Respectful Insolence

Yesterday’s post on Dawn Winkler, the antivaccination activist who is presently running for the Governor of Colorado on the Libertarian ticket, provoked this comment, which linked to an amusing e-mail exchange that Australian skeptic Peter Bowditch had with her regarding vaccines a couple of years ago. After reading that exchange, I now think that I was probably a bit more easy on Ms. Winkler than she deserved. Perhaps I gave her too much of the benefit of the doubt because of the death of her first child of SIDS. I realize more strongly now that personal tragedy does not immunize her from deserved criticism of the policies she advocates, which, if implemented, would mean massive return of vaccine-preventable diseases like measles, with all the attendant deaths and disability that would come with their return.

Indeed, just a casual perusal of her comments to Peter Bowditch reveal that she is even more unhinged in her views about vacines than I had thought. Here’s just a taste (and, sadly, this is only a fairly small sample of the rants she subjected Peter to):

“I have never witnessed such blatant stupidity and ignorance as I have on your website. I am literally going to vomit.” (I would sincerely love it if my blog provoked the same reaction in Ms. Winkler, should she become aware of it. Come on over!)

“Yes, vaccines containing mercury cause autism, Asperger’s, ADD, and a host of other horrifying problems including death.” (No, they don’t cause autism, Asperger’s, or ADD. as I have discussed time and time again. Deaths from vaccines are very rare. In countries where mass vaccination is not done, deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases, such as measles, are not. If Ms. Winkler got her way, those death rates could be ours.)

“Oh my God, have you ever been around and autistic child that doesn’t speak and still shits his pants at age 8? Because I have, and you just don’t MISS THAT diagnosis and figure out how to diagnose it correctly because it is now 2004. Autism went from 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 166.” And, sadly, Ms. Winkler had even more to say about autism: “Half of the 1.5 million autistic children in the US don’t speak and still shits their pants. Yes. The other half are what they call high functioning autistics. Where have you been?” (These two are for you, Kev and Diva. Maybe you’d like to have a go at them. Her statements reveal that, not only is Ms. Winkler totally ignorant about vaccines, but she has zero clue about autism as well. She thinks that the 1 in 166 figure for autism includes only severe cases of autism, when in fact it includes the entire spectrum of ASDs, from Aspergers to autism. What a twit. I wonder if autism advocates in Colorado would like to be made aware of Ms. Winkler’s statements.)

“Vaccinated children are sick, period. Their Th1/Th2 balance is messed up because they have overstimulated one response rather than naturally allowing both to take place. They have Th2 mediated diseases, asthma, etc. They have snot dripping all the time, they are on antibiotics more than anyone should be, they have ear infections, they have have dark circles around their eyes, they have allergies, and on and on and on. And our medical community labels them healthly, as I’m sure you do as well.” (Actually, there are good studies that suggest that vaccinated children have lower rates of asthma, as I’ve discussed before. I have to say, though, her comment about vaccinated children having dark circles under their eyes and snot dripping all the time is a new one on me.)

I could go on with even more examples of Ms. Winkler’s misinformed rants, but I think Peter summed it up best responding to Ms. Winkler and people like her:

You [Ms. Winkler]…actively advocate that children should be denied protection against life-threatening and disabling diseases, and the inevitable result of such advocacy, should it be even partially successful, is the death or permanent harm of many children. If you got everything you wanted, the deaths would be counted in the tens of millions and the blind, halt and lame in the hundreds of millions. You would sentence children to death.

Those are the stakes, and what Ms. Winkler is advocating is very different from expressing concern about whether certain vaccines (such as the Hepatitis B vaccine) really need to be made mandatory for all. Such questions are issues that medical authorities have legitimate disagreements about, but none of them dispute the usefulness of mass vaccination. What they will sometimes disagree over is the margins, whether certain less common or less virulent diseases ought to be vaccinated against. When she (and other antivaccination advocates) bring up such questions about specific vaccines, like the Hepatitis B vaccine or the HPV vaccine, it’s not about reasonable disagreements, though. It’s nothing more than a subterfuge for their true agenda: The elimination of mandatory vaccinations, period.

Comments

  1. #1 Alex
    September 20, 2006

    I seem to remember George Orwell was told at school that masturbation caused dark circles, and dreaded that they might sprout overnight, but vaccination didn’t come into it. Which was a pity. He also had a runny nose as a kid and was told to run more, but only found out later he actually had tuberculosis, which eventually killed him.

