"Subject A took the vaccine and did not develop autism, therefore this vaccine is perfectly harmless to all human beings everywhere on the planet."

This is bullshit and you know it. The available science says no such thing.

"All I (or anyone not embracing this ruling) is saying is that the "science" really isn't proving this stuff is perfectly harmless.

It doesn't because it CAN'T!

"The theory seems to be that in order to prove the vaccine is harmful it must (no exceptions) instantly induce autism in 100 percent of the people who recieve the injection. Anything less than 100 percent autism rates in all human beings injected with the vaccine is accepted as "proof" that is doesn't induce autism (or any neurological issues) in anyone, ever.

Is it any wonder that some people are looking at that kind of "test" and are not particularly reassured?

Is it any wonder why this topic has been flogged ad-nauseum because of people like you who are utterly unable to comprehend what Science is, how it's supposed to work, and what it's for?

"So couldn't we be forgiven for being a "little" skeptical?

Not only should you be forgiven for being skeptical, I would strongly encourage everyone to be skeptical more often. But to do so, one must work hard to sharpen their ability to divine fact from bullshit. I can see you're trying, but you're making some common logical fallacies, as has been apparent in your letters.

Still, you bring up some good points. Scientists are human, after all, and are no less succeptible to corruption and sloppy methodology than anyone else. There is lots of bad science out there- much of it very cleverly disguised, and for all kinds of reasons.

To identify it, we must train ourselves to think clearly and rationally which is harder than it seems.

Dr. Carl Sagan's book, "The Demon Haunted World" gives some excellent guidelines for doing this, and why it's so important.

I'm in!

I'll order a bouquet of a dozen Amorphophallus titanum from FTD, and a half-and-half Whizzo Quality Assortment of those perennial favourites, Spring Surprise and Crunchy Frog.

What was the address again?

-----------

What a shame.

Did the article give any address to which we can send flowers or a box of chocolates to help him recuperate?

is AC, who is paid handsomely to toss red meat to the ignorami, keeping them in a perpetual lather. Her (and Glen Beck, for example) raison d'etre is to play an exaggerated caricature of a far-far-right howling nutjob, for the express purpose of allowing the slightly less far-far-right howling nutjobs to appear more reasonable than they really are.

...I wish Lauer or someone else hosting a talk show would yank their shoe of and slam it on the table as soon as one of these GOP retards dodges the question. I would love to see him, for example, 'doze the desk, and shout, "ENOUGH!! JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION, ALREADY!!!"

That'd be some quality entertainment. Oh well, a guy can dream, can't he?

----------------

I saw him this morning

On the Today show with Matt Lauer.

This person may have some points regarding some of the sexism and that the media does pick candidates they like better than others, but overall you could just see how angry he was that Palin was pointed at like a moron when her own words are used against her. Lauer kept asking well were the questions being asked of her fair or not for a VP candidate? He would not answer, just redirect into stuff about love for Obama and different treatment of answers from different people.

I think this Palin documentary is like those reality show contestants who are charged with being nutty, crazy, mean or whatever who go on interviews and say but but I was edited, it wasn't really like that, it's distortions, I was nervous then they get more airtime like in the case of Omarosa and she just digs herself in deeper and deeper, proving those may have been edited moments, but they are still your comments.

-- funwithtrees

Too long, man, too long. Here, lemme fix that for you.

Hey, Calgodot! Go fuck yourself, and I mean that most sincerely.

...who is, simply, an unprincipled whore. It's just another job to him.

----

As I think about Rove, I am reminded of the punchline of that famous Lawyer Joke- you know, the one about Lawyers being preferable to lab rats, because...

...The staff doesn't get attached to them, and there are some things a rat just won't do.