loped off to his little corner of the lunatic fringe.
Posted by: Alyric | October 22, 2007 at 11:28 AM
I was thinking that someone should have warned the folks here who've never met the delightful JBjr of the multitude of amazing insights awaiting them.
However, no need - he seems to have loped off to his little corner of the lunatic fringe.
Posted by: Alyric | October 22, 2007 at 11:29 AM
It's an article of faith for the likes of JB. It's his religion. And like all religions he and his ilk have no evidence for theirs - merely conjecture based on fantasy or wild, woolly and wishful thinking. He brings nothing worth anything to the debate, not that there's much of a debate really, apart from empty assertions and vitriol. The only use I can see for JB is as an example of which to make a laughing stock in school elementary science or philosophy lessons.
Like many woos he lacks any knowledge of science, logic, history... well, everything really.
There's little point in trying to refute what he says because he doesn't present anything to argue with, unless your passion is exchanging tit for tat with hot air. And hot air he certainly has in abundance. In fact if he didn't have such vile manners, and his hot air contained marginally less bile, it would be easier to dismiss him as misguidedly eccentric. Instead one has little option but to recognise him for what he truly is - a disgustingly hateful, ignorant boor.
Posted by: pv | October 22, 2007 at 12:10 PM
1. What reason do you have not to believe that all the thimerosal has been removed from vaccines?
****It's in the flu shot...common knowledge. It's in the tetanus shot. There is a trace in other shots...how much that trace is, I'm not sure anyone knows. This goes beyond the US and other developed countries. The full dose of thimerosal is still in vaccines in Asia, Africa, Central America, South America. Those places don't have a clue what to do about autism. Continuing to poison those babies is criminal.
2. How does thimerosal cause mercury poisoning?
***Read what Deth had to say for the specifics about preventing methylation...making it impossible for them to pay attention to anything...that's what autism is, an inability to pay attention to anything.
3. If removing thimerosal from childhood vaccines had no effect on reducing autism (because it's still coming from the parents' flu shots) then how do you know it was ever caused by childhood vaccines? A lot fewer people get flu shots than get their children MMR vaccines; still fewer get it while they're pregnant. How long does it stay in the mother's system?
*** Comparing the flu shot with the MMR is apples and oranges. The key is that the mercury gets to the baby (fetus) before a BBB is developed, same as with the HepB when the numbers saw their largest increase 3 years after it was introduced.
4. What evidence do you have that chelation cures autistics?
***My son's improvement, my son with ADD being 100% cured, friends and acquaintances who have cured their children and reports from DAN and others.
5. So, were autistic kids born with "scrambled brains" before, due to the flu shots? If so, again, how could you blame childhood vaccines? If not, why has the flu vaccine started causing autism earlier than the mercury crowd used to claim?
*** The flu shot was not on the schedule until after the HepB had the mercury removed. Any mercury before or at birth would contribute to the problem for kids who couldn't get rid of it.
6. Have you ever even heard of Occam's Razor?
****Yes, I've heard of it, I think it was in science class about 40 years ago. I've forgotten what it is and I really don't care. I also know what Paucity means. It's not my fault your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 22, 2007 at 09:29 AM
You have gone to great lengths to pervert the facts about how and when autism began. It would probably be easier for you if you just produced some 77 year olds with autism to prove your point. Trying to claim that every person in history that had brain damage was autistic is grasping at straws, wouldn't you agree?
PV,
I do hate people who try to lie about the cause of the aqutism epidemic. My religion is Boston Red Sox. GO SOX!!!!
Posted by: John Best | October 22, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Where'd you hide your citations? Be specific.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2007 at 12:56 PM
BD,
I don't use citations. I just rely on my memory. When you learn to do that, you will be a lot better off.
Posted by: John Best | October 22, 2007 at 01:19 PM
You have gone to great lengths to pervert the facts about how and when autism began.
Really? They've provided evidence (in the form of citations) to support their position. And you've provided this:
I don't use citations. I just rely on my memory.
Sorry, you lose. You might get a second chance if you're prepared to provide some evidence that actually supports your position, but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Davis | October 22, 2007 at 03:05 PM
Davis,
They quoted Kanner and perverted the meaning of the words. How is that a citation? Bring me the 77 year old autistics or shut up.
Posted by: John Best | October 22, 2007 at 03:12 PM
And then what, JB? If we found a whole boatload of 77-year-old autistics you'd weasel out again because you can't be proved wrong. You'd say they were just retarded or psychotic, or that all that does anyway is split hairs with the exact year autism "was created." You're immune to counterproof and you know it. You're intellectually dishonest and a thug.