  2. #2 Marie1920
    September 20, 2006

    Thank you for raising these issues. Unfortunately I’ve found that anti-vax people like Ms. Winkler can’t be reasoned with – no matter what studies, evidence, common sense you throw at them, they don’t want to hear it.

  3. #3 quitter
    September 20, 2006

    Maybe we need to file anti-vaccination paranoia in the denialism file.

    I didn’t think of it when I was coming up the criteria. They are slightly different from the HIV/AIDS or creationism denialists, but their love of conspiracy theories and selective use of the literature are pretty diagnostic. They also seem to love the red herring.

  4. #4 Do'C
    September 20, 2006

    Let’s check her math:

    U.S. Population in 2004 – 293,656,842 Source: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-01.xls

    Percentage of U.S. Population under 18 in 2004 – 25% Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

    Est. U.S. Population under age 18 in 2004 = 73,414,210

    1-166th of 73,414,210 (all austism spectrum disorders) = 442,254

    Nowhere where near 1.5 million.

    It seems likely that more alongs the lines of 100,000 might be non-verbal to varying degrees (of which a significant portion may communicate effectively with non-speech means), not the 750,000 she appears to suggest (that don’t even exist).

  5. #5 Ahistoricality
    September 20, 2006

    personal tragedy does not immunize her

    She’s opposed to immunization, anyway. Fire at will.

  6. #6 anonimouse
    September 20, 2006

    Dawn Winkler is like John Best, except she can (sort of) turn off her insanity in public settings.

    In other words, she’s like our good friend J.B. Handley.

  7. #7 Samantha
    September 21, 2006

    Well that was an uplifting read. This person shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near parents of autistic children. There’s no telling what we might do to her, particularly when we’re sleep deprived from a bad night with junior.

    Somewhat off topic, I’m looking for input on the idea of treating autism and other developmental delay disorders like traumatic brain injuries. I’ve blogged about it here. Any thoughts you have to share would be appreciated. Thanks.

  8. #8 Peter
    September 21, 2006

    re: “no matter what studies, evidence, common sense you throw at them, they don’t want to hear it.”

    What evidence? What common sense?

    You are what you ingest and the bottom line is there aren’t long term studies (years) done on the class of drugs [vaccines] known as immuno-suppresants.

    No, of course you can’t reason with Dawn. But why would you? Your faith based fundamentalism is the opoosite of her empirical conclusions. When momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.

    And how about NVIC? How do you rationalize away that?

  9. #9 Bronze Dog
    September 21, 2006

    You are what you ingest and the bottom line is there aren’t long term studies (years) done on the class of drugs [vaccines] known as immuno-suppresants.

    Known as immuno-suppresants? That’s a new one on me. I hope your next post contains some evidence of that, or I’ll just conclude that that was harvested from some dark corner of your colon.

    Your faith based fundamentalism is the opoosite of her empirical conclusions.

    And the basis for these “empirical conclusions” is…?

  10. #10 DrSteve
    September 21, 2006

    immunosupressants?

    Um, no. See, when you immunize someone you ENHANCE their immunity against that disease.

    People with immunosupression from, say, cancer or steroids, don’t generate an immune response and therefore may not benefit from immunizations.

  11. #11 Dawn Winkler
    September 21, 2006

    Keep talking amongst yourselves. It’s simply fascinating to watch!!! It might even get me some publicity if you’re not careful.

    When you’ve done ten years of research on the subject, I might care what you have to say. Until then…well, you should probably keep it to yourself.

    Hey, flu season is coming up. Better get your vaccine.

    Sincerely,
    Dawn Winkler-Kinateder
    2006 Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Colorado

  12. #12 Bronze Dog
    September 21, 2006

    Perhaps you’d like to provide us with, say, about an hour’s worth of your “research”. Then we’ll get to see just how your standards are.

    I’ve noticed that people who claim to have done more research than us skeptics never ever ever ever quote properly done studies. It’s either A) Nothing at all, B) anecdotes, C) studies done under highly questionable ethical review, or D) Unscientific studies with gaping flaws.

  13. #13 Dawn Patrol
    September 21, 2006

    Ms. Winkler, was it drama, or did you literally vomit?

  14. #14 Orac
    September 21, 2006

    Keep talking amongst yourselves. It’s simply fascinating to watch!!! It might even get me some publicity if you’re not careful.

