Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
It's worse than I thought.
In seeing the first bits of video last night from the "Green Our Vaccines" rally led by celebrity useful idiots Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. I had been thinking of trying to be "nicer" to them, given that their fans who have shown up here seem to think I have been very, very mean to her and that I lack compassion. I also realize that it can't be easy to be the mother of an autistic child, even one who by all accounts is not severely affected, and that she truly believes that she is doing what is best for her son in pursuing all manner of autism quackery to "heal" him and blaming (in part) vaccines for his condition. However, Jenny routinely squanders whatever empathy I and other science-based physicians might want to have for her by saying outrageously ignorant things with depressing regularity and by having the ignorant arrogance to think that studying at the University of Google and hanging out with antivaccinationist cranks make her somehow qualified to shout down real doctors and scientists when it is obvious that she doesn't have clue one about science or medicine. She can wave the "mother talisman" in front of her all she wants, but it won't (nor should it) protect her from criticism when, based on pseudoscience and emotion, she goes as far to organize a march on Washington to "protest" vaccine policy. That's why in looking at any videos that came from the rally I just had to start with Jenny. However, in doing so I got a bonus video of Jim Carrey giving a speech as well. As I watched Jim Carrey speak, contrary to some of the credulous, star-struck coverage of this march, I realized three things:
- In his understanding of science, Carrey is a very good comedian.
- In Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy has definitely found her soulmate and intellectual equal.
- I had never realized that Dumb & Dumber was a biographical documentary about Jim Carrey, but seeing his speech makes such a conclusion almost inescapable.
Follow along with me for a moment, and you'll see why. The CNN video (which is clearly edited) can be found here, and an amateur video taken at a bit of a distance can be found below:
In the CNN video, the first thing we see is Jim Carrey asking the CDC, "How stupid do you think we are?" I can't speak for the rest of the crowd or anyone else there, but if the rest of Carrey's speech is any reliable indication of his level of knowledge and intelligence, my answer would definitely be in his specific case: "You're pretty freakin' stupid, Jim." I have no way of knowing if Carrey had crank tendencies before he ever met Jenny McCarthy. Guessing from the level of paranoia in his speech, I'd guess there was a pre-existing affinity for conspiracy theories coupled with little or now knowledge of how science works. After all, it's pretty hard to go from completely rational to this level of dumb in a mere year or so. Whatever the case, it's clear that since he fell in love with McCarthy and formed a relationship with her son Evan Carrey's definitely gone completely over to the dark side and become a full-fledged antivaccinationist himself. Since Jim also mentioned one of his more famous movies, Dumb & Dumber, the utter vacuousness and ignorance embodied in his remarks led me to wonder one more time whether that movie was non-fiction and Carrey was not acting. Indeed, his statement that "nobody is that stupid" was immediately and dramatically belied by what came out of his mouth during the rest of his speech. For instance, note how his statement that he is "not against all vaccines" and that "vaccines can do a lot of good" was immediately followed by this gem:
...but many of us believe that in the last few decades corporate influence has turned the vaccine program into more of a profit engine than a means of prevention. It's time to make the people who make them, the people who insist that we take them, know once and for all that it's too many, too soon.
Yes, I know, it's just standard antivaccinationist big pharma conspiracy-mongering. Par for the course, and it's not the lowest that he sank. This is:
If on the way to a burning building a fire engine ran people over, we wouldn't stop using fire engines. We would just ask them to slow down a bit. Well it's time to tell the CDC and the AAP that it's time to slow the fire engine down. People are getting hurt on the way to the fire.
Ack! The stupid doesn't just burn here. It's far beyond that. The stupid is so concentrated that it's on the verge of forming a black hole that will suck every trace of intelligence left on the planet into its maw and leave only ignoramuses like Jim Carrey standing, untouched and staring vacantly into the void. On the other hand, maybe Jim's analogy could be hidden genius. Indeed, I'm still undecided whether this is the worst analogy ever or the best, albeit if it's the best it's the best in an unintentional way. On the one hand, consider this: A fire engine is going to save people's lives and put out fires; if it hits someone on the way to its destination it would by definition be hitting someone who was not its intended target. For that analogy to hold with vaccines, the shots would somehow have to be killing or injuring kids who never got them. They're not. They're not even, as far as science can tell, causing autism. So Carrey's analogy is quite specious. On the other hand, the analogy is unintentionally spot on. After all, if we "slow down" fire engines, it would take them longer to get to fires. Some people who might have been saved if the fire engine arrived faster would then be likely to die because the firefighters and rescue teams arrive too late. If we slowed down the vaccination schedule, as Carrey suggests, that would leave more children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases for a longer period of time, meaning that more children would certainly become ill and more might well die.
Lots to think about. Well, not really.
As hard as it is to believe, though, Jim Carrey then actually "topped" himself:
It's time to tell them that we want real independent studies done on the effects of these vaccines. We are fed up with them trying to tell us that legitimate scientific research, court settlements that have been awarded for vaccine damage, and the overwhelming anecdotal evidence of thousands and thousands of parents and doctors do not constitute real science and don't warrant their attention. I believe that history will prove that the moms and dads were right about autism. The sea of evidence and testimony can no longer be ignored, and those who refuse to acknowledge it now will take their place with the many learned men of the past who insisted that the earth was flat.