And Tom Foss did not pervert the meaning of the words. The words speak for themselves. You're obviously missing the point. He cited what Kanner actually said and all you have done is sit around saying "Nuh-uh!" Not only are you immune to counterproof of your delusions, you don't have any proof of your own. Go figure.
I don't use citations. I just rely on my memory.
So...You're a lazy, intellectually dishonest thug who gleefully doesn't understand at all who science works and yet thinks he knows better than the scientists doing actual work? Natch.
Posted by: Akusai | October 22, 2007 at 03:41 PM
BD,
I don't use citations. I just rely on my memory. When you learn to do that, you will be a lot better off.
What, are you claiming that it's possible for me to use psychic powers to rely on your memory, now?
And why would I rely on memory from a squishy bit of gray matter when solid, reproducible forms of information exist that can be verified by anyone?
Of course, we all know that this is a transparent dodge: It's like some people being charged with various forms corruption: They can conveniently play dumb thanks to their lack of record-keeping and "executive privilege" (read: "secrecy"). They'd rather we give up and live in a world of muddied memories and political spin, rather than openly verifiable fact.
This isn't about memory. This is about JB conveniently forgetting to cite work he knows to be indefensible. If he cited it and let us look at it under the blinding light of public scrutiny, we'd be able to verify stuff or point out his distortions. But that would mean giving up his iron-fisted control over this alleged information. That would mean we could read and interpret it for ourselves, rather than relying on his divine proclamations. He wouldn't want that.
For JB, public scrutiny is bad: You can't keep secrets or mistakes hidden when you allow people to observe your research. That's why he conveniently changes the subject when confronted, lying about why we want that information.
So, what do you have to hide, JB, that you have to perform such cheap, dishonest, and transparent misdirection to such a simple request for public scrutiny? Do you think you are allowed to work in the shadows, above the 'laws' of public debate?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2007 at 03:41 PM
They quoted Kanner and perverted the meaning of the words.
It's funny, I read those words, and the meaning they gave them is consistent with the interpretation a reasonable native English speaker would give them. Which leads me to conclude you're either not a native speaker, or not reasonable.
Posted by: Davis | October 22, 2007 at 04:14 PM
California Department of Disability Services
Quarterly Report 7/1/1992
Age Cohort: 62-99
4 people meeting DSM-III-R autism criteria (stricter than the current standard).
1992 - 62 = 1930.
If they are alive today, then they are your 77 year old autistics, at the youngest.
QED
Posted by: Interverbal | October 22, 2007 at 04:35 PM
And watch as he moves the goal posts again and declare "executive privilege" as to why he doesn't have to reveal anything of his to us.
Either that, or he'll make up another conspiracy without proof and cite his deityhood as to why he doesn't have to prove the conspiracy.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Incidentally, you know what else is criminal? Letting kids die of preventable diseases. If thimerosal causes autism, then why do the vast majority of people who receive vaccines, thimerosal-containing or not, never develop autism?
Who is "Deth," why should I listen to them, and what does thimerosal have to do with methylation? Thimerosal can break down to release ethylmercury, but ethylmercury does not build up in the body or brain and passes quickly out of the system. Methylmercury, which is dangerous and does bioaccumulate, has a completely different chemical structure.So, again, how does Thimerosal, which releases a relatively harmless mercury compound, cause mercury poisoning, which happens when one is exposed to large amounts of mercury, methylmercury, or one of the other toxic compounds?
Furthermore, if autism is mercury poisoning, then why do autistics exhibit only one sign of mercury poisoning (neuropsychiatric symptoms) and not any of the others (kidney dysfunction, ruddy faces, loss of hair, teeth, and nails, etc.)?
A simplistic and not entirely correct definition of autism, which doesn't account at all for Autism spectrum disorders such as Asperger's. Congratulations, John, you can't even describe the thing you're crusading for. You're the one who made the comparison. How? Does the mother have to get the flu shot while pregnant? If not, how long does the "mercury" stay in her system? Why hasn't there been a drop in autism rates since the removal of thimerosal from MMR vaccines, since fewer people get flu shots (and fewer still get them while pregnant) than get MMR vaccinations? And, once again, if flu shots are the real/current cause of autism, then how do you know that MMR ever caused it? Anecdotal evidence, post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc. Why no studies? Why no data?Furthermore, do you mean ADD as in Attention Deficit Disorder? You do realize that that's not the same as autism, correct?
