How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the most recent studies have basically demonstrated, unequivocally, that there is no causal link between vaccinations at age 6 and autism. But here is the issue, you have no right to say what doesn't cause autism until you can say what does cause it. This is where the experts lost all credibility when they started telling people what didn't cause it even though they couldn't tell them what did.

As a result people experimented with many different things and had proven, though limited, success with diet. This was despite the fact they were told that "it is genetic" and that diet and environment didn't cause autism. As we now have a much better idea of what might cause autism we can say that in part that is right, diet and environment don't "cause" autism, the cause is genetic. But diet and environment can have a huge impact so that in a significant portion of those with autism the symptoms can be completely eliminated with a change in diet and environment. And in an even larger percent the symptoms can be alleviated though not eliminated.

Is it reasonable to look at all environmental factors including inoculations since the epidemic was traced to about the time that the inoculations were first given to kids, and also since symptoms often first appeared immediately after the inoculation was given? Sure, why not? Had the experts been on the leading edge of this research it could have been disproved before the hype caused many people to stop vaccinating. Once again the problem is not with the hypothesis or the research. The problem was with "experts" telling people what didn't cause Autism when they couldn't tell people what did.

OK. I'll try to remember that unsupported health claims is not a good example in the future. Skip the autism/vaccination thing and look at what I was trying to parallel. Do you have any comment there? Otherwise, you are wasting your time.

And at some level, making my point that people get too tied to what they think must be true when they can't explain it. Two things happen near the same time, so they must be related. They can feel it in their bones. And someone on TV said it.

You are right that just because we can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't so. But that is very different from saying it must be so because it can't be disproved. Or hasn't been disproved. People who insist that it is true without any actual evidence are just not believable to me. They lose credibility. Giving the benefit of doubt becomes difficult. Is that understandable without discussing autism?

And even more to the point, it was to parallel the theological assertions of us who are not theologians, like actresses declaring an epidemic based on correlation without actual evidence (and so many buying into it). We need real theologians just like Jenny McCarthy needs real research. And the theologians do not take the position that we and the LRC's non-theologian leadership has dreamed up.