It appears that while TAM9 was dominating all my extracurricular, non-job-related attention, with my having to get ready to give a talk, I failed to notice another thing besides the placebo/asthma paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine last Thursday. But fear not. If it’s important (to me, at least, and hopefully to you too), I’ll eventually see it, allowing me to toss off a jaunty, “Better late than never!” and then launch into a topic, even if I’m a week late. So it is this time around, except that the topic is so big that it might require more than one post, perhaps spread out over this blog and that of my “good buddy.” The reason is that taking on the fallacies in logic and dissecting all the misinformation, cherry-picking of studies, and dubious assertions all in one post would probably be too much, even for one of my characteristic bouts of vaccine-soaked blogorrhea. Or perhaps I could set the stage here and then do a more definitive deconstruction later this week or early next week.

So what popped up while I was gone? Well, I was reminded of it again because the merry band of anti-vaccine loons at the Generation Rescue propaganda blog Age of Autism decided to shill for it again yesterday, having shilled for it a week ago. The website, run by the anti-vaccine group SafeMinds is called SmartVax.

I really do have to hand it to the anti-vaccine movement in general and SafeMinds in particular. Whatever the deficiencies in their knowledge of science, anti-vaccine advocates sure can spin the Orwellian language, where up is down, left is right, and vaccines are alway, always, always the cause of autism. I think that, in this post, I will take the bird’s eye view–an overview, if you will–of the SmartVax site and then in a future post, either here or under my not-so-super-secret alter-ego, deconstruct the claims in detail, because there are some doozies there that appear superficially plausible on the surface (as all good pseudoscience does) but fail massively upon more detailed inspection.

The first stroke of propaganda genius about this site is the term “SmartVax” itself. Yes, it’s painfully obvious. After all, who wants to be in favor of “DumbVax” or “StupidVax,” although I fervently hope in vain that some day a vaccine against dumb and stupid will one day be invented? Yet that’s not the propaganda genius, at least not in and of itself. What elevates this dreck into the realm of brilliant P.R. is how the anti-vaccine loons contrast “SmartVax” with what they call “MaxVax.” Let’s take a look, shall we? It begins with a massive bit of revisionist history:

In the early 1900’s, scientists coined the terms “allergy” and “anaphylaxis” to describe vaccine-injuries; at present, the mechanism by which vaccines cause injury is still not scientifically understood. Historically, the vaccine-injury risk has caused vaccine manufacturers and public health officials to be conservative when recommending new vaccines or administration of vaccines at earlier ages. However, vaccines proved effective against some deadly diseases and by the 1970’s a “maximize vaccination” philosophy arose that viewed vaccines as always having more benefits than risks.

Uh, no. The assertion that scientists coined the terms “allergy” and “anaphylaxis” to describe vaccine injuries is a massive distortion, with one minor grain of truth. Let’s start with the term anaphylaxis, the coining of which had nothing to do with childhood vaccines. Rather, it derived from the studies of Charles Richet and Paul Portier over 100 years ago of the toxin produced by a jellyfish, the Portuguese Man of War. During an oceanographic expedition, Richet and Portier managed to isolate the toxin and thought that they might be able to use the toxin in order to obtain protection, or, as they called it, “prophylaxis” in order to protect swimmers who came into contact with the jellyfish. When they returned to France, they didn’t have access to the jellyfish anymore; so they turned their attention to the toxin produced by the sea anemone Anemona sulcata, the “sea nettle”, which could be harvested in large quantities from the Mediterranean Sea. They injected venom from the sea nettle at various doses into dogs. The dogs that survived were allowed to recover and then reinjected. To their surprise, subsequent small doses of the toxin produced a dramatic illness that resulted in difficulty in breathing followed by rapid decline and death. Richet and Portier called this reaction “anaphylaxis,” meaning “against protection.” They concluded correctly that the immune system becomes sensitized to the toxin and that re-exposure to the same substance could result in a severe reaction, a discovery for which Richet won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1913. Vaccine injury is not exactly the same thing as what the SmartVax website is referring to. After all, Richet and Portier were using large doses of toxin and then reinjecting the dogs that survived.

Neither is allergy, which actually was not coined to describe vaccine “injuries.” Rather, the term “allergy” was first coined in 1906 by Clemens von Pirquet. A year earlier, von Pirquet studied the describe adverse reactions of children who were given repeated shots of horse serum to fight infection. (Here’s a hint: Injecting horse serum to fight infection is not the same thing as being vaccinated.) The following year, the term allergy was proposed to explain this unexpected “changed reactivity” in response to exposure to the horse serum. Later, in 1907 Pirquet characterized the same effect due to repeated doses of the smallpox vaccine–after he had coined the term for other observations.

After that little paragraph of revisionist history follows more revisionist history that consists largely of confusing correlation with causation (the “autism epidemic” that isn’t), claiming that the anti-vaccine groups that arose during the 1980s advocated a “smarter” vaccine schedule, and pointing out the 1986 law that created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program without mentioning that anti-vaccine grande dame Barbara Loe Fisher was a driving force behind the passage of that law. Anti-vaccine groups only turned on the law when they didn’t like how the Vaccine Court tried to use actual science to determine what does and doesn’t constitute a true vaccine injury. It didn’t matter that the Vaccine Court bent over backwards to give parents the benefit of the doubt and that it paid most legal fees fo its petitioners, whether they won or lost. When the Vaccine Court didn’t accept the pseudoscientific view that vaccine injuries cause autism, the anti-vaccine movement turned on it and now generally rant that the requirement that vaccine injury claims go through this special court has allowed vaccine manufacturers to avoid any accountability. Never mind that the FDA and FTC regulate them and that the regulations covering pharmaceutical products (like vaccines) require considerably testing and oversight.

The revisionist history here doesn’t exactly make me confident in anything else on this website, but let’s move on. Here is where we get to the meat of the matter; this is what SafeMinds describes as the difference between what it calls the “SmartVax” and the “MaxVax” philosophies:

SmartVax and Max-Vax are both “pro-vaccine” philosophies, in that both philosophies consider vaccines an important component in an overall children’s health program, but SmartVax differs from Max-Vax in important aspects of safety, research, and policy. The SmartVax philosophy is all about being smart with vaccinations: don’t over-use them, don’t bypass good science, understand the risks, and ensure that the risks are not hidden from the public.

Bullshit.

Does SafeMinds really think we’re stupid enough to believe that its philosophy is in any way “pro-vaccine”? Think about it this way? Have you ever seen SafeMinds advocate the use of any vaccine? No. What you see instead are claims that vaccines are unsafe or haven’t been adequately tested based on misinterpretation and cherry picking of studies, fear mongering, and rejection of studies failing to find a link between vaccines and autism almost before they are published. Just type the word “SafeMinds” into the search box in the upper left hand corner of this page, and you’ll see copious evidence of the anti-vaccine activism of SafeMinds, including, most recently, its purchasing public service announcement time in AMC Theaters for its anti-vaccine message. That’s hardly about “not bypassing good science,” which is exactly what SafeMinds does every time it trashes studies that fail to find a link between vaccines and autism.

Basically, SafeMinds contrasts its “SmartVax” (i.e., its anti-vaccine policy in disguise) with “MaxVax” (what it labels the current vaccine schedule) by two “pillars”:

  1. Evidence-Based Scientific Research (go where the evidence leads)
  2. Appropriate Checks-and-Balances on Vaccine Policy

Pillar one is based on a delusion coupled with a massive straw man:

The first rule of SmartVax is the pursuit of evidence-based scientific research on vaccine-injuries to an unbiased conclusion, without being afraid of what the evidence might show, to develop the knowledge for a safer and more effective vaccine program in the long-term. This is in stark contrast with the Max-Vax tenet that such research should be avoided because the results might undermine public confidence in the current vaccine program.