Now you're bringing HepB into the mix. What does that have to do with anything? You have done nothing to address the matter of how you can say childhood vaccines cause autism, then that flu shots in the mother cause autism, and still be sure that the childhood shots had some effect.In other words, were the kids born with autism or not?
Clearly. Occam's Razor states that, all things (i.e., evidence) being equal, the explanation which requires the fewest unknown properties is probably the correct one. Which means that if we ignore the fact that numerous studies show absolutely no link between autism and vaccines, autism and thimerosal, and autism and mercury, if we ignore the fact that Chemistry shows know link between thimerosal and methylmercury, and we assume that "autism is a neurological disorder present from birth" and "autism is a neurological disorder caused by mercury poisoning from vaccines" are equally well-supported explanations, then the one with the fewest unknown steps is probably the correct one. So, let's compare the number of unknown steps:"Autism caused by mercury"
1. Unknown mechanism causes thimerosal to break down into harmful amounts of a toxic mercury compound.
2. Unknown mechanism by which said compound stays in a mother's system for an unspecified amount of time and infects the fetus, without ever affecting the mother.
3. Unknown mechanism by which most children never show any signs of mercury poisoning or autism, despite being exposed to the same vaccines at the same time.
4. Unknown mechanism by which the mysterious toxic mercury compound only causes some of the symptoms associated with mercury poisoning.
5. Unknown mechanism by which autism rates continue to rise, despite the removal of thimerosal from the majority of common childhood vaccines.
"Autism is present from birth."
1. The specific cause of autism.
Gosh, five to one. Which one is more parsimonious, John? (You can look that word up too; no one will think any less of you).
Yes, because I told you. Incidentally, you don't have to capitalize it in the middle of a sentence there; it's not a proper name. Yes, by directly quoting the scientist who first diagnosed the illness and providing links to the cited paper, in which the illness is first described in detail, I have perverted the facts. And you, who provide no citations or supportive evidence (except "my son with an unrelated illness got better, take my word for it") are a true crusader for factual purity. Why on Earth would that be easier? And why is it that you have such high standards for proof, when you provide none yourself?How about this: if I found a 77-year-old autistic person, would you completely reject your obviously failed explanation?
I would agree, which is why I said nothing of the sort. Creating straw man arguments because you have nothing else is also grasping at straws, John. Because memory is infallible and people never lie. We should all just be convinced on John's say-so, because anything that anyone says with absolutely no evidence to support it must therefore be true.You, sir, are a world-class moron.
Look up "citation" in the dictionary, dipshit. If I "perverted" the meaning of words, you should be able to prove it by quoting from the original paper--which I linked. If I've taken something out-of-context or otherwise misrepresented what Kanner said, then show it. Nothing could be easier than looking in the paper for evidence that I've twisted Kanner's words around to mean something other than what he actually said.Incidentally, just because you don't understand the meaning of a word doesn't mean that someone else perverted it.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 22, 2007 at 04:52 PM
Well, as they say, BAM!
That's how you do it, Tom. It leaves JB's double-standards, lies, obfuscations, and sloth out in full view. He wants all the power of Big Brother, i.e. being unquestioned about his sources, and when he's questioned, he plays thought police, trying to turn everything into a matter of loyalty to so-and-so group. He doesn't want the extent of his corruption exposed. That's why he's so silent when we turn the scientific method in his direction. He wants his claims to be treated differently because he's personally involved. He wants to be beyond questioning. He wants to be THE Authority with absolute rule over who debates what.
That's why he's to terrified of making his information public. He wants to keep control over it in hopes of using it for his private agenda.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2007 at 05:13 PM
I have to stop talking to you people. Your knowledge of mercury and autism is so shallow, I can't begin to educate you. You need to read everything that is available on Generation rescue and Safe Minds as I have done and then you might understand. I just don't have the time to spell it all out for you and undo the misinformation that you have acquired.
BTW, the MMR never had thimerosal in it.
Posted by: John Best | October 22, 2007 at 07:51 PM
Hey! Hey! Interverbal found a group of at least 77-year-old autistics right up above! Did you miss it? Or are you, as I predicted, declaring victory anyway?
Christ, you're unbelievable.
Posted by: Akusai | October 22, 2007 at 08:08 PM
Best:
Your comments were too absurd to merit my attention...as is most of what is said on this blog. I think I've seen enough of you bunch of jerks.
