"We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism"

[MannyGoldstein]

"We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out."

Who said that, and when?

[Agschmid]

1. First tell me why it matters?

[RobertEarl]

17. I can't determine

Whether this makes Hillary look good, or bad.

This should have a poll attached so DU can make up it's mind?

[Agschmid]

18. Meh...

DU made up its mind the thread fizzled with barely a bump except some jury results.

It seems know one cares which was sort of my point.

[RobertEarl]

21. I care

The alerter cares too. We all care. Whether one thinks it makes her look bad by admitting she is not a know-it-all, or makes her look good by admitting the science is not complete.

[Agschmid]

76. Apparently our kicks did the trick I'll have to read this at some point.

[NuclearDem]

2. It was Hillary in 2008.

Now why is this being brought up?

[pnwmom]

42. That was helpful information. In 2008, Hannah Poling was in the news, because her physician father

was leading a campaign to inform the public of the damage he thought vaccines had done to his daughter. Eventually, the Vaccine Injury Court agreed to a substantial award, conceding that the vaccines might have triggered an underlying mitochondrial condition.

[proverbialwisdom]

65. This DU thread from 2008 popped up when I searched for MUMPER the other day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3094786#3101779

POST 251 - RECOMMENDED
Source: This site is dedicated, in loving memory, to Elizabeth Birt and Dr. Alan Clark.

http://www.ebcala.org
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2005/12/liz-birt-1956-2005.html

[RiverLover]

3. Hillary Clinton said it.

Do I get a sticker!!??

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hillary-clinton-vaccine-tweet

But in 2008—when a widespread theory linking vaccines to autism had already been debunked—Clinton wasn't so definitive on this point. In response to a questionnaire from an autism advocacy group, she wrote, "I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines…We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out."

[emulatorloo]

4. Do they not have google where you live?

[merrily]

63. Obviously, he knew the answer before he posted the OP, so google will not solve anything.

[octoberlib]

5. Hillary, but to be fair didn't Democrats in Congress ask Andrew Wakefield to testify

about the links between vaccines and autism?






But in 2008—when a widespread theory linking vaccines to autism had already been debunked—Clinton wasn't so definitive on this point. In response to a questionnaire from an autism advocacy group, she wrote, "I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines…We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hillary-clinton-vaccine-tweet



Oh, wait she said this in 2008.

[joshcryer]

25. Obama said something similar.

From the very article you linked.

[merrily]

136. That does it. I'm not voting for him for POTUS again in 2016, even if he begs.

[RiverLover]

6. Results are in...

On Sun Mar 29, 2015, 08:22 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

"We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026435011

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

More vaccine woo.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 29, 2015, 08:25 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not a forbidden subject in GD. What's the problem other than Manny posted it?

Get a life
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not sure what's going on here but removing a thread after just one post doesn't make sense.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous alert. The post isn't saying vaccines cause autism.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not sure what the poster meant but I'm voting to hide because vaccine woo is disgusting.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Agree with alerter but I'm willing to let GD'ers take the anti-vaccine woo patrol to the woodshed. Again.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[octoberlib]

7. I was juror #5.

[marym625]

8. I'm not saying my number

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Would it be 625?

[RiverLover]

10. LOL!

I was either 1 or 2. Didn't seem to need an explanation. It was a bogus alert.

[marym625]

13. Good jury!

Hope I would get the same people

[marym625]

12. damn!

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

You guessed it!

You're good, Manny!

[merrily]

27. Good for you. God forbid someone posts something a candidate for POTUS actually said.

What in hell is this supposed to be, some kind of political message board?



I am far from anti-vax, but the alert seems aimed at Manny Goldstein in general and not for anything stated in the opening post of this thread.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Thanks!

I'm chastened.

[pscot]

14. Hah!

[liberal_at_heart]

15. Is she still against late term abortions too?

I know she used to be. I remember her saying we need a more rational discussion between the pro-lifers and the abortion rights groups.

[onecaliberal]

16. We need more discussion re: pro life and pro birth.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. I agree.

[joshcryer]

26. She supported it with the "health of mother" exception.

Which the Republicans consider support of "late term abortion."

Clinton has always had a 100% pro-choice rating by NARAL.

I don't know where this smear is coming from.

[XemaSab]

30. Women don't have late-term abortions for fun

a friend recently had an abortion at 6 months because the baby had hydranencephaly.

Her own life wasn't in danger, but the baby was going to die.

[joshcryer]

38. Pregnancy takes a toll even still.

There are also non-physical issues to be considered when you think about the health of the person. I think to be subject to the still birth (or death very soon after birth) would be mentally traumatizing to a degree I can't even imagine.

Bill Clinton vetoed the late term abortion bans the RW passed and Hillary Clinton voted against them as a Senator (though the "Partial Birth Ban" passed under Bush, with a lot of support from Democrats).

[merrily]

128. Republican SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O'Connor long insisted on the health of the mother exception.

But that was the only exception Justice O'Connor insisted on. It doesn't cover every situation and can be hard to prove. So, no smear.

[dsc]

131. yes it was a smear

the health of the mother exception bill was the bill every single solitary Democrat supported. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Milkaski, Tom Harken, John Kerry, and the rest. It is flat out dishonest to pretend that isn't the case.

[merrily]

134. Telling me who voted for a bill does not prove a post is a smear.

Does Hillary support other kinds of late term abortions, or oppose them, or remain silent on them, and how do you know?

[dsc]

137. So now you admit you have no earthly idea why she voted for the bill

which is pretty much the definition of smearing a person (posting that they believe x when you have no idea if they do or don't). The fact is everyone knew on both sides, that having a health exception was a de facto gutting of the ban. As mentioned up thread, pretty much no woman gets these abortions for any reason other than health.

[merrily]

138. Ah, no answer to my question, but a meaningless and false personal slur.

If anyone ever gives you the opportunity to stake your life on knowing exactly why a politician voted for or against any bill, I strongly recommend you turn that down. And I would recommend the same to everyone.

I did not pretend to know exactly why she or anyone else voted for that bill. However, that does not equal a smear by any stretch of the imagination.

And asking you what her position is on late term abortions apart from life of the mother is not a smear of either her or you. I never even said she opposed late term abortions. That was another poster. I simply asked you what her position was and how you knew. How that becomes me smearing anyone is a mystery.

[Autumn]

177. I'm finding it strange that I am seeing so many posts with Hillary's exact words and exact actions

being called "smears'. Wonder where that talking point is coming from?

[merrily]

178. I have no way of knowing. However, I see all kinds of things on this

board that have seemed to me like more than coincidence.

[MannyGoldstein]

185. It's unfair to tarnish Hillary 6.0 with Hillary 4.2

We're talking two major revision levels since that old stuff occurred; it's a whole new Hillary.

[merrily]

28. I don't see anything wrong with saying we need more rational discussion of any issue.

Except that it's politician speak.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

124. In fact, I think it's a great statement.

Because it can and probably does mean that most of the discussions of any given issue are not rational

(Edit: The 'more rational discussion' line obviously, not the weaselly 'we don't know' statement. Many billions of vaccines given, many millions of lives saved.)

[merrily]

127. With politicians, so much depends on context and motive, though, as well as subsequent acts.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. You ever notice she seems to always be sitting on both sides of the fence?