The delusion is, of course, that SafeMinds or any other anti-vaccine group does anything that is unbiased or that it pursues evidence-based research. Quite the opposite, as I’ve documented time and time again over the last six years. The straw man is that scientists claim that research should be avoided because the results might undermine public confidence. A more accurate and honest representation of the so-called “MaxVax” position would be that a link between vaccines and autism is highly implausible and that, although it is impossible ever to prove a negative completely (i.e., that there is no link between vaccines and autism), enough studies have been done to estimate the chances of such a link existing to be very, very, very low. After all, even Generation Rescue’s attempts at finding a link between vaccines and autism have failed. In actuality, it is SafeMinds and its ilk that require more and more such research for the very purpose of undermining public confidence in the current vaccine program; that’s the raison d’être of anti-vaccine groups.

Here’s pillar two:

The SmartVax view holds that appropriate checks-and-balances on vaccine policy will produce the most beneficial vaccine program long-term for children’s health. Government-owned research data on vaccine-injuries should be made open to the public and easily accessible to all researchers. Long-term double-blind placebo studies tracking both acute and chronic health conditions (e.g. asthma, allergies, ADHD, and autism) should be required prior to any vaccine approval. Philosophical exemption, by which a parent can opt to delay or exempt certain vaccines for the child without discrimination such as loss of federal benefits or access to public schools, should be a fundamental right in the USA (as it is in Canada and other countries).

As I’ve explained before many, many times, performing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of currently used vaccines is completely unethical because it leaves the control group unprotected against vaccine-preventable disease. In fact, the only time such a trial could be ethical is if there is no currently existing vaccine for the disease; i.e., the vaccine is a new vaccine for a condition for which there currently isn’t a vaccine. If the vaccine is for a condition for which a vaccine currently exists, then the appropriate design of a clinical trial is to test the new vaccine against the old vaccine; doing otherwise would leave the control group unprotected against a vaccine-preventable disease. On the other hand, in a perverse way, I’m glad that SafeMinds has put itself on the record as supporting an unethical clinical trial design motivated by its anti-vaccine views. It makes it so easy for me to go after its position.

The rest of its position is the same sort of superficially plausible-sounding nonsense that we’re accustomed to hearing from SafeMinds and its ilk. The real reason it wants access to data on vaccine injuries is so that it can “reanalyze” it and come to different conclusions, the way Mark and David Geier tried to do five years ago, and, of course, its call for “philosophical exemption” is nothing more than warmed-over “health freedom” rhetoric.

Overall, then, there appears to be nothing new in the “philosophy” behind SmartVax. It’s nothing more than what we’ve been hearing from the anti-vaccine movement for a long time. It is, however, wrapped up in an appealing-sounding package. Unfortunately, the material is rotten to the core. The explanation of why that is will, unfortunately, have to wait for another day.

Comments

  1. #1 Dedj
    July 24, 2011

    “Since ASDs are defined solely by symptoms, something that causes symptoms which fall within the autism spectrum – by definition – causes autism spectrum disorders.”

    Utterly false. Not your fault this time as you have no relevant academic, clinical, vocational, voluntary or technical experience in assessment or the diagnostic process.

    If you have, you have never indicated so. If you do have any, then you should know why Dr Offits statement does not mean what you have claimed it does.

    ASDs are a cluster of symptoms. A condition that causes any ASD symptom does not inescapably cause enough ASD symptoms to warrant a diagnosis. For example, NvLD, PDA, S-PLD and others can share the symptoms of autism, but are not ASDs themselves. In their case, there is still some debate about whether the should be considered part of the autism spectrum or not. In the case of schizophrenia, aTBI, tTBI, OCD, CVA, Social anxiety disorder, avoidant personality disorder, anorexia, dyslexia and ADD/ADHD can have symptoms that are also on the ASD list, but this does not make them ASDs’.

    Now that you have been told this multiple times by multiple people, I do not expect you to carry on making the same false claim again. Sorry, I do fully expect you to, I just don’t expect you to either recognise the falsity of it, nor do I expect you to admit to it.

    The diagnostic manuals are very clear that autism is only an option if the symptoms are not better explained by the list of exclusionary disorders.

    You might want to try reading them one day. For yourself that is. You might want to start reading things first hand a lot more. You’ll stop making an arse out of yourself on such a frequent basis.

  2. #2 Krebiozen
    July 24, 2011

    Jake,

    Well, let’s see: you haven’t proved Paul Offit wasn’t referring to autism spectrum disorders.

    Are you deliberately being obtuse? If Offit was referring to ASD he would have said so. He didn’t, here’s what he said in the NEJM article I linked to above:

    Because autism is a clinical diagnosis, children are labeled as autistic on the basis of a collection of clinical features. Hannah Poling clearly had difficulties with language, speech, and communication. But those features of her condition considered autistic were part of a global encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Rett’s syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, fragile X syndrome, and Down’s syndrome in children can also have autistic features. Indeed, features reminiscent of autism are evident in all children with profound impairments in cognition; but these similarities are superficial, and their causal mechanisms and genetic influences are different from those of classic autism.

    Does that make it clearer?

    You haven’t proved that natural infectious are more common causes of encephalopathy and the link you provided doesn’t support that.

    It is looking increasingly as if vaccine induced encephalopathy is a myth. This 2008 study states that, “Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that vaccines cause central nervous system injury, epilepsy or infantile spasms”. I think that entirely supports what I wrote. If vaccines don’t cause encephalopathy, but natural infections clearly do, then of course natural infections cause encephalopathy more commonly than something that doesn’t cause them at all.

    And you haven’t proven that Hannah Poling isn’t autistic, when her own parents including her father who’s a neurologist say she has autism.

    Hannah Poling has a brain injury caused by encephalopathy due to a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency. Isn’t that different from classic autism? According to an article by her father, Hannah Poling scored 33 on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) which means she is barely mildly autistic (a minimum score of 30 is the cutoff for a diagnosis of autism on the mild end of the autism spectrum) and she does meet the DSM IV criteria for autism. But as Dedj rightly points out, “autism is only an option if the symptoms are not better explained by the list of exclusionary disorders”.

    Except the whole point in saying Hannah Poling’s disorder was rare was because mitochondrial disorders in general are “rare.” So much for that. PS: I don’t see how you think the study you cite supports what you’ve said, but it doesn’t.

    Gerberding referred to “this rare mitochondrial disorder”, meaning the specific mitochondrial disorder Hannah Poling has, not any mitochondrial disorder. It is the specific rare mitochondrial enzyme deficit Hannah Poling has that left her vulnerable to encephalopathy as result of any fever. The study you cite only included ten subjects with autism, so it isn’t that convincing though it is certainly interesting. Even if all or even a significant proportion of autism is caused by encephalopathy due to an underlying mitochondrial disorder, then surely those individuals would be vulnerable to even more severe injury from natural infections, in which case vaccination is all the more important.

  3. #3 Antaeus Feldspar
    July 24, 2011

    Paul Offit was not referring to “one symptom” he was referring to symptoms that fall within the autism spectrum.

    It seems clear that Jake insists on playing Goofus, so we have no choice to treat him as one.

    Autistic spectrum disorders are not diagnosed because the person has one or two symptoms out of a list of indicators, but because the person has a high number of such symptoms.  For convenience, let’s refer to this as an “ASD confluence” of symptoms.

    When Goofus says that measles encephalitis, ME, can cause ASDs, it is equivalent to claiming that ME can create not just individual symptoms that are also found in ASDs but an entire ASD confluence.

    Goofus claims that Paul Offit “agrees with” this claim.  Yet if we look at the words that were actually quoted from Offit to support this claim, we find that they do not; they say nothing about ME or any other non-ASD disorder being able to create an ASD confluence.  It isn’t even any sort of logical extrapolation from what Offit said, as Offit’s entire point was that other disorders can share symptoms with ASDs without being related.