And yet you are back again paying us lots of attention, just like I said you would be.
As one of you said, autism was named in 1943 but nobody who was diagnosed with it was born before 1931 when Eli Lilly caused the first case of it.
So you now accept that autism did exist before 1943? Let me remind you what you said, just in case you forgot.
It will show no autism until 1943
and then:
Are you trying to tell me autism existed before 1943?
Well, I don't have to because apparently you knew it did and just forgot. But then remembered. Or changed your mind. Or got caught looking stupid.
So, you want to split hairs about whether it existed between 1931 and 1943?
No we don't, you do you braindead git. You were the one who insisted autism did not exist before 1943. You are the one now furiouly backpedalling because you got caught out. You really aren't very good at this are you?
How absurd can you be?
That's funny, I was having a very similar thought about you.
Of course, the kids who Kanner diagnosed had their brains scrambled at some point before Kanner saw them.
So autism did exist before 1943 then?
I see you need help here. You shot yourself in the foot. All this shows is that Kanner knew that autism should be differentiated from these other conditions. It doesn't show that anyone previously called schizo was autistic
Are you serious? Can you even read? Kanner clearly says that nothing should be read into the fact that there are not many observed cases of autism because many have almost certainly been diagnosed as some other illness or disorder, and then he proves it by mentioning two of his subjects were labeled as schizophrenic.
...OR... Kanner would not have said it had NEVER been seen before.
Either provide a citation or stop lying. You still have not answered this question though:
How did Kanner have access to the medical records of every human that had ever lived up until 1943?
Since most autistics are not idiots or retarded like those who belong to the cult of Neurodiversity, the fact they can't speak could have had them lumped in with otherwise brain damaged kids for a short time.
Gosh, I wonder if any of us might have, say, suggested that autism may have been misdiagnosed as other things before Kanner came along and dubbed it autism?
You have gone to great lengths to pervert the facts about how and when autism began.
Prove it. You don't even have to rely on your memory because our words are right here.
It would probably be easier for you if you just produced some 77 year olds with autism to prove your point.
Check the above citation from interverbal. At the younger end of the age group, in 1992, they would have been born in 1930. You lose. When can we expect your public apology and retraction?
Trying to claim that every person in history that had brain damage was autistic is grasping at straws, wouldn't you agree?
Absolutely. Which is why no-one said that. I guess your memory is not as reliable as you think is it? Here's a hint to help you though, try scrolling up and reading what was actually written. Don't worry, we can wait.
Shout if you need help with the big words.
I do hate people who try to lie about the cause of the aqutism epidemic.
Life is to short to hate yourself. But for you we'll make an exception.
I don't use citations. I just rely on my memory. When you learn to do that, you will be a lot better off.
Oh wait, I just remembered. Kanner once said that he had seen an autistic child born in 1906. You're right Best, when you learn to use memory you are a lot better off.
Now Best, disprove me. I don't have to give a citation, I used my memory.
They quoted Kanner and perverted the meaning of the words. How is that a citation?
It was a direct cut and paste from the paper and the paper was referenced. Perhaps you should look up what 'citation' means. If the words were perverted, you will have no trouble in showing how and where.
I mean, is this really all you have? I've lost count of the number of times you've lied and contradicted yourself. Not to mention you admit that you just make stuff up (sorry, use your memory) instead of citing actual papers on the subject.
I'm running out of insults for you because quite frankly it would be unfair to whichever group is associated with the insult I could use.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 22, 2007 at 08:18 PM
I have to stop talking to you people.
Do you really mean it this time?
Your arrogance will bring you back again. You might not post, but you and I will both know.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 22, 2007 at 08:21 PM
I CLEPed out of 8 hours of college chemistry. You can't even tell the difference between a compound and an element, taught in 5th grade.
AND you waste time posting political spin, rather than simply copy-paste a few links to some sites you visited. You have so much time on your hands, you flaunt it by wasting it on subject changes, goal post moving, special pleading as to why intellectual honesty doesn't apply to you, and blatant lying about our stance.
And to top it all off, you resort to stalling tactics, "Hey! Here's a pair of giant haystacks! Look for the needle while I keep yabbering on irrelevancies in a shallow attempt to stifle freedom of information and cover up answers to my challenges by ignoring them!"
You've got all the time in the world, and you'd rather waste ours than open yourself up to some public scrutiny. Why do you so hate the light?
Give us the information. Your silence on the core of the issue is deafening. You love silence from everyone, don't you, thug? You love slinking around in the dark, don't you?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2007 at 08:26 PM
Chemistry, specifically, the composition of thimerosal, mercury compounds, and the breakdown of one into the other.
Biology, specifically, the varying toxicity of mercury compounds, how long mercury stays in a person's system, how it moves through and is metabolized by the body, and why different people would have wildly different responses to the same stimuli.
Autism, specifically the origins thereof, the definition thereof, and the statements and studies of the people who discovered it.
Science, specifically the scientific method, the nature of reliable evidence and data, the importance of citations and records, the importance of parsimony to a scientific theory, and the necessary qualities of a valid scientific claim and conclusion.
Logic, specifically the construction of valid arguments supported by evidence, knowing how to refute someone properly, arguing a consistent and coherent point, and the avoidance of fallacies such as the straw man argument, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad hoc hypotheses, shifting the burden of proof, moving the goalposts, and a variety of others.
The English Language, specifically the meanings of words like "paucity" and "citation," the clinical usage of terms like "idiot" and "imbecile," and the basic skill of reading comprehension.
Honesty, specifically, not lying.
I think that's just about it. You're right, though, you can't begin to educate us, because in order to educate someone you must start from a position of greater knowledge on some subject. Since you don't know jack shit about the vast majority of things you've decided to spout off about, you are in no position to educate us, or anyone else.
"You need to read the biased, unscientific sources that agree with me, and then you'll see I'm right." Guess what: I've read the FDA, the CDC, and other reputable scientific documents on the subject. You know, the ones which cite sources and provide data, which discuss experimental setup and develop logically consistent conclusions. When you can provide real science, real evidence, to back up your claims, then we'll start believing them. So far, you have some anecdotes and speculation to support your claim, and a wealth of scientific data refuting it. Anyone have a spare irony meter? Mine burned out again. Gosh, even a stopped clock. You're right, according to the FDA. So why are your friends at Generation Rescue claiming that people should break up the MMR vaccine? Oh, I see, now it's mercury and an overload of live and attenuated viruses which causes autism. I should have guessed.Feel free to come back when you can argue like an adult.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 22, 2007 at 09:57 PM
The discussion with John about what Kanner said occurred before here. John seriously thinks Kanner did not say what he said.
Posted by: Joseph | October 23, 2007 at 09:33 AM
The FDA and CDC are not reputable sources for anything. They are comprised of gevernment employees who will say whatever the politicians tell them to say. The only reputable study they did on autism was the first one by Verstraeten. Everything they have said since then has been spin control.
I forgot which one of you thinks he made a wonderful argument by harping on 1943 so I'll spell it out for you. Autism was invented in 1931 by Eli Lilly. Kanner recognized it as something that had never been seen before in 1943. So, it existed between 1931 and 1943. I hope that satisfies the nitpickers. Verstraeten, Sallie Bernard and Amy Holmes discovered that autism was the same thing as mercury poisoning in 1999. It might have been 2000 when Amy Holmes figured out that chelating the mercury out gave some kids improvement. About that time, Andy Cutler had discovered that mercury from dental amalgams was also making people sick and he came up with a safe chelation method, through which no child has been harmed. Some children have been cured. Those cured kids prove that mercury caused the autism. Some deuschbag will call that a post hoc... because that is what deuschbags do who want to defend the drug companies. Anyone with common sense will use that information to cure autistic kids.
The only important thing for you knuckleheads to learn here is that autism can be cured. All of your other bullshit is irrelevant.
I'd have a field day with you Bozo's if I were in a court. Then, it would be worth my while to collect all of the info and stuff it down your throats.
You just keep agreeing with idiots like K Leitch who tries to tell us autism is beautiful, should not be cured and can not be cured. I'll be sitting here remembering how much autism has sucked for my kid and enjoying the improvement I see in him each and every day. That's all that matters.
The fact that he keeps improving due to my research on a subject about which I knew absolutely nothing 10 years ago proves that I'm infinitely more intelligent than the lot of you dumb bastards put together. So, call me all the names you want and ascribe non-existent fallacies to my points if that's what makes you happy. I'll just be celebrating the joy of curing autism.
Posted by: John Best | October 23, 2007 at 09:51 AM
Stop, John, stop. I'm ROTFL.
The only reputable study they did on autism was the first one by Verstraeten.
Which, as you apparently don't know, did not find thimerosal to be a risk factor in autism. I analyzed the initial drafts here.