Perhaps "Professor" Carrey could point me to the "legitimate" scientific research that supports his view. After all, if the anecdotes are so compelling that the medical science concluding that vaccines do not cause autism should be relegated to the flat earth crowd, it should be child's play, shouldn't it? Perhaps "Professor" Carrey could point me to the "legitimate" scientific research that supports his view that there are too many vaccines given and that they are harmful. (Hint: The Generation Rescue telephone poll does not count. Nor does any "study" by Mark and David Geier. Nor does the recent Wakefield and Hewitson "monkey" study. Just sayin'.) Perhaps "Professor" Carrey can analyze the multiple large epidemiological studies that have failed to find a link between vaccines and autism and point out to me what makes them fatally flawed to the point that their conclusions are highly suspect and explain why he finds anecdotes more plausible than hard data.
Perhaps, but I won't hold my breath waiting.
When I think of accusations against me of being "insensitive" or "lacking compassion" for holding nothing back when criticizing antivaccinationist nonsense, I'll think of what Carrey said next:
And I certainly wouldn't trust the drug companies to regulate themselves. God knows they're far too busy fighting the terrible scourge of restless leg syndrome--also known as "lazy ass" disease.
You'll note that if you compare the CNN video with the YouTube video it becomes immediately apparent that CNN edited out that last part about "lazy ass" disease. Nice going, CNN! Way to protect a celebrity from himself! In any case, I must point out that here we have a so-called autism advocate contemptuously mocking a whole group of people who suffer from a real syndrome that can cause real distress and is associated with real pathology.
Dumb and dumber, indeed. Why does Jim Carrey hate people with restless leg syndrome so? Does he think they don't deserve effective medications to help them?
Enter Jenny McCarthy. I don't want to spend a lot of time deconstructing her speech because it totally lives up (or down) to the level you would expect of her based on our past discussions of her ignorance of science. Here's a sample:
Pediatricians, you know, take an oath, by the way, when they graduate from medical school. They really do. They take an oath to do no harm. Well harm has been done. If you take a look at the history of medicine, this lie has been told before. Do you remember when smoking was actually good for our health? Do you remember when autism was blamed on lazy mothers? We were known as refrigerator mothers, cold and uncaring to our children. Well take a look around. I believe science was wrong yet again.
Yes, it's exactly what you think it is: It's the bogus "science was wrong before" gambit, beloved of cranks of all stripes, be they quacks or cranks. Naturally, the implication of the "science has been wrong before" gambit is that her "science" is correct and the present scientific consensus is wrong. In other words, it's also an implied Galileo gambit. Although Jenny's right about the now discredited "refrigerator mother" hypothesis for the pathogenesis of autism and I can't blame mothers for being royally ticked off at being blamed for their children's autism in that way in the past, McCarthy is so incredibly, extravagantly, outrageously wrong in comparing the prior lack of concern about cigarette smoking to the science showing no correlation between vaccines and autism. Would it be imprudent of me to point out that the epidemiological science that demonstrated a bulletproof link between smoking and lung cancer and that smoking was associated with a number of diseases is the same sort of epidemiological science that has, despite trying in multiple large studies, failed to find a link between vaccines and autism?
Heck, "imprudent" is my middle name when it comes to blogging, so much so that I'm thinking of renaming the blog "Respectful Imprudent Insolence" and will live up to that name by quoting Jenny one more time:
People need to know that there has never been any safety testing on combinations of vaccines and yet doctors were giving eight shots at once.
This is, not surprisingly, another antivaccination canard. All new vaccines are tested in clinical trials against the background of the current vaccine schedule. In other words, if it's a new vaccine not currently recommended, in clinical trials it's merely added to the current schedule. If the vaccine is for the same disease as a currently used vaccine, then the trial looks at the new vaccine versus the old vaccine, all other vaccines in the schedule remaining the same. The reason we don't do serial "one-at-a-time" trials is simple, but nonetheless antivaccinationists never seem able to grasp the concept: It would be extremely unethical to withhold protective vaccines from children in order to test them against no vaccines because it would leave the no vaccine group of children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases. Of course, many antivaccinationists, at least the ones with some knowledge of how clinical trials work, know this. The reason antivaccinationists make this claim is in order to imply that every possible combination of vaccines need to be tested individually and that, if this isn't done, there "has never been any safety testing of combinations of vaccines." What utter twaddle! In reality, this is yet another thinly-disguised attempt to move the goalposts. More savvy antivaccinationists know that the kind of testing they demand is unethical, prohibitively expensive, and impractical, but demanding it allows them to claim (falsely) that there is no science supporting the safety of the current vaccine schedule and provide a complaint that sounds as though it has merit to those without a background in medicine and clinical trials. It's every much a technique to move the goalposts as the "Green Our Vaccines" slogan is.