    It’s as if a teacher said about a multiple-choice test, “you might get any single question right with a lucky guess, but you’re not going to get a passing grade without studying,” and a very lazy student heard only the first part and said, “Hey, if any single question could be answered right with a lucky guess, then really really lucky guessing might get every single question right!” and proceeded to tell others “Teacher told me I could get an A without having to study!”  The student’s fantasy of a lucky A may be derived from what the teacher said, but in no way is the student right to present it as what the teacher said or “agreed.”

  4. #4 lilady
    July 24, 2011

    @ Ugh Troll, I’m sure Jesus didn’t have a computer or use the internet to sermonize. We all hope that you follow in Jesus’ footsteps and discard your computer (“What would Jesus Do?”) and get off this site…I think I can speak for posters affiliated with a religion, or agnostics or atheists, as well, to encourage you to follow Jesus in this regard.

    I wonder why Ugh Troll is so concerned about tax dollars to do God’s work to prevent, treat and cure disease in developing countries? Ugh troll, knickers all twisted up, doesn’t pay taxes and is scamming the system by using tax dollars for his on-the-dole miserable existence and for tax dollar financed health care…truly a worthless parasitic POS.

    Give me that old time religion…

    “While we were with you we gave this order, If anyone doesn’t want to work, he should not eat” (II Thessalonians 3:10)

    Thank you Jake for providing the Brandeis “Hoot” letter that you put up on the Sunday Funnies Age of Autism site…that was your defense of my statement that you thoroughly trashed your professors?

    Jake, a while back I cued you in about personnel wonks who check job applicants names on the internet…you know your handler J.B. cannot get Google to redact the face pages that the personnel wonks locate, don’t you? BTW, the wonks in personnel also “Google” any of your references, as well, so you better think seriously about using your cronies from Age of Autism for references.

    Listen up boy wonder cub reporter, anyone who has a minimum of knowledge about Asperger Syndrome is exquisitely aware that your activities and your dirty tricks (letter writing campaigns to get your enemies fired from their jobs), is not remotely typical of the behaviors consistent with an Asperger Syndrome diagnosis. One might logical conclude that your full of it with your claim of an Asperger Syndrome diagnosis and the behaviors and activities you have engaged in are typical of an anti-social personality disorder.

  5. #5 augustine
    July 25, 2011

    Lilady LPN

    Ugh troll, knickers all twisted up, doesn’t pay taxes and is scamming the system by using tax dollars for his on-the-dole miserable existence and for tax dollar financed health care…truly a worthless parasitic POS.

    So do you have any evidence of this? With no evidence is this part of your reasoning skills? Is it an insult or is it an ad hominem? Of course it’s only an insult. Scientism bloggers are incapable of producing a logical fallacy.

    Your ignorance is amusing. ONly surpassed by you ability to copy and paste from your bible, the CDC pink book.

    Lilady, you’re getting bitter in your old age. Snapping at anyone who agrees with your policies and opinions. Is it your arthritis or the multiple medications you are on? This emotion is clouding your objectivity. Although it could be argued that you’ve never been objective.

  6. #6 herr doktor bimler
    July 25, 2011

    even your own friend Paul Offit has agreed that vaccines cause autism spectrum disorders!

    Recapping the comment from Antaeus Feldspar, Offit made no such concession. Stone misrepresented his words (or “forged” them if you prefer) and added his own profound ignorance of the diagnostic criteria for ASD.

    Impressively, Jake Crosby’s response to Feldspar’s explanation is simply to reiterate Stone’s lie, simply omitting the attempt to justify it with the now-discredited link:

    Whether Paul Offit said measles encephalopathy as a result of vaccines, or as an example of something that can cause autism spectrum disorders like vaccines, he clearly acknowledged that vaccines can cause autism spectrum disorders.

    And then:

    Well, let’s see: you haven’t proved Paul Offit wasn’t referring to autism spectrum disorders.

    He didn’t mention ASDs. To the rest of the world, this would be enough evidence that he wasn’t referring to them.
    Obviously it was Offit’s fault for failing to anticipate that Stone might distort his words so egregiously, and failing to prevent possible distortions by listing all the things that he wasn’t referring to.

    Jake, you’re being childish. If I found myself resorting to this kind of risible sophistry in order to defend my world-view, I would think seriously about revising the world-view.

  7. #7 lilady
    July 25, 2011

    Hello Ugh Troll…As you well know I am a licensed registered nurse and as we all know you have no education, no gainful employment and pay no taxes on your taxpayer supported “benefits”

    Fool, everyone, except you, apparently knows that I am a techie deficient poster…I’ve owned up to that fact and poke fun at myself all the time. I don’t know how to “cut and paste” from a reference book and don’t know how to “link”. It’s nice to know that you think my postings and analyses of data in my original words, are those of a medical text writer.

    You, on the other hand, “cut and paste” and liberally “link” to cherry-picked articles from non-peer reviewed journals or articles that are years old and totally disproven. What a joy to watch the misinterpretation of those very citations and links because of your imaginary qualifications in medical science. You are so amusing as your argue with people who actually know how to read an article, know the science involved and don’t “fake it” as you are wont to do.

    We are still waiting for you to live the biblical life and discard your computer…because Jesus never used a computer to communicate to his disciples.

    Still getting your “jollies” I see, from all the well deserved derision your postings elicit.

  8. #8 herr doktor bimler
    July 25, 2011

    Jake Crosby:

    So-called “evidence” produced for the purpose of persuasion, however, is tobacco science.

    Hmmm. I wonder how many scientific publications are not produced for the purposes of persuasion. A scientist has a theory and devises experiments to persuade other people of its correctness: that’s how science works.
    By this criterion, Wakefield’s reports were “tobacco science”.

    A person with a closed mind could easily use this criterion to give himself permission to ignore anything he doesn’t want to know. An intuition into the motives of the researchers magically turns otherwise-conclusive evidence into “tobacco science”.

    “Bruno Bettelheim (a Freudian psychotherapist)” […] Who also falsely claimed to have an MD and was described as such until after his death

    I’m glad that we can agree about one thing: Bettelheim was neither a doctor nor a psychologist. Progress!

    It only remains to repeat my invitation (@ 254) for you to ‘provide details of the “experts in medicine or psychology” who made such a claim’ (“that autism was caused by homicidal parents”). Certainly not Drs Kanner or Asperger. Telling me that “Rimland […] recognized that same BS decades later in the vaccine industry” wins points for product placement, but is not actually relevant to the question.

    A small point, I know. But if the “homicidal parents” explanation for autism never existed, then who knows what else you have imagined?

  9. #9 Jake Crosby
    July 25, 2011

    “In short, you messed up what should have been a simple task to the point where several people are worried about your mentality, competance and employability.”

    And that’s why you abused people while hiding behind a fake name, right?

    “It’s unfortunate because he is a young impressionable person most likely being used to dis-advantage by a coterie of adults with an agenda: which is a shame -whatever his position and not at all fair to him.”

    For a person so quick to accuse me of assuming you’re a pharma shill, you have no problem making up assumptions about me personally as well as my motives.

    “None of it matches up to claiming Deer claimed Wakefield altered the master-copies of any test result.”

    Ahem:

    “A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683643.ece

    Actual quotes from Dr. Susan Davies in BMJ letter:

    “I was not the lead pathologist for this, or any other Wakefield project.”

    “Secondly, I was not responsible for reporting the majority of the biopsy specimens from the twelve children, initially written up in the Lancet paper(3).”
    http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/04/histopathologist-from-the-lancet-study-rebuffs-brian-deers-article-in-british-medical-journal.html

    I see you still have no quotes.

    “How on earth did you not understand the point that was being made?”

    You said they could disappear tomorrow and it would make no difference, but it obviously would make a difference because the vaccine industry spokesman, Paul Offit, relies on people like them to help make his case.

    “I was very clearly referring to the idea that ‘your’ side has adopted Healys’ arguement for little reason other than it originates from Healy,”

    Well, that’s kind of how your whole side forms its arguments, based on who they came from, the CDC, FDA, NIH, ABC, XYZ etc. And anybody who says otherwise is labeled a conspiracy theorist.

    “whereas Milloy and Fuemento are important in their own right,”

    Who continue to serve and be a part of that front group – also supported by pharma btw – as they’ve been for a long time. Healy’s involvement was brief and was from more than a decade ago. If anything, it suggests she’s realized pretty quickly that joining such a group was a bad idea and has since decided to help out the consumers. Saying this poisons her past somehow especially when this group is now very much on your side and supported by vaccine manufacturers, including Paul Offit.

    “but are not the sole or even major cause of the majority of pro-vaxx arguements.”

    Uh…neither is Healy. I’ve barely cited her throughout this thread. Had you bothered to read most of my comments you would’ve known that.

    “Utterly false. Not your fault this time as you have no relevant academic, clinical, vocational, voluntary or technical experience in assessment or the diagnostic process.”

    Oh and you do? Oh wait, I forgot, your only experience is abusing other people while you hide behind your silly, “phonetically-spelled” name.

    “You’ll stop making an arse out of yourself on such a frequent basis.”

    You need to stop cyberbullying people on the internet behind a fake name. I’ve treated you with utmost respect in most cases and have spent a lot of time trying to have a civil discussion with you. But you have been horrible in every comment of yours back to me because you don’t know how to treat people nicely and because that’s all you’ve got. You have no character.

    “This 2008 study states that, “Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that vaccines cause central nervous system injury, epilepsy or infantile spasms””

    That’s not a study – that’s an article by one guy in Canada who obviously doesn’t pay attention to US government decisions.

    “But as Dedj rightly points out, “autism is only an option if the symptoms are not better explained by the list of exclusionary disorders”.”

    No, autism is only an option when the presenting symptoms fall within the autism spectrum. That’s what autism is, regardless of what caused it.

    “you know your handler J.B. cannot get Google to redact the face pages that the personnel wonks locate, don’t you?”

    Well, that’s because I don’t have a handler, and might also be because I have someone or some people who are perhaps manipulating the search engines…you perhaps?

  10. #10 lilady
    July 25, 2011

    @ Krebiozen: Your citation to the Pediatric Child Health Article is probably the most complete and concise article I’ve ever read about Mitochondrial Disorders and the (non) link to vaccines. The article laid out the sequence of events (illnesses, fevers, the moderate fevers after immunization) that can be the trigger for encephalopathy in a child with the de nova mutated gene for mitochodrial disorders. More importantly, it also detailed the commonalities of mitochondrial disorders and the fact that childhood viruses and associated fevers are the usual triggers that cause the degenerative neurological events in children with these disorders.

    It is interesting that the authors mentioned Rett syndrome as one of the genetic regressive diseases that also is commonly first manifested following exposure to a stressor such as common childhood illnesses, fevers and a fever post-immunization. Children with Rett Syndrome also have autistic behaviors. Once a child is diagnosed with a mitochondrial disorder or Rett Syndrome, parents are faced with the dilemma of possible exacerbation with additional immunizations or the risk of the serious diseases without protective immunizations.

    While these disorders are rare in the general population, parents of children with other developmental diseases and disorders along with a seizure disorder, also face that same dilemma.

    Such parents often take preemptive steps such as re-arranging their anti-convulsant dosing schedule or administering an extra dose or partial dose. The goal here is to have the child’s anti-convulsant blood levels at their peak, instead of a trough level and to lessen the risk of uncontrolled seizures or status epilepticus.

    The article you referenced also provided the link to Dr. Poling’s published case study of his 19 month old daughter Hannah. Dr. Poling a neurologist who was the lead author of Hannah’s case study provided a lot of information about his daughter’s disorder and the progress she has made in the intervening years. As you and the Vaccine Compensation Court pointed out, Hannah had a severe neurological event following fevers and the fevers appear to be caused by the immunizations she had received. But as her neurologist father well knows, any fever caused by a simple cold, an earache or any of the many viruses toddlers contract would have resulted/triggered the neurological event and regression…it is the nature of the mitochondrial disorder.

    Hannah received remuneration and while I may not fault the parents for seeking it to provide a secure financial future for their child, the award was provided not because there is any vaccine-autism injury link, but because immunizations caused the trigger fevers for the mitochondrial disorder to manifest itself.

    Unfortunately, the anti-vax crowd “conveniently” forgets this and have used Hannah as the poster child for vaccine injury autism.

  11. #11 herr doktor bimler
    July 25, 2011

    It belatedly occurs to me that Jake might have been exaggerating for rhetorical effect when he wrote of the medical establishment’s “previous claim that autism was caused by homicidal parents.”

    If he would like to moderate his statement, we have room for discussion, off-topic though it may be. I am aware, for instance, that Bettelheim sometimes accused the mothers of autistic children of wishing the child did not exist. This is a long call from “homicidal”… you know if a parent is homicidal because there is a dead child.

    The popularity of the “refrigerator mother” theory of causation amongst medical professionals — for it is the gullibility of doctors that ultimately concerns us here — seems to a moot point. I’m trying to get motivated enough to blog about it. The Wikipedia article on Bettelheim describes emotional frigidity as “a view that enjoyed considerable influence into the 1960s and 1970s in the United States”, to which some more skeptical contributor has added “[citation needed]”. The article speaks also of the theory’s acceptance “to a considerable extent, in professional circles.” It must be borne in mind that in the 1950s and 60s, not many people cared enough about autism to adhere to one theory or another.

    The Wiki article on Kanner contains some more tendentious statements but we have had enough pedantry for now.

  12. #12 Krebiozen
    July 25, 2011

    That’s not a study – that’s an article by one guy in Canada who obviously doesn’t pay attention to US government decisions.

    Not a study? I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that. My dictionary says that a study is, “an investigation and analysis of a subject, situation, etc.” If the piece of writing I linked to is not an investigation and analysis of a subject, I don’t know what is. Why does the number of authors or his nationality matter? And when did the US government become an authority on scientific matters? I try not to pay too much attention to US government decisions, not being American myself. I’m more interested in the scientific literature. Any comment on the actual science?

  13. #13 Todd W.
    July 25, 2011

    Was gone for the weekend so am just catching up. I haven’t read all of the comments but this was truly a howler. From Jake:

    Since ASDs are defined solely by symptoms, something that causes symptoms which fall within the autism spectrum – by definition – causes autism spectrum disorders.

    By that logic, anyone who suffers muscle tenderness, fatigue, neck/back pain and headaches must have polio, since those are all symptoms of polio. Of course, they may also have recently finished a rigorous exercise routine, which can also cause the same symptoms.

    But then, a more honest look at things would inform you that there are other bits and pieces that can rule in or out a particular diagnosis. For example, in my example above, searching for signs of the poliovirus would be the dead giveaway. For ASDs, the presence or absence of additional symptoms would confirm or disconfirm the diagnosis.

    @augie

    Still making with the straw man arguments, eh? For what it’s worth, not that this will stop your war on grass-based life forms, I said that HepB could be transmitted via saliva, for instance, through bites. You asked for evidence. I gave you three studies that showed the virus was present in sufficient amounts in saliva to make it a possible mode of transmission, as well as an additional study that documented verified transmission of HepB from a chronic carrier to another individual via a bite. You then proceeded to ask for evidence that transmission among casual contacts occurred frequently. Since I never made that claim (indeed, never made any claims about frequency), I need not provide you with any.

