Tiffany, you wrote: Jimmy YOUR anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Correct. Jimmy's point was exactly that: that anecdotal evidence proves nothing. I drank coffee today and got a sore throat. Therefore coffee causes sore throats. I've experienced it myself. If you have bought into the hysteria that these diseases are just lurking around the corner trying to "get" you then what more can I say? Our parents and grandparents seemed to have the idea that, for example, polio was lurking just around the corner. Care to explain why no kids today are suffering from it? These carefully controlled and interpreted studies you mention are amost always funded by the phrama groups You are making a few jumps there - saying the different testing bodies and the various procedures are a monolithic entity, and implying that they are deliberately hiding or manipulating evidence. What makes you think they are doing this? I will support people like Jenny McCarthy and others like her because they were eye witnesses to something you and I can't understand. What exactly was Jenny an "eye witness" to? Did she observe the event, or did she see two occurences and simply assume they were connected? That is not being an eye witness to a vaccine causing autism. vaccines can be VERY dangerous. You conflating the known risks with the postulated risks here. Your whole case seems to rest on linking the known risks with a postulated risk. But how are you making this link? Keep on saying parents have seen things "with their own eyes" but what do you mean by that? What have they actually seen? They may have seen their child being vaccinated, and then their child has been diagnosed as autistic. They have not "seen" the vaccine cause the autism. All they have seen is two events and they have implied a connection between them. I think it very much depends on the individual getting the shot but in the brilliant logic of the scientific mind all people are the same. Here you argue that "the scientific mind" has ignored individual differences. Again, this is no argument, just a collective insult, as if there aren't a whole lot of individual medical practitioners who are undetaking different methods, rather, there is the monolithic, blind and stupid "scientific mind" which has failed to recognise biological differences between individuals. Why do you think that? Has anyone suggested exactly what biological difference might react with exactly which ingredient to cause autism? Mercury maybe? Thimerosol? Formaldehyde? Medical studies control for individual differences, but you are arguing that is not enough. They have ignored the differences because of the "scientific mind". You want parents to discount what they saw with their own eyes - Again, what did they actually see, and what are they simply postulating? You keep repeating "parents have seen it with their own eyes" - but they haven't - and that the drug companies are faking the studies, but you are not offering any reason at all why you think this is so. I have done my research and "lived" the horror that is vaccine injury. -Again, you are conflating vaccine injury with the argument that vaccines cause autism, but you have failed to provide any link between the two beyond emotional appeals, unsubstantiated accusations of foul play, and the insistence that people have "seen" vaccines cause autism. If you have really done the research, then how about summing some of it up in your own words (if it is actual research and not just repeats of anecdotes) and posting links or references?

I think there's a difference between extending an olive branch and giving a dangerous, fanatical dumbass a prominent platform. There was no need at all for Obama to make such a choice. From here in Europe, it seems to me that Obama's administration will be a bit like Clinton's, only with the war on "terror" added, as well as all the other destructive legacies of the Bush era.

It's an excellent article. Badger, you can easily copy and paste it to wordpad or which ever word processing program you use (left click, hold & drag down till the whole text is highlighted; right click & copy; open word processing program and paste.) His article on MRI is also first class.

I'd like to see the ID people develop a different line and claim that God is the one who makes certain animals go extinct, because they have sinned. Also, I'm happy to see the Norse myths get a mention. I'm still waiting for some New Ager to channel Thor - I'd go along to see it. God isn't only shrinking (or learning to squeeze into tight corners), he is also becoming more and more bland. He's gone from a gutsy meat and veg buttkicker to being a wimpy Divine Oneness one-size-fits-all insipid new age bootlicker.

Yes, again, the text I added after clicking preview, then edit has disappeared.

The avatars on Dawkins site appear on the pages for individual articles, like here. Maybe others see it differently, and maybe it would never be a problem here. Last time I clicked preview, it displayed the text in exactly the same as for writing - in this little box you need to scroll through. Then I clicked edit, and it let me scroll through the little box exactly as if I was just re-reading it without previewing. I will see what happens this time:

Also, the preview function doesn't work. It deleted my corrections and the text I added.

Thanks for the how use HTML article. It all looks good to me & works fine with Opera. My personal preferecne would be without avatars - though maybe that's not option. The content is more important than who is posting, and sooner or later poeple start uploading all kinds of fancy avatars. It distracts from the content when you get dozens on a page, and makes the comments look like tedious grandstanding. Check out Dawkins' site. I find it hard to read the comments there because everyone has these eye catching avatars of cool looking wolf-like thingys, or their cat tapdancing, or sycophantic stuff like Dawkins transforming into a woman, or people advertising their sexual appetite. It's like the late 90s when every amatuer website had all kinds of flashing lights and purple text on pink backgrounds.

V, Read Skeptico's comment above.

There is plenty of evidence that Plato, Newton and Einstein do NOT support Ms Byrne's philosophy in any way. She has made an unbelievably stupid statement with those claims. Really really dumb. Or she was lying. Does that mean anything at all to you?

Jeremy, if you really believe that Plato knew The Secret, I would love to know exactly why you believe that. And Newton? Einstein? Why do you believe that these people support Rhonda Byrne's ideas?