Respectful Insolence

It’s about time…

…that Kristjan Wager started a blog.

Kristjan, as some may know, is a frequent commenter here, and has even guest-blogged for me about the Danish studies on two occasions.

Head on over and check out Kristjan’s blog, Pro-Science. I’ll be adding it to my sidebar the next time I get a chance to revamp my blogroll.

Comments

  1. #1 Kristjan Wager
    February 10, 2007

    Thanks Orac. I am not really that active yet, but hopefully I’ll get into the habbit of actually writing content. I’ll probably never get to the same level of output as certain other bloggers (*cough* Coturnix *cough*)

  2. #2 Common Sense
    February 11, 2007

    So Kristjan has a blog called Pro-Science but has guest blogged on the validity of the Danish autism studies? Sounds like a contradiction to me. Good luck anyway…

  3. #3 Orac
    February 11, 2007

    Kristjan makes far more sense than any comment you have ever made here.

  4. #4 clone3g
    February 11, 2007

    How’s that blog of yours going Sue?

  5. #5 Common Sense
    February 11, 2007

    Kristjan makes far more sense than any comment you have ever made here.

    That’s profound, Orac. You should admit that the Danish studies are completely bogus to get back one ounce of credibility. Pro-Science/Danish studies don’t go together. I’m sorry. Try again.

  6. #6 Common Sense
    February 11, 2007

    How’s that blog of yours going Sue?

    I don’t have a blog. How’s yours? I considered it at one point but figured it would take up too much of my precious time. I can’t believe how much time some of you can spend on this stuff. Not worth it.

  7. #7 Orac
    February 11, 2007

    You should admit that the Danish studies are completely bogus to get back one ounce of credibility.

    That’s truly funny coming from you. The word “credibility” certainly doesn’t come to mind when I see that you’ve left a comment.

    But, do tell: Why, specifically, are the Danish studies “completely bogus”? Please do more than only mentioning links to antivax or mercury militia websites or doing the standard conspiracy-mongering the mercury militia likes to do with regards to the Statens Serums Institut, if you can.

  8. #8 Common Sense
    February 11, 2007

    But, do tell: Why, specifically, are the Danish studies “completely bogus”? Please do more than only mentioning links to antivax or mercury militia websites or doing the standard conspiracy-mongering the mercury militia likes to do with regards to the Statens Serums Institut, if you can.

    Of couse I could do that but again, my time is valuable and it would be wasted on you. You SHOULD be able to figure it out for yourself.

  9. #9 Orac
    February 11, 2007

    As I thought.

    You can’t do it.

  10. #10 Davis
    February 11, 2007

    Every time I see good ol’ CS posting here, I’m reminded of Einstein’s classic comment “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.”

  11. #11 Common Sense
    February 11, 2007

    As I thought.

    You can’t do it.

    Oh, so now we are in kindergarten? Cool.

    Hey Davis, Einstein would know that you don’t inject mercury into babies and into pregnant mommies. He’s turning over in his grave right now. How do I know? I see dead people.

  12. #12 notmercury
    February 11, 2007

    How do I know? I see dead people.

    Vaccine preventable deaths, no doubt.

  13. #13 anonimouse
    February 12, 2007

    Common Sense,

    How about you point us to the post or blog entry or treatise where you illustrated that the Danish studies were “bogus”? If you’ve done this before, it should be easy to provide a link, right?

    Exactly.

    Are you predisposed to be a liar?

  14. #14 Bronze Dog
    February 12, 2007

    Last time I recall someone linking to ‘evidence’ of those studies being bogus was a link to some big-time anti-vaxxer saying so… for no discernible reason.

  15. #15 anonimouse
    February 12, 2007

    I certainly don’t think the Danish studies are the be-all, end-all. But no credible study has found a link between thimerosal and autism, and until one does it’s hard to take the issue seriously – especially when they are so many other plausible explanations for the alleged increase in autism diagnoses.

  16. #16 Davis
    February 12, 2007

    Hey Davis, Einstein would know that you don’t inject mercury into babies and into pregnant mommies.

    I don’t know about that; I hear he had a habit of imbibing hydrogen and eating sodium.

  17. #17 shot_info
    February 13, 2007

    I see Lack of CS once again shows off her failure of senior math and science. No wonder their only option is alt-world…

  18. #18 Warpoet
    February 14, 2007

    OK. I’ve followed this Danish study discussion for a long time, on this blog as well as many other places. I’ve seen both sides of the issue and have my own opinions. Today, I want to pose an honest question to those reading this story, and want only honest answers in return. If you don’t feel that you can answer honestly, you need not take the time to respond.

    The question is this:

    If a study or studies were to be published with the opposite results of the Danish thimerosal study (and how likely you think this is does not interest me in the least), and the study had the same or similar problems to the Danish study – whatever issues, if any, you choose to recognize being your own business – would you put the same amount of energy into defending it as some people do now? Would you defend it at all? Accept it as legitimate?

  19. #19 anonimouse
    February 14, 2007

    What the Danish studies, the Swedish studies, the UK studies, the US studies, etc, etc. – all illustrate is that there is no discernible correlation between thimerosal exposure and autism. All of these studies have their inherent flaws and weaknesses. ANY study that use broad population data or HMO records are going to have their weaknesses.

    If a population-based study (or studies) showed that thimerosal exposure was correlated with autism, then the next logical step would be to try to replicate those results. Once you replicate those results, then you have the basis for further in-depth research on the topic.

    That is the entire problem with the autism-mercury contingent in a nutshell. When they were unable to illustrate any sort of epidemiological link between thimerosal and autism, they just decided to jump into in vitro/in vivo research into how thimerosal could cause autism. The Horning/Burbacher science all but assumes that autism is caused by vaccines, and works backward to come up with a plausible scientific explanation. (and goes through torturous hoops to find them)

    You CANNOT argue that the reported increase in autism prevalence is due (in part or whole) by thimerosal in vaccines if you cannot provide any research that shows autism incidence is related to thimerosal exposure.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!