    When you’ve done ten years of research on the subject, I might care what you have to say. Until then…well, you should probably keep it to yourself.

    Oh, please. Is that the best you can do?

    You have no clue what you’re talking about. Your comments about autism are particularly ill-informed and tell me without a shadow of a doubt that your critical thinking skills suck. If in fact you did “ten years of research” about vaccines, your comments show me that it was clearly wasted time.

    As for “publicity,” I’m more than happy to give you all the negative publicity my humble blog can produce. Fortunately, given that the poll I cited showed you at 3% of the vote, Coloradans probably don’t have to worry about your ever getting the chance to implement your antivaccination policies.

  15. #15 HCN
    September 21, 2006

    Dawn Winkler said “Hey, flu season is coming up. Better get your vaccine.”

    Thank you for the reminder. My son with the genetic heart condition is in the high priority group for the flu vaccine.

  16. #16 Orac
    September 21, 2006

    I’ve noticed that people who claim to have done more research than us skeptics never ever ever ever quote properly done studies. It’s either A) Nothing at all, B) anecdotes, C) studies done under highly questionable ethical review, or D) Unscientific studies with gaping flaws.

    No doubt Ms. Winkler’s “studies” consist of the dreck that Mark and David Geier produce, with a dash of Wakefield thrown in for bad measure.

    If she considers such horrible “science” to be valid, she needs a lession in the scientific method.

  17. #17 clone3g
    September 21, 2006

    The Geiers and Wakefield are lesions in the scientific method :-)

  18. #18 DrSteve
    September 22, 2006

    10 years of “research”. Right.
    I’ll let you in on something. In order to increase understanding of a topic you need a firm foundation of understanding of that topic and related topics. In this case, physiology, toxicology, chemistry, developmental biology, and statistics. You clearly illustrate gross ignorance in all of these topics in link Orac provided. You built your castle in a swamp, and I’m saying it’s daft to build a castle in a swamp, but you built it anyway, and it sank into the swamp (applogies to M. Python).

    That’s almost as big a joke as your campaign.

  19. #19 anonimouse
    September 22, 2006

    When you’ve done ten years of research on the subject, I might care what you have to say. Until then…well, you should probably keep it to yourself.

    Ten years of crappy research = six weeks of legitimate research.

    Trust me, I’ve forgotten more about this subject than you’ll ever know.

  20. #20 Bronze Dog
    September 22, 2006

    Wouldn’t that be something more like this?:

    10 years of crappy research < 0 weeks of legitimate research

  21. #21 Andrew Wade
    September 22, 2006

    “Vaccinated children are sick, period. Their Th1/Th2 balance is messed up because they have overstimulated one response rather than naturally allowing both to take place. They have Th2 mediated diseases, asthma, etc. They have snot dripping all the time, they are on antibiotics more than anyone should be, they have ear infections, they have have dark circles around their eyes, they have allergies, and on and on and on. And our medical community labels them healthly, as I’m sure you do as well.”

    Ms. Winkler, I’m curious: in the studies demonstrating such a link with vaccination, what variables were controlled for? In particular, was the control group corrected for socio-economic status and sanitation conditions?

  22. #22 Common Sense
    September 22, 2006

    Trust me, I’ve forgotten more about this subject than you’ll ever know.

    Mouse, even for you this is pathetic. Here is a woman whose daughter died from SIDS. She has researched the topic of vaccinations/SIDS/adverse reactions, etc. for years and you claim the above. Are you serious? And if you are serious, what is your profession? How is it possible that you have spent soooo much time on this subject?

  23. #23 Bronze Dog
    September 22, 2006

    I doubt she did any good research. I’d like to see some of that research, but, as a JREFer sig line goes, “If you won’t explain it to me, I won’t understand. If you can’t explain it to me, you don’t understand.”

    So, happen to know anything about the quality of that research, or are we safe to leave this to our pattern recognition abilities?

  24. #24 Common Sense
    September 22, 2006

    Bronze Dog,

    Try going through VAERS and searching under the column of chidren who died, read the comments, look how many are classified as “SIDS” and then tell me that vaccines aren’t related to SIDS in many cases. Easy.

  25. #25 Bronze Dog
    September 22, 2006

    A pile of post-hoc anecdotes mostly submitted from anti-vax lawyers doesn’t interest me.

    It also demonstrates that you won’t click links: There was a good study done a while back demonstrating the absence of a correlation, and even showed a possible small decrease in the likelyhood. Perhaps you’d like to search for it again (search engine is being a little stubborn on me, but it was in the comments somewhere), or provide a superior study demonstrating the correlation.