Posted by: Joseph | October 23, 2007 at 10:16 AM
I don't have time to finish reading the comments, but I have to point this out.
Best seems has made the following three claims:
1) Vaccines containing thimerosal cause mercury poisoning, which is the underlying cause of autism.
2) Flu vaccine is among the offending vaccines.
3) There are no autistic old people because vaccination (in general) was not widespread before the 1920-30s.
The problem I see is that the elderly are the ones receiving flu vaccinations! If flu vaccines are the problem, all those old people getting their _yearly_ flu vaccination should be showing the symptoms of autism and/or mercury poisoning. After all, some of them have been exposed to the dreaded thimerosal for several years in a row.
So, really, I think we should see _more_ elderly people with autism, not less. ;-)
(Sorry if I accidentally duplicated someone else's post.)
Posted by: Josh | October 23, 2007 at 11:15 AM
I'm not sure about that line of Best-ish reasoning, but hey, it's hard to keep track of what he's claiming on a weekly basis.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Best:
Twice now I have predicted your arrogance would bring you back, twice I've been right. Shall we go for number three?
The FDA and CDC are not reputable sources for anything.
Really, that's very revealing. Before, you asked me for evidence that people over 77 had an autism prevalance of 1 in 150. Where might you have picked that figure from?
I ask only because it bears a remarkable resemblance to this:
That’s about 1 in 150 children in these communities.
Which came from here:
Prevalence of the Autism Spectrum Disorders in Multiple Areas of the United States, Surveillance Years 2000 and 2002
Incidentally, newer figures:
More recent studies from multiple countries using current diagnostic criteria conducted with different methods have indicated that there is a range of ASD prevalence between 1 in 500 children and 1 in 166 children.
From:
CDC Releases New Data on Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) from Multiple Communities in the United States
Autism was invented in 1931 by Eli Lilly.
You do seem a little confused. Remember this:
It will show no autism until 1943
and this:
Are you trying to tell me autism existed before 1943?
So which is it? What you do seem a little confused about though is when Thimerasol was invented. In case you are wondering it was 1929. It was first used in a vaccine in 1931.
So that would make autism invented in 1929 wouldn't it?
You are so full of bollocks it is laughable. You can't stop contradicting yourself even when you are trying to cover up previous contradictions.
You are a total fucking joke.
Kanner recognized it as something that had never been seen before in 1943.
You do seem a little hard of reading.
You are it seems referring to this (obviously your memory is a bit patchy so I'll help you out here):
Since 1938 there have come to our attention a number of children whose condition differs so markedly and uniquely from anything reported so far, that each case merits - and, I hope, will eventually recieve - a detailed consideration of its fascinating peculiarities.
Now, taken out of context that would indeed seem to support your pronouncement.
Now, in context we have this in the same paper:
These characteristics form a unique "syndrome" not heretofore reported, which seems to be rare enough, yet is probably more frequent than is indicated by the paucity of the observed cases. It is quite possible that some such children have been viewed as feebleminded or schizophrenic.
Now, would you like someone else to post that again for you before it sinks in? Tom and I have both had a crack, maybe it will be third time lucky. Kanner is clearly saying that he is the first person to recognise that there is one syndrome with specific symptoms that has previously been misdiagnosed as other illnesses. It has not been reported before because he is the first person to recognise it as one syndrome.
He states again in the report, in case this isn't getting through your thick skull:
Even though most of these children were at one time or another looked upon as feebleminded
Or how about this:
The combination of extreme autism, obsessiveness, stereotypy, and echolalia brings the total picture into relationship with some of the basic schizophrenic phenomena. Some of the children have indeed been diagnosed as of this type at one time or another. But in spite of the remarkable similarities, the condition differs in many respects from all other known instances of childhood schizophrenia.
Interestingly Kanner also says:
The children of our group have all shown their extreme aloneness from the very beginning of life
You know, before they were vaccinated. Indeed what we don't know from Kanner's paper is whether either the children or their parents had recieved any vaccines containing thimerasol.
He then concludes:
We must, then, assume that these children have come into the world with the innate inability to form the usual, biologically provided affective contact with people, just as other children come into the world with innate physical or intellectual handicaps.
The whole paper amounts to Kanner pointing out that there appears to be a condition that no-one else has identified before, that bears striking resemblance to other conditions, that has many things in common with other conditions, that has previously been misdiagnosed as those conditions, but isn't those other conditions. Nowhere does he say that autism has NEVER existed before 1943.