    Transmission via saliva can and does occur. It may not be as common, but it is a very real risk to take into consideration, rather than to simply ignore it or think that it cannot happen. Little kids bite. It is therefore reasonable to consider that there is a risk of transmission among children via bites to or from a chronic carrier.

    You can go back to playing with your wheat-and-chaff dolls.

  14. #14 Denice Walter
    July 25, 2011

    @ herr doktor bimler: But you see, casting aspersion upon the medical/ psychological establishment is part of alt med’s- and the anti-vaccinationists’- MOs: you’ll hear a great deal about Tuskegee, “tobacco science”, and exagerating a minor figure’s influence, not so much about life-saving advances. The meme is “Medicine has been wrong/ corrupt/ evil in the past” and “It is again”.

    I tried desperately to get our young friend to re-consider through the concept of probability: is it more likely that there is one cheat or an entire over-arching matrix of thousands upon thousands of entrenched cheats infiltrating the establishment top-to-bottom? My query didn’t provoke attitude change but fuelled derision of my own knowledge about the true workings of conspiracies. Oh well. Them’s the breaks.

    Conspiracy believers paint themselves into a corner where they cannot or will not communicate with individuals who hold to more mainstream views: thus the only feedback they will entertain solidifies their already rigid beliefs.

  15. #15 Todd W.
    July 25, 2011

    Oops. Almost missed this one from augie:

    pharma shill Todd

    Woohoo! I’m a pharma shill! I guess I can be expecting those big payouts any day now. I sure could use me some filthy pharma lucre.

    So, augie, ye who demands evidence at every turn, please present your evidence to substantiate that I am a pharma shill. I’ll wait, but I won’t hold my breath, as I’d likely die of asphyxiation years before you come up with any.

  16. #16 René Najera
    July 25, 2011

    Todd, you forgot this one, also from Jake:

    You need to stop cyberbullying people on the internet behind a fake name.

    However, his cyberbullying of Seth Mnookin, Paul Offit, Orac, etc., while done behind his real name, is okay, right?

    Riiiiiiight.

    Don’t worry too much about Jake, everyone. He’s going to George Washington University to get his MPH. Once he goes through the “design of studies” class, he’ll have more of a clue of what he writes about. (I hope.)

    See you in DC, Jake. This will be fun.

  17. #17 augustine
    July 25, 2011

    lilady

    Ugh troll, knickers all twisted up, doesn’t pay taxes and is scamming the system by using tax dollars for his on-the-dole miserable existence and for tax dollar financed health care…truly a worthless parasitic POS.

    You know how to stick your foot in your uncouth mouth don’t you? Your worthless insults don’t bother me but you’re probably making Venna feel insecure. Maybe you should think before you spout off your opinionated rants. Emotion clouds objectivity.

    You’re also probably insulting the socialist posters who believe that taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots is great policy. Their consciousness encourages the welfare system through altruistic guilt. Political smack talk might not be your forte.

    Didn’t you say the government is your bother’s keeper? Do you think welfare systems that are in place foster responsibility or do they encourage enabling?

    Do you think Venna’s going to find her health in a bottle of pills or at the end of a surgeon’s scalpel? Do you think it’s that simple? All she has to do is “follow the evidence” and everything will be fine, right?

  18. #18 Composer99
    July 25, 2011

    And ugh troll moves goalposts/changes the subject/sets up straw enemies to knock down again.

    All in one post. Not bad. Tiresome & irritating, but not bad.

  19. #19 Krebiozen
    July 25, 2011

    I wondered about the textbook definition of autism, so I got hold of a copy of DSM-IV-TR. Here’s what it says about differential diagnosis.

    When a Mental Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition or a Substance-Induced Disorder is responsible for the symptoms, it preempts the diagnosis of the corresponding primary disorder with the same symptoms (e.g., Cocaine-Induced Mood Disorder preempts Major Depressive Disorder). p6

    A Mental Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition is characterized by the presence of mental symptoms that are judged to be the direct physiological consequence of a general medical condition. The term general medical condition refers to conditions that are coded on Axis III and that are listed outside the “Mental Disorders” chapter of ICD. (See Appendix G for a condensed list of these conditions.) p181

    348.3 Encephalopathy, unspecified p868 Appendix G

    (Axis III refers to General Medical Conditions, and ICD refers to Impulse Control Disorders). Since Hannah Poling’s condition is the direct physiological consequence of a general medical condition, encephalopathy, which is listed in Appendix G of DSM IV, by these criteria she does not have autistic disorder.

  20. #20 Dedj
    July 25, 2011

    “No, autism is only an option when the presenting symptoms fall within the autism spectrum. That’s what autism is, regardless of what caused it.”

    Again false, and badly so, to the point where you can only reasonably seen as either being intentionally dishonest or of the level of competance that strongly indicates that you have either never read any of the current diagnostic criteria or you have clearly not understood them.

    Autism is a cluster of related symptoms, with exclusionary diagnosis, where the client must have a significant proportion of related symptoms in order to qualify as having autism.

    As indicated above, other conditions can share symptoms with the autism spectrum but are far from considered to be forms of autism. If you are willing to follow the arguement right to the end, then you have effectively increased the prevalance of autism manifold.

    You were provided with one of the current diagnostic criteria by another poster – why was this not good enough for you?

    What was wrong with the criteria provided?

    How does you interpretation fit the criteria?

  21. #21 Dedj
    July 25, 2011

    And that’s why you abused people while hiding behind a fake name, right?”

    If you can’t answer the challenge, please refrain from indicating very strongly with your behaviour that I am correct when I say that you prefer to dodge and weave rather than provide a straight answer.

    “”None of it matches up to claiming Deer claimed Wakefield altered the master-copies of any test result.”

    Ahem:

    “A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination”

    Where-in Deer makes it very clear that the ‘altered data’ was altered between the clinical data and the presentation in the research piece. Please try to read it next time.

    “Actual quotes from Dr. Susan Davies in BMJ letter:

    “I was not the lead pathologist for this, or any other Wakefield project.””

    (although she was “the key pathologist for the clinical gastroenterology paediatric team”). Again, please try to read your references first.

    What she did do was attest that Wakefield was a participant in the Histopathology meetings and in the review meetings. Precisely where Wakefield would have had opportunity to make the changes Deer is accussing him of.

    “Secondly, I was not responsible for reporting the majority of the biopsy specimens from the twelve children, initially written up in the Lancet paper(3).”

    This is irrelevant, as the pathology reports are known to have been done by the trainees and the individual pathologists, as was attested as being usual. This was extensively covered in the GMC hearing.

    This does not answer the charge that Wakefield had opportunity to game the interpretation of these results in the meetings Davies attested that he attened and particpated in, and further along the line in reporting the data in the research piece. That is what Deer clearly, repeatedly and comprehensively refers to.

    By the way, she also said “In personal practice, as evidenced at the GMC hearing, I had a different threshold from the other co-authors who performed the review and translated those findings into words. ”

    Indicating strongly, again, that Wakefield did in fact have input exactly where Deer’s accusations would require him to have. As we know due to her GMC testimony that Wakefield was part of the review team, the letter is rather a slam-dunk against the arguement that ‘Wakefield had no part’.

    Deer even states what the original records were supposed to have found. Indeed, Deer’s access to these records was a point of contention for some time. I don’t know how you managed to miss it.

    Unless you are referring to a very narrow part (i.e. the phsical act of extracting and testing the specimens) it is abundantly clear – from your sources – that it is utterly false that ‘Wakefield played no part’.

    —————-

    A ‘forgery’ arguement would look like this:

    The records say A, but the dates, signatures, handwriting, disease process, numbers and data points do not match up with the rest of the records, indicating that the master-copies have been switched or altered.

