I responded to a post by John Dan Stone at Kirby's new thread. I know, but sometimes you want them to play with you, you know, those big kids on the block with so much influence. Sometimes you want to be noticed.
My response: I'm sorry, let me see if I understand you correctly? Are you asserting that all ASDs are due to vaccine damage? Or just some of it? Or is it anything big pharma does collectively?Does autism have one etiology or many? Do you think there is any genetic role whatsoever?What exactly is going to get worse and how?
So, Mr. Stone, proving he's just a big old softy, responded with:
"I'm sorry, let me see if I understand you correctly? "
I am sure you don't.
"Are you asserting that all ASDs are due to vaccine damage? "
"Or just some of it?"
"Or is it anything big pharma does collectively?"
It would be infantile to regard the pharma as a benign operator, or properly accountable.
"Does autism have one etiology or many?"
Almost certainly several.
"Do you think there is any genetic role whatsoever?"
Surely - vaccines don't effect all children badly, only some.
"What exactly is going to get worse and how?"
As I have said the pharma project its major growth in the vaccine sector:
Kids" vaccine market set to quadruple " Drug Researcher " By Anna Lewcock 20-Nov-2007http://www.drugresearcher.com/Research-management/Kids-vaccine-market-set-to-quadruple
New Report Forecasts More Than Doubling of Vaccine Sales by 2013 " MarketWatch Jun 11, 2009 " Kalorama News Releasehttp://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-report-forecasts-more-than-doubling-of-vaccine-sales-by-2013
And it has all got to be injected into our children, for whose benefit?."
We'll see if mine gets on:
Firstly, I am impressed that I actually got a response from someone at AoA. So, I'll give you props for that.
Awww, and then your first sentence appears to be a diss. Can I just say, y'all bring a whole new level of civilized discourse over there.
Alrighty then, so you acknowledge mutliple etiologies for autism. That's a start.
Where have I ever suggested that big pharma is a benign operator? Tsk. Are you suggesting that if one doesn't agree with AoA's beliefs of the inherent evil of big pharma one has to go to the other extreme?
Second good move; you ackowledge that genetics plays a role. Ah, but then you make it sound like vaccines hurt all children. One step forward and then one step back.
And the last bit of your response still doesn't tell me what's going to get worse.
John came back and responded (and it looks like I tarred him with the feathers some others deserve):
If you don't think you are getting answers you could try being courteous. But I also have to say on this showing that a lot of your views is based on a misunderstanding of what people have been saying - no one is claiming that vaccines are the exclusive cause of autism, and absolutely everyone has been saying that it involves genetic vulnerability.
"Where have I ever suggested that big pharma is a benign operator? Tsk."
I don't know your views on this at all, I was just stating mine - I certainly don't have any view that the industry is on balance a good thing, and it is dangerously under-regulated, so many bad effects which could be avoided will necessarily happen.
" Are you suggesting that if one doesn't agree with AoA's beliefs of the inherent evil of big pharma one has to go to the other extreme?"
I am suggesting the pharma needs to be regarded with rational scepticism, and that their main trading aim at the moment is to target our children with their vaccines.
"And the last bit of your response still doesn't tell me what's going to get worse."
Well, particularly if you live in the US all these vaccines are going to get mandated for all children with the cumulative risk getting ever greater, and all the adverse consequences being instantly deniable."
I did not mean to be discourteous, and it was perhaps unfair to bring my previous interactions with AoA/commenters on AoA into my exchange with you.
You may not be blaming only vaccines, you many hold a more balanced view on big pharma, you may accept multiple etiologies and a genetic component. But many of your readers and commenters do not. They are extremists. That may be because your comment moderation doesn't allow dissenting opinions in, or lets them in once or twice, just enough to get attacked and then never lets them back on.
Aoa's articles on balance appear to be geared towards keeping the vaccine issue and the mercury issue uppermost, and rarely are they balanced so that it is clear that AoA doesn't believe the extreme views.
I apologize if I let my frustration read into your post content that was not there. It seems apparent on additional readings of your comments that I did just that.
You took the time to elaborate your views and to answer my questions. Thank you.
I still walk away from this with the impression that you do not think vaccines are a good idea, so if you could clarify your position on vaccines specifically, I would appreciate that.
--So how many think I misread 'Kay' has a shortened okay and therefore somewhat dissing coming from an editor of AoA instead of what my husband suggests was probably John's referring to me as Kay? I think in this case I misread it and my husband was correct.
On another note, here's someone who contributes to AoA who doesn't appear to be on the fringes. Still there, though as a defender of Wakefield, though and the vaccines cause autism and apparently disdainful of the value of vaccines.
But it's progress. If we can get each person who contributes to AoA to clearly state his or her position, we don't have to collectively lump them with the most extreme of their commenters unless they belong there (which since they don't counter it makes it seem an endorsement of those views -- see the SV-40 nonsense).