Would you like someone else to point this out for you as well?
You still haven't answered my question:
How could Kanner say that autism has NEVER existed before if he did not have access to the medical records of every human being who had ever lived?
Some deuschbag will call that a post hoc... because that is what deuschbags do who want to defend the drug companies.
"It's all big pharma!" Do you have your tin foil hat on as well?
I'd have a field day with you Bozo's if I were in a court.
Oh I doubt that very much, you have to rely on more than memory in court.
proves that I'm infinitely more intelligent than the lot of you dumb bastards put together.
You really are an arrogant prick aren't you? I think I lose more IQ when I shit than you appear to possess in your entirety, but whatever makes you feel better.
So, call me all the names you want and ascribe non-existent fallacies to my points if that's what makes you happy.
Non-existent fallacies? You really are beyond hope. You have heard of philosophy haven't you?
See you soon.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Jimmy Blue,
What grade are you in? You try very hard to put words in Kanner's mouth. In 1943, the kids he diagnosed with autism were all under 12, you know, born after thimerosal was first used. Whatever mistaken diagnosis they might have been given doesn't matter since nobody older than them ever had autism. Ergo simpleton, these kids were the first autistics to ever exist. In 1999, we found out that autism was mercury poisoning. Then we learned how to cure it.
I am usually an arrogant prick when I'm dealing with stupid bastards who think they know more than I do. Why don't you tell me how YOU would go about curing autism and why? No answer? Then STFU.
Posted by: John Best | October 23, 2007 at 01:00 PM
Thanks, Jimmy for that post. I love the part where JB changes his story from starting in 1931 to 1943.
And, of course, he has to change subjects to political/corporate alliances when accused of a specific logical fallacy about a specific claim, rather than honestly defend himself by showing us the structure of his claim doesn't match the structure of a post hoc fallacy.
Reminds me of some of those totalitarian nuts who'd respond to every challenge to their legitimacy, legality, and morality by labeling those challengers "subversives."
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 23, 2007 at 01:00 PM
And it turns out he has an "explanation." Too bad he never made it explicit by not citing sources and covering the structure of his arguments. He's not a detail person.
Speaking of who'd allegedly mop whom in the court rooms, this reminds me of a courtroom drama where the defense team requested a single document the prosecution was legally required to give. So, the evil prosecution sends them a room full of unsorted files, forcing the defense to waste precious time searching for the one they need.
That's what I think of when some guy tries directing me towards a front page of a website that allegedly supports them.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 23, 2007 at 01:13 PM
Whatever mistaken diagnosis they might have been given doesn't matter since nobody older than them ever had autism.
John is unable to give a consistent explanation as to what kids with Fragile X or Rett Syndrome would've been called before 1943. He has said "brain damanged", but does not concede that autism also could have existed under various other labels. Go figure.
In fact, for those interested, autistic children were recognized and well documented in the late 1800s by Dr. Landon Down: see here.
Posted by: Joseph | October 23, 2007 at 01:35 PM
I am usually an arrogant prick when I'm dealing with stupid bastards who think they know more than I do.
There's that paper showing that people incompetent in a subject don't recognize their own incompetence, and tend to overestimate their abilities quite a lot. Does anyone have the link? I should keep that one bookmarked for easy reference.
Posted by: Davis | October 23, 2007 at 01:47 PM
I think you might be talking about this one.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 23, 2007 at 02:00 PM
Best:
Look at that, I was right again.
What grade are you in?
I'm not in school anymore. I am studying for my masters in Geographic Information Systems if that is somehow relevant to you though.
You try very hard to put words in Kanner's mouth.
I'm sorry but you seem to be a little bit confused. I post actual quotes directly from Kanner without altering them. You simply rely on something you think you remembered, which Kanner definitely does not say in the paper. But I'm the one putting words in his mouth? Please do explain that one for us.
In 1943, the kids he diagnosed with autism were all under 12, you know, born after thimerosal was first used.
Oh so close but I'll give you this, see you can get things right if you really try. Case 6 was born September 13 1931 (sent to a state school for the feebleminded in 1936 incidentally). Keep it up though, you are getting better at it.
Now, to further support your conjecture you will need to show that all of the test subjects were given vaccines that contained thimerasol before developing any symptoms of autism, or that at least the mother of each test subject was given a vaccine containing thimerasol whilst pregnant or before. Otherwise, you're making shit up with no proof.