    Deer’s arguement repeatedly, clearly and consistantly look more like:

    The records say A, but invested party 1 says the records say B, and the invested party1 sat in on some of the meetings, therefore the invested party1 may have manipulated the ultimate interpretation of the data.

    “You said they could disappear tomorrow and it would make no difference,”

    I’ll repeat, I was very clearly referencing the idea that Healy was taken into the ‘pro-safe-vaxx’ arms precisely because of her (as you admit) rather outdated background.

    “Uh…neither is Healy.”

    No, but her input was clearly very instrumental in giving life to the ‘vulnerable sub-group’ arguement, which was the point.

    “I’ve barely cited her throughout this thread.”

    I don’t believe I accused you of doing so. Please stop making things up and stick to only those events that occur outside of you head.

    “Oh and you do?”

    Yes, on all 5 counts and for assessment, diagnostics and intervention. Minimal, but still better than the vast majority of people I see commentating on ‘your’ side.

    “I’ve treated you with utmost respect in most cases and have spent a lot of time trying to have a civil discussion with you.”

    No you have not, and it is most empathatically clear that you have not been so. Being ‘civil’ refers to more than just the lack of calling people names (which you certainly have done quite a bit), but it also refers to not treating your opponents as ignorant and/or corrupt, two things you do frequently.

    If implying that your opponents are corrupt, part of a conspiracy, money-grubbers, ignorant, stupid, liars is what you call ‘civil’, then you have one hell of a lot of growing up to do. You have had your problematic behaviour pointed out to you very clearly by multiple people over a period of a few years. That you still regard yourself as ‘civil’ indicates that you haven’t taken a bean of it on board, and perhaps never will.

    “But you have been horrible in every comment of yours back to me because you don’t know how to treat people nicely and because that’s all you’ve got.”

    No, it’s just you and Harold, some guy in his moms basement in Germany, Johnathon someone, and maybe one or two others that I am like this to. The connection? All regard themselves as ‘civil’ despite making clearly uncivil comments like the one below:

    “and might also be because I have someone or some people who are perhaps manipulating the search engines…you perhaps?”

    ….which is a clear cut accusation of conspiracy, improper behaviour, maliciousness, and it also does the dishonour of dodging the initial concerns in favour of what you (and you alone) think is the important factor.

    Hardly ‘civil’.

    If it was a joke, it wasn’t funny.

  22. #22 augustine
    July 25, 2011

    todd, scientist wannabe,

    It is therefore reasonable to consider that there is a risk of transmission among children via bites to or from a chronic carrier.

    Well why don’t you QUANTIFY that risk instead of using vague terms like “possible” and “very real risk”(why don’t you just say “very very super real risk” or “anything’s possible” to clarify). Those terms are not justification for the recommendation of 6 billion vaccinations. Again you are vague because you don’t have that data but you still want to cause compliance through fear mongering.

    It is justifiably reasonable to REJECT this vaccine on scientific and evidence based grounds. That is a fact!

  23. #23 Lawrence
    July 25, 2011

    And what exactly is your evidence boring troll? Present something concrete to back up your host of assertions – since you have yet to do so in any of your myriad of boring and mostly inane conversations.

  24. #24 larry
    July 25, 2011

    Lest we forget SV40

    The jury is still out on that.

  25. #25 Chris
    July 25, 2011

    larry:

    The jury is still out on that.

    Not really. Do try to keep up.

  26. #27 Chris
    July 25, 2011

    Larry, actually read the article:

    Even if SV40 DNA were definitively shown to be present in human tumors, this would not answer the question of whether the virus caused the cancer. The debate on the role of SV40 in human malignancy illustrates the difficulty in establishing cause and effect, and provides ample impetus for using genomic technologies to ensure that vaccines and other biological products are free of adventitious agents.

  27. #28 augustine
    July 25, 2011

    Present something concrete to back up your host of assertions – since you have yet to do so

    Why don’t you present the hard data that the switch from target groups to the all out mass vaccination of 3 day olds is based on.

    You must have looked at it and agreed with the conclusion right? Wrong, the mass vaccination strategy is not built on hard data. It is built on a philosophical and economic strategy.

    http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/13/1/4.abstract

    “Implementation of universal vaccination should be considered in North America, contingent on vaccine price reduction.”

    http://www.sgm.ac.uk/pubs/micro_today/pdf/050005.pdf

    They were (and remain) expensive, but have now been incorporated into global vaccination programmes, including universal usage in most developed countries as the impact on incidence following targeted use was not great.

    I shouldn’t have the burden to prove that I or my baby need the vaccine since it was never shown that I, or most people, don’t need it. The strategy was/is to vaccinate all to get at the target groups. Ultimately it makes vaccine manufacturers rich when they can sell a vaccine to the whole world. Also, as far as I know it’s tough to prove a negative. So to credit the vaccine is dubious.

  28. #29 Chris
    July 25, 2011

    Oh, and Larry you forgot this bit in that article: “It was present in batches of both the Salk and Sabin poliovirus vaccines produced and distributed from 1954 to 1963.”

    So the folks who had it are almost are in their fifties. You provide evidence that they have had more ill health than anyone born more than a decade before the vaccine was introduced or after 1963, and then you might have something.

    Essentially bringing up SV40 is worse than bringing up thimerosal, since there have been thimerosal-free versions of all pediatric vaccines.

  29. #30 larry
    July 25, 2011

    My point exactly- Difficult to prove
    I doubt that vaccines will ever be free of “adventitious agents”

  30. #31 Chris
    July 25, 2011

    larry, it has to do with relative risks. Until you can prove that viruses like measles, polio, etc and bacteria like pertussis, tetanus, etc are also full of “adventitious agents”, then we will take your concerns seriously.

    Just tell us exactly how much more dangerous the present form of polio vaccine, the IPV that has been free of SV40 for almost fifty years, is more dangerous than polio with real actual factual scientific evidence. And seeing how you have difficulty reading the evidence you proffered, I think what you produce will be very interesting.

  31. #32 Chris
    July 25, 2011

    Oops: “also full of “adventitious agents”, is supposed say:
    “also free of “adventitious agents”

    And I am sure larry’s answers will be very entertaining.

  32. #33 The Jury
    July 25, 2011

    Lest we forget SV40
    The jury is still out on that.

    Not guilty due to lack of evidence.

  33. #34 augustine
    July 25, 2011

    It is known that vaccines are incapable of causing damage to any single individual. They can only cause theoretical damage, which isn’t real damage. It is also a known fact that a baby can handle 10,000 vaccines at once, even with impurities known and unknown. Worrying about “adventitious agents” is an exercise of futility and waste of precious resources.

    Vaccines can only cause damage in nameless, faceless modeled groups of people. But this too, in fact, is doubtful. So much that if anyone brings vaccine safety into question they will be mocked for even considering the absurdity of the impossibility. It is so unlikely that anyone has EVER been damaged by a vaccine that one can safely conclude that ANY serious side effect would have happened anyway at the exact same time.

    If more than 1000 people blame a vaccine with out considering the microbiological implications , then it can be considered part of the phenomenon of mass psychosis. Therefore making it possible for vaccines to actually NOT cause the damage.

  34. #35 Lawrence
    July 25, 2011

    Boring troll – why don’t you trot out your evidence that anyone here has said anything remotely like what you’ve accused of saying?

    Do vaccines have side effects – yes.

    Have parents been compensated for vaccine injuries – yes, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars since the creation of the vaccine court.

    Do vaccine injuries / side effects still amount to a very small fraction of the total vaccine administered population – yes.

    Are the diseases that we vaccinate for (including the one we eradicated, smallpox) more dangerous, both in their historical context and current outbreaks – like France (with thousands of infected) than the vaccines – absolutely, yes, by powers of magnitude.

