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
causing damage." 

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:

-Jim West


One of the reasons that a science for the people has to be based on good
science is that otherwise it becomes prey to all the kinds of errors that
mainstream science is vulnerable to. The anecdotal reports of parents are
essentially worthless in establishing a relationship between vaccines and
autism, for all the classic reasons--recall bias, the confusing of
correlation with causation (vaccines are given right around the time that
autism symptoms normally appear in children, etc), and the substantial body
of studies that refute such a connection. I believe that most people here
are familiar with this. The fundamental error here is the idea that if
anyone connected with the "establishment" or the government is in favor of
something--in this case, vaccination, which saves millions of lives--then it
must be some sort of capitalist plot. The failure to distinguish real
capitalist plots (of which there are many) from patent nonsense creates a
huge distraction from the real tasks at hand. In fact, if I wanted to be a
conspiracy theorist, I would say that the CIA is behind the vaccine-autism
connection, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and AIDS denialism, because
objectively it takes thousands of people out of necessary struggles and
diverts them.

btw, be sure to check out Jim West's Web site for the real scoop on the
polio/pesticide connection--an excellent exercise in bad science.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Jim West <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Michael Goldhaber,

It is generous of you "not to say that unlimited number of vaccinations is

You accuse Cornelia Read of being myopic, seeing vaccines as the only cause
of autism, but she is just saying that vaccines are a very obvious cause.
Parent's are reporting an obvious sequence of events:  vaccines are
administered, child screams interminably, child becomes mute, child becomes
neurologically impaired.

You claim Cornelia's mercury dosage (as ppb) review is wrong, but if you do
the math (for a 10 lb infant), her argument becomes extremely compelling.
Cornelia provides the data (see her URL below).

The effectiveness of her blog is that it shows quite graphically that that
which was once 'arguable', we now realize was exploitive and dangerous.

In other words, the history of medicine enables us to understand its present

With regard to your salute to the effectiveness of vaccines, those beliefs
are usually, if not always, based on disease paradigms that omit
environmental studies.

The second part of your salute appears to exhort "leftists" towards
vaccination enforcement.  Without reviewing disease paradigms in terms of
environment, the left may just be facilitating rightist exploitation.

-Jim West

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 02:00:54 -0700, Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>One aspect (at least)  of the blog post recommended  below is highly
>misleading. Concentrations of mercury in water and in vaccines are
>compared, with no mention that  even a child would take in thousands
>of times as much water by weight in comparison to the weight of
>vaccines. Thus ppb of mercury in vaccines is a very misleading measure
>of relative doses. In addition no mention is made of the fact that
>autism is now understood as a spectrum of disorders, and diagnosing a
>child as autistic quite possibly is now routinely done for milder
>cases than it would have been in the past.  Furthermore, there are
>other social changes that might give rise ot higher incidence of
>autism, such as parents typically conceiving at an older age than
>formerly and increased use of ultrasound. I people are truly concerned
>about an increase in autism, it is a very poor  plan to focus only on
>one possible cause, which may or may not be the real culprit.
>This is not to say that unlimited number of vaccinations is
>unproblematic, but in general vaccinations have led to better public
>health and longer life expectancies, not the reverse. Surely, leftists
>ought to be concerned about  the dangers to the public at large if
>individual parents arbitrarily decide against vaccination for their
>own children. Even diseases such as measles and mumps can be deadly or
>highly debilitating.
>On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:35 PM, Jim West wrote:
>> I see a sqabble beginning...
>> So to lighten things up on such a heavy subject -- this fine satire by
>> Cornelia Read puts autism, science and journalism in proper
>> context.  Facts
>> and humor allow the reader to laugh and learn.