    I won’t be holding my breath.

  26. #26 HCN
    September 22, 2006

    I found this paper: “Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunisation.” published the Aug. 4th edition of “Vaccine”. The research was done at the (cut and paste time) Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Munster, Germany.

    The abstract is as follows:
    BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have shown either no association between immunisation and SIDS or even a decreased risk of SIDS, adverse effects, including death, from immunisations continue to cause concern, especially when a new vaccine is introduced. METHODS: A large case control study with immunisation data on 307 SIDS cases and 971 controls. RESULTS: SIDS cases were immunised less frequently and later than controls. Furthermore there was no increased risk of SIDS in the 14 days following immunisation. There was no evidence to suggest the recently introduced hexavalent vaccines were associated with an increased risk of SIDS. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further support that immunisations may reduce the risk of SIDS.

    ……………………….

    There is also this paper that goes through the followup of the VAERS report. It shows that in most cases the SIDS was caused by something else (like accidental smothering):
    http://sids-network.org/experts/poa9078.pdf

  27. #27 john
    September 23, 2006

    I’d love to see your photo Orac. I haven’t got the stomach to wade through your blog of ad hominem (the main vaccinator argument) bullshit. And you usually suppress my posts anyway.

    john

    get the truth on vaccination, not the pharma bullshit http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html

  28. #28 shot_info
    September 23, 2006

    Hey, it’s John of the Whales,

    And he’s an expert at adhominem :-)

    “Get the truth”, at whale.to

    Yeah right. I gather the Queen of England is lizard then?

    DD

  29. #29 shot_info
    September 23, 2006

    BTW,
    the Queen of unhinged beliefs (Sheri Nakken) has posted this recently, so Orac, the signal to moron ratio is going to go up…

    >As many of you know, Dawn Winkler and vaccine choice advocate is
    running
    for governor of Colorado.
    >
    >She is fighting hard and really getting the vaccine issue out there in
    the
    media.
    >
    > Dawns website is http://www.dawnforgovernor.org
    >
    >Dawn has been involved with this issue for many many years.
    >She lost a baby to so-called SIDS (vaccine death)
    >I have known her many years.
    >
    >If you can financially support her, please do. Thanks

    From another activist

    If any of you has the stomach to, please respond. This make me sick,
    but
    I guess when you put yourself and your ideas out there this is bound to
    happen.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/09/antivaxer_running_for_governor_of_
    the_st.php

    Respectful Insolence: Anti-vaccination activist running for governor of
    the
    state of Colorado?

    This blog already has 64 comments on Dawn, the unhinged, hard-core,
    antivaxer.

  30. #30 Bronze Dog
    September 23, 2006

    Perhaps Dawn and her followers would like to present evidence of danger, rather than baselessly asserting it over and over in an effort to drill it into people’s heads via argumentum ad nauseum, rather than honest means like the scientific method.

  31. #31 Gilligan's Sister
    September 23, 2006

    Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale,
    A whale of a tale, whale.to
    It started when the government bombed the WTC
    And then it wasn’t satisfied
    So it started poisoning the kids

    The secret chupacabre army in the underground base
    Where they learned to fly UFOs
    But the alien DNA experiment got out of hand
    And they unleashed Lyme’s Disease upon the land

    Oh, the government’s gonna get me soon
    I can hear them knocking at my door
    I wonder how the black helicopters found me
    Mabye it was the tinfoil on my floor

    So let’s just not vaccinate
    Let’s shoot our kids with a Lupron bomb
    Hold ‘er down and listen to her cry
    That’s what the Geiers, Ayoub, AutismNotReality, and QuantumIdiot say makes me a good experimental Mom.

  32. #32 Common Sense
    September 23, 2006

    CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further support that immunisations may reduce the risk of SIDS.

    What could possibly be the mechanism by which giving children vaccines could protect them from SIDS? The argument could be made, I suppose, that vaccinations don’t trigger SIDS but protect from it? I highly doubt it. Not only that but what if it is true that children who are vaccinated less have more of a chance of SIDS (which I highly doubt but I’ll play along). How do we know that the two have any connection? Of course it could be that the families who didn’t vaccinate on time or whatever also had a higher incidence of smoking around the baby (as an example) or who were less likely to put their child on their back to sleep or whatever. This study seems to draw conclusions where they shouldn’t. Although I understand that what is posted is simply an abstract… so perhaps they address the questions (although I doubt it).