    Is boring troll a complete idiot who hasn’t provided any particular stance of his own, supported by any measure of evidence or facts & instead merely takes the opposing view – while also conducting ad hominem attacks, while also ignoring any inconvenient facts or posts that completely demolish its infantile arguments – absolutely yes.

  35. #36 Antaeus Feldspar
    July 25, 2011

    It is known that vaccines are incapable of causing damage to any single individual. They can only cause theoretical damage, which isn’t real damage. It is also a known fact that a baby can handle 10,000 vaccines at once, even with impurities known and unknown. Worrying about “adventitious agents” is an exercise of futility and waste of precious resources.

    Vaccines can only cause damage in nameless, faceless modeled groups of people …

    Remember, folks, Boring Auger is not doing this because he thinks laying down an army of blatant straw men would actually be convincing to anyone. He just believes that his time is so valueless and his mental ability is so negligible that he can’t hope to achieve anything of significance himself, and the most he can hope to do is annoy and waste the time of others.

  36. #37 larry
    July 25, 2011

    From Wikipedia “Hello, my name is Antaeus Feldspar.”

    “I am proud to be the recipient of a WikiMedal for Janitorial Services, awarded by Topbanana.”

  37. #38 Chris
    July 25, 2011

    Well, I was wrong. I thought larry’s answers to my questions were going to be entertaining. Now he is just become a boring troll.

    larry, you are such a disappointment.

  38. #39 larry
    July 25, 2011

    Chris, & Ant
    Googled Antaeus name- At least Jake is transparent and Augustine is right.
    This site is a waste of my time- You are both a..holes.

  39. #40 Lawrence
    July 25, 2011

    Larry – don’t let the hash tag hit you on ass on the way out.

  40. #41 Chris
    July 25, 2011

    Larry, not only do you have issues with reading your sources (hint: when you find a link that your anti-vax lords consider evidence, do yourself a favor and actually read them), you seem to have issues understanding the concept of satire and “self depreciating humor.”

  41. #42 Antaeus Feldspar
    July 25, 2011

    From Wikipedia “Hello, my name is Antaeus Feldspar.”

    “I am proud to be the recipient of a WikiMedal for Janitorial Services, awarded by Topbanana.”

    Wow, that might just be the lamest attempt at character assassination ever.  What, I’m supposed to be humiliated to have it revealed that I once edited at Wikipedia?  Or, wait, no, I bet it’s the fact that I was proud that some of the skilled work I put in there was recognized by others that’s supposed to be so humiliating (’cause Larry, when you work on a team effort, you really really hope what your teammates have to say about you is “that shirking bastard, nothing good ever comes from him,” right?  You’re wayyyy too cool for school, Larry.)

    Ironically, one of the factors that led to me deciding not to edit at Wikipedia anymore was seeing the discussions increasingly dominated by Larry-likes, who said to themselves “Gee, I have a point of view that I think should be reflected; should I attempt to present a case for my view that’s supported by evidence and reasoning, like a mature adult without a personality disorder?  Nah!  I’ll try to show people how right and just my cause is through character assassination of everyone who refuses to acknowledge my way as right!”

  42. #43 herr doktor bimler
    July 25, 2011

    However can we recompense Larry for the time he has wasted here?

  43. #44 larry
    July 25, 2011

    Ant-
    Make sure you check all those vaccines you get for mercury content-you’re
    already “mad as a hatter”

  44. #45 Chris
    July 25, 2011

    larry:

    Make sure you check all those vaccines you get for mercury content

    Dude, I even told you that all pediatric vaccines have had thimerosal free versions for a decade, and yet you still pull the outdated “mercury” canard. Well, at least it is less than one quarter out of date compare the silly “sv40” bit!

    Well, at least you have become more entertaining.

  45. #46 lilady
    July 25, 2011

    I want compensation for the damage done to my retinas by the burning stupid twaddling of Larry.

  46. #47 Jake Crosby
    July 26, 2011

    “A Mental Disorder” is not autism.

    So this claim…

    “Since Hannah Poling’s condition is the direct physiological consequence of a general medical condition, encephalopathy, which is listed in Appendix G of DSM IV, by these criteria she does not have autistic disorder.”

    …is false.

  47. #48 herr doktor bimler
    July 26, 2011

    “A Mental Disorder” is not autism.
    So this claim… is false

    Jake, you need to flesh out your argument a bit; at the moment it reads like “Steal underpants… so … Profit!!!”

    Krebiozen at #419 has quoted from the DSM-IVTR to explain the diagnostic criteria for autism — specifically, to make the point that symptoms do not contribute towards an ‘autism’ diagnosis if they are already explained by “Mental Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition”.

    No-one has said that “A Mental Disorder” is autism.” Krebiozen’s argument is if anything the opposite… the point is that certain mental disorders are not autism. What are you trying to refute here? In effect you are repeating part of Krebiozen’s comment and calling it a refutation.

    If you have some passage from the DSM-IV-TR that contradicts what Krebiozen and Dedj have said, then bring it out. Otherwise you’re going to sound like Th1th2, assigning your own meaning to words according to whim and convenience, and I’m sure you don’t want that.

  48. #49 Composer99
    July 26, 2011

    Jake, I rather hope for your sake that your argument in this comment is not indicative of your overall style of argumentation.

  49. #50 Antaeus Feldspar
    July 26, 2011

    It’s hard to tell whether Goofus simply misread completely the argument he thought he was refuting, or whether he is trying to argue it with circular logic.

    If he misread part of Krebiozen’s argument as “A Medical Condition caused by a Mental Disorder,” then his protest that “A ‘Mental Disorder’ is not autism” would make, well, some degree of sense, at least as a misunderstanding. It is indeed true that one cannot simply assume that when “Mental Disorder” is said, that “autism” is meant. But since that’s not what Krebiozen or anyone else suggested, it’s rather pointless to point this out.

    However, knowing this Goofus, I suspect he might be simply arguing the way he loves best: by simply assuming that his conclusions are true and arguing from his conclusions to his premises back to his conclusions. Hannah Poling has autism, he insists, therefore any approach which might lead to the diagnosis of her condition as some other mental disorder must be wrong. It’s depressing to see him purportedly graduated from college and not able to avoid such a basic fallacy, but unfortunately, he’s not led us to expect great things in that regard.

  50. #51 lilady
    July 27, 2011

    @ Antaeus Feldspar: Well you simply can’t judge Goofus’ comments here because he is so used to the sycophants at Age of Autism who think wonder boy ace reporter is brilliant.

    Remember too, that the bar is set so much lower for science journalism at Age of Autism…or non-existent.

    Goofus did graduate from Brandeis with some sort of BA double majors that really aren’t heavy into the sciences or analytical thinking. And, with his attitude and his “theories” on immunology, immunization and toxicity, I would love to be a fly on the wall when he attends class in pursuit of his MPH-Epidemiolgy.

  51. #52 Chris
    July 27, 2011

    lilady:

    Goofus did graduate from Brandeis with some sort of BA double majors that really aren’t heavy into the sciences or analytical thinking.

    Of course if he was really serious about the science he would have taken the requirements for a Baccalaureate of Science.

    I don’t know about Brandeis, but where I went to college there is a big difference between getting a BS and a BA in any kind of degree that smacks of science (like chemistry, biology, etc). So much so that my former employer would pay those with a Baccalaureate of Art about half of those with a Baccalaureate of Science!

    (I learned this when a new hire came into the women’s bathroom vehemently complaining about sexism because she could only be hired as a technical aide, which is about half the salary of an engineer/scientist. The three of us women present were concerned and asked her for more details. She told us it was because she had a BA in chemistry. Then we, all with BS degrees in various disciplines, asked her why she did a BA instead a BS, her reply was that it was “easier.” We all backed away and left her quietly.)