For all the negativity that I've been expressing of late, thanks to Jen & Jim's antivaccination-fest in our nation's capital this week (don't worry, I don't plan on doing this forever and can't wait to take a break from blogging about antivaccinationists), all may not be lost. It turns out that Jim & Jen are so much the real life Dumb & Dumber, at least when it comes to vaccines and autism, that even those suspicious of vaccines may be starting to realize just how toxically ignorant they are:
I caught Jenny and Jim on the Good Morning America show this morning and listened for about half of the segment. I was struck at the statements they made and how clearly they did not understand the science behind vaccines, autism, and the Hanna Poling (sp?) case, which of course, came up. I called my sister and said with surprise, "you know, they're not very smart, are they? You can tell, that they just don't get the hard science, or they have chosen not to look at it." She said, "Of course they don't. Most people don't get that stuff." Unfortunately, she's right.
The difference, of course, is that most people have the humility to realize that they "don't get" this stuff. Jenny, with her University of Google "degree," doesn't. Whatever struggles she may have had to undergo as the mother of an autistic child do not give her a free pass when she not only spouts scientifically ignorant misinformation about vaccines and autism but never missing a chance to use her celebrity and that of her boyfriend to try to dazzle credulous reporters and persuade other parents of autistic children that she knows what she's talking about. She should not get a pass when she glamorizes quackery, which could persuade confused parents desperate to do anything they can for their children to follow her lead in subjecting their children to dubious and unproven "therapies" to "heal" their child's autism based on the mistaken belief that they are somehow "vaccine injured."
THE "GREEN OUR VACCINES" COLLECTION:
- The Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey rally to "Green Our Vaccines": Anti-vaccine, not "pro-safe vaccine"!
- An Open Letter to Congress on Immunization
- "Green Our Vaccines": Further skeptical reading
- "Green Our Vaccines": Serendipity and schadenfreude as antivaccinationists go to war
- "Green Our Vaccines": Best comment EVAH! Or: How to preserve biological diversity through not vaccinating
- "Green Our Vaccines": Celebrity antivaccinationist ignoramuses on parade. Or: I didn't know that Dumb & Dumber was a documentary
- "Green Our Vaccines": "Pro-safe vaccine" or anti-vaccine? You be the judge!
- "Green Our Vaccines": "Pro-safe vaccine" or anti-vaccine? You be the judge! (Part 2)
- "Green Our Vaccines": The fallacy of the perfect solution
Medicine & Health
Politics
Comments
Now I feel bad for having liked The Truman Show. Thanks a lot, Jim...
Posted by: Man Called True | June 5, 2008 7:35 AM
my brain hurts after reading that...the amount of stupid is painful...really, truly painful
Posted by: CanadianChick | June 5, 2008 7:45 AM
The frightening thing is that celebrities influence millions of people - advertisers caught on to this fact a long time ago. One shudders to think about how many children are going to suffer because of this dim-wittery.
Posted by: Swiftsure | June 5, 2008 7:59 AM
Right. Like I said last time, I can only hope this ends soon, before we wind up injecting distilled water into people and hoping for the best.
Posted by: DLC | June 5, 2008 8:04 AM
WTF?!?
They're wearing "Green Our Vaccines" T-shirts while chanting the ever popular mantra "Too many to soon!" Well...which is it?
...and does Jim realize, in his ever idiotic analogy that the more the fire engine slows down the more damage to building.
Posted by: bones | June 5, 2008 8:08 AM
Which guy in the sunglasses? I want to recognize that face of stupidity.
Posted by: BB | June 5, 2008 8:16 AM
"University of Google "degree,"
snort.
Posted by: thordora | June 5, 2008 8:17 AM
It is, of course their right to make such statements but I find it irresponsible that they are so rarely challenged in the media when they are shown making such dangerous and untrue claims.
http://tinyurl.com/5obb3e
Posted by: Sigmund | June 5, 2008 8:20 AM
Orac,
"Perhaps "Professor" Carrey could point me to the "legitimate" scientific research that supports his view"
I turned a vegetable (my son) into an educable person using the mainstream medicine technique of chelation. I invited all of you geniuses to come and meet him and see videos of what he was like before chelation. None of you have accepted my invitation to look at the evidence.
I can't educate you simpletons if you won't do your homework.
Posted by: John Best | June 5, 2008 8:32 AM
Jim Carrey, comic genius, science moron.
Don't feel sorry for him. I don't think there is any such thing as adult-onset scientific literacy.
All the years class-clowning has paid off for him, in fame and fortune, but in the real world he's as dumb as a bag of hammers.
Posted by: Roger the Shrubber | June 5, 2008 8:46 AM
but many of us believe that in the last few decades corporate influence has turned the vaccine program into more of a profit engine than a means of prevention.
The irony is that big pharma hates vaccines. It is extremely difficult to get a pharma house to sponsor a vaccine. They just don't make enough money off of them: consider an "expensive" vaccine like the HPV vaccine. IIRC, the HPV vaccine costs $300X3. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? Not to a pharma company. People who don't take the vaccine might end up with cervical cancer, which is treated with cisplatinum, at a cost of $1000+ per dose x 10 or more. Not counting treatment of recurrences and metastatic disease. Much more profitable.