  33. #33 Orac
    September 23, 2006

    What could possibly be the mechanism by which giving children vaccines could protect them from SIDS? The argument could be made, I suppose, that vaccinations don’t trigger SIDS but protect from it? I highly doubt it.

    Argument from personal incredulity/ignorance (which, by the way, is a favorite argument of creationists against evolution).

    Just because you personally can’t envision a possible mechanism by which vaccines might decrease the risk of SIDS does not mean that there isn’t such a mechanism. The job of science is to figure out (1) whether vaccines truly do decrease the risk of SIDS and (2) if they do what the mechanism is.

  34. #34 Orac
    September 23, 2006

    YourKidsWillBeSafe, Dawn Winkler, and other antivaxers who may be reading:

    Check this update out.

  35. #35 Common Sense
    September 23, 2006

    There is also this paper that goes through the followup of the VAERS report. It shows that in most cases the SIDS was caused by something else (like accidental smothering):
    http://sids-network.org/experts/poa9078.pdf

    Did you even read this study? It doesn’t seem as if you did. First of all, I thought according to you guys that we weren’t supposed to consider VAERS as a valid source. I guess that only applies when they study doesn’t jive with your views. Nice. By the way, Bronze Dog, your comment that “A pile of post-hoc anecdotes mostly submitted from anti-vax lawyers doesn’t interest me”, doesn’t fit here either. Out of the 18 deaths in this study, it looks as if the breakdown went something like this in reporting: physicians (8), nurses (4), state immunization program staff (3), vaccine providers (2) and a relative of the patient (1).

    Now, moving on, where do you get the idea that this study shows that SIDS cases were mostly caused by something else? I actually read the study that you provided and I definately DID NOT get that from it. Please advise so that I can re-check my reading skills. Otherwise, I suggest that you re-check yours.

    Moving on… this study includes ONLY deaths reported from the Hep B vaccine. What about all the other vaccines? Not only that but it only includes babies who are aged 0-28 days old. If your baby happens to die at 29 days old from the Hep B, you are not in this study. Not only that but according to the CDC the peak time for SIDS is between 2 to 4 months old:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/sids/default.htm

    So, the study doesn’t even account for SIDS death when SIDS deaths are considered peak. In fact, it states that, “most SIDS deaths occur when a baby is between one and four months of age”. So, why use a study which only analyze deaths of babies who are younger (0 to 28 days). It truly boggles my mind.

    On the CDC site, I saw a study which could have been interesting to read about. The blurb on the site stated this:

    A study utilizing the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) data, which included children who were under a health maintenance organization (HMO) health plan, found that there was no association between immunization and deaths in young children. The study investigated deaths in children one month to 7 years of age between 1991 and 1995. Data were analyzed by comparing vaccination histories for each vaccine during the week and month prior to the date of death for each child. Five hundred and seventeen deaths occurred between 1991-1995, most (59%) during the first year of life. Of these deaths, the results did not show an association between immunizations and childhood deaths”.

    That would be interesting to read about. We could look at the 517 deaths of which 59% happened during the first year of life. Of course you scroll down to the bottom to see where to read more about the study and it states that this study is unpublished… Why? Now, truth be told I didn’t go digging around to see if I could actually find out more about the study despite the CDC site referencing it as “unpublished”. If anyone else finds it … feel free to provide a link. Thanks.

  36. #36 Common Sense
    September 23, 2006

    Argument from personal incredulity/ignorance (which, by the way, is a favorite argument of creationists against evolution).

    I was actually half expecting to see a picture of you staring back at me when I followed your link.

  37. #37 Spike
    September 23, 2006

    Are all anti-vaxers Libertarians, or do they spread proportionately across the political spectrum?

    If there is a greater proportion of anti-vaxers in the Libertarian Party, is it because they think the Libertarian philosophy would assist their cause? (Because there’s certainly nothing inherently anti-vax about Libertarianism.)

  38. #38 HCN
    September 23, 2006

    Spike said: “Are all anti-vaxers Libertarians, or do they spread proportionately across the political spectrum?”

    Not all are Libertarians. They are sprinkled throughout the entire political spectrum. The ones on the sMothering Forum are very liberal, while the other end of the spectrum (think Phyllis Schlafly) are very conservative.