Trying to please everybody all of the time. You can't please Wall Street and the average American worker, and she has already proven who she will pick in that coin toss.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Yes, and yes. nt

[merrily]

31. Yes and no. But, I'm of two minds about that.

Or is it forked tongue?

I often get those things mixed up.

[Smarmie Doofus]

83. The heart of the matter. ^^^^

Not just here, but EVERY fence.

Or so it seems.

[morningfog]

130. Triangulation. For her it is about power not authenticity.

She is as fake as they come. Interested only I. Her self advancement. She takes a position only when she thinks it benefits her quest for power.

[DeSwiss]

23. We don't know shit really. But we think we do. :-| n/t

[merrily]

33. Congressional hearings can tell us a lot of things. Doesn't mean any politician will

act correctly, though.

[joshcryer]

24. "Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines…"

She also wasn't the only prominent Democrat hedging about autism and vaccines during the 2008 election cycle: At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania that April, Barack Obama was asked about a link. "We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate," he replied. "Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines…The science is right now inconclusive, but we have to research it."

It used to be more politically difficult for Democrats to come out swinging against anti-vaxxers, a problem that now appears to be growing for Republicans. In 2009, 26 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats believed parents should be able to decide whether to vaccinate their kids. Now, according to a new Pew survey, 34 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of Democrats hold that view.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hillary-clinton-vaccine-tweet

I find Clinton's statement to be a bit stronger against anti-vax, since she said "if any." But they were both pandering to idiotic groups in the party. This is why pandering to the fringe is stupid.

[merrily]

29. Yep, it is. Not as though that of stupidity doesn't have life and death consequences.

[killbotfactory]

35. Her quote is from 2008. What happened later?

After the publication of the paper, other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism,[6] or autism and gastrointestinal disease.[7] A 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identified undisclosed financial conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part,[8] and most of his co-authors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations.[9] The British General Medical Council (GMC) conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues.[10] The investigation centred on Deer's numerous findings, including that children with autism were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures,[11] such as colonoscopy and lumbar puncture, and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board.

On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.[12] The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research.[13][14][15] The Lancet fully retracted the 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC's findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified.[16] The Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton said the paper was "utterly false" and that the journal had been "deceived".[17] Three months following The Lancet's retraction, Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register, with a statement identifying deliberate falsification in the research published in The Lancet,[18] and is barred from practising medicine in the UK.[19]

In 2010 the study that was the caused the wave of anti-vax hysteria was thoroughly discredited. I had a daughter in 2008 and remember a lot of the FUD thrown at vaccines. Not a Clinton fan, but her response was appropriate. Unfortunately the discredited study wasn't the end of the anti-vax movement.

[pnwmom]

37. What happened in 2008? Hannah Poling's case was being discussed widely,

and her family eventually won a substantial award from the Vaccine Injury Court as a result of the autism syndrome she developed after receiving a set of vaccinations.

It turned out that her mitochondrial disorder might have been triggered by the vaccines. Her mother had the same genetic condition but had never had symptoms.

[joshcryer]

41. I think both Clinton and Obama were wishy washy.

They heard through their respective focus groups that it could be an issue so they pander to both sides. I don't think they'll ever express regret for that because it was a one time soundbyte when they were forced to address the issue.

I think though now that it's been thoroughly discredited they can just ignore the people and not have to pander to that group anymore.

[merrily]

50. Your own quote says otherwise. An outlier paper or study that no one can duplicate is not the

scientific standard, especially when conflicts of interest had been published by a reporter in 2004.

[proverbialwisdom]

57. There is definitely pandering here, but it's not "to idiotic groups in the party." Ignore/mock this.

TRANSCRIPT

Senior CDC Scientist and Whistleblower Dr. William W. Thompson:

"You know in the United States the only vaccine it's still in is for pregnant women.

I can say confidently I do think Thimerosal causes tics so I don't know why they still give it to pregnant women, like that's the last person I would give mercury to.

Thimerosal from vaccines causes tics. You start a campaign and you just make that your mantra.

Do you think a pregnant mother would want to take a vaccine that they knew caused tics? Absolutely not! I would never give my wife a vaccine that I thought caused tics.

I can say tics are four times more prevalent in kids with autism.

There is biologic plausibility right now to say that Thimerosal causes autism-like features."

Warning: Gratuitous image (fake 'fire' on pregnant abdomen) near end of 1:02 minute video. To avoid, listen to audio only.

CDC Whistleblower Dr. Thompson on Thimerosal and Pregnant Women
Published on Aug 27, 2014

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017206443
http://instagram.com/p/mqQ-LJAbWS/
http://instagram.com/p/m79lyDgbWb/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/fashion/dr-mark-hyman-clintons-health.html
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/05/19/why-current-thinking-about-autism-is-completely-wrong/

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/03/frontline-dredges-up-old-show-to-prop-up-vaccine-safety-argument-in-time-for-world-autism-day.html

March 26, 2015

...We at AofA received an email from Frontline, asking us to help promote the program, Tweet during it etc. I was at the New York City debut of Trace Amounts and missed Frontline. Shucks.... Here's a post JB Handley wrote after the first version of Frontline appeared in 2010. KS

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. I think she was giving a very "don't hold me to anything" answer. But to be fair

as much as I would like to see the Democratic Party nominate and win with a real progressive - I won't hold this comment against her. It is quite possible that it was a subject she really had not looked into adequately and was simply attempting a politically "safe" answer. Even the most honorable and principled of politicians tend to do that every now and then.

[merrily]

34. So do politicians who put personal political ambition above all else, including lives

If the TV commercials are correct, more than one in 70 kids is being diagnosed with autism, from mild to very severe. To my mind, neither autism nor invading Iraq falls within the category of "even the most honorable" pol does it once in a while. Let's save that rationale for things like fence sitting on whether we proclaim a national Michael Jackson Day.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. I think she was way off. But I have heard politicians all my life try to play it safe.

Until I looked into the matter seriously myself - I didn't know anything about the vaccination/autism issue. Among many parents of profoundly autistic children this myth runs very strong and deep. I'm not a Hillary supporter - but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt in just saying, well she screwed it up this time.

[merrily]

44. Playing with lives and more to protect personal political ambition is not excusable, in my book.

Until I looked into the matter seriously myself - I didn't know anything about the vaccination/autism issue

I very much doubt lack of knowledge had anything to do with her comments on either autism or the invasion of Iraq.

Besides, if posters on this thread are correct, this comment was made in the context of Congressional hearings on the matter, where any expert she wanted probably could have been called and she or someone questioning on her behalf could have asked any question she wanted asked.

but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt in just saying, well she screwed it up this time

No, very obviously, she said exactly what she thought would benefit her most and that was no screw up on her part, but quite calculated.

I'm not a Hillary supporter

Not the least bit relevant to autism and certainly not necessary to say every time you say something should not be held against her.

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. I've seen the most principled politicians in the world use weasel words -

Not that I consider Hillary one of the most principled politicians.