  52. #53 lilady
    July 27, 2011

    @ Chris: …”He’ll be receiving a BA with a double major in History and Health: Science, Society and Policy”

    Direct quote from the article: Congratulations Jake Crosby Brandeis Graduate! (Age of Autism, May 22, 2011)

    Nah, Goofus never took any classes resembling serious science courses and we know that “self-taught” doesn’t work for the boy wonder ace reporter.

  53. #54 Krebiozen
    July 27, 2011

    @Jake

    “A Mental Disorder” is not autism.
    So this claim…
    “Since Hannah Poling’s condition is the direct physiological consequence of a general medical condition, encephalopathy, which is listed in Appendix G of DSM IV, by these criteria she does not have autistic disorder.”
    …is false.

    What I understand DSM-IV to be saying is that if someone’s symptoms are explained by a general medical condition like encephalopathy, that overrides a diagnosis of autism. Either Hannah Poling’s symptoms are a direct physiological consequence of encephalopathy, in which case they are not autism, or she has autism in addition to the symptoms caused by encephalopathy, in which case even if her encephalopathy was caused by vaccination (which is arguable), her autism was not. I’m not a clinician, and I am not qualified to make diagnoses, but the logic seems inescapable to me.

    In any case, autism is (rightly or wrongly) currently classified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) which is the source of the criteria under discussion.

    The real question is whether Hannah Poling’s disorder can throw any light on the etiology of autism in general. I haven’t seen anything that makes me think it can. At present it seems that mitochondrial enzyme deficiency may cause a disorder which shares some features with, but is distinguishable from, idiopathic autism. This study looked at 25 ASD patients with mitochondrial enzyme dysfunction, and found that 24 of them had, “one or more major clinical abnormalities uncommon in idiopathic autism”. It looks to me as if the alleged vaccine autism link in general, and Hannah Poling’s case in particular (heart-breaking as it is), is a huge red herring.

  54. #55 lilady
    July 27, 2011

    @ Krebiozen: (I hate to use this expression but) children with certain mitochondrial disorders are living with a “time bomb” set off by many types of stressors such as a childhood illness (vaccine preventable or non). As we well know young children spike high fevers for many of these viruses that circulate…in later childhood these same-type of viral illnesses cause slightly elevated body temperatures.

    Of course the childhood diseases that vaccines prevent are much more serious for all children and are the stressors that will trigger serious neurological events in a child with a mitochondrial disorder.

  55. #56 René Najera
    July 27, 2011

    @Jake

    Case definitions will also be included in the lesson plans when you work toward an MPH at GW this fall. In fact, interpreting case definitions properly will be a big part of your grade in Epi 101. (I hope your professor is Dr. Cleary.)

    When you learn how to read a case definition, you will understand why what you wrote #447 needs to be clarified for you.

    I can give you some tutoring, if you need it.

  56. #57 lilady
    July 27, 2011

    @ Rene Najara: Jake doesn’t need any help…he knows it all and he will readily involve himself in debates with the professor about the curriculum. After all, he is a respected science journalist on some websites; other websites consider him to be a nasty tool of JB, a dirty trickster and a pompous ass who is in desperate need of a kick to his kishkes.

    Much luck in grad school Jake!

  57. #58 SteveJ
    July 27, 2011

    @Chris

    Of course if he was really serious about the science he would have taken the requirements for a Baccalaureate of Science.

    I don’t know about Brandeis, but where I went to college there is a big difference between getting a BS and a BA in any kind of degree that smacks of science (like chemistry, biology, etc). So much so that my former employer would pay those with a Baccalaureate of Art about half of those with a Baccalaureate of Science!

    Really? My school only offered BA degrees for science degrees. The nurses, business majors and engineers did get BS degrees.

  58. #59 Chris
    July 27, 2011

    Sorry, SteveJ. I should have made it clear it was for this particular university that does offer both BA and BS tracks in several departments, including math, science, etc.

    And my former employer actually has a personnel policy that takes in account what people took in college. Fortunately there are also policies that let a person get promoted from technician to engineer/scientist through performance. I knew one guy who was hired as a tech aide because he had a self-styled BS in Engineering (no department). Through his own diligence and with the support of his supervisor he did get promoted.

  59. #60 Dedj
    July 27, 2011

    “”A Mental Disorder” is not autism.”

    Hard to see what you’re trying to claim here. If you’re trying to claim that autism is not a mental disorder, then you’re wrong by both major (DSM and ICD) diagnostic manuals.

    If you’re trying to claim that mental disorders which are not autism, are not autism, then you’re agreeing 100% with the below statement that you’re claiming is false. If it’s a mental disorder that is not autism, then it’s not autism.

    “So this claim…

    “Since Hannah Poling’s condition is the direct physiological consequence of a general medical condition, encephalopathy, which is listed in Appendix G of DSM IV, by these criteria she does not have autistic disorder.”

    …is false.”

    If someone has enough symptoms of a medical condition that is not autism to qualify for a diagnosis of the ‘not-autism’ condition, then the symptoms are by definition better attributed to the ‘not-autism’ condition.

    Both diagnostic manuals allow for ‘better clinical picture’ diagnosis of autistic symptoms. None of the autistic symptoms are unique to autism (although the specific presentations may be) and it’s possible to have autistic symptoms that are better explained by other disorders.

    I beginning to suspect you have never read the diagnostic criteria. I would suggest that you approach someone with experience in diagnostic differentiation or making dual-diagnosis assessments and ask them to explain to you the difference between ‘autistic symptoms’ and ‘autism’.

  60. #61 Antaeus Feldspar
    July 27, 2011

    As I’ve said, the irony of Goofus’ approach to diagnosis is that if it had been employed by others who came before him, he would be diagnosed as mentally retarded. There probably was someone just as stubborn and just as wedded to a pet hypothesis, and that person probably would have used most of Goofus’ lines. “Mental retardation is defined by symptoms, so these so-called ‘autisitic’ people you talk about are mentally retarded, period. Who cares if their symptoms are a much better match for this so-called ‘autism’? I have certain pet theories that are better served if they are mentally retarded, so I refuse to acknowledge that this ‘autism’ could have any relevance.”

  61. #62 lilady
    July 28, 2011

    @ Herr Doktor Bimler: Well I think you have asked for specific clarification from Jake about his (general) statement that at one time doctors believed autism was caused by HOMICIDAL parents:

    “It belatedly occurs to me that Jake might have been exaggerating for rhetorical effect when he wrote of the medical establishment’s “previous claim that autism was caused by homicidal parents.”

    You offered to discuss his statement once again and once again Jake doesn’t not reply.

    I suspect he hasn’t replied because it is inconvenient (he knows he has no documented proof and he has been called out on the ploy and lack of journalistic integrity)

    I also researched any proof of his statement about homicidal parents and spoke with friends who actually have severely autistic children born in the late 1950s through mid 1960s and they have no recollection that the medical profession labeled parents of children with autism as “homicidal”.

    Now Jake, who has been known to “fudge” the truth and insert extraneous “attributable” quotes and to play semantics with written documents, is still unable to reply.

    Jake, we really want to know where that statement came from; citations from journals or articles will do…please don’t refer us to any of the blogs by the editors of Age of Autism or even worse any of the mommy/daddy warriors posters. If Jake made up that statement out of his fertile imagination (whole cloth), he should “man up” to that and end this inquiry.

  62. #63 Robert Janitorial
    October 20, 2011

    I am with you on this one. There is so much propaganda coming out against vaccines which is not scientifically founded. I could just as well go claim that autism comes from pregnant mothers eating chocolate, or from cleaning their homes or offices. Better go hire a janitorial service, ladies, or you might give you baby autism! It’s just gotten a little bit out of hand, I think.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.