If I were into conspiracy theories*, I might suspect "big pharma" of funding these idiots so that they won't get pressured to research vaccines any more and can go back to more profitable routes of research like making drugs that ameliorate symptoms or even cure diseases but don't prevent them. Prevention is so unprofitable.
*Which I am insofar as I enjoy inventing them, but am not in that I never believe my own conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Dianne | June 5, 2008 8:55 AM
Try watching the video. It's infinitely more painful.
The things I subject myself to for my readers...
Posted by: Orac | June 5, 2008 9:00 AM
Firstly, is there a gravy train here? Is Jen rewarded, financially, for her regular appearances such that rallies like this would serve to keep her on the chat-show trail?
Secondly, if anecdotal evidence is to be allowed, as they suggest, then clearly the millions upon millions of fully vaccinated children who do not suffer autism are a statistic that overwhelms the relative handful of alternative anecdotes.
Clearly, the numbers of children not suffering autism is undeniable proof that nothing, not vaccines or ANYTHING else at all, causes autism. My kids have been exposed to all of life's usual modern-day chemicals - injected, inhaled, absorbed - and my kids don't have autism, therefore, anecdotally, autism doesn't exist. Millions of kids can't be wrong. (But my kids, and millions of others, haven't been mothered by Jenny McCarthy so maybe there's something to the "refrigerator mother" theory after all, anecdotally speaking).
Posted by: AndyD | June 5, 2008 9:14 AM
Businesses (including "Big Pharma") have a legal duty to maximise profit for their shareholders. Fair enough, this is somewhat concerning, but constructing a vast international conspiracy just isn't a viable long term business model.
Posted by: JC | June 5, 2008 9:26 AM
Mr Best, you've already been told that ancedote isn't evidence. So how would seeing your son prove anything?
Plus by all accounts you are a crazy redneck that would probably shoot one of us for walking on your land if we turned up.
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | June 5, 2008 9:33 AM
so maybe there's something to the "refrigerator mother" theory after all,
I know you were just making a passing snide remark, but re the "refrigerator mother" theory: If autism is genetic, and the evidence suggests that at least a large percentage of it is, then it is likely that the parents of autistic children may display some "autistic" traits, but without the full disease. Some may have overt Asperger's syndrome or PDD. Autistic people tend to not like to be touched much: may find it uncomfortable or even painful due to sensory dysintegration. So parents of autistic children may tend to be less touchy-feely than average. People might have observed this and mistaken correlation for causation, hence the "refrigerator mother" theory. Ironically, a fairly distant, not particularly contact oriented mother may be better for an autistic child than one who demands physical affection that the child finds uncomfortable. So attempts to warm the "refrigerator mothers" may be entirely the wrong thing to do for an autistic child. The distant appearing mothers and spacey appearing offspring might be reasonably good fits for each other.
Of course, I'm just BSing here and no one should take this theory too seriously...
Posted by: Dianne | June 5, 2008 9:40 AM
According to Jim, my autistic son's very existence, is so unnatural and wrong, that it serves as a "warning from the universe"!
How can he justify making such irrational, nonsensical and bigoted judgements about people.
Jim's green all right. I still like the movie "Eternal Sunshine..." but he's an ass.
Posted by: Sharon | June 5, 2008 9:49 AM
In retrospect, now that you point it out, I should have mentioned that quote too. It's a doozy as far as insensitivity and idiocy go. The post was getting too long, though, and it was getting late.
Posted by: Orac | June 5, 2008 9:55 AM
Does anyone know how many people turned up? A friend tells me it was less than 2,000 and that the organizers are claiming 10,000 (even UK anti-vivisectionists don't over-inflate that much!).
If so it hardly looks like a promising start for their campaign, especially considering Jim Carrey's attendance would be expected to attract quite a few star struck fans.
Posted by: Paul | June 5, 2008 10:08 AM
Lucas,
It's not an anecdote if you see it with your own eyes, is it? I wouldn't shoot you but I would offer you some ALA because I don't think going through life with mercury induced brain damage is a good idea.
Posted by: John Best | June 5, 2008 10:10 AM
I was on the Metro with some of the marchers that day. I managed to get a look at the back of one of those "green our vaccine" shirts. Mercury was listed as an ingredient in vaccines, of course, and I forget all the others, except for one:
"aborted human fetuses"
Man, I had NO IDEA big pharma was getting mothers to abort just so they could produce their money making vaccines, those greedy bastards! (I saw it on a t-shirt, it must be true!)
Posted by: James P. | June 5, 2008 10:42 AM
For all of the smoke and noise there was very little notice of this in the local media. As yesterday, the Washington Post made no mention of the rally in today's paper (as far as I could tell.) Maybe they're in the pay of pharmacutical companies to suppress the unrest. :)
Now for a real rally there's Saturday's Komen Race for the Cure. A great opportunity to go for a morning stroll with 70,000 of your closest friends.
Posted by: eta c | June 5, 2008 10:49 AM
After all, it's pretty hard to go from completely rational to this level of dumb in a mere year or so.
Well, great boobs have been known to accomplish that.
[ducks]
Posted by: StuV | June 5, 2008 11:06 AM
Man that's an incredibly stupid comment. To your deluded and dishonest mind no. But to use it as evidence to support the validity of something, it is still an anecdote and still not evidence.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 5, 2008 11:07 AM
John, my friend, you are slipping. Your trolling used to last quite a bit longer than it did on the previous thread.
Although I have to admit, this one reaches new heights of blithering, painful, embarrassing idiocy:
It's not an anecdote if you see it with your own eyes, is it?
"an·ec·dote Audio Help /ˈænɪkˌdoʊt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-ik-doht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.
[Origin: 1670-80;
--Synonyms story, yarn, reminiscence."
Poe! Poe! Poe!
Posted by: StuV | June 5, 2008 11:17 AM
"The stupid is so concentrated that it's on the verge of forming a black hole that will suck every trace of intellect left on the planet and only leave ignoramuses like"...you mean you and this site, dimwits? Your lack of understanding and arrogant drivel is doing exactly what to help our children? Don't bother answering, because in your mind, you are a doctor, and therefore equal to God. It's ok, though. The truth will come out, and you will be paraded in front of the rest of the world to show them just what a fraud and moron you are Orac. It's useless arguing with you, because you are never wrong (in your mind, anyway). But, go on believing everything you're told by the government. Go on believing that the medical industry has never lied about anything.
Posted by: It's the Hippocratic oath, not Hypocritic oath, dumbass | June 5, 2008 11:18 AM
Yes, we're ALL waiting for the truth of the harm of vaccines to "come out".
Still waiting....
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 5, 2008 11:22 AM
Well harm has been done. If you take a look at the history of medicine, this lie has been told before. Do you remember when smoking was actually good for our health?
What a strange statement from a woman who was a smoker not that long ago. Of course, she smoked knowing it was harmful.
Posted by: Joe Camel | June 5, 2008 11:26 AM
If someone from the "vaccines-cause-autism" side can ever produce compelling scientific evidence to support their case, I will consider it and if the evidence is compelling enough, change my mind and admit that my previous conclusions were mistaken.
Are you aware of any such compelling evidence? Whether you believe me or not, I'll tell you that I have looked for it and failed to find it. I have also routinely looked at the "best" evidence that is routinely used to bolster the alleged vaccine-autism link. None of it is even mildly compelling, while the vast majority of other evidence often presented to support such a link is risibly bad science.
I do like the really obvious straw man, though, about my supposedly believing everything I'm told by the government and that the medical industry has never lied about anything. It takes a truly--shall we say?--vivid imagination to construe my position in such a manner.
Posted by: Orac | June 5, 2008 11:31 AM
Rev. BigDumbChimp, it's nice to see someone who is so true to his name. Keep that up and let us know how it goes.
And Orac, I know you'll never change your mind because you perceive yourself as perfect and never wrong.
Posted by: It's the Hippocratic oath, not Hypocritic oath, dumbass | June 5, 2008 11:40 AM
How many times can Orac or anyone else say that given sufficient evidence they would change their mind on the supposed vaccine/autism link. That's the essence of beings skeptical instead of a dupe. And no, anecdotal evidence doesn't count, no matter how "overwhelming" it may be.
Posted by: Steve | June 5, 2008 11:54 AM
Jeebus Tapdancing Cripes... Orac, please tell me that you sock-puppet these freaks for cheap entertainment. No sentient being can hammer out this much concentrated stupid without snark.
I'll bite, though. I'm in that kind of mood.
...you mean you and this site, dimwits?
Where are we dumb?
Your lack of understanding
What do we not understand?
and arrogant drivel
Where are we arrogant?
is doing exactly what to help our children?
Where do we say that we are doing so, and for that matter, where does it say we should? And after you figure that one out, yes, exposing lunacy that harms children is in fact helping children.
But you already knew that.
Don't bother answering,
Let me guess, asking insane questions that you do not want an answer to is a regular hobby for you.
because in your mind, you are a doctor
No, I think Orac is a doctor in the mind of the licensing board as well. (Yes, this is a cheap shot facilitated by pathetic grammar, but hey...)
and therefore equal to God.
Interesting. I do not seem to recall Orac or anyone else on this blog making such a claim. Actually, the closest such judgmental God-complex would belong to... you.
It's ok, though.
Phew. I don't know WHAT I'd do if it wasn't okay with you.
The truth will come out,
What truth? Or is it one of those that you hold to be self-evident?
and you will be paraded in front of the rest of the world to show them just what a fraud and moron you are Orac.
Holy tapdancing bitterness Batman.
It's useless arguing with you,
That must be why you are doing it.
because you are never wrong
Yes he is. Everyone's wrong. All the time. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. Orac has never claimed anything of the kind. Evidence or retract, liar.
(in your mind, anyway).
Holy tapdancing projection, Batman.
But, go on believing everything you're told by the government.
Yes, because that's what scientists do. They go in on every other weekend for a mild brain-washing refresher, with big exercises every now and then. It's kind of like the Army Reserves, really, without the whole being-sent-to-Iraq aspect.
Go on believing that the medical industry has never lied about anything.
Holy tapdancing strawman, Batman.
Please tell me this clown is a sock-puppet and that I've been fooled.
Please.
Posted by: StuV | June 5, 2008 11:56 AM
It's not an anecdote if you see it with your own eyes, is it?
John, I knew you were scientifically illiterate, but... wow, just wow.
Posted by: Joseph | June 5, 2008 11:58 AM
So far, it's going well. I don't fall for the vacuous claims that you seem to. I see you chose to attack my screen name and not my comment (how many times have I seen that? Seems maybe I chose that name for specifically that reason..).
Let me know when you get out of the playground and have some evidence.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | June 5, 2008 12:02 PM
And Orac, I know you'll never change your mind because you perceive yourself as perfect and never wrong.
The projection, it burns.
Seriously, get help. Now.
Posted by: StuV | June 5, 2008 12:04 PM
"The projection, it burns.
Seriously, get help. Now."
And Orac's brainwashed masses speak.
Posted by: It's the Hippocratic oath, not Hypocritic oath, fuckwit! | June 5, 2008 12:08 PM
StuV, that was a thing of beauty.
The icing was, of course, the childish retort that answered none of your clearly asked questions but only insulted you. I don't know if that poster is Common Sue but I think in his/her present form s/he would make an excellent addition to the cast of the Simpsons; along with "Pimply faced Teen", "Crazy Cat Lady", and of course.... "Comic Store Guy" (AKA, Jeffery McCallister).
Posted by: Jesse | June 5, 2008 12:17 PM
"The projection, it burns"
It's quite humorous that you people are so unoriginal that you have to borrow content from Orac's limited repartoir.
Posted by: It's the Hippocratic oath, not Hypocritic oath, fuckwit! | June 5, 2008 12:23 PM
And Orac's brainwashed masses speak
Oh, you caught me. I am a mass. A Mass Of One. Hey, at least my brain is spic and span.
Maybe you should put more energy into reading comprehension than in coming up with a new 7-letter epithet for your name.
Fuckwit.
Posted by: StuV | June 5, 2008 12:24 PM
"And Orac's brainwashed masses speak."
And Team McCarrey's brainwashed masses speak.
See? Anyone can do that. Maybe you could get Jim's scriptwriters to write you something better. Some cutting analogy with a fire truck maybe...?
Posted by: Kev | June 5, 2008 12:25 PM
The more I listen to the arguments for "green" or no vaccines, the more they sound like a new religion. And, like city hall, you can't shake the faith of the truly committed zealots.
As far as I know, no religion has ever yielded to a logical argument.
Keep up the good fight against the forces of ignorance.
Posted by: Mark | June 5, 2008 12:32 PM
It's quite humorous that you people are so unoriginal that you have to borrow content from Orac's limited repartoir.
Show me where Orac said "the projection, it burns".
Evidence or retract.
By the way, it really helps your credibility if you start using big, fancy words that you run them through a spell-checker first.
Repartoir indeed. Fuckwit.
Posted by: StuV | June 5, 2008 12:33 PM
Wow. I have brainwashed masses? Who knew? Maybe I can get them to bring me some pizza for lunch.
Posted by: Orac | June 5, 2008 12:39 PM
Hey dumb dumb,
Support this "truth" you speak of. Show us the research that convinces you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | June 5, 2008 12:40 PM
Maybe I can get them to bring me some pizza for lunch.
Depends... will there be Kool-Aid?
Posted by: StuV | June 5, 2008 12:41 PM
Yikes! There are too much stupid in 10 minutes! Apparently parents know what is correct in a given subject better than scientists.
Posted by: IBY | June 5, 2008 12:52 PM
"If someone from the "vaccines-cause-autism" side can ever produce compelling scientific evidence to support their case, I will consider it and if the evidence is compelling enough, change my mind and admit that my previous conclusions were mistaken."
Orac, I have, yet you do not acknowledge it. An immunodeficienct child, who suffered encephalitis and pituitary damage from a live virus vaccine she should not have had, a child who did not create antibodies to the vaccines, a child that displayed symptoms of autism after this event. Enough symptoms of autism to receive the dx of "classic autism" and be told this child would never talk, and would need to be institutionalized.
If you would like, I could email her records for your review, along with my correspondence with a MPH in the CDC's vaccine safety group who guided me in determining causation.
Aside from this, how can ANY of you actually have the time for jobs that require your "PhD" education (if in fact others than Orac do)? For being such brainiacs, one would think you would put your intelligence to better use than arguing all day on the internet.
Lord knows the world needs some smart people doing good things with their time.
I am simply a work at home mom, with an autistic immunodeficienct child, and I don't have 1/10 the time as many of you to spend on this drivel...
Orac, how do you find the time to perform actual cancer research and treat patients? No offense by this, I am simply very curious. Do you have some "time management fairy"?
Posted by: Monica | June 5, 2008 12:53 PM
Orac, why are you just picking on J&J?
From a "Green Our Vaccines" marcher:
Propaganda does work, it seems.
Posted by: Liz Ditz | June 5, 2008 12:53 PM
I know you'll never change your mind because you perceive yourself as perfect and never wrong.
You know, there's really only two kinds of people who use that line. The first is the extremely insecure; the second are intellectual bullies.