There never was a more principled politicians than George McGovern - may peace be upon him. But I recall how in the 1972 race he gave unabashed support for gay rights which was unheard of position at the time. But when he got a lot of heat for what at the time was considered almost a crazy wacko position - he backed off and supported a more watered down version of his original position. When Sen. McGovern had made some strong statements in supports of fair play in the Middle East and a less one-sided policy - the Humphrey people jumped on that and tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to organize Jewish voters against him. But Sen. McGovern - the only decent man in Washington according to the late Robert F. Kennedy - backed off and started singing the praises of Israel and a one sided policy.

The point I am making is politicians are not saints. They all make terrible compromises and say and do things they should not say or do.

I will not be supporting Hillary in the primaries - but even if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination after sweeping several primaries - by landslides - expect some disappointment. Ce est la vie

[merrily]

81. You've already said that and I've already responded to that point, but I'll repeat

again and add a bit more:

The context in which a politician uses weasel words matters. Invading Iraq, a condition or illness that is affecting more than one in 68 children is different from using weasel words about Michael Jackson day.

Citing George McGovern does not excuse Hillary.

I will not be supporting Hillary in the primaries

Again, no bearing whatever on the issue and, even if it were, you wouldn't need to repeat it every time you post to defend her. It's not a shibboleth.

BTW, joshcryer has also posted to the effect that he is supporting Sanders in the primary too, but will vote for Hillary if she wins the primary. Maybe the two of you should join forces to devise a strategy that makes it more likely that Sanders wins the primary?

[Bluenorthwest]

154. Did you vote for Obama in '08?

"We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines…The science is right now inconclusive, but we have to research it."- Barack Obama, 2008

Fair play is important. Double standards are the building blocks of discrimination.

[merrily]

155. I'm lost. What is allegedly my unfairness, my double standard and my discrimination?

[pnwmom]

40. Thank you for being fair. And in that vein, 2008 was the year Hannah Poling's father, a physician,

went public with the damage that he thought vaccines had done to her -- the sudden development of autism symptoms that never resolved. And the Vaccine Injury Court eventually found on the family's behalf, awarding the family a substantial payment.

Anyone who read the NY Times or the WA Post or any other national newspaper would have been exposed to the publicity about that case.

[merrily]

45. Oh, please. More than one physician smoked and testified in Congress for the tobacco industry.

We all know physicians are not infallible, especially anyone of any intelligence who serves in either House of Congress.

[pnwmom]

53. The government's Vaccine Court ruled in her favor. They had access to all the medical records that you,

in your infinite wisdom, do not.

[merrily]

54. Oh, please. One decision of a court on a scientific matter proves nothing.

And this is not about my wisdom. I specified that I had gotten my info from people who were in Autism Speaks. Maybe I should have assumed that moms of autistic kids, whom I know to be intelligent because of posting with them for a while, were misrepresenting to me and other message board readers what Autism Speaks was saying about autism? If so, then mea culpa. If not, it's laughable to pretend that this is somehow about me.

[pnwmom]

58. You're making it about you and Autism Speaks. The point is that Hillary made the statement in 2008,

when many scientists (including professors at Harvard) were still actively looking into possible connections between vaccines and autism, and Hannah Poling's case was getting wide publicity.

And Hillary didn't say there WAS a problem. She said IF.

But I get it. To some people, every thing that comes out of her mouth, no matter how reasonable or nuanced, is wrong.

[merrily]

60. Untrue. Point was, a layperson who was not even looking had access to the info well before 2008.

The point of my comment was not to brag about my "wisdom," since it doesn't take much wisdom to read a message board post and I specified the info originated with Autism Speaks and not with me. So, what I posted did not justify taking a personal shot at me.

BTW, if I am your biggest problem, you can rest very well.

As to substance, see also my reply 50, which points out that the debunking of the one study that justified all the vaccine nonsense had begun at least in 2004 and probably sooner, if a reporter was publishing stories about conflicts of interest as soon as 2004. And Hillary was no mere lay person, trying to piece this together. She was a Senator, with staff and access to all info and experts the US Senate can afford.

As far as Hillary's fence sitting to make sure she did not hurt her personal political ambition in any way, not impressed. Please see my replies to Douglas Carpenter.

[pnwmom]

62. You took a personal shot at me, but I'm not supposed to react. Right.

[merrily]

64. Baloney.

[joshcryer]

68. "pwnmom's bit of history is all but irrelevant."

"pwnmom's bit of history is all but irrelevant. It was not derision of you."

So it was a derision of my support of pnwmom's "bit of history." Which is a derision of her own "bit of history." Simple as that.

That's how people view insults in the real world, not on "tiny Internet games."

[merrily]

74. Characterizing something posted as all but irrelevant is NOT a personal attack, ffs.

It isn't even any attack, ffs. One anecdotal outlier does not mean a scientific matter is "unsettled." Hence, pointing to one or two things n an attempt to prove a scientific matter is unsettled is all but irrelevant and I explained that in my posts to pwnmom.

News flash. You're way, way down in a hole. Stop digging.

[pnwmom]

66. The issue was not settled in 2004 or even in 2008 when Hillary spoke and Hannah's case came to light

U. W. researchers published the study below about thimerosal in monkeys in 2005. And there were many other researchers still studying possible connections seven years ago -- as they should have. The government has an obligation to make sure that all vaccinations used are both effective and as safe as possible.

As you can see below, in 2005, in a peer reviewed scientific paper, the researchers referred to "our current limited knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental neurotoxicity of thimersol."

Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal
Thomas M. Burbacher,1,2,3 Danny D. Shen,4 Noelle Liberato,1,2,3 Kimberly S. Grant,1,2,3 Elsa Cernichiari,5 and Thomas Clarkson5

Recent publications have proposed a direct link between the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines and the significant rise in the number of children being diagnosed with autism, a serious and prevalent developmental disorder (for review, see IOM 2001). Results from an initial IOM review of the safety of vaccines found that there was not sufficient evidence to render an opinion on the relationship between ethylmercury exposure and developmental disorders in children (IOM 2001). The IOM review did, however, note the possibility of such a relationship and recommended further studies be conducted. A recently published second review (IOM 2004) appears to have abandoned the earlier recommendation as well as backed away from the American Academy of Pediatrics goal. This approach is difficult to understand, given our current limited knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental neurotoxicity of thimerosal, a compound that has been (and will continue to be) injected in millions of newborns and infants.

[merrily]

70. If the 2001 study referred to is the study that claimed a relation to vaccines, that was an outlier,

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 05:38 AM - Edit history (1)

although, yes, it did cause a flurry of other studies trying to duplicate its results. They couldn't. Neither the outlier nor the studies that tried unsuccessfully to duplicate its results add up the matter being unsettled.

The other studies could not, and, I gather from what you quoted that the IOM review could not confirm the outlier either, but took a conservative approach and recommended further study. A later IOM review, however, backed away from that recommending further study. U Not sure why you think that supports your position?

I don't know anything about Burbacher, et al, this body of science or the aftermath of the Burbacher article you cited well enough to discuss that much further, do you?

I am not purporting to be able to discuss scientific studies with authority, just because I can dig up a link in an attempt to either defend Hillary or prove her wrong. I think one has to have a lot more knowledge about the field than that.

As I said before, though, as a lay person in 2004, not a Senator with the power to hold or even attend hearings, I read that the anti vaxx stuff was bs, according to intelligent moms of kids with autism, one of whom had a kid who had such a severe case, she could not even keep at home.