  39. #39 HCN
    September 23, 2006

    Just one more time…

    Common Sue said ” >http://sids-network.org/experts/poa9078.pdf

    Did you even read this study? It doesn’t seem as if you did. First of all, I thought according to you guys that we weren’t supposed to consider VAERS as a valid source.”

    If you had actually read that report, you would see why VAERS is not considered a valid source. What it showed were several cases that were put into the VAERS database that when investigated had nothing to do with the vaccine (which in this case was HepB… there are other papers that cover other specific vaccines that come to the same conclusion that vaccines do not contribute to SIDS).

    Basically the paper shows that many cases of SIDS reported to VAERS after the HepB… the cause of death was often something completely different.

  40. #40 anonimouse
    September 25, 2006

    John,

    Please come back. I love reading your website whenever I’m in the mood for some good, old-fashioned paranoid nonsense.

    Can you bring the other John into your fortified underground bunker of doom?

  41. #41 anonimouse
    September 25, 2006

    Common Sense,

    Trying to explain why that study is relevant would be so wasted on you it’s not funny.

    Go back to junior college and learn basic logic and mathematics skills, and then come back to the discussion.

  42. #42 HCN
    September 25, 2006

    The page referenced in the first paragraph of this blog entry has been updated. See the new letter at the bottom of the page. It would be interesting to see if Ms. Winkler responds:
    http://ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/hapi.htm

  43. #43 anonimouse
    September 25, 2006

    Dammit – Peter beat me to it. I had some great ideas for Dawn’s campaign as well, but he stole them all.

  44. #44 Common Sense
    September 25, 2006

    Instead of bothering to attack women who have had a child die from an adverse reaction to vaccinations, perhaps Peter should spend more time trying to get to the bottom of why the type 1 diabetes rate his country is increasing so fast:

    http://www.jdrf.org.au/publications/factsheets/diabetesstatistics.html

    Interesting point from the “stats”:

    “Incidence in children under 5 years of age has doubled over the last 5 years – we don’t know why”.

    They don’t know why? Well, I would wonder if it could be because of this:

    http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/history#iaspp

    Maybe not. It just seems pretty coincidental to me. Perhaps we could look at other factors. More tv during those years, more ice cream, space aliens. Seriously.

  45. #45 shot_info
    September 25, 2006

    “Maybe not. It just seems pretty coincidental to me. Perhaps we could look at other factors. More tv during those years, more ice cream, space aliens. Seriously.”

    Then prehaps you should stop defending the anti-science tripe that anti-vaxxers sprout and help concentrate on the issues rather than the smokescreen.

  46. #46 Common Sense
    September 25, 2006

    Then prehaps you should stop defending the anti-science tripe that anti-vaxxers sprout and help concentrate on the issues rather than the smokescreen.

    I’m not too sure how to respond to a comment like this. What “anti-science tripe”? Which “anti-vaxxers”? I thought that I was trying to concentrate on the issues rather than the smokescreen. It is quite easy to lump everyone together (on both sides). If you have specific examples, great, if not… I’m sorry that I can’t help you.

  47. #47 HCN
    September 25, 2006

    You gave two seperate webpages. One that was about the increase in diabetes 1 in Australia, and the other on vaccination information in Australia.

    These do not in anyway show a correlation between diabetes and vaccination. Basically, you are trying to make a broadbased assertion without any evidence.

    Here, try to use something like this review of the medical literature: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.03.005

  48. #48 Common Sense
    September 26, 2006

    You gave two seperate webpages. One that was about the increase in diabetes 1 in Australia, and the other on vaccination information in Australia.

    These do not in anyway show a correlation between diabetes and vaccination. Basically, you are trying to make a broadbased assertion without any evidence.

    HCN, yes it was two separate webpages. I know EXACTLY what information was in the links that I posted. Thank you. I am not claiming that what I posted shows a definitive link between the two things. I am fully aware that these are not in any way, shape or form considered to be “scientific”. What I am asking for you to do is to open you mind to the possibility that perhaps a large push to vaccinate children in the late 1990′s in Australia could have led to an increse in the number of children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in Australia within the following years. They had financial initiatives for parents to vaccinate, financial initiatives for docs to vaccinate, vaccination days, tv and magazine campaign, school entry requirements changed, etc.