Which one are you, Long Chiasmic User Name? Or are you both? Because there's certainly a lot of overlap between those two categories.
Posted by: Brian X | June 5, 2008 12:59 PM
Monica... The evidence Orac refers to is not evidence showing that vaccine injury exists. I think it's pretty well recognized that vaccine injury exists. I don't think we even need you to prove that vaccine injury sometimes manifests as ASD. Encephalopathy could theoretically manifest as ASD.
Because, you see, when people claim that vaccines cause autism, they don't mean that a few children every year might have encephalopathy with features of ASD resulting from vaccination. If this were all they claimed, the discussion would be a completely different discussion.
What they mean is that the relatively large population of autistic people would essentially not be here if not for vaccines. And don't pretend this isn't being said all the time. This is the extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary supporting evidence. Needless to say, the science does not support this.
Posted by: Joseph | June 5, 2008 1:03 PM
Oops. It's Thursday, so I thought that meant Taco Bell, not pizza.
please forgive my transgression, great lord and master Orac! I promise never to fail you if you continue to tell me what to do, say, and think!
Posted by: Jesse | June 5, 2008 1:05 PM
Wow. Hypocritic Oath is really a pile of burning stupid. My brain needs lotion.
So, Hypocritic, are you just going to blindly parrot every brand of conspiracy theorist out there? Every comment you've made sounds like a copy-paste job of every booster for alien abduction, Atlantis, JFK conspiracies, 9/11 twoofers, and so on and so on and so on.
So, are you going to talk about evidence, or are you just going to continue trying to frustrate us with your sheer blandness, groupthink, propagandistic ad hominems, and special pleading?
Separate yourself from the herd, man. Give us something to talk about other than stock responses to stock woo?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 5, 2008 1:07 PM
"Show me where Orac said "the projection, it burns".
Evidence or retract."
The stupid, it burns!
Wait, did Orac spew that from his drooling maw? Why yes, yes, I think he did.
Get some new material, shithead.
Posted by: The Hypocrisy! It burns! | June 5, 2008 1:13 PM
Ugghh. I suspected it would be just about that bad, which is why I just couldn't watch GMA yesterday. I appreciate voices of reason, and while you don't verbally deliver, you certainly do deliver reason with your writing. Thanks, Orac.
PS - I dread the reappearance of preventable diseases. It isn't like we aren't already terribly busy - and my lab is just one of many. Damn these fools . . . .
Posted by: ctenotrish | June 5, 2008 1:17 PM
Show us the "truth" or continue to be branded a flapping set of gums.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 5, 2008 1:19 PM
Monica and John Best are back, sniffing the wasabi again. They must need the exercise.
A couple of questions:
Monica, since your daughter has primary immune deficiency, would not any viral exposure have done the same thing to her?
And since any further vaccination is contraindicated for her, and I assume you don't want to keep her in a bubble, is it not to her benefit that other people around her are vaccinated?
Orac, emotional argument will always win with these people, because if you try to answer it rationally and logically, you are obviously a cold-hearted a$$hole.
But as a pediatric nurse, I'll answer it with the picture of a blue baby coughing out her life with pertussis she got from her unvaccinated brother and his playmates from Jim&Jen school. Or the baby survives but with lifelong disabilities from anoxia. Tasty picture, isn't it?
Posted by: dusonfnp | June 5, 2008 1:19 PM
Joseph, yet this is the case of many autistic children.
First and foremost, please understand that autism, like cerebral palsy, can be a result of many factors. With this said, not all autism has the same "cause".
What if the occurence of vaccine injury is actually much higher than we now believe?
I am convinced that it is, as the day we sought medical treatment for my daughter, as she was seizing and covered in erythema multiforme just days after a series of live virus vaccines, I was told by a physician in a walk in clinic that it could be an ear infection (until he scraped her ears clean and took a better look) and 2 hours later came back and dx'd it as "viral, unknown origin". From there, we went to an ER, and waited 5 hours in the lobby. The fever broke, so we went home before seeing a doctor.
That is a mistake I will FOREVER have to live with.
The only follow up with her pcp was a phone call. After that, was a series of hearing exams and referealls to a developmental ped which took months.
It was not until we received the dx of autism from the dev ped that we were referred to a genetic doctor, who noticed the abrupt growth chane. Then an MRI was ordered, which revealed the pituitary damage. Then endocrinology, immunology, infectious disease, etc.
It took nearly 2 yrs to determine encephalitis, immunodeficiency, and vaccine injury.
It makes me wonder how many children have had encephalitis (mind you, MANY autistic children had an ER visit with 3 weeks of live virus vaccines), that was not accurately diagnosed as it was occuring.
What I think, is more than a "few" children have encephalitis with features of ASD resulting from vaccination.
The question is, how many?
The ones in my group (that have children who required an ER visit soon after vaccination) who have sought guidance from immunology have come back with similar panels to my daughter.
Simply put, many of the vaccines didn't "take". I don't know what that tells you, but it tells me that we need to closely study the kids with regressive autism who had an ER visit with 30 days of vaccination. Did these children create antibodies to their vaccines? If not, why?