Before you start though, saying they must have had thimerasol because they had autism, and thimerasol causes autism is invalid because it presupposes that which you are trying to prove. So away you go, the floor is yours.
Whatever mistaken diagnosis they might have been given doesn't matter since nobody older than them ever had autism.
Something which you can't prove, and which you are basing on something that Kanner did not say. Once more I will ask:
How could Kanner (or you) say that autism has NEVER existed before 1943 if he (or you) did not have access to the medical records of every human being who had ever lived?
Anyway, back to you:
Ergo simpleton, these kids were the first autistics to ever exist.
Oh how cute, he can throw in some Latin too folks. He must be so much smarter than us. Of course, he's wrong.
Simply because no-one had been diagnosed with autism before 1943 does not mean that therefore (I know, not as flashy as ergo but it means the same thing) those kids were the first autistics because the word was only originally used in that way in 1943. Autism was only a recognised diagnosis AFTER Kanner described it in 1943. You must be more dense than a white dwarf not to understand this.
Let me ask again. Did the effects of special relativity exist before 1905, or did they not exist because they hadn't been termed special relativity yet?
Or how about this:
Did Pluto exist before it was discovered in 1930? Or actually before 1915, when it first showed up on photographs but wasn't recognised as the ninth planet and given the name Pluto?
Sound familiar?
Tell us John, when was Pluto invented?
In 1999, we found out that autism was mercury poisoning.
We did? Apparently most of the medical and scientific community failed to notice this. Unless of course they were being paid to notice it.
For instance, look here:
Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, 2-3 December 2004
There is no evidence in autism of neurodegeneration, a pathological feature that would be expected if the cause of the disease were toxic....
The Committee further reviewed results published in the scientific literature analysing a potential neuropathological effect of ethyl mercury in various strains of mice. Although a particular autoimmune disease-sensitive strain of mice showed some neurological and behavioural changes following administration of thiomersal, it was concluded by the Committee that the general picture presented did not mimic autism in humans.
Or how about this:
Mercury and autism: a briefing
Whilst these might be plausible suggestions there is, as yet, no sound scientific evidence to link autism with mercury. However, Geier and Geier (2003) suggest that there is strong epidemiological evidence for a link between increasing mercury from thiomersal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders and heart disease. They argue for the immediate and complete removal of thiomersal from all childhood vaccines.
The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) in its position statement (EMEA 2000) stresses the conclusions of the evaluation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA into whether there is any epidemiological association between thiomersal-containing vaccines and specific neurological disorders in children. The evaluation found the studies made thus far to be inconclusive and lacking in sound scientific information. Further studies were recommended.
...
Where mercury-free vaccines are available they should be used across the board as a precautionary measure although there is no persuasive evidence at present linking mercury with autism.
Let me guess, government stooges?
Incidentally Best, you still didn't answer this either:
Autism: Why do more boys than girls develop it?
Then we learned how to cure it.
Really? Again this appears to have escaped most of the medical and scientific community.
Is there a 'cure'?
There is currently no known 'cure' for autism.
...
Because autism is a 'spectrum' disorder it affects different people in different ways. It is therefore very difficult to generalise about how a person with autism will develop over time. It is particularly important to realise that an intervention - where intervention is considered necessary - which works well with one individual may not be appropriate or effective with another.
I am usually an arrogant prick when I'm dealing with stupid bastards who think they know more than I do.
Well you must really be arrogant a lot, one would have to conclude. My dogs think they are smarter than you.
Why don't you tell me how YOU would go about curing autism and why? No answer? Then STFU.
Attaboy Bestie, let it all out. Of course, since I am neither a medical doctor, a neuro-biologist, a psychologist, a behavioural therapist or pyschologist, a geneticist, a neuro-surgeon, a natural scientist or a quack like you I think you are being a bit unfair, don't you?
See, I know what my limits in knowledge are, because I'm not an arrogant prick.
Come back soon though.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 23, 2007 at 02:49 PM
Why don't you tell me how YOU would go about curing autism and why? No answer? Then STFU.
Ah, yes, the absurd idea that one MUST have a better answer before pointing out that a particular idea doesn't work.
If I test drive a car and it breaks down, I don't have to build a better car before meaningfully contributing.
Well, that's one more entry for the Doggerel series.
Anyway, if you really want to impress us, test your "cure" under rigorous, publicly transparent, double-blind protocols that allow for independent replication. That's how I'd test a potential cure. Anything less would be unethical.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 23, 2007 at 03:04 PM