    As I have stated before type 1 diabetes would be a good thing to follow because it could be more easily tracked than autism (no chance of the “better diagnosis”). Type 1 diabetes by all accounts (unless someone wants to show me differently) is seen as having BOTH a genetic component AND an evironmental component to it. The genetic factor is interesting but isn’t it really the environmental “trigger” that we need to focus on? Right now, what I see is a big focus in research (on the environmental side) as being with milk protein and/or viruses… wonderful, but what about the vaccine component? You hear very little. Is that the best abstract that you can find. I find it very lacking.

  49. #49 clone3g
    September 26, 2006

    CS: The genetic factor is interesting but isn’t it really the environmental “trigger” that we need to focus on? Right now, what I see is a big focus in research (on the environmental side) as being with milk protein and/or viruses… wonderful, but what about the vaccine component?

    You should probably take that up with the folks doing IDDM research, Sue, instead of whining about here. I’m sure they’d be fascinated with your ideas if you can get anyone to listen long enough.

    That’s what you want right? Better diabetes research or just more focus on the things you think are important?

    Look down. See those bloody stumps where your feet should be? We didn’t do that.

    disclaimer: I don’t think Sue literally shoots her self in the feet again and again.

  50. #50 Common Sense
    September 26, 2006

    You should probably take that up with the folks doing IDDM research, Sue, instead of whining about here. I’m sure they’d be fascinated with your ideas if you can get anyone to listen long enough.

    That’s what you want right? Better diabetes research or just more focus on the things you think are important?

    I would be interested in where I was “whining” so that I can address it. Thank you. Now, all that I am trying to do is to allow you to look outside of your comfort zone (autism). Did you ever think for a second that there may actually be some sort of a link between autoimmune diseases and autism. If that is the case, then maybe it would be a good idea to study the rates of autoimmune diseases. It’s not brain surgery.

    Now, if that doesn’t work for you how about using your mouse to scroll up to the top of the page to see the title of this blog entry. It seems to me that it encompasses more than what you are interested in (autism). See that, it’s all about an “antivaccination activist”, blah, blah, blah. If you have an issue with discussing other topics perhaps you need to wander back over to Leitch’s site.

  51. #51 clone3g
    September 26, 2006

    Oh right, right, my comfort zone. didn’t you claim to know more about autism than most of the people commenting here?

    Well if you’d rather discuss autoimmune destruction of beta cells, I’m all-in. Whatcha got sparky? Want to talk about autoantigens and how target epitopes aren’t similar to any common vaccine antigens? That’s cool. You first, assuming you are in your comfort zone.

  52. #52 Common Sense
    September 26, 2006

    Well if you’d rather discuss autoimmune destruction of beta cells, I’m all-in.

    I’ll let you know on that.

  53. #54 t-shirts
    October 25, 2007

    Touchy topic – that’s for sure.
    I think the truth is that vaccinations might be the cause of some problems with some kids, but not all of them. There could be a number of factors here. Either the vaccination manufacturers are cutting corners where they never used to (or using materials that are potentially harmful, without anyone knowing) or the (autism especially) whole thing is dependent on a number of factors. It could include what the mother is taking or the kind of vaccination she received.
    I’m going to throw this out here, just for your own consideration. Glyconutrients have shown to even help kids with Autism. Do a study on Glyconutrients yourself – it is a facinating study, and it gets a lot of flack because it can (in many ways) pose a huge threat to the pharmaceautical industry. Anyone out there with a child suffering from autism or a disease might want to check the many testimonies people have had from glyconutrients. I know a child that is recovering from cancer… so, it’s worth a shot.

  54. #55 Bronze Dog
    October 25, 2007

    Citations?

    Most of these sorts of studies get flak because they use sloppy methodology that not only allows, but encourages bias. The gold standard for medical tests, the double-blind control study, is designed for the purpose of removing bias.

    And if you’re going to bring in corporate subject changes, you should be aware that the quackery industry is quite large in itself. Useless supplements, for example, are so profitable for Big Altie that the pharmaceutical industry joined that racket. That’s why removing bias in studies is so important: Everyone’s got money and riding on something.

    Big Altie would rather leave the bias in than do a DBCS.

  55. #56 notmercury
    October 25, 2007

    Glyconutrients? Please.
    Dear MLM Mannatech Spammer, Where have glyconutrients been shown to help kids with Autism?

    A Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
    The medicine go down-wown
    The medicine go down
    Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
    In a most delightful way

  56. #57 family portrait artist
    October 30, 2007

    Unfortunately, people who are against something have their mind set into something that neither evidence nor testimonials can ever change it.

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