To this day, you can find more than an one or two outlier scientists with seemingly great credentials denying global warming and evolution. That does not mean that either matter is still unsettled. And there was never a shortage of studies and doctors swearing to Congress that smoking was not harmful to health.

That does not mean that matter didn't really get settled until the last ten deniers stop the denial or pass away. But, again, I've said that before, and you'll probably continue to ignore anything I say. , as you have been ignoring it so far.

In any event, I don't think your source proves it was unsettled in 2008. In fact, it says a lot to the contrary.

Think I'll leave you and Josh to agree with each other.

[pnwmom]

36. That was an accurate answer when Hillary said it -- in 2008. The Hannah Poling case drew attention

that year. Her father, a physician, led a campaign to build awareness of the possible connection, because his daughter had a vaccine reaction and suddenly developed autism symptoms.

In 2010 Hannah, who had inherited a mitochondrial disorder from her mother (though her mother had never had symptoms from it), was the first child to be awarded compensation from the Vaccine Injury Court, in connection with her autism syndrome.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccine-case-an-exception-or-a-precedent/

It's a very controversial question that's been debated for some time: Is there a link between childhood vaccines and autism? For the first time, federal officials conceded that vaccines contributed to autism-like symptoms in one child. The case involved a 9-year-old girl whose family filed a legal claim against the government. And some believe that what happened to her could have major implications for other families, CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.


Terry and Jon Poling spoke publicly for the first time Thursday about a case being watched by thousands of families with autistic children.

"My daughter, who had been completely normal until getting nine vaccinations in one day, was suddenly no longer there," said Terry Poling, mother of 9-year-old Hannah.

Hannah Poling appeared to be like many children. At 19 months, her pediatrician noted she was "alert and active" and "spoke well."

At that same visit, she got five shots - nine doses of vaccines. She almost immediately developed fever, seizures and severe health problems.

SNIP

[joshcryer]

43. Interesting bit of historical context.

I did not remember that at all but it's coming back.

Thanks.

[pnwmom]

47. I was paying a lot of attention to that case.

I had had a baby sister who died of encephalitis the day after her DPT vaccine, and my second child had a bad reaction (seizures, though he didn't have a high fever) to his first DPT. Then a cousin had a fever over the CDC limit (over 105). So Hannah's case was worrying to me. If the DPT vaccine could cause encephalitis, seizures, and death, why couldn't it cause autism syndrome?

Hannah turned out to have a mitochondrial disorder. Many of the children with this don't have a diagnosis till something triggers the onset of symptoms. In retrospect, that might have been my sister's problem, because now a niece has an illness that is connected with a mitochondrial disease.

[merrily]

48. LOL! "bit" is right the word for it, though even that may be a tad too grandiose.

[joshcryer]

55. Oh more derision.

It gets oh so tiresome... *sigh*

[merrily]

56. But, but, I commended your choice of words.

In case you missed it, the substantive point is that pwnmom's bit of history is all but irrelevant. It was not derision of you.

I can certainly see why any ardent supporter of Sanders for President, such as you've said you are, would seize on that isolated anecdote in this context and treat it as significant.

But, I just assumed you'd grok all that.

[joshcryer]

59. Actually, it's quite relevant.

And I wouldn't consider her 'bit' "LOL worthy." I find it rather low. But I'm glad you clarified that you weren't referring to me, but "pwnmom's bit of history" as I can take a bit of cruel commentary, but when I see other people being "LOL'd at" I am able much more prone to disgust.

Sanders would acknowledge that vaccines can cause bad reactions in people (a very small number of people). Sanders would not "LOL" as someone relating a very real condition, calling it a 'bit.' Especially as a person is relating their own very real life experiences with bad vaccine reactions.

It's more "tiny Internet games."

[merrily]

61. As relevant as one doctor testifying he smokes. But, the LOL per se was for your

eagerness to seize on that isolated anecdote and treat it as significant. Sorry if I confused you by saying I had commended your choice of words (which indeed I had).

Sanders would acknowledge that vaccines can cause bad reactions in people (a very small number of people). Sanders would not "LOL" as someone relating a very real condition, calling it a 'bit.' Especially as a person is relating their own very real life experiences with bad vaccine reactions.

OMG. Why do you completely mischaracterize what I posted, then pretend to know what Senator Sanders would do in response to your post or pwnmom's? I did not LOL at the condition of autism and you know it, just as you also know you have no clue how Sanders would post.

As it happens, you're right, though. I just called Senator Sanders and read him the post (after apologizing for disturbing him) and his response was not LOL, but "ROFLPIMP, but don't tell joshcryer."

[joshcryer]

67. Oh, so you were talking about me now?

Wow, can you get your story straight, ever?

pnwmom's statement was not about an "isolated anecdote" it was about very real genetic reactions to vaccines (some people are prone to have a bad reaction genetically). At the time it was in the news. At the time both top Presidential candidates (Obama and Clinton) were responding neutrally on the issue of vaccines and their reactions in people.

I don't know why anything is "LOL worthy" here. It's extremely depressing knowing people think and behave this way.

[merrily]

75. My story was straight in Reply 56. I've said nothing inconsistent with it.

This is the text of my reply 56, in its entirety:

But, but, I commended your choice of words.

In case you missed it, the substantive point is that pwnmom's bit of history is all but irrelevant. It was not derision of you.

I can certainly see why any ardent supporter of Sanders for President, such as you've said you are, would seize on that isolated anecdote in this context and treat it as significant.

But, I just assumed you'd grok all that.

If you did not get that the bolded language applied to you, even though my commendation of your choice of words was not derision of you, I have no clue why.

Please don't blame me for your lack of reading or for your failure to grasp obvious irony or for your desperation for something to use to lash out at me, whichever is responsible for your false claim that I've told more than one story.

And now, I will leave both you and pwnmom to praise Hillary or to attack me or whatever the two of you think is a good use of your time. So far, the substantive arguments have not been impressive and your accusations of dishonesty on my part and my alleged lack of empathy for sick children have been both false and vile.

[joshcryer]

77. pnwmom is not worthy of "LOL."

Period. Thanks for again letting me have the last word.

[LeftOfWest]

86. anything else?

anything?

oh you get the last word....

[joshcryer]

88. You damn straight.

Do you support merrily's "LOL" statemnet? Do you? Are you behind such repulsion? Please let me know!

[LeftOfWest]

89. deflection

again.

[joshcryer]

92. No answer?

Typical. So do you or don't you support the nasty "LOL" commentary? Give us a "yes!" You support "laughing out loud" with regards to someones' who sisters' child died to a vaccine travesty. Go for it. Disgusting.

[LeftOfWest]

94. merrily gets it

deflection and lol bs is all i got not withstanding.

have the last deflection word, you seem to really need it.

merrily has facts. Those stand.

[joshcryer]

95. I am appalled.

Congrats.

[LeftOfWest]

98. Of course you are.

back at you.

[joshcryer]

103. Easy enough.

People literally shitting on someone who experienced death in their family. Disgusting. Shameful.

[LeftOfWest]

106. shameful and disgusting

is deflecting from facts with lol and overused adjectives.

merrily has facts.

[joshcryer]

108. Fact they used "LOL"

I agree. Disgusting.

[LeftOfWest]

109. fact.

you deflect using lol.

disgusting.

[joshcryer]

115. Nope.

I'm disgusted by the hate directed at a poster for their own personal experiences.

[LeftOfWest]

113. Good you finally agree.

Deflecting using lol is just that deflecting.

merrily has facts, not lol deflection.

Glad you agree, evolving is good.

[joshcryer]

117. Hate is hate.

And I'm literally getting a response a minute by the hate mongers.

[merrily]

147. NOTHING WAS HATEFUL OR PERSONAL ABOUT SAYING THE POLING CASE WAS NOT PROOF. SEE REPLY 74.

Your attempting to pretend that my comment about Poling into my laughing at a sick child however, is plenty hateful. So was pretending I was laughing at autism and pwnmom's relative. All of it, false and low.

[merrily]

110. Make up your mind Josh. Did you defend yourself against my LOL, or pwnmom or a dying child I was

allegedly LOLing about? Or the child's condition? It can't be all four things.

You've gone all over the map over a single LOL, including to the lowest, falsest accusation of a DUer I've seen on DU yet. Don't you think that's obvious to anyone who follows the thread?

[joshcryer]

114. You said her comments were irrelevant.

Not me.

[merrily]

119. Don't change the subject yet again. You accused me of using a single LOL against you, her, a sick

child and autism in general. It can't be all four.

As to what I actually said about pwnmom's comment and why I said it, you KNOW you have mischaracterized that repeatedly as well, Once again, I refer you to Reply 74.

[joshcryer]

120. No, you LOL'd about the "historical 'bit'"

Which encompasses it all. Hateful to the extreme.

[merrily]

121. That may be your most LOL worthy false claim yet.

Though choosing only one is nigh impossible.

Seriously, stop digging.

[SidDithers]

159. More context on the Poling case, and the history of VICP...

from Paul Offit, the chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904

From the New England Journal of Med:

When she was 19 months old, Hannah, the daughter of Jon and Terry Poling, received five vaccines — diphtheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), measles–mumps–rubella (MMR), varicella, and inactivated polio. At the time, Hannah was interactive, playful, and communicative. Two days later, she was lethargic, irritable, and febrile. Ten days after vaccination, she developed a rash consistent with vaccine-induced varicella.

Months later, with delays in neurologic and psychological development, Hannah was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Hannah's signs included problems with language, communication, and behavior — all features of autism spectrum disorder. Although it is not unusual for children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies to develop neurologic signs between their first and second years of life, Hannah's parents believed that vaccines had triggered her encephalopathy. They sued the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and won.

On March 6, 2008, the Polings took their case to the public. Standing before a bank of microphones from several major news organizations, Jon Poling said that “the results in this case may well signify a landmark decision with children developing autism following vaccinations.”1 For years, federal health agencies and professional organizations had reassured the public that vaccines didn't cause autism. Now, with DHHS making this concession in a federal claims court, the government appeared to be saying exactly the opposite. Caught in the middle, clinicians were at a loss to explain the reasoning behind the VICP's decision.

The Poling case is best understood in the context of the decision-making process of this unusual vaccine court. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, American lawyers successfully sued pharmaceutical companies claiming that vaccines caused a variety of illnesses, including unexplained coma, sudden infant death syndrome, Reye's syndrome, transverse myelitis, mental retardation, and epilepsy. By 1986, all but one manufacturer of the diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis vaccine had left the market. The federal government stepped in, passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which included the creation of the VICP. Funded by a federal excise tax on each dose of vaccine, the VICP compiled a list of compensable injuries. If scientific studies supported the notion that vaccines caused an adverse event — such as thrombocytopenia after receipt of measles-containing vaccine or paralysis after receipt of oral polio vaccine — children and their families were compensated quickly, generously, and fairly. The number of lawsuits against vaccine makers decreased dramatically.

Sid

[merrily]

46. No it wasn't, anymore than climate denial was an accurate answer as long as someone said it was not

happening and/or humans were not contributing.

Some scientists saying something does not makes a scientific issue controversial. Some scientists deny or once denied, that tobacco was harmful to health, that global warming was occurring, that evolution is anything but a guess, etc. That does not mean there was genuine doubt among the preponderance of scientists.

In 2004, I was posting on another board with moms of autistic kids who were members of autism speaks and I knew better then from them. And that is not sworn testimony in Congress.

[pnwmom]

49. The Vaccine Court hadn't yet awarded the family damages for the autism syndrome Hannah developed

after her vaccines, but publicity about the physician father's concern about the vaccines was all over the news in 2008.

Though hindsight is always 20/20, there was genuine scientific doubt in 2008 and much research has been accomplished since then.

[merrily]

52. I already answered your alleged point about one poor kid's physician father.

I never understand why people just keep repeating themselves after receiving a response.

Then again, maybe the reason is obvious.

[joshcryer]

69. "about one poor kid's"

[merrily]

71. wtf? A kid with autism is not a "poor kid?"

I did not mean poverty ffs, and you know it. I mean "poor" in the sense of "unfortunate."


If you are pretending otherwise, that is shameful and disgusting and just may be the lowest you've gone so far, at least that I know of.

I have a lot of posts and I know you've read a lot of them because you've responded to a lot of them. I know you've never a single post of mine diss anyone for being poor, but at least 30% of my posts, to estimate very low, are in support of the 99%, low wage workers, etc., and you know that, too.

[joshcryer]

72. Who said anything about that?

Oh it's just some "poor kid." No empathy for the families, no empathy for the courts, no empathy for the science, just some "poor kid." Dismissal at its finest.

I respond when posted to, as you noted in our last exchange, you seem to like to address me a lot. It's fine. But to call my disgust "shameful" when you "LOL'd" about a personal issue by a poster here is itself "shameful." I care about people. Some people don't.

There's nothing "LOL worthy" about pnwmom's posts here. Nothing. There's nothing "LOL worthy" about my respect for pnwmom's posts here (even though she and I have disagreed on things and she knows that). It's tiresome. The derision. The nastiness. I don't know how I continue to put up with it.

[merrily]

73. You also KNOW I don't lack empathy for sick kids, joshcryer. That's even worse than what I thought

you were implying.

That is at way too low level a level for any response from me, nor do I need to defend myself: Even my worst enemies on this board know better than to fall for an accusation that I lack empathy for the poor or, worse, lack empathy for the sick and their families. In fact, the very language you quoted--"poor kid"-- expressed sympathy for the autism sufferer in a context many posters would not even have thought about expressing sympathy and you followed my expression of sympathy with a puke emote.

Yes, your accusation is shameful, shameful and disgusting and utterly untrue and you know it.

[joshcryer]

78. "lol"

Your words, merrily.

It is unfortunate you can't live up to your nickname. Laughing about serious conditions. Just a joke. "Tiny Internet games."

[merrily]

79. See Replies 74, 56 and 61

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

You've known since I posted that LOL that I was not laughing at sick kids or any condition, nor would I ever.

I don't know what you hope to gain by this vile pretense. I certainly am not believing you and as already stated, I doubt anyone who reads my posts, even if they hate everything I say, would believe you.


On the other hand, persisting in a shameful, vile, low down attack you've known all along to be false may well speak volumes about you, none of it good. So, bear that in mind as you repeat it. (Based on experience, you probably will repeat it yet again.)

Good night, josh, or good morning, or whatever it is for you. Sleep well.

[joshcryer]

80. I only know you "LOL'd"

Over serious issues. That's all I know. Have a good one. May you rest peacefully knowing you "LOL'd" about a serious issue.

[merrily]

82. I'll rest peacefully knowing I didn't, never would, and no one believes I did. Not even you.

[LeftOfWest]

84. You never did

and you are right no one believes you did.

[merrily]

85. How very kind of you to put yourself out there to say that. Thank you.

Ordinarily, I am not great at remembering screen names, but I will bookmark so that I remember yours.

[LeftOfWest]

87. you get it.

you are classy and you never back down to innuendo or use tired cliches to try to prove non existent points. That is just deflection and you always stand up that tired deflection with facts.

Thank YOU merrily.

I am pretty new to this huge site but I now bookmark threads too.

You are one of my must reads.

[merrily]

97. Omigosh. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I'm overwhelmed, but

be assured that, though words fail me, I am very appreciative.

I've rarely been accused of anything negative IRL, let alone falsely accused. It happens on DU a lot though. Even here, though, never anything as false and as lowdown as laughing at sick kids and their families and/or laughing at their illness or condition. If anything, I'm accused of being too empathetic ("Bleeding heart&quot and lacking the ability to turn away (not "pragmatic&quot

Thought I can only repeat myself, please know that your kindness is very welcome at this moment, LeftOfWest.

[LeftOfWest]

102. Thank you merrily

I am up overnight alot these days and read these forums. it is reruns for many outraged deflectors, no facts, just deflection and alert outrage.

You post facts and info and do not back down to constant factless lol so called outraged deflections here.

Thank YOU!

Us readers here more than posters treasure posters like you.

[joshcryer]

90. Your own words reveal you.

[LeftOfWest]

91. so do yours.

big site, lots of forums.

revealing.

[joshcryer]

93. I don't post anonymously.

Unlike the vile supporters of evident nastiness do here. How can anyone support someone trashing pnwmom who related her personal experiences? Shameful. Her sister died for fucks sake. I'm beyond belief at this point. What reasonable non hateful human could have that position? It's sickening. Utterly so. I'm disgusted.

[LeftOfWest]

96. your deflecting posts

are just that deflecting.

that is on you.

sickening. utterly disgusting.

[joshcryer]

100. Read the posts.

And be more humane. It's on you. And the other poster. I'm done. The low has been met. Shame is beyond those who cannot respect those who've had such experiences. I simply will not entertain it anymore. My disgust is topped off. I cannot be more disgusted and annoyed. To be more so would be to get a jury to hate me for my honest opinion of people hating on someone who lost someone to this. A tragedy used for political points on an internet forum. "Tiny internet games."

[LeftOfWest]

104. I read here alot

"tiny internet games"

yeah, got that from you, and lol replies.

merrily has facts.

Tragedies used for political points on internet forums, yes I see that a lot here too. and nightly reruns.

[Caretha]

123. I think thou dost protest too much ol' Josh

You have just posted one of the most hyperbolic posts I've ever read in my many many years here on DU.

Just what "Tiny internet games" are YOU trying to play?

Unjustly accusing someone of something they did not do, nor would they ever do, is malicious and uncalled for.

Your fake outrage is showing.

[merrily]

129. Ffs. I never supported anyone trashing pwnmom. For, is it he fifth time by now? see Reply 74.

And, since I've been replying to your false, vile accusations, one after another, for hours, I did not even get a chance to read pwnmom's personal story. My reference was to her citation of the Poling case, as had to have been clear from my reference to an autistic child and that child's physician father.

FYI, not posting anonymously does not make your accusations less vile, less false or more excusable. And who the hell can even prove whether joshcryer is your real name or not? Who even cares?

[sabrina 1]

169. Merrily, you do not have to defend yourself against obvious FALSE accusations.

We can all read and your credibility at DU is well established.

Thanks for all your contributions to this site.

It is people like you who make DU worth visiting.

Others, not so much.

[merrily]

173. Thank you so much sabrina 1. When false accusations are that twisted and low, and that foreign to

who I am, it can feel as though I do have to defend myself against them, if it is not necessary in fact.


I am, and will always remain, eternally grateful to the posters who followed my statements and trusted their overall impression of me from reading my other posts, and then put themselves in the fray to say so. Too bad my poor memory for screen names forces me to bookmark some vile posts directed at me, but it's worth it not to forget the names.

Thanks for all your contributions to this site.

It is people like you who make DU worth visiting

I expect you'd get a lot of argument about that and even I might agree with some of the arguers on some points. But I doubt I'd get a single honest argument if I said the same and more about you. And I do.

[sabrina 1]

179. I have a rule now for those who make false statements about other DUers.

Consider the source.

People earn their reputations here, good and bad, like everywhere else.

In that regard you have nothing to worry about.

[merrily]

99. Said the poster whose own words have revealed him far better than any other poster's words can.

Again, stop digging. The hole was irretrievably deep as it was.

[joshcryer]

101. I defend someone you "LOL'd" at.

And you dare try to make some insinuations against me? Hilarious. Disgusting.

[merrily]

105. What you've actually done is obvious to anyone who reads the thread Again, who do you

think is falling for your recasting of events? You aren't, I'm not and no one who can read will.

[joshcryer]

111. Anyone can read the thread.

I agree. Let them form their opinions over someone "LOLing" about some relating personal experiences. May they do so, and see the egregious hate reflected by those "LOLing" about "bits" they decide to spread their own derisiveness over. Dozens of posts without an apology for pure hatred. Let them see. I'd be embarrassed, I'd delete anything remotely reflection this level of hatred.

Sad. Disappointing, hateful, nasty, anonymous internet posting.

[merrily]

116. Yes, it is disgusting. The good news is you can stop it whenever you want.

[joshcryer]

118. A post a minute by you and your hateful defender.

Good job. I'm done. Have your late hateful word.

[merrily]

126. Once again, I reply your ugly and false accusations, but

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:35 AM - Edit history (1)

that somehow means I post too much to you, while the same number of posts from you to me are Goldilocks.

How many times you gonna try that one?

BTW, there's more than one defender of the plain and obvious reality that your attacks have been baseless and way over the top.

ETA. None of the defenders are hateful, but your claims about them and me sure have been.

[msanthrope]

152. Your "Lol'd" was offensive. I think if anyone did that about my daughter's

autism, I'd see red.

[merrily]

153. I never LOL'd at autism or any child with autism. I've explained that over and over.

I was sorry about Poling's child and I am sorry about your child. I hope strides are made with regard to autism.

I don't see how anyone who has read any of my posts or this thread can think otherwise.

[msanthrope]

156. I read it as precisely that. Hannah Poling was a serious case that was closely followed

by those interested in the science. When HRC made those remarks, she made them in the context of the ongoing trial....and I agreed with her then, as I do now.....the vaccine/autism link had to be re-examined in the context of Poling. It was. That's why there was a vaccine court decision. I suggest you read it.

Do you really think you serve children like my daughter with your commentary on this thread?

[merrily]

157. Then you did not read it as I intended it or as I have explained it to josh in one additional post

after another.

[msanthrope]

158. My suggestion is that you simply apologize.

Those of us who have autistic children shudder when they are used as political pawns....for any reason.

Again.....do you think this thread, or your commentary on it, serves the children concerned?

[merrily]

162. I am not going to apologize for being falsely accused.

josh is the one who owes me apologies for his false accusations and hectoring.

I discussed josh's false accusations with him for hours. I again refer you to those posts.

[msanthrope]

164. I would think that now that you know that you've given offense to me,

you'd apologize.

Again.....and you keep avoiding this question. ....do you think your commentary on this thread serves children with autism?

[merrily]

165. I did not LOL at autism or any child with autism. I explained that to you

and told you I was sorry about your child and I am. (In fact, I referred to Poling's child as "poor kid" in the very post josh falsely claims I was laughing at Poling's kid.) I also referred you to post after post in which I explained to josh that I never lol'd at any sick child or their parents or any illness or condition, nor would I ever do that.

If you took offense despite all that, that suggests to me that you not only believe that I laugh at sick children, but also that you don't believe a thing I say. And, believe it or not, I think I have a right to take offense at both those things. Moreover, it makes my saying more to you on this subject seem futile, at best.

In any event, as I said before, hours of hectoring from josh was enough. I am not starting over and I am making no further attempt to defend myself against false claims, accusations or implications that I laugh at sick and/or autistic children.

[msanthrope]

166. Again.....you've avoided my question....

Do you think your commentary on this thread does a service to children with autism?

I shall remember who thought this was an appropriate topic to bash HRC with.

[merrily]

167. No, I explained not a minute ago why I wasn't answering it.

If you really want my answer, I don't think my posts on this thread, most of which were defending myself against vile and false accusations, either helped or hurt children with autism. You probably have another view. If you do, I am not going to debate our respective views. We'll simply have to leave it at that.

I shall remember who thought this was an appropriate topic to bash HRC with

As I've said, it's been many hours, so I may have forgotten a post or two I made on this thread, but right now, I don't recall bashing Hillary on this thread or using this thread to bash Hillary. If I did, I doubt she'll ever know or care anyway.

But, I too will remember this thread very well. And with that, I am out of these exchanges for reasons stated in my earlier posts to you.

[msanthrope]

172. This wasn't an HRC bashing thread? I appreciate why you are backing down from

this thread.

[MannyGoldstein]

184. I'm sorry for your daughter's illness

But it's clear that you're addressing something other than what Merrily is doing.

This thread is not about autism. It's about disingenuous politicians.

[msanthrope]

187. She's not ill, Manny. And this thread is absolutely about autism, and

about how sources like The Daily Caller do no service to my daughter and others like her. Disingenuous? There is little that is more mendacious than the use of my daughter's differences by The Daily Caller to flog a woman who has championed health and medical care for millions of uninsured. A woman whose foundation provides vaccines. A woman whose work in juvenile justice and equal protection for women is unparalleled.

I shan't forget how this issue was used.

[MannyGoldstein]

190. Whatever the nomenclature, I'm sorry for the difficulties your daughter must face.

As to the Daily Caller... that is pretty twisted stuff, but perhaps it has something to do with Sid being Canadian? Some sort of cultural difference?

[msanthrope]

191. I think Sid, judging by the rec count on this thread, did a pretty good

job with sourcing.

And in the future, my suggestion to you is that you show people with differences the respect of learning the 'nomenclature' before you use them as rhetorical points.

[Vattel]

107. Well, it's obvious to me

that your lol was directed at the suggestion that the Hannah Poling case vindicates Hillary's remarks about autism in 2008. I don't understand why you are being attacked here.

[merrily]

112. Thanks so much. & whatever was not obvious from the initial post of mine, I explained over and over

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

as I got falsely accused of one thing after another.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

122. I'm going to guess one or more Presidential candidates.

It seems to be a role that draws out the worst in Political weaseliness.

[SidDithers]

125. Nice. Straight out of The Daily Caller...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/03/in-2008-questionnaire-obama-hillary-revealed-concerns-about-vaccines/

Should any of us be surprised about where Manny gets his talking points?

The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/562456798020386816

Sid

[morningfog]

132. Straight from Hillary's mouth. Sid, Sid, Sid.

You, of all people, cannot give this anti-science woo bullshit a defense, can you?

No, of course not. That would be profoundly disingenuous. What's the term you like? Is Hillary an asshat?

[Caretha]

139. This is one of the

funniest posts I've read lately...

Thanks moringfog ( I think your name is a misnomer), you seem quite sharp at this time of day to me.

But anyway....I just loved it, so here's my contribution in honor of dear Sid.

[MannyGoldstein]

133. *I* read it in Mother Jones:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hillary-clinton-vaccine-tweet

I didn't realize that you were a Daily Caller afficianado, that explains a number of things.

In any case... Is Hillary now the Woo Candidate in your book?

[morningfog]

135. And an asshat! I can promise you one thing: Sid will not be voting for her.

Not in the primary or the general.

[merrily]

141. Jeez, I almost tried to warn you about getting alerted on. Then, I

remembered he's Canadian.

Maybe he has dual citizenship?

[SidDithers]

143. But the way you used the 2008 quote is pure Daily Caller, Manny...

I'm aware of the Daily Caller, much like I'm aware of what you post, Manny.

I wouldn't consider myself an aficionado of either.

Sid

Edit: better wording in reply title.

[Bluenorthwest]

161. The Mother Jones piece ends like this:

She also wasn't the only prominent Democrat hedging about autism and vaccines during the 2008 election cycle: At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania that April, Barack Obama was asked about a link. "We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate," he replied. "Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines…The science is right now inconclusive, but we have to research it."

It used to be more politically difficult for Democrats to come out swinging against anti-vaxxers, a problem that now appears to be growing for Republicans. In 2009, 26 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats believed parents should be able to decide whether to vaccinate their kids. Now, according to a new Pew survey, 34 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of Democrats hold that view.

Obama's position has evolved too: On Sunday, he urged parents to get their kids vaccinated. "There aren't reasons not to," he said.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hillary-clinton-vaccine-tweet

Now of course in '08, Obama was also preaching 'I am a Christian, one man, one woman, God is in the mix'.
Clearly people change. When your candidate's past is mentioned, you are hotly insistent that not only do people change it is outrageous to so much as question their former positions and actions. Obama favors marriage equality, and now says there are no reasons not to vaccinate. Same for Hillary. Warren is no longer a Republican, having been one for most of her life, now she's not. Right? She changed.

Or is your new assertion 'once in error, always in error'?

[merrily]

140. Are you saying she never said it?

[SidDithers]

142. No. I'm saying echoing Tucker Carlson smears is a shitty thing to do...

Clinton's statement in Feb 2015 was pretty unequivocal.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1809312/hillary-clinton-says-the-science-is-clear-on-vaccinations-for-children/

Sid

[morningfog]

144. That is not unequivocal as to whether she is still uncertain of a vaccine/autism connection.

It says simply that vaccines work. Which she never said otherwise. Vaccines, from Hillary's perspective, could both work and potentially cause autism.

[merrily]

145. Manny, be he posting as third way Manny or one way Manny can

fight his own battles better than I can, but I don't know how asking who said something in 2008 is a smear, when she did say it. He certainly has not hidden his opposition to her.