That is all I want. Study the kids, not the numbers.
Posted by: Monica | June 5, 2008 1:24 PM
In my more bitter moments, I think that maybe that's going to be either inevitable or necessary. Back off on all of the mandates for school entry etc. Let day-care centers differentiate themselves on the basis of whether or not they require compliance with the ACIP schedule or not, let private schools differentiate themselves likewise.
Let those who can't or won't reason, or those who have better things to do, leave their children vulnerable. Let Darwin loose.
It will take years for the "ladder fuel" to build up to critical levels, but once it does the headlines may be enough to buy several generations of time. Who knows? Maybe in that time we may actually see measles, mumps, and rubella (which IIRC have no non-human reservoir hosts) become extinct.
I take what comfort I may in the thought that my own children and (should I be so blessed) grandchildren have the sense to keep current. It ain't quite as good as living where the pathogens aren't circulating but then it's an imperfect Universe.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 5, 2008 1:28 PM
Boy, I guess my instincts were right on the money when they told me that Jim Carrey was dumber than the metaphorical bag of hammers without the hammers. Also, is Jenny McCarthy even real? How much plastic surgery do you reckon she's had? I don't suppose someone could gaslight her into thinking there are toxic compounds in the stuff they've done to her face, could they?
Rev. BDC, you have a typo in your URL, by the way.
Posted by: Interrobang | June 5, 2008 1:29 PM
dusonfnp,
I am in no way in favor of eliminating vaccination.
But facts are facts, and this happened to my child. I would hate to see this happen to another child. I would be elated if the CDC started studying WHY ASD kids hit a big regression, or in medical terms- "manifestation of symptoms" after an adverse reaction to vaccination.
What I want is more research, instead of Orac and others simply stating- "your a anti-vaxxing loon".
Trust me, I am on your side. What frightens me the most, is that so much word has spread regarding this, that mommies are outright refusing vaccination.
I am terrified of epidemics, especially with my daughter unprotected.
But who's fault will that be? Will it be Jenny McCarthy's fault?
No, it will be the CDC's fault, Merck's fault, the FDA's fault. Why? for dismissing us as quacks, and not doing adequate studies.
Don't blame Jenny, blame Gerberding. The CDC wants to dismiss actual cases of vaccine induced manifestation of ASD, and that in itself, is a grave mistake to the future of our nation.
Posted by: Monica | June 5, 2008 1:35 PM
Monica:
"What I want is more research,"
What specific research do you want? Do you think that tremendous amounts of time, labor, and money aren't presently being devoted to many aspects of vaccine safety?
Or do you just want 'research' that already backs up your biases?
Posted by: Jesse | June 5, 2008 1:44 PM
What if the occurence of vaccine injury is actually much higher than we now believe?
What if it's actually much lower? We could speculate all day long on these matters.
That is a mistake I will FOREVER have to live with.
Do I sense considerable guilt?
That is all I want. Study the kids, not the numbers.
There's a huge difference in the evidence quality of single-case studies and group studies, even retrospective ones. Of course, no one is saying that case reports shouldn't be done. But a lot of times it turns out that parental claims don't match reality (e.g. the Cedillo case). I would suggest that the reason there aren't too many case reports is that such convincing events are not so common.
People sometimes claim that "thousands and thousands" of children have had similar experiences of apparent vaccine injury. Well, there are no indications this is actually true.
Posted by: Joseph | June 5, 2008 1:48 PM
Aside from this, how can ANY of you actually have the time for jobs that require your "PhD" education (if in fact others than Orac do)? For being such brainiacs, one would think you would put your intelligence to better use than arguing all day on the internet.
Ahhh, the anti-intellectualism rears its ugly head. We should have seen it coming.
Posted by: Steve | June 5, 2008 1:49 PM
dusonfnp, I forgot to answer this question-
"since your daughter has primary immune deficiency, would not any viral exposure have done the same thing to her?"
Chances are, it would. Before vaccination a much larger number of children suffered encephalitis, MIBE and even SSPE from Measles. Many suffered encephalitis from Chicken Pox. Usually, it is individuals with an improper immune response. That is why my daughter must rely on herd immunity. Guess she is a "freeloader".
But, had I known that a child was contagious with any of those viruses, especially during the critical years of brain development (until age 3), chances are, we would have steered clear, as we still will. I also never would intentionally expose my infant into a room full of people contagious with measles, mumps, ruebella, and varicella, which is essentially what the MMR + Varivax, or ProQuad does.
Also, it would have made a tremendous difference had I known before the reaction that my daughter has Primary Immunodeficiency.
These viruses are dangerous to the brain, especially a developing brain.
This is the very reason we MUST retain herd immunity, to protect those like my daughter.
I don't know exactly what should be done, and I am continually ridiculed for this here (as I am just a mom, without a PhD), but I do know SOMETHING needs to be done.
That is mainly why I comment here. These cases like my daughter MAY be very rare, or MAY be more common than we think. The door is not closed, and we need more research. My only hope is that you PhD types may have the sense to figure out that research needs be done, and stop slamming us parents who are looking for answers.
Posted by: Monica |