July 28, 2005

The Ground Rules

Several weeks ago I posted the RFK Jr. article, Deadly Immunity, to my site. I posted that I had begun to look into the details of the Verstraten study and it seemed that there was sufficient evidence show that malfeasance had taken place. I said that I would be posting on it “soon”, but soon became not so soon as the more I read, the more I found that there was to read.

The entire story about what the CDC knows and when they knew it seems to be about as complicated as the mercury/autism theory itself. So at some point I need to take a break from researching and just start writing about what I am finding. It is time for me to dive into the discussion.

Please keep in mind, I still have not finished digging through all there is to dig through, so this is open to update and correction, and especially open to finding additional sources of information. I want this to be an open dialogue.

I am attempting to use as many primary sources as I can, but I am not ruling out the use of secondary sources. I also want to take care to evaluate the information primarily based on the information, rather than on who is offering it. Reputation of the person and conflicts of interest certainly need to be factored in when evaluating an argument, but I don’t want to dismiss an argument based only on who brought it to the table. The argument itself should rise or fall on its own internal logic and fit into the bigger picture as much as possible. The assertions of Offit, The Geires, McCormack, Haley, Gerberding, Kirby, Fineberg, Redwood, etc. should all be heard.

I also want to explain that my approach to the question of whether or not the mercury in thimerosal contributes to autism. Most of the discussion seems to start with autism and try to work backward to see if mercury is the culprit. That is certainly an important line of inquiry, but what find less of an emphasis on, and what is more interesting to me at the moment, is the idea of starting with mercury and working forward to see if you find autism.

If the mercury/autism holds water, then the arguments traveling in each direction should meet in the middle.

Feel free to quote me, but please ask permission to use my images (I reserve all rights, but I try to be generous, however I might have to say no once in a while).

I am hoping that this will encourage HEALTHY debate, and not merely be another place on the internet where people on both sides vent their frustration on one another. Differing opinions and interpretations of information are graciously invited. Contempt is not.

Good natured satire is always appreciated as always.

Also, please bear with me if there are long pauses between posts. I have an autistic son ya know.

1 comment:

John said...

I also want to take care to evaluate the information primarily based on the information, rather than on who is offering it. Reputation of the person and conflicts of interest certainly need to be factored in when evaluating an argument, but I don’t want to dismiss an argument based only on who brought it to the table. The argument itself should rise or fall on its own internal logic...

Thanks for saying this. To do otherwise is to commit the motive falacy - a fallacy that is comitted far too often in this debate.