IMO, statement made about something like autism or global warming in 2008 is very different from one made seven years later.

Whether or not that is true, you can certainly post what she said in 2015, if you consider it a refutation of whatever you think the OP was, without implying Manny is a Republican, which, on this board, is a smear.

[SidDithers]

170. Yeah, Manny's done this before...

Pretending to be "just asking questions" about vaccines:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026171831

Sid

[merrily]

174. When did the pro vaccines position become synonymous with being Republican?

I listened to a major Republican asshat (IMO) claim again and again that cleaning products were causing autism. (Don Imus. He used to be on MSNBC in the morning and I'd sometimes fall asleep with the TV on MSNBC, to wake up to his rants. Now it's Scarborough. I need to stop falling asleep with the TV on.)

My point is, if he says something about Hillary that is wrong, you have every ability and opportunity to refute what he says. Same if he even implies something that is wrong. That might help Hillary. For example, your comment about her 2015 statement was good info to have, too.

But I don't know how implying Manny is a Republican helps Hillary. As we all know, a lot of Democrats on this board don't support Hillary and this is still pre-primary, not the general. It may make people who already support Hillary feel good and I suppose that is a purpose, if that is your goal. I sometimes want to make people who think as I do feel good.

BTW, if it makes you feel better, I very much doubt anyone thought Manny was merely asking a question, even someone who never read anything at DU before reading his OP.

With that, I am going to get out of the middle of this where I never should have put myself to begin with!

[SidDithers]

176. All the many Mannys have taught me one thing...

and that's not to take anything that any of the Mannys post at face value. The various Manny characters have been too duplicitous in the past.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

180. The thread you referenced was spurred by my reading Hillary's quote

referenced in this OP.

In the thread you reference, the consensus seems to be that the lack of a link between autism and vaccines was understood well before 2008.

For the record, I've never believed in a link between autism and vaccines. I just find Hillary's pandering (or anti-vaxxer asshattery, as you would call it if it weren't from Hillary) to be fascinating. I wonder if any parents chose to not have their kids vaccinated because of her thoughts in 2008?

Small potatoes compared to destryloying Iraq, I suppose.

[geek tragedy]

183. as predicted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6172765

[SidDithers]

193. Yup...

Sid

[Caretha]

146. I agree Sid

Clinton's statement in 2015 is "pretty unequivocal".

What do you think her statement in 2008 meant then? I would have to say "pretty unequivocal" also.

Unfortunately it smacks of "politics as usual", and that's the cards that are dealt us. So much lying and so much backtracking, playing to the crowd. I'm not just talking about Hillary - It's the damn majority of all politicians.

[SidDithers]

148. I think in 2008, politicians were being politicians...

The link that Manny allegedly got his information from gives a pretty good explanation.

Of course, Manny didn't include those bits in his OP. He went with the attempted "gotcha", just iike Carlson's Caller.

First, Clinton's comments were in response to a survey from Age of Autism. AoA is the grand-daddy of anti-vax sites on the internet. We know this now, but in 2008, they hadn't been as widely exposed as the sham we know them to be today.

Second, from Manny's MoJo link:

Clinton has a long history of supporting efforts to get children vaccinated. In 1993, she spearheaded the Childhood Immunization Initiative and the Vaccines for Children program, which aimed to make vaccines affordable. Yet, she also has been a strong voice for families dealing with autism, calling in 2007 for $700 million per year to fund research and education. Her comments in 2008 reflected a certain tension to advocating on both fronts.

But that explanation wouldn't have allowed Manny - or The Daily Caller - to try to paint Hillary as an hypocrite wrt vaccines.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

150. "Hillary Clinton Says All Kids Should Get Vaccinated—But She Wasn't Always So Certain"

=Title of Mother Jones piece.

[SidDithers]

151. "In 2008 Questionnaire, Obama, Hillary Revealed Concerns About Vaccines"...

= Title of Daily Caller piece.

The MoJo piece explained the context of the comment.

Neither you, nor the Daily Caller, bothered to do that.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

189. So do you agree with the title of the Mother Jones article? nt

[Caretha]

192. Au Contraire

You said...I think in 2008, politicians were being politicians...

That's funny Sid and so sweet and naive at the same time

Let us not forget that a very poetic intelligent man said in the late 1800's, who was very much a political observer and an acutely accurate one at that, how he described politicians. It's as true today as it was then.

"A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man"

It's as pertinent today as it was then. There really is nothing new under the sun. You may pretend that what a politician says, does not matter, or because they contradict themselves depending on the audience, that makes it excusable, but that is not correct. I'll give you a clue... honor is important. What a politician does, and admittedly, Hillary is a good one, I believe she will do the politically expedient thing vs the right thing. You can spin it every way, but which way, but you are still wrong about her motive. You are also wrong about Manny. Manny is simply pointing out hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is something that we can ill afford now.

What we need at this time, is someone with honor, and a vision that will actually take us to the 21st century and beyond. We are at a very critical juncture in time. I don't think you see that.

[Autumn]

149. I know!!! Hillary 2008. What do I get?

Who has the jury results? An Op by MannyGoldstein, containing the following. Hillarys 2008 words and the word "vaccines" this had to have been alerted, those 3 things are a sure bet.

[msanthrope]

160. As the mother of a child with autism, I'm not surprised to see my child's

differences used as a rhetorical point to bash HRC.

Do you think this thread serves children with autism?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

163. "The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork."

"The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest"

Who said that and when?

2008 was before 2010 (when the autism debate was officially settled by science). I believe the newer quote would be the accurate one, don't you? For the record, in 2008, I was an anti-vax asshat. A lot of people were. There was so much misinformation out there, and the media and events of the time didn't make it clearer. By 2010, I was very much in the pro-vax camp (and still am).

Keep throwing, Manny... Something's BOUND to stick.

[randome]

188. No, the only relevant quote is the one that sows discord on DU.

Take your facts and logic and begone! OP has never passed up an opportunity to be divisive, whether the subject 'sticks' or not.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dr Hobbitstein]

194. Don't I know it. n/t

[HassleCat]

168. Not Alone

She wasn't the only one. Many people were deceived, because a reputable scientist presented bogus data and used it to support bogus conclusions. Now we know there is no link, but there was, in the past, some reason to believe there might be.

[KamaAina]

175. Well, I was vaccinated and I'm Autistic!

There's your proof right there!

[SomethingFishy]

181. LOL... I should be a test case for a bunch of this kind of shit...

I have 3 sons. All raised exactly the same way, by the same parents, in the same house. All have had the same doctor, same vaccinations, ate the same food, gone to the same schools and had many of the same teachers.

1 is gay, wants to be in politics.

1 is autistic, wanted the military but they wouldn't take him, he's looking at other options.

1 is a stoner musician. (he's the most like me, and he's the adopted one, go figure)

How come they are not all gay? How come they are not all autistic? How come they all don't smoke dope and play the guitar?

Vaccines don't cause autism and your environment does not cause you to be gay.

[11 Bravo]

182. I don't know, but as this is a Manny post, I'll go out on a limb ...

and say that the quote is part of a much longer statement issued by Hillary Clinton years ago. Just a guess.

[hifiguy]

186. Whoever said it is a dope.

Period.