Jim West's post really makes my point for me. He cites Dr. Boyd Haley, obviously thinking that his statements represent a strong argument for Jim's point of view. But for every Boyd Haley, I can find 10 or 100 equally qualified experts to say that there is no link between vaccines and autism, just as I can find hundreds of PhD's to counter the small handful of climate change denialists, AIDS denialists, Darwin denialists, ESP proponents, etc. Of course, the conspiracy theorist counters that all of these people are bought off establishment scientists; this, again, is why a science for the people has to be based on the scientific method or it is useless.
I will respond to Herb's very interesting post about science for the people once I have read the materials he presented.
Michael Balter won't allow my response to his criticisms (last time I
tried), so this is to the general list.
Balter substitutes the word 'science' for the phrase 'medical science',
which is his actual topic, a topic so obviously fraught with economic and
political conflict. If we are to build a strong industrial society, how
could 'medicine' be any other way?
Parents are free of the major evil of orthodox medical science, which is a
huge conflict of interest with chemical/pharmaceutical industries. By
pooling parental experiences with analyses by themselves and professional
scientists, via the internet, a more truthful science is established.
Due to the internet, CNN had little choice but to break its past taboo on
vaccine information, to maintain credibility. When will CNN present
scientists, instead of parents, on controversial disease paradigms, like
HIV=AIDS and vaccination?
Here are two statements* by Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor and Chair, Dept. of
Chemistry, University of Kentucky and an authority on mercury toxicity:
1) "I think that the biological case against Thimerosal is so dramatically
overwhelming anymore that only a very foolish or a very dishonest person
with the credentials to understand this research would say that Thimerosal
wasn't most likely the cause of autism."
2) "It would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without
Regarding Balter's rail against 'anecdotal evidence', I'd say he needs to
read Cornelia Read's article again, it paints such a laughable picture of
the professorial man-in-white.
Cornelia Read's article: