I’ve been following the anti-vaccine movement for nearly a decade now, first as a regular on the Usenet newsgroup misc.health.alternative and then, beginning almost seven years ago, blogging away. Along the way, somehow I stumbled into the role of countering the pseudoscience, misinformation, and nonsense promoted by the anti-vaccine movement. It’s dangerous misinformation, too. For instance, in the U.K., misinformation claiming that the MMR vaccine somehow contributes to autism, a lie based on the work of Andrew Wakefield, has led the MMR uptake rate there to plummet. As a result measles, once vanquished back in the 1990s thanks to the MMR has come roaring back. Here in the U.S., there are areas where there are pockets of low vaccine uptake, and as a result vaccine preventable diseases are making a comeback in some areas. We can only hope that the relatively high vaccine uptake rates elsewhere prevent those pockets from enlarging, spreading, and metastasizing.

Over the last decade or so, if there’s one thing I’ve learned over all that time covering the anti-vaccine movement, it’s that it’s generates some masters of cherry picking and obfuscation. I’ve also learned that the favored topic of the anti-vaccine movement is to conflate correlation with causation, thus trying to lure readers who might not have a scientific background into confusing correlation with causation. The most infamous example of this technique is, of course, thimerosal in vaccines. Apparent autism incidence has risen considerably since the early 1990s, largely due to expanded diagnostic criteria, diagnostic substitution, and more intensive screening. The vaccine schedule was also expanded during the 1990s, with an increasing use of vaccines containing thimerosal as a preservative. Because thimerosal contains mercury, it provided a convenient “bogeyman ingredient” that anti-vaccine activists could blame for the apparent “autism epidemic.” In 2011 (actually, as early as 2005), it is obvious that mercury in vaccines is not a cause of any sort of “autism epidemic,” given that thimerosal was removed from vaccines by the end of 2001 and autism incidence has not declined. If mercury in vaccines were a major cause of autism, one would expect that removing the thimerosal from vaccine would lead to a rapid decline in autism incidence. We’d even expect that this decrease would be evident within three to five years, given that autism is commonly diagnosed at around age three or four. No matter how the anti-vaccine movement tries to parse, this has not happened.

What’s more interesting (well, sometimes) is to watch anti-vaccine activists apply the same sort of flaws in science and reasoning to other aspects of vaccine science. I just saw a whopper of an example of this in what is now a four-part “investigation” on the anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism. It’s written by Mark “Not A Scientist, Not A Doctor” Blaxill and Dan “Where are the autistic Amish?” Olmsted. Blaxill is rather amusing because, alone of bloggers, he loves verbosity even more than Orac does. Where Orac might sometimes use 3,000 words where 1,500 might serve, Blaxill would use 6,000 words to say exactly nothing. This might explain why the example of mistakenly confusing correlation with causation that I’m about to discuss was mercifully divided into four parts; that is, four parts so far. I’ve been watching from afar, waiting to see how many parts Blaxill would throw in, and this might represent premature blogging, but, hey, it’s Friday, and I rarely post on the weekend anymore; so it’s now or wait until next week, and I don’t want to wait until next week.

So let’s take a look at the not-so-Glimmer Twins’ “expose” on the polio vaccine:

The five parts thus far can best be viewed as a massive confusion of correlation with causation, which is, as far as I’m concerned, the sine qua non of anti-vaccine arguments, such as they are. First, B&O (Blaxill and Olmsted) begin with an ominous prediction:

Polio is the iconic epidemic, its conquest one of medicine’s heroic dramas. The narrative is by now familiar: Random, inexplicable outbreaks paralyzed and killed thousands of infants and children and struck raw terror into 20th century parents, triggering a worldwide race to identify the virus and develop a vaccine. Success ushered in the triumphant era of mass vaccination. Now polio’s last hideouts amid the poorest of the poor in Asia and Africa are under relentless siege by, among others, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Eradication is just a matter of time, and many more illnesses will soon meet the same fate.

But based on our research over the past two years, we believe this narrative is wrong – and wrong for reasons that go beyond mere historical interest. The misunderstanding of polio has warped the public health response to modern illnesses in ways that actually make them harder to prevent, control, and treat.

Polio has always bothered anti-vaccinationists. The reason, of course, is because it is unequivocally a success story for vaccines that demonstrates the power of vaccination to alleviate suffering. Anti-vaccine activists think they are the master of narrative, whereby they tell anecdotes and stories about children seemingly regressing right after vaccines, but opposing that narrative is an even more powerful narrative about the elimination of iron lungs that were so common in the 1940s and 1950s. In an amazingly short period of time, after the introduction of a vaccine for polio, gone were the iron lungs. Gone were the terrifying outbreaks of polio. Gone were the yearly summer warning signs about swimming pools. Most people viewed this as a good thing.

B&O apparently do not.

No, it’s not that they want children to be paralyzed due to polio. What they don’t like is that the success of vaccination campaigns against polio gave scientists confidence that, yes, vaccines can make a difference in the health of children. Of course, we already had the example of smallpox, where vaccination ultimately led to the only complete eradication of a disease in history that I’m aware of. B&O are not pleased about this:

But based on our research over the past two years, we believe this narrative is wrong – and wrong for reasons that go beyond mere historical interest. The misunderstanding of polio has warped the public health response to modern illnesses in ways that actually make them harder to prevent, control, and treat.

The reality, we believe, is that the virus itself was just half the epidemic equation — necessary but not sufficient to create The Age of Polio. Outbreaks were not caused solely by poliovirus – the microbe was an ancient and heretofore harmless intestinal bug — but by its interaction with a new toxin, most often innovative pesticides used to treat fruits and vegetables.

And thus the groundwork for a beautiful case of confusing correlation with causation is laid.

This confusion begins with a description of the invasion of gypsy moths in the mid-19th century. At the time, gypsy moths were a real problem, and a frantic effort to find ways to control them was undertaken. What worked in killing these moths, it turned out, was adding lead to arsenic compounds commonly used to kill other insect pests. This new mixture was effective in eliminating gypsy moth larvae and was apparently deployed on a large scale in New England in 1893 and 1894. Confusing correlation with causation like the masters they are at doing that, B&O opine:

Fortunately – or so it seemed – a scientist working for the commission quickly found a solution. Adding lead to arsenic proved lethal to the larvae, and the new compound was sprayed on trees in and around Boston starting in 1893. It quickly proved its value against not just gypsy moths but all manner of agricultural pests. In fact, it worked better against codling moths, the source of the proverbial “worm in the apple.”

“In the case of insects which do not readily yield to Paris Green, a different substance, used with great success by the Gypsy Moth Commission, with which it originated, may be applied,” wrote George H. Perkins, state entomologist of Vermont in his annual report for 1893, published in early 1894. “This is arsenate of lead; sodic arsenate 29.93%, lead acetate 70.07%, are mixed in water, from which arsenate of lead is soon formed.”[ii]

Something else of note happened in 1893 in the Boston area. Two doctors used to seeing sporadic cases of paralysis in infants became concerned when the small caseload suddenly increased, to 23. There had only been six in the same September-November time span the year before.

Does this sound familiar? It should. Fast forward 100 years, and B&O did exactly the same thing with mercury in vaccines and autism, and they did the same sloppy job. This time around, they are trying to claim that polio epidemics and outbreaks were not due solely to the polio virus itself, but to an unholy combination of the polio virus and arsenic-based pesticides. They make the case explicit by listing a whole bunch of agricultural areas where outbreaks occurred 1893 and 1910 and speculate that some combination of the polio virus and lead arsenate-based pesticides was responsible for the paralysis that polio caused. They even go so far as to spin an elaborate tale about Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his battle with polio. Because FDR was 39 at the time he contracted polio, his was an unusual case. In particular B&O blather on and on about how Roosevelt happened to be in the world’s commercial blueberry capital at harvest time and ominously intone that it must have been more than just the polio virus. It must also have been the lead arsenate used as a pesticide, implying hilariously:

None of this shows FDR eating a mound of fresh blueberries treated with lead arsenate in August 1921, but it seems more probable than not.

Yep, it was the blueberries plus polio that paralyzed Roosevelt, not just polio alone! Why? Because lead and arsenic can cause neurological damage. Seriously. That’s B&O’s argument. Never mind that lead and arsenic poisoning don’t produce a syndrome like polio. Never mind that polio has probably been known for hundreds of years, possibly as far back as ancient Egypt. At the very least, polio was known back in the 18th century. Moreover, polio wasn’t confined to areas where agriculture might bring people into contact with pesticides, lead-arsenate-based or otherwise. It swept through cities as well, including New York City, where 2,500 cases were reported in 1907. In 1916, there were over 2,000 deaths from polio in New York City alone. (Yep, I can read Wikipedia, too.)

In fact, some of the worst epidemics of polio occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, when lead arsenate pesticide use was on the wane. So how do B&O explain that inconvenient observation? Easy. they pivot and switch to a different pesticide. Yes, we’re talking DDT, baby! DDT was introduced in the late 1940s and soon supplanted lead arsenate-containing pesticides. Just as B&O borrowed from the mercury playbook, in which they try to claim that mercury poisoning produces symptoms just like autism and now tried to claim that, because lead arsenate can cause neurological damage, it must have been a combination of lead arsenate pesticides plus polio that really caused those epidemics of infantile paralysis (and hence vaccines didn’t save us). Now B&O pivot seamlessly to DDT, amazing the world at how two such different chemicals can somehow interact with the polio virus in the same way in order to produce paralysis. It’s magic:

In 1949, the same year as the Life article, Drs. Morton S. Biskind and Irving Bieber published “DDT Poisoning – A New Symptom With Neuropsychiatric Manifestations” in the American Journal of Psychotherapy. “By far the most disturbing of all the manifestations are the subjective reactions and the extreme muscular weakness,” they reported.[ii]

In subsequent papers and testimony, Biskind linked DDT directly to cases of poliomyelitis – including a Dec. 12, 1950, statement to the Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products, United States House of Representatives.[iii] He quoted another doctor that “wherever DDT had been used intensively against polio, not only was there an epidemic of the syndrome I have described but the incidence of polio continued to rise and in fact appeared where it had not been before.

Amazing how two different chemicals with entirely different mechanisms of action apparently cause the same thing. The problem, of course, is that, just as mercury poisoning doesn’t cause a syndrome that looks like autism, neither DDT nor lead arsenate produce syndromes that look like polio. DDT, for instance, does not cause paralysis. In fact, its mechanism of neurotoxicity at high doses is fairly well known. The symptoms it causes tend to be mild at anything other than very high doses. In the case of acute exposures to DDT, the weakness and paralysis can occasionally (but unreliably) be observed, tend to be of only distal extremities (hands and feet), and require very high exposures to DDT, exposures far above residues that could possibly be left on fruits and vegetables, even at the height of DDT use. At intermediate exposures, the effects tend to me more along the lines of parasthesias and nausea. Remember, too, that by “low,” I still mean pretty hefty doses relative to residues on foods. Finally, in a very superficial way, if you really, really want it to and squint hard enough at the comparisons, you can make some of the symptoms of DDT poisoning sound a little bit like symptoms of polio, but you have to be as–shall we say?–creative as Age of Autism flacks were when they “mapped” the symptoms of autism to those of mercury poisoning as a means of “proving” that autism is due to mercury poisoning from vaccines.

In fact, in part 5 (and you knew it was coming), B&O try to pull mercury into the mix of lead arsenates and DDT as well. More importantly, they seem implicitly to recognize that their graph of U.S.-only outbreaks with time in part 2 was incomplete; so they fill it in with outbreaks from elsewhere in the world in a graph here:

i-ef134c234fce789c33da390c1940ab4c-bosillygraph-thumb-480x360-69416.jpg

Note that they put the line at 1893 representing the introduction of lead arsenate insecticides in Boston, but this makes no sense from a scientific or epidemiological standpoint. If they really wanted to make the case, they would have to try to correlate the introduction of lead arsenate insecticides with polio outbreaks for each and every location that they examine. Lumping them together on a graph like this might look persuasive to people with no scientific background, but epidemiologists and scientists would laugh uproariously or shake their heads in disbelief (or both) at such amazing ignorance. After all, what is the rationale for placing a line at 1893? Certainly there is no obvious break point or change in slope of the line that began at 1893; one could just as plausibly, if not more so, place such a line back around 1880 based on the curve alone. However, the line at 1893 draws the eye to it and produces an illusion of a definite break point where the line is–and B&O put that line there based on a historical event, not on any detection of a true break point in the curve. It’s bad math of a sort that Mark and David Geier used five years ago, as was so well explained by Mark Chu-Carroll.

B&O might as well try to correlate the number of pirates with global warming or the introduction of compact discs in the U.S. with the rise in autism. Or the introduction of thimerosal in vaccines with the “autism epidemic.” Oh, wait. They just did.

Truly, B&O are a one trick pony.

So why on earth did B&O engage in such napalm-grade burning stupid, trying to claim that somehow pesticides mixed with the polio virus to produce epidemics of infantile paralysis. The reason, it seems to me, is simple. Their claims otherwise notwithstanding, B&O are profoundly anti-vaccine. Unfortunately for them, the elimination of polio is a major success story for vaccines and vaccine science. Vaccination against polio eliminated polio in the United States in short order, as it does wherever high levels of vaccine uptake can be achieved. It’s an iconic example of how effective a public health measure vaccines are and how many lives can be saved, not to mention cases of paralysis prevented. They have to tear it down if they are to convince people that vaccines are harmful and cause autism. After all, to anti-vaccine loons like B&O, no matter how much they deny it or try to claim otherwise, it’s all about the vaccines. It’s always been about the vaccines. It always will always be about the vaccines. Also, if they can “prove” that some environmental influence like pesticides somehow interacted with a virus to cause epidemics, then, in their mind apparently, they can claim plausibility that vaccines somehow cause autism.

I think. B&O’s “reasoning” is quite unclear on this other than their desire to try to discredit the polio vaccine.

And if it takes some conflation of correlation with causation, either intentional or not, so be it. Whether B&O know what they are doing or not, I really don’t know. If they do know what they’re doing as far as statistical and mathematical analysis go, the only possible conclusion is that they are intentionally trying to deceive. If they don’t know what they’re doing, then the conclusion must be that they’re hopelessly scientifically and mathematically illiterate. I suppose they could be a little of both, but personally I favor the conclusion that they’re hopelessly scientifically and mathematically illiterate. Even “better,” B&O promise more to come:

But none of these reached the scale, or occurred with the frequency, of poliomyelitis outbreaks after 1893 and the invention of lead arsenate. This leads to the second test of our theory – once lead arsenate and DDT disappeared from the scene, why did poliomyelitis outbreaks continue, albeit in diminished fashion?

Stay tuned.

Unfortunately, calling B&O’s crackpot idea about pesticides and polio a “theory” or even a “hypothesis” is stretching the term beyond recognition. More importantly: Does anyone want to speculate how they’ll explain this one? My guess: They’ll try to correlate the introduction of mercury-containing vaccines to areas of the world where polio outbreaks still occur.

ADDENDUM: I can’t believe I didn’t find this in all my Googling, but it’s been pointed out in the comments below that B&O cribbed their entire “hypothesis” from…Whale.to! In fact, the Whale.to article is an even more exquisite example of confusing correlation with causation and cherry picking three insecticides to add together to give a curve that looks like the incidence curve of polio in the middle part of the 20th century. It almost might be worth a post itself!

Mr. Blaxill and Mr. Olmsted, you do remember Scopie’s Law, don’t you?

Comments

  1. #1 Sauceress
    September 25, 2011

    #149 Th1Th2

    So are you saying that there would be absolutely no maternal antibody being transferred to fetus and newborns whatsoever unless the mother had previous infection or disease?

    Nope. I’m saying nothing of the sort.
    I said anigen specific antibody. You know the type that confers immunity? No? Of course you don’t!
    You’re simple trying to cover up the fact that don’t know the difference between naive antibody and antigen specific antibody. You’re oblivious to the difference between an immune response and immunity. This is immunology 101 dear.

    Now can you detail the mechanisms by which a newborn is supposedly protected against antigens that it’s mother was never exposed to? No? Of course you can’t.

    Seems you’re determined to remain ignorant of even the most basic mechanisms of the immune system because you know that if you were to learn anything, your little antivaxx house of cards would come crashing down. What would you be doing with your time if you weren’t an antivaxx troll? Who would then pay you any attention?
    You rely on your ignorance to maintain your self image as some great antivaxx warrior.
    Anyway thanks for playing and once again broardcasting the fact that you have no idea of that which you attempt to argue against.

  2. #2 Sauceress
    September 25, 2011

    “the difference between naive antibody and antigen specific antibody.”

    My bad. I referred to naive antibody here rather than naive B cells.
    On my way out. I’ll explain later.

  3. #3 Narad
    September 25, 2011

    Seems you’re determined to remain ignorant of even the most basic mechanisms of the immune system because you know that if you were to learn anything, your little antivaxx house of cards would come crashing down.

    Oh, Th1Th2’s is not a little house. It is full of priest holes and riddled with tunnels. There are doors that open onto walls, and rooms without doors that are only connected by dumbwaiters decorated with Escher prints to the (apparently poorly maintained) fish hatchery in the basement. Engaging it is nothing more or less than a cartographic expedition.

  4. #4 palindrom
    September 25, 2011

    Lord Zeneca —

    I am most honored and will give my utmost to be worthy of the v’Maak clusters you have bestowed upon me.

    Humblest Salutations,

    Palindrom

  5. #5 lilady
    September 25, 2011

    I posted about transplacental and colostrum immunity up-thread and “suggested” that the Thingy read up about antigen and antibodies in a medical dictionary. Here again is the definition of maternal passive immunities from Wikipedia:

    Naturally acquired maternal passive immunity

    Maternal passive immunity is a type of naturally acquired passive immunity, and refers to antibody-mediated immunity conveyed to a fetus by its mother during pregnancy. Maternal antibodies (MatAb) are passed through the placenta to the fetus by an FcRn receptor on placental cells. This occurs around the third month of gestation.[2] Immunoglobulin G is the only antibody isotype that can pass through the placenta.[2] Immunization is often required shortly following birth to prevent diseases such as tuberculosis, hepatitis B, polio, and pertussis,

    Passive immunity is also provided through the transfer of IgA antibodies found in breast milk that are transferred to the gut of the infant, protecting against bacterial infections, until the newborn can synthesize its own antibodies.[4]

    (hint) MMRV vaccines are only given after 1 year of age…with the exception of infants 6-12 months of age who will be traveling to a foreign country where measles is endemic…to provide them with “some” transient protection. MMRV vaccines given under one year of age are not “valid”…the infant still requires the 2-dose series after one year of age.

    Why doesn’t Thingy take its arguments based on its immunology “expertise” to the folks at Wikipedia and provide its “theories” of maternal passive immunity…based on its “theory” of immunology?

    Also, why doesn’t Thingy contact the WHO, the CDC, the IDSA (Infectious Disease Society of America) and local hospitals based on its “expertise” to “consult” and “revise” the policy and procedures Infection Control Manuals about measles containment following exposure to a suspect measles case in a health care setting implementing its “theory” of “terminal disinfection”?

  6. #6 Th1Th2
    September 25, 2011

    Sauceress,

    Nope. I’m saying nothing of the sort.
    I said anigen specific antibody. You know the type that confers immunity? No? Of course you don’t!

    OK but before I answer the rest of your questions, I’d just like to focus on that assertion of yours first because I am very certain whose “house of cards” is going to go down. So what you’re saying really is that the uninfected mother would still be providing her fetus or newborn with maternal antibodies in that these antibodies are not so specific to a particular disease?

  7. #7 Sauceress
    September 25, 2011

    Because of your ignorance I’ll simplify for you.
    Save your rhetorical gymnastics and produce a woman who has never been exposed to any antigen who has had a healthy baby. Also explain how naive B cells are activated to produce antibody.
    It’s you who needs to back up your assertion that a woman who has not been exposed to antigen can provide transplacental immunity to their baby.
    Simple!

  8. #8 Th1Th2
    September 25, 2011

    Sauceress,

    Why can’t you answer a simple question and stop wasting bandwidth?

  9. #9 Gray Falcon
    September 25, 2011

    Th1Th2, she did answer your question. Now let me ask you something. Why should we believe you?

  10. #10 Th1Th2
    September 25, 2011

    It was just a simple yes or no. I might have missed that.

  11. #11 Gray Falcon
    September 25, 2011

    It was a yes. However, the specific antibodies would not exist to be passed on. Now answer one question for me: Why do you believe what you say is true?

  12. #12 Th1Th2
    September 25, 2011

    So it was yes. Thank you.

    No further question.

  13. #13 Gray Falcon
    September 25, 2011

    Her main point, however, was that the general antibodies are not as effective at warding off infection as the specific ones. I have little knowledge of biology, and even I was able to figure that out. Now, tell me, Th1Th2, do you believe you are incapable of error? Do you think you are so perfect you never have to explain your reasoning for anything?

  14. #14 Militant Agnostic
    September 25, 2011

    Gray Falcon to Thingy

    Do you think you are so perfect you never have to explain your reasoning for anything?

    What reasoning? I haven’t seen any.

  15. #15 Th1Th2
    September 25, 2011

    Her main point, however, was that the general antibodies are not as effective at warding off infection as the specific ones.

    Shocking? Primary immune response is not as effective as secondary immune response. Since both the mother and the newborn are uninfected, don’t expect the latter to mount an effective immune response against primary infection. Nonetheless, they have naturally acquired maternal antibodies for immediate protection. You guys are so hideous and intellectually corrupt.

    I have little knowledge of biology, and even I was able to figure that out.

    I know what the problem is. You have little knowledge of Biology and even more so in Immunology.

    I just could imagine the plethora of lies you are all preaching to people.

  16. #16 Narad
    September 26, 2011

    You guys are so hideous and intellectually corrupt.

    Lonely at the top, eh?

  17. #17 Chris
    September 26, 2011

    Yoo-hoo, alfie! Where are you?

    So what are your highly educated answers to my questions?

  18. #18 Th1Th2
    September 26, 2011

    So is this it? It wasn’t so hard to debunk a long-held superstitious belief, the vaccine myth. I just hope the errors you all guys have made are reversible especially for those vaccine-damaged children.

    Shut this thread down now before someone else gets victimized.

  19. #19 Gray Falcon
    September 26, 2011

    Why do you believe you’ve debunked vaccines? Are you aware that asserting things isn’t the same as proving them?

  20. #20 Chris
    September 26, 2011

    Gray Falcon, it is because she is a manipulative delusional liar. In her head she believes that her statements are believed.

  21. #21 Narad
    September 26, 2011

    I just hope the errors you all guys have made are reversible especially for those vaccine-damaged children.

    Shut this thread down now before someone else gets victimized.

    I like the new “concerned” persona. Perhaps it will graduate from saving the children one trolled thread at a time to donning a sandwich board and taking it to the streets.

  22. #22 Reuben
    September 26, 2011

    How can a thread victimize anyone? We’re keeping it civil. We’re even presenting evidence and reason. If anyone is going to victimize anyone else, I would put my money on the trolls, the ones spreading outright lies.

  23. #23 lilady
    September 26, 2011

    B & O have Part 6 up on the AoA site…more of the same but they have associated the endemic polio regions of the world with areas of the world with high arsenic levels in well water. So we have gone from one case (FDR) of paralytic polio due to his enjoyment of blueberries to the worldwide effort to eliminate polio…in 6 days…amazing!

    Upcoming Part 7 (Next “Where was God?”—Lessons learned and Lost) should be a doozy.

    Nine people in China with Type 1 polio have been confirmed according to WHO Worldwide Polio Eradication Initiative…after China was declared polio-free in 1999. Public Health officials are concerned about the upcoming Hajj and its implications for re-introducing polio to other areas of the world that have been declared polio-free.

    I declare that this thread is still open in spite of the delusional insane Thingy’s attempts to derail it.

  24. #24 Prometheus
    September 26, 2011

    So, now Mark (not a doctor; not a scientist) Blaxill and Dan (no longer much of anything) Olmsted think that it was the combination of lead arsenate and the polio virus that led to paralytic polio in the first half of the 20th century?

    Really?

    This is pretty simplistic thinking, even for this dynamic duo. As they point out, lead arsenate was “invented” in 1893 (actually, it was discovered to be an effective insecticide in 1893 – it was “invented” before the earth was formed). Paralytic polio was first described in 1789 (it existed long before that) and was prevalent enough in Germany that there was extensive work on it in the mid-1800’s (see: “Heine-Medin disease”).

    Since paralytic polio was well-known over 100 years before the “invention” of lead arsenate, their “hypothesis” fails…miserably.

    Not to let a hypothesis die in peace, Mr. Jake Crosby (#5) pipes up in reference to the fact that removing thimerosal from children’s vaccines hasn’t altered the rise in autism prevalence:

    “It didn’t happen because children were being diagnosed at younger and younger ages and because thimerosal was added to flu shots and remained in other vaccines for an unspecified period of time – and last but not least – because the California database used to “prove” your claim was overhauled before any meaningful data could be extracted from it, after it showed signs of leveling off which could have signs of a coming decrease in cases.”

    Being diagnosed at “younger and younger ages” wouldn’t have an impact on the prevalence of autism at, say 6 years of age, yet the prevalence in 6 year-olds – as reported in the IDEA annual reports to Congress – continues to climb unabated by the removal of thimerosal in 2002.

    The “thimerosal is still in flu shots” (it wasn’t “added” – it was always in them, although “flu shots” have been available without thimerosal for years) argument is pretty weak, since the under-three crowd has pretty poor uptake of the influenza vaccine (it’s much more popular among the over-60 crowd) AND it’s only one vaccine a year.

    And even if a child gets an influenza vaccine every year, they’re still getting much less thimerosal in the first five years of life than they got prior to 2000,yet the autism prevalence continues to climb. Mega-fail, Jake.

    Finally, the argument that the California DDS database was “overhauled” sounds a lot like conpiracy-theorising (of which Jake is a Master-class competitor) and, even if true, is irrelevant. IDEA statistics – which, like the Cal DDS data are purely adminstrative (i.e. don’t adhere to a rigorous or even consistent diagnostic criteria) – show the same pattern as the Cal DDS data – and neither show a “plateau”.

    There isn’t a plateau and – in fact – there wasn’t one in the articles Jake cites. What they show is the natural “nose” of the curve in the younger age groups because that’s when the diagnosis is made. When you compare a graph of the data made each year, it shows the same apparent “plateau” in the younger ages – even in a graph made of the 1999 data (before thimerosal was removed).

    This is all material that Jake will be covering in his graduate school coursework, so there is some hope that he will eventually stop bringing such nonsense into a public forum like this.

    Prometheus

  25. #25 Sauceress
    September 26, 2011

    #212

    212
    It was just a simple yes or no. I might have missed that.

    There is no yes or no answer. It’s not a viable question.
    The premise of the question, that a woman whose immune system has never been exposed to antigen could even live to childbearing age and produce a healthy child, is ridiculous!

    By the way, what happened to the antivaxx “our children must be exposed to natural diseases to strengthen their immune system”?
    #217

    Shocking? Primary immune response is not as effective as secondary immune response. Since both the mother and the newborn are uninfected, don’t expect the latter to mount an effective immune response against primary infection. Nonetheless, they have naturally acquired maternal antibodies for immediate protection. You guys are so hideous and intellectually corrupt.

    This is a pile of utterly clueless crap. Seems humpty took my typo re naive antibody from above and ran a little fantasy on it. There is no such thing as naive antibody.

    A little immunology 101.
    B cells (B lymphocytes)are produced in the bone marrow. Each individual naive B cell has a unique receptor.
    They are considered immature or “naive” until they have encountered an antigen which has a surface molecules (antigen) that match this receptor. After such an encounter the B cell is stimulated to produce antibody specific for that antigen. They also clone memory cells which will be cloned in the event of subsequent exposures to the same antigen. These memory cells are the basis of a secondary response enabling the response to be faster and stronger than the first.
    The whole process of B cell maturation prior to antigen encounter is much more involved and complicated. Wiki gives a good overview.

    The thing here is: No antigen encounter = no antibody.
    As to IgG, the only antibody which crosses the placenta, there are four subtypes which have different binding affinities and different effector functions. Google IgG subtypes for more info.

    Th1Th2 is so far down the rabbit hole it doesn’t know which way is up. It’s grasp on how immunity is formed is non-existent and its posts amount to nothing but verbal diarrhoea.

  26. #26 Gray Falcon
    September 26, 2011

    On the plus side, I’ve learned something from this. Thanks, Sauceress, and sorry if I made any mistakes.

  27. #27 Sauceress
    September 26, 2011

    Oh and humpty’s post @217 is definitely a keeper 🙂

  28. #28 herr doktor bimler
    September 26, 2011

    B & O have Part 6 up on the AoA site…more of the same but they have associated the endemic polio regions of the world with areas of the world with high arsenic levels in well water.

    Yet they have already established that arsenic on its own is not enough to push the polio virus over the threshold of virulence (for before the advent of lead arsenate in 1892 / 1893, arsenic-based pesticides were widely used, evidently without any ill-effect).

    Distribution of polio cases around the world here:
    http://www.ribi.org/assets/_files/images/jul_09/hm__1246721126_casemap.gif

    Distribution of arsenic-contaminated water supplies here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weltkarte_arsenrisikogebiete.gif

    Not entirely surprisingly, there is almost no overlap.

  29. #29 Sauceress
    September 26, 2011

    Gray Falcon
    No need for apology. We, as opposed to the antivaxx trolls, learn from our mistakes. Myself included. Th1Th2 has been engaging in its usual tactic of using a little bait and switch.

  30. #30 Orac
    September 26, 2011

    Actually, I’m waiting until the series is complete to blog about it again. There’s at least one more part promised, and it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s more than one. I’d rather take on the second half of B&O’s nonsense all at once, rather than in pieces.

  31. #31 lilady
    September 26, 2011

    @ Sauceress: Super post, Brava.

    At the risk of another Thingy “theory” about tetanus vaccine (who could ever forget its many posts a while back), Wikipedia “Tetanus” site has this about passive maternal vaccine immunity and its impact on neonatal deaths:

    Neonatal tetanus is a form of generalized tetanus that occurs in newborns. Infants who have not acquired passive immunity because the mother has never been immunized are at risk. It usually occurs through infection of the unhealed umbilical stump, particularly when the stump is cut with a non-sterile instrument. Neonatal tetanus is common in many developing countries and is responsible for about 14% (215,000) of all neonatal deaths, but is very rare in developed countries.

  32. #32 Th1Th2
    September 26, 2011

    Sauceress,

    There is no yes or no answer. It’s not a viable question.
    The premise of the question, that a woman whose immune system has never been exposed to antigen could even live to childbearing age and produce a healthy child, is ridiculous!

    If I am not mistaken, the original premise goes something like this…
    #125

    Wow – so insane troll is saying that we can be immune from diseases we’ve never had? Wow……

    and then you seconded that with this….(well, not exactly. You played it safe by downgrading pathogens to antigens tsk…tsk…tsk)

    #135

    Wow indeed! Can’t wait for humpty’s explanation of how a newborn acquires antigen specific antibodies which haven’t been passed from mother to baby via the placenta.

    So when you say transplacental transfer of antigen-specific antibodies, do you mean antibodies against infection or disease pathogens the mother MUST have or just the ubiquitous innocuous nonpathogenic antigens?

    By the way, what happened to the antivaxx “our children must be exposed to natural diseases to strengthen their immune system”?

    Do you know that I am also an anti-pox? I guess not. So when you say “exposed to natural diseases”, do you mean the mother MUST be exposed to pathogens or antigens? So going back to your premise, you refer “exposure to antigen” as something “ridiculous” how about “exposure to pathogens”?

    This is a pile of utterly clueless crap. Seems humpty took my typo re naive antibody from above and ran a little fantasy on it. There is no such thing as naive antibody.

    Where did you find “naive antibody” in my post?

    The thing here is: No antigen encounter = no antibody.

    And whose antibody are we talking here?

    As to IgG, the only antibody which crosses the placenta, there are four subtypes which have different binding affinities and different effector functions. Google IgG subtypes for more info.

    So what you’re saying is mothers without previous infection or diseases are unable to pass any subtypes of IgG to the fetus or newborn, yes or no?

    Th1Th2 is so far down the rabbit hole it doesn’t know which way is up. It’s grasp on how immunity is formed is non-existent and its posts amount to nothing but verbal diarrhoea.

    Let’s find out.

  33. #33 Chris
    September 26, 2011

    It makes me wonder if they are going to try to sell their purple prose polio pontifications to a book publisher.

  34. #34 Scryer
    September 26, 2011

    Thingy, if my reading comprehension and use of hypothetical situations is any good (and much better than yours), you seem to think that any disease a mother has had confers immunity to her children born thereafter, except when they later are “infected” by vaccines.

    If that is true, then why did I get Chickenpox as a teen (years before the vaccine for it came out) despite my mother having had it as a child?

  35. #35 Gray Falcon
    September 26, 2011

    Th1Th2 once again seems to be unaware that people are exposed to pathogens and antigens every day. Whenever anyone points this out, she immediately tries to switch to “deliberate infection”, without explaining why this is as bad as a wild-type infection.

  36. #36 Th1Th2
    September 26, 2011

    Scryer,

    Thingy, if my reading comprehension and use of hypothetical situations is any good (and much better than yours), you seem to think that any disease a mother has had confers immunity to her children born thereafter, except when they later are “infected” by vaccines.

    True but naturally acquired passive immunity is only a short-term protection for the newborn. Maternal antibodies decay over time (usually in less than a year after giving birth). Vaccination, however, is different. The baby MUST be inoculated with disease pathogens to trigger an immune response against that infection and subsequent re-infection.

    If that is true, then why did I get Chickenpox as a teen (years before the vaccine for it came out) despite my mother having had it as a child?

    Because you were exposed to the pathogen however you were no longer covered by maternal antibodies (as a teen). You are on your own.

  37. #37 lilady
    September 26, 2011

    Per Thingy:

    True but naturally acquired passive immunity is only a short-term protection for the newborn. Maternal antibodies decay over time (usually in less than a year after giving birth). Vaccination, however, is different. The baby MUST be inoculated with disease pathogens to trigger an immune response against that infection and subsequent re-infection.

    Per Wikipedia (Tetanus):

    Neonatal tetanus is a form of generalized tetanus that occurs in newborns. Infants who have not acquired passive immunity because the mother has never been immunized are at risk. It usually occurs through infection of the unhealed umbilical stump, particularly when the stump is cut with a non-sterile instrument. Neonatal tetanus is common in many developing countries and is responsible for about 14% (215,000) of all neonatal deaths, but is very rare in developed countries.

    Still ignorant, still delusional, still disease-promoting troll.

  38. #38 Th1Th2
    September 26, 2011

    Th1Th2 once again seems to be unaware that people are exposed to pathogens and antigens every day.

    OK Gray to what pathogen are you being exposed right now?

    Whenever anyone points this out, she immediately tries to switch to “deliberate infection”, without explaining why this is as bad as a wild-type infection.

    Basing it from your answer above, is what you’re doing really deliberate?

  39. #39 Sauceress
    September 26, 2011

    #232

    So what you’re saying is mothers without previous infection or diseases are unable to pass any subtypes of IgG to the fetus or newborn, yes or no?

    Re-read my post. Try reading really slowly. Perhaps you’ll need to read it two or three times.

    Let’s find out.

    It’s game Over little troll.
    You’ve already had over your six monthly quota of attention from me. Now the adults are talking so run along and read up for yourself. Come back when you have some intelligable answers to the multitude questions asked of you, both on this and pevious threads, which are still waiting to be answered.

  40. #40 Gray Falcon
    September 26, 2011

    Th1Th2, read up on airborne bacteria and viruses, then get back to me.

  41. #41 Sauceress
    September 26, 2011

    Snap! Gray Falcon. Even the same time stamp.

  42. #42 Th1Th2
    September 26, 2011

    Still ignorant, still delusional, still disease-promoting troll.

    I think you are referring to “cutting with a non-sterile instrument” which is akin to your true-to-life story when you deliberately ignored wearing gloves while inoculating the naive with infectious smallpox vaccine.

  43. #43 Th1Th2
    September 26, 2011

    Sauceress.

    Re-read my post. Try reading really slowly. Perhaps you’ll need to read it two or three times.

    This is the second time you did it. Don’t let Gray answer for you. So is it a yes or no? Why are you so scared?

    It’s game Over little troll. You’ve already had over your six monthly quota of attention from me. Now the adults are talking so run along and read up for yourself. Come back when you have some intelligable answers to the multitude questions asked of you, both on this and pevious threads, which are still waiting to be answered.

    I’ve seen the while flag waved. No further question.

  44. #44 Th1Th2
    September 26, 2011

    Gray,

    Th1Th2, read up on airborne bacteria and viruses, then get back to me.

    I see. So you consider yourself diseased right now?

  45. #45 Agashem
    September 26, 2011

    OK now I am really confused. Thingy makes less and less sense. S/he keeps declaring victory and doesn’t answer questions. I learn stuff from the educated here, but not him/her…….what is going on????

  46. #46 Sauceress
    September 26, 2011

    S/he keeps declaring victory and doesn’t answer questions.

    It’s baiting. It’s getting increasingly desperate over the thought that no one will pay it the level of attention it craves.

  47. #47 lilady
    September 26, 2011

    Thingy: I didn’t “deliberately” ignore wearing gloves…I forgot that I had worn them ten years ago and you referred me to a site to “jog” my memory. I also stated that I only wore gloves when I provided thousands of immunizations when a patient had very poor personal hygiene or obvious needle tracks on their arms…per OSHA regulations.

    Still delusional troll…what bacterium might be on the filthy scissors and how might the use of animal dung or mud to seal the umbilical stump, also increase the risk to the infant of dying from tetanus?

    Why don’t you refer to your university science textbooks or the library where you are employed in the health care professions to look up immunology and neonatal tetanus?

    BTW, Where did you go to University?

    What licensing do you have in any health care field?

    Where are you employed in the health care field?

  48. #48 Sauceress
    September 26, 2011

    Why don’t you refer to your university science textbooks

    University?
    Hahahahahahahahahahaha…..
    That was a joke right?

  49. #49 Gray Falcon
    September 26, 2011

    Th1Th2:

    I see. So you consider yourself diseased right now?

    No. Because I don’t hold your nonsensical views on germs and disease.

  50. #50 Th1Th2
    September 26, 2011

    Gray,

    No. Because I don’t hold your nonsensical views on germs and disease.

    And that would make you what? A germ denialist. I see.

  51. #51 lilady
    September 26, 2011

    Why don’t you refer to your university science textbooks

    University?
    Hahahahahahahahahahaha…..
    That was a joke right?

    No Sauceress, it isn’t a “joke”…I posed these questions to Thingy before and it was a “show-stopper”.

    3-2-1…. Reply from ignorant delusional troll: “It’s none of your business”.

  52. #52 Gray Falcon
    September 26, 2011

    Th1Th2:

    And that would make you what? A germ denialist. I see.

    Seriously, did it ever occur to you that your twisted ideas are not germ theory at all?

  53. #53 Narad
    September 26, 2011
    No. Because I don’t hold your nonsensical views on germs and disease.

    And that would make you what? A germ denialist. I see.

    Another candidate for a greatest-hits collection.

  54. #54 Narad
    September 26, 2011

    This is also amusing in that it implies that either (1) there exists someone other than Th1Th2 who holds Th1Th2’s views on the subject, something that Th1Th2 has remained utterly silent on despite direct questioning, or (2) that everybody other than Th1Th2 is a germ denialist.

  55. #55 lilady
    September 26, 2011

    We are all awaiting Thingy’s comments and reply to my posting above:

    Why don’t you refer to your university science textbooks or the library where you are employed in the health care professions to look up immunology and neonatal tetanus?

    BTW, Where did you go to University?

    What licensing do you have in any health care field?

    Where are you employed in the health care field?

  56. #56 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 26, 2011

    Th1Th2 – what pathogens are you exposed to right now? How do you know? If you know you aren’t exposed to any, how do you know that?

  57. #57 Th1Th2
    September 26, 2011

    Mephistopheles

    Th1Th2 – what pathogens are you exposed to right now? How do you know? If you know you aren’t exposed to any, how do you know that?

    Ahhh…hmmm. Right now? Well, I don’t know. Did I miss something?

  58. #58 Narad
    September 26, 2011

    Did I miss something?

    Other than your smelling like fish?

  59. #59 Reuben
    September 26, 2011

    @Narad

    Only two things smell like fish. And one of them is fish.

  60. #60 Composer99
    September 26, 2011

    As usual, Th1Th2 shows up and the comments turn into a long, dreary slugfest.

    Th1Th2: please piss off. You are convincing no one; you have not demonstrated any degree of competence or subject matter knowledge in immunology, epidemiology, or related fields; you are wasting your time here (to say nothing of all of everyone else’s precious time spent wading through your bafflegab & bullshit to find interesting or insightful comments).

    Stop arguing with complete strangers over the Internet, get out and enjoy the sunshine. Depending on where you live, there’s not a lot left of it before the rainy fall season sets in.

  61. #61 Sauceress
    September 26, 2011

    Well, I don’t know. Did I miss something?

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha……
    *wipes away tears*
    Seriously, I’m having trouble seeing the keys on my keyboard.
    ~~~~~~~~~~

    Narad @204

    Oh, Th1Th2’s is not a little house. It is full of priest holes and riddled with tunnels. There are doors that open onto walls, and rooms without doors that are only connected by dumbwaiters decorated with Escher prints to the (apparently poorly maintained) fish hatchery in the basement. Engaging it is nothing more or less than a cartographic expedition.

    Yes you’re right. A delightfully accurate description. Escher indeed!

  62. #62 Denice Walter
    September 26, 2011

    @ Agashem:
    Oh I don’t know, I’m sure we can learn a great deal from her: nothing about immunology, SBM, or vaccination but tons about creating dialogue ( monologue, really) representative of certain populations.

    @ Composer 99:
    Fall rainy season? What! You only have one rainy season? Lucky fellow! Recently we seem to have several. When I speak of monsoons, I’m not just outside Bangalore but NYC.

  63. #63 Delurked lurker
    September 26, 2011

    Hello shills and minions

    I have a crow who visits me regularly for a free feed much to the chagrin and annoyance of the smaller birds in the area. Quo, as she is affectionately known shows more intelligence and insight that thing has shown the entire time it has posted here. Considering that thing has very few functioning synapses ridicule is not only easy and entertaining but has the potential to make us all feel better. Trying to pin the thing down to actually typing something that makes sense strikes me as a waste of time and a source of frustration.

    So more ridicule please 🙂

  64. #64 lilady
    September 26, 2011

    Delusional troll just keeps jabbering away about its imaginary “theories”, education and career…so delusional in fact that it imagines someone, somewhere will agree with it.

    Did someone mention monsoons…how about the dampness and molds…that leave me hacking. Next week I’m going to the Adirondacks for a few days and actually looking forward to cold and dry weather.

  65. #65 A- nonymous
    September 26, 2011

    On the other hand, and as much of a piss off as this might be, Dan and Mark may be correct. Just saying. Now go back to your labs.

  66. #66 Chris
    September 26, 2011

    A- nonymous:

    On the other hand, and as much of a piss off as this might be, Dan and Mark may be correct.

    Exactly how? Did you even read the article, or many of the comments that show that Mark “not a doctor and not a scientist” Blaxill and Dan “what clinic?” Olmsted are completely and thoroughly wrong? Not just wrong, but wrong wrong wrongety wrong!

    By the way, have you figured out the problems with self-selected surveys yet?

    Better, yet, have you figured out how to answer my question on which vaccines cause more seizures than the diseases? I asked you several times on the Michelle Bachmann thread, but you disappeared. Do try this time, and with actual evidence. Thank you.

  67. #67 Gray Falcon
    September 26, 2011

    And you could be a Dalek. Just saying. Of course, without evidence, that’s all one can do.

  68. #68 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    Blaxill and Olmsted aren’t doctors?

    I guess A-nonymous didn’t read this article…too busy I guess reading the crap cranked out by the “journalists/researchers” at AoA and too busy watching Looney Tunes cartoons on TV.

    A-nonymous do you really believe that Elmer Fudd is a doctor…just because Bugs Bunny says to his nemesis Fudd, What’s up doc?”

    Oh, the pesky wabbits.

  69. #69 delurked lurker
    September 27, 2011

    Oh come on lilady @268 that is casting a bad light on some excellent cartoons

    ‘Feed the Kitty’ is an excellent example. You know the one it has the dog Marc Anthony who looks like an Amstaff bulldog cross who falls in paternal love with a little kitten. I think this is a work of art. To link these with the clueless ineffectual trolls we get here is a travesty 😉

    Have fun in the Adirondacks

  70. #70 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 27, 2011

    On the other hand, and as much of a piss off as this might be, Dan and Mark may be correct. Just saying.

    I’ve noticed that this meta-error pervades a lot of antivax and more generally wooish thinking: the idea that being able to say “A may be B,” even without any evidence that A is B, is of great significance. It’s at the root of most “pharma shill” accusations, for instance: how many times have we read here some variant of “the pharmaceutical companies might have paid every scientist who ever studied vaccines to say they were effective when they weren’t, therefore we should disregard every study that indicates vaccine effectiveness!”?

    In truth, you will have a “may be” every time you have a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable, and as those who understand science know quite well, “unfalsifiable” does not imply “not false.” A-nonymous can’t provide a single piece of evidence to indicate that B&O’s notion is actually correct or even likely; he doesn’t even attempt to provide any such evidence. He merely says “It may be so” and expects that to send everyone slinking back to their “labs” shamed by how masterfully he has out-logicked them. Sorry, A, but just pointing out that something is a possibility means little. This world is full of infinite possibilities and few of them are actually true.

  71. #71 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    Sauceress,

    I wonder why you guys are still not up-to-date.

    IMMUNOGLOBULIN LEVELS IN INFANCY

    Serum immunoglobulin levels in infancy vary based upon the maturity of the newborn, placental transfer of maternal immunoglobulin, time since birth, and ability of the infant to produce immunoglobulin.

    Immunoglobulin G — At birth, most serum immunoglobulin (Ig) G is derived from the transfer of maternal IgG across the placenta during the third trimester of pregnancy. As a result, serum IgG levels at birth are commonly equal to or slightly higher than maternal serum IgG levels [2], and premature infants have lower IgG concentrations than full-term infants. Premature infants of 30 to 32 weeks gestation have cord IgG concentrations of approximately 400 mg/dL [3]. Small for gestational age (SGA) neonates may also have somewhat lower IgG levels than full-term neonates, reflecting possible impaired placental transport [4,5].

    So tell me Sauceress are uninfected mothers excluded to this rule?

    Yes or No?

    Grow up and act like a mature adult. And don’t let Gray answer for you anymore.

  72. #72 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    @ delurked lurker: I apologize for linking Looney Tunes characters to A-nonymous’ posting. Fudd and Bugs appeal to a wide audience and even little kids know they are unreal and just cartoon characters and are funny. B & O on the other hand are real, writing for mature audiences about a serious subject. They are unintentionally funny and just because they dive into the rabbit hole for their “theories” that doesn’t make them pesky wabbits.

    Hack, cough, hack, cough…weather prediction is dry and cold for Sunday, Monday and Tuesday upstate and we get to visit the Warrensburg Garage Sale.

    Part 7/Final Chapter is up on the AoA website and it again links sanitation/hygiene improvements to the declining outbreaks of polio…not the availability of the Salk vaccine. It also manages to “suggest” that the HIV virus is man made and that the toxic environment is responsible for the epidemics of autism and asthma.

  73. #73 Prometheus
    September 27, 2011

    Mark (not a doctor; not a scientist) Blaxill and Dan (not a reporter) Olmsted keep missing the meat of the matter.

    They make a large deal of the fact that lead arsenate was used as an insecticide starting in 1893 (it wasn’t “invented” in 1893 – it was “invented” before the earth was formed) just prior to a (coincidental) spike in paralytic polio, but they completely miss the fact that polio was first definitively described in 1789 (it existed long before that) and was prevalent enough – at least in Germany – that there was extensive work on it in the mid-1800’s (see: “Heine-Medin disease”).

    Are B&O arguing that the lead arsenate went back in time to cause the paralytic polio in the 18th and 19th centuries or are they arguing that those cases of paralysis – which match the signs, symptoms and natural course of modern polio exactly – were some other disease that (conveniently for their argument) no longer existed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries?

    Or are they simply saying whatever nonsense they think will keep their pathetic “vaccines are bad” agenda on life support a few days longer?

    Prometheus

  74. #74 Reuben
    September 27, 2011

    From Blaxill and Olmsted’s “guide to writing stupidity and getting every single epidemiological fundamental wrong, part seven”:

    And the live virus vaccine now in use in South Asia and Africa indisputably spreads the virus and, in a small percentage of case, causes poliomyelitis. For that reason alone, vaccination may perpetuate polio in the service of eradicating it. The vaccine strain also can and does mutate. (“Polio spreads fast in Nigeria after rare mutation,” reads a 2009 headline.)[vi] The only thing better than ending polio epidemics, in short, would have been not causing them in the first place. The real polio narrative is an American tragedy as much as the triumph of scientific medicine.

    Sound familiar? It should because it’s the same line of reasoning that the troll has been spreading, that the vaccine spread the disease. Never mind that it’s a completely different strain. Never mind that the number of people who get a form of polio from the vaccine are infinitesimally small compared to those who get it from the wild type. Never mind that the adequate use of the vaccine in North America and Europe have made polio a thing of the past.

    No. Blaxill and Olmstead are not interested in the truth. They are interested in lies and innuendo, in gossip. They use a news headline as a reference, for God’s sakes!

  75. #75 herr doktor bimler
    September 27, 2011

    Are B&O arguing that the lead arsenate went back in time to cause the paralytic polio in the 18th and 19th centuries

    They are proposing (I think) that although the polio virus existed prior to the late 19th century, and could occasionally cause paralysis, it only became virulent when people’s nervous systems were pre-damaged by the advent of lead arsenate.

    They also argue that the “paris green” arsenic pesticide used bfore lead arsenate does not potentiate the polio virus in this way; but also that the persistence of polio (in the absence of lead arsenate or DDT) is caused by arsenic contamination of drinking water.

  76. #76 Allie
    September 27, 2011

    For denice @157,

    That’s a very good point. I agree that the likelihood is very small, yet at the same time, read an article this week about how videogamers were able to isolate a protein related to the AIDS virus that researchers had not been able to for years.

    However, these skilled AIDS researchers had turned to the gamers in this instance given that they possessed a special skillset that the researchers deemed would be useful in this instance.

    In a similar manner, epidemiologists often use the superior satellite imagery skills of, say archaeologists — I have an archaeologist friend who does quite a bit of epidemiology in this way.

    The point here is not that people outside the field might not find something new, but that usually when they do they possess a particular skillset that allows their discovery.

    And in all cases, the infield researchers are more than happy to receive this windfall.

    B&O in this case are positing that they have a special epidemiological analyzing skillset that we see no evidence of, and that it is one the epidemiologists have no interest in. Gee. Wonder why?

    (Count me as another, like insurance companies, who would happily help oncologists — who would probably also be happy — tack up “going out of business” signs if there were a cheap, easy, and effective cure for cancer.)

  77. #77 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    Reuben,

    Sound familiar? BIt should because it’s the same line of reasoning that the troll has been spreading, that the vaccine spread the disease. Never mind that it’s a completely different strain. Never mind that the number of people who get a form of polio from the vaccine are infinitesimally small compared to those who get it from the wild type. Never mind that the adequate use of the vaccine in North America and Europe have made polio a thing of the past.

    According to CDC, the advantages and benefits of OPV are:

    1. Intestinal immunity
    2. Secondary spread

    Are you telling everyone that number 2 is a lie?

  78. #78 Narad
    September 27, 2011

    Are you telling everyone that number 2 is a lie?

    See, Th1Th2, you have a fundamental marketing problem. The only thing you’ve ever had going for you in terms of generating attention is the ability to obfuscate the semantic payload for as long as possible. It’s something like “Doritos: The Quest.” But now, the bulk of the operation can be seen from a mile away, and you remain silent or evasive when cornered about the bits that you don’t care to deal with or haven’t thought about in the first place. You’re terminally past your sell-by date.

  79. #79 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    Of course Narad your hypothetical situation is always there for you to save the day.

    Now grow up like a mature adult.

  80. #80 Gray Falcon
    September 27, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you have any evidence that the polio vaccine is as dangerous as the virus? Where are all the people paralyzed by the vaccine? What evidence do you have?

  81. #81 Narad
    September 27, 2011

    Of course Narad your hypothetical situation is always there for you to save the day.

    What hypothetical situation?

  82. #82 Lawrence
    September 27, 2011

    Hypothetically – if insane troll wasn’t so insane, would it be possible to have any type of reasoned conversation with her?

  83. #83 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    Thingy why don’t you stop lying and stop re-editing the CDC statement about OPV vaccine? Per Thingy:

    According to CDC, the advantages and benefits of OPV are:

    1. Intestinal immunity
    2. Secondary spread

    Here is the actual statement about the use of OPV as per the CDC Vaccines & Preventable Diseases: Poliomyelitis website:

    OPV is recommended for global polio eradication activities in polio-endemic countries due to its advantages over IPV in providing intestinal immunity and providing secondary spread of the vaccine to unprotected contacts.

    Not so clever editing and evidence of pathological lying by the delusional disease-promoting Thingy troll.

    Thingy we are all still awaiting your reply to the questions I posed:

    Where did you go to University?

    What licensing do you have in any health care field?

    Where are you employed in the health care field?

  84. #84 Denice Walter
    September 27, 2011

    @ Allie:

    Of course, but you see, the gamers and archeologists actually *have* skills that relate to the problems being addressed unlike B&O who have none really.

    I also left out the obvious fact that even if B&O were *real* researchers (they’re not) they would only be 2 out of the many thousands working in relevant field over 90 years. Still ultra-low probability.

    Low probability events happen. A few have even happened to me. Not every day. Our woo-meisters would have you believe that scientific revolutions occur every six weeks and that nearly uneducated gurus can re-conceptualise several fields ( medicine, education, social sciences) simultaneously on a regular basis. It ain’t so likely.( Sing, oh Heavenly Muse, of Unliklihood!)

  85. #85 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    Gray,

    Th1Th2, do you have any evidence that the polio vaccine is as dangerous as the virus? Where are all the people paralyzed by the vaccine? What evidence do you have?

    Cutter incident in April 25, 1955, only two weeks after the government had claimed the vaccine was “safe, effective and potent.” As a result, 40,000 people got infected, 56 were paralyzed and 5 died from vaccine-induced poliomyelitis.

  86. #86 Gray Falcon
    September 27, 2011

    Th1Th2, that was only a single example that was recalled, not proof that all vaccines are like that. It’s like using the Trabant as proof all cars are junk. Try again.

  87. #87 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    Thingy why did you re-edit the CDC statement about OPV vaccine to fit your delusional theories about polio and its spread?

    (Still waiting of course, for Thingy to answer my questions.)

  88. #88 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    bare-handed lilady,

    OPV is recommended for global polio eradication activities in polio-endemic countries due to its advantages over IPV in providing intestinal immunity and providing secondary spread of the vaccine to unprotected contacts.

    So is the “secondary spread” of OPV virus beneficial to unprotected contacts akin to your not-wearing of gloves while inoculating smallpox vaccines?

    And how is “secondary spread” of OPV being transmitted? I know lilady will brag about her not wearing gloves again.

  89. #89 Narad
    September 27, 2011

    Really, Th1Th2, you should be more grateful for the limited attention you’re getting as it is.

  90. #90 Sauceress
    September 27, 2011

    Why won’t you answer the questions posed to you Th1Th2? Why are you so afraid to do that?

    #245

    I’ve seen the while flag waved.

    That wasn’t a white flag you saw, it’s the backside of your underwear.

  91. #91 MI Dawn
    September 27, 2011

    @lilady: re: gloves. I can imagine that you *didn’t* wear gloves when giving immunizations for many years. I’m a few years younger, and we weren’t taught to use gloves for injections. Gloves didn’t become au courant for giving injections until, IIRC, the 1990s. In fact, we rarely wore gloves unless dealing with body fluids. Not when giving injections.

  92. #92 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    Gray,

    Th1Th2, that was only a single example that was recalled, not proof that all vaccines are like that. It’s like using the Trabant as proof all cars are junk. Try again.

    You’re just simply reiterating the fact that not all cases of poliomyelitis are paralytic. Duh.

  93. #93 Reuben
    September 27, 2011

    Thing-o, you just don’t get it. Everyone with half a brain knows that the vaccine virus is not pathogenic, i.e., not capable of causing disease in otherwise healthy individuals. That’s why that secondary transmission is not a big deal.

    “But there have been people who get polio from the vaccine!” you will wail in agony and gnash your teeth.

    Yes, but that’s only because your limited reading comprehension skills prevented you from reading the part where otherwise healthy individuals should not fear the virus. You have the same problem that Blaxill and Olmsted have, a total lack of understanding of what you read combined with too much arrogance to ask for clarification, mixed in with delusions of grandeur and a conspiracy theorist mindset.

    In other words, never mind where you went to college… Where the hell did you go to high school? A village is missing its idiot.

  94. #94 Sauceress
    September 27, 2011

    Creationist tactics
    #2 Trumpet any mistakes made by any scientist, and ignore the fact that these mistakes are corrected.
    #3 Shift the burden of proof to your critics any way you can.
    #6 Use cafeteria science.
    #9 When cornered, change the subject.
    #11 When an explanation shows you to be absolutely wrong, ignore the explanation and reassert the original claim.

    Tactics of antivaxx cultists:
    See above

  95. #95 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    Here is the “true” story of the Cutter Incident from Wikipedia. (Thingy has quoted some anti-vax websites such as whale.to)

    The Cutter incident

    In 1955, Cutter Laboratories was one of several companies licensed by the United States government to produce Salk polio vaccine. In what came to be known as the Cutter Incident, a production error caused some lots of the Cutter vaccine to be tainted with live polio virus. The problem had not only been the carelessness of the Cutter company, but the lack of scrutiny from the NIH Laboratory of Biologics Control (and its excessive trust in the polio foundation reports).[1]

    The Cutter incident was one of the worst pharmaceutical disasters in U.S. history and caused several thousand children to be exposed to live polio virus upon vaccination.[2] The NIH Laboratory of Biologics Control, which had certified the Cutter polio vaccine, had received advance warnings of problems: in 1954, staff member Dr. Bernice Eddy had reported to her superiors that some of the inoculated monkeys had become paralyzed (pictures were sent as well). William Sebrell, the director of NIH wouldn’t hear of such a thing…[1]
    [edit] Numbers affected

    The mistake resulted in the production of 120,000 doses of polio vaccine that contained live polio virus. Of the children who received the vaccine, 40,000 developed abortive poliomyelitis (a form of the disease that does not involve the central nervous system), 56 developed paralytic poliomyelitis and of these 5 children died as a result of polio infection.[3] The exposures led to an epidemic of polio in the families and communities of the affected children, resulting in a further 113 people paralyzed and 5 deaths.[4]

    “Abortive Polio” is defined as mildly symptomatic (upper respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms and NOT CNS symptoms and NOT paralytic polio.

    @ MI Dawn: Here are the current ACIP recommendations (January, 2011) about the use of gloves when administering immunizations which concur with OSHA regulations:

    Vaccine Administration

    Infection Control and Sterile Technique

    General Precautions

    Persons administering vaccinations should follow appropriate precautions to minimize risk for spread of disease. Hands should be cleansed with an alcohol-based waterless antiseptic hand rub or washed with soap and water before preparing the vaccine and between each patient contact (85). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations do not require gloves to be worn when administering vaccinations, unless persons administering vaccinations are likely to come into contact with potentially infectious body fluids or have open lesions on their hands. If gloves are worn, they should be changed between patients.

  96. #96 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    Reuben,

    Thing-o, you just don’t get it. Everyone with half a brain knows that the vaccine virus is not pathogenic, i.e., not capable of causing disease in otherwise healthy individuals. That’s why that secondary transmission is not a big deal.

    Now, that would make you an antivaccinationist then since you’re downplaying the effectiveness of OPV. But for the CDC and the WHO, OPV secondary spread is a MUST particularly for “passive” vaccination. Isn’t that how you guys form the concept of herd immunity? You are an infection promoter, you should know better.

    Anyone with a brain stem knows that diseases can be subclinical also known as asymptomatic infection. Duh.

  97. #97 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    I have a rather long comment about the Cutter Incident and the optional use of gloves for administering vaccines per ACIP and OSHA Regulations awaiting “moderation”.

    Thingy is a delusional pathological liar who needs to be “terminally disinfected”.

  98. #98 Sauceress
    September 27, 2011

    lilady
    When you say “terminally disinfected”
    Are you referring to disinfection or disinThection?

  99. #99 Narad
    September 27, 2011

    You’re just simply reiterating the fact that not all cases of poliomyelitis are paralytic. Duh.

    Like, really grateful. How long did good ol’ “INF-ß” last? Realistically, where else can you turn?

  100. #100 Reuben
    September 27, 2011

    Anyone with a brain stem knows that diseases can be subclinical also known as asymptomatic infection.

    Except for you, of course. Remember when you said that you would know who was infected and who wasn’t because there was no such thing as a sub-clinical infection? Now you’re changing your lies to damned lies. What are you going to throw at us next, made up statistics.

    Oh, wait.

    Secondary infection is only a must in those places where anti-vaccine advocates as yourself have convinced people that the vaccine will make them grow a third eye, or some other lie that you froth forth from your foaming mouth. If it wasn’t, the injected vaccine would be good enough.

  101. #101 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    Thingy now shifts gears after I pointed out that it re-edited the statement from the CDC to “conform” with its bogus “theories” of actual spread of the virus through the use of OPV vaccine. Why does Thingy lie?

    “Now, that would make you an antivaccinationist then since you’re downplaying the effectiveness of OPV. But for the CDC and the WHO, OPV secondary spread is a MUST particularly for “passive” vaccination. Isn’t that how you guys form the concept of herd immunity? You are an infection promoter, you should know better.”

    No Thingy…you should know better…and you would “know better” if you had any education in the sciences beyond junior high school, if you had any minimal concept of immunology, if you weren’t delusional…and if you actually worked in the field of health care.

    Just a nasty delusional lying disease-promoting unemployable troll.

  102. #102 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    Like, really grateful.

    Gray has implied that 40,000 Cutter victims were grateful they were infected with poliomyelitis.

    Thank you. Come again.

  103. #103 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    Except for you, of course. Remember when you said that you would know who was infected and who wasn’t because there was no such thing as a sub-clinical infection?

    Haha. [Citation needed].

    Secondary infection is only a must in those places where anti-vaccine advocates as yourself have convinced people that the vaccine will make them grow a third eye, or some other lie that you froth forth from your foaming mouth. If it wasn’t, the injected vaccine would be good enough.

    Anecdotal, therefore not credible.

  104. #104 Narad
    September 27, 2011

    Thank you. Come again.

    This is great. Do you use props for live stage performances? I’d really like to get tickets if you’re in the area.

  105. #105 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    @ Sauceress: Actually, I mean *”Terminal Disinfection”* of Thingy…although your clever remark adds new dimension to the term.

    * Terminal disinfection refers to a prior post from Thingy. When cornered about steps to be taken following a suspect measles case exposure in an examining room of a health care facility, Thingy who knows zilch about infection control and containment of infectious diseases stated:

    “In the hospital we do terminal disinfection of the examining room.”

    Dumbass Thingy pulled that one out of its posterior and is clueless about infection control and obviously has never worked in a health care setting, is uneducated, unemployable, delusional and insane.

  106. #106 Sauceress
    September 27, 2011

    ….secondary spread is a MUST particularly for “passive” vaccination. Isn’t that how you guys form the concept of herd immunity?

    Seems this humpty is also oblivious to the concept of reducing a reservoir of infection. Who’d have thunk it?

  107. #107 Narad
    September 27, 2011
  108. #108 Sauceress
    September 27, 2011

    In the hospital we do terminal disinfection of the examining room.

    That’s a real gem. Thanks for the update.

  109. #109 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    Here’s are the consequences of the Cutter Incident-Wikipedia Cutter Polio Vaccine:

    Numbers affected

    The mistake resulted in the production of 120,000 doses of polio vaccine that contained live polio virus. Of the children who received the vaccine, 40,000 developed ***abortive poliomyelitis*** (a form of the disease that does not involve the central nervous system), 56 developed paralytic poliomyelitis and of these 5 children died as a result of polio infection.[3] The exposures led to an epidemic of polio in the families and communities of the affected children, resulting in a further 113 people paralyzed and 5 deaths.[4]

    ***Abortive Poliomyelitis is a mildly symptomatic form of polio. Symptoms include mild upper respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms and it is self-limiting…it is NOT CNS involvement and does NOT result in paralysis.

  110. #110 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    Seems this humpty is also oblivious to the concept of reducing a reservoir of infection.

    Oxymoron. Secondary spread vs infection control. Think twice before you post.

  111. #111 Reuben
    September 27, 2011

    Oh, ThingTong, you know what you’ve written before. You’ve denied germ theory, incubation times of diseases, basic principles of science… Heck, the only reason you haven’t denied gravity is because Orac hasn’t written about it.

    You want citations when you yourself won’t give them? Laughable and stupid… Laughably stupid.

  112. #112 Th1Th2
    September 27, 2011

    ***Abortive Poliomyelitis is a mildly symptomatic form of polio. Symptoms include mild upper respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms and it is self-limiting…it is NOT CNS involvement and does NOT result in paralysis.

    Now you sound more like a pro-pox party mom. So when is your polio party gonna be lilady?

  113. #113 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    @ MI Dawn: I worked as a public health nurse for 13 years until my retirement 6 years ago and always followed the ACIP and OSHA recommendations regarding the use of gloves while administering vaccines. Here are the current Recommendations from ACIP regarding glove use (General Recommendations Vaccination, January 2011):

    Vaccine Administration

    Infection Control and Sterile Technique

    General Precautions

    Persons administering vaccinations should follow appropriate precautions to minimize risk for spread of disease. Hands should be cleansed with an alcohol-based waterless antiseptic hand rub or washed with soap and water before preparing the vaccine and between each patient contact (85). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations do not require gloves to be worn when administering vaccinations, unless persons administering vaccinations are likely to come into contact with potentially infectious body fluids or have open lesions on their hands. If gloves are worn, they should be changed between patients.

    Delusional disease-promoting Thingy is clueless about infection control and is clueless about “General Infection Control Practices”. “Terminal disinfection” is part of the latter and it is the disinfection of the room and fomites by housekeeping staff after a patient is discharged and before a new patient is assigned to the room.

  114. #114 Sauceress
    September 27, 2011

    In the hospital we do terminal disinfection of the examining room.

    Hmmm…could be it has worked in a hospital as a janitor. However I would think even a janitor would have gleaned a great deal more knowledge than Th1Th2 displays simply due to a requirement of having to follow a specific protocol.

  115. #115 Reuben
    September 27, 2011

    “Terminal Disinfection” could also mean that she just wiped a seat with a wetnap like she once did at the airport or the train station.

    Terminal? Get it?

    I know. I know. Not as funny as her idiocy.

  116. #116 Sauceress
    September 27, 2011

    #306

    Seems this humpty is also oblivious to the concept of reducing a reservoir of infection. Who’d have thunk it?

    #310 Th1Th2

    Oxymoron. Secondary spread vs infection control. Think twice before you post.

    Oooh…another addition for my collection. Thank you dokkta humpty.

  117. #117 Sauceress
    September 27, 2011

    *throws a tip at Reuben*

  118. #118 Denice Walter
    September 27, 2011

    I have an alternate hypothesis about the *Ding an sich*:

    Many people develop the more incapacitating symptoms of SMI in their late teens- early twenties: thus it is possible for such a person to get a reasonably good background** in sciences and arts; then perhaps at age 20 or so, deteriorate to a point that no further real education is possible. However, they might cling desperately to the shards of earlier comprehension now seen through the distorting cognitive lens of delusion. We might also see obsessive idiosyncratic ideas as they develop.

    ** see Ian Chovill’s website “the Experience of Schizophrenia” for an autobiographic example.

  119. #119 Narad
    September 27, 2011

    Oxymoron. Secondary spread vs infection control. Think twice before you post.

    That routine isn’t going to work. At the moment, you’re being mocked, not engaged. Mind your place.

  120. #120 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    @ Sauceress: Not even a janitor or on the housekeeping staff…they need to be fully immunized or have serum testing to prove they actually had a vaccine-preventable disease and have immunity.

    Even if it had up-to-date immunizations…it wouldn’t get past a job interview because it is delusional and insane.

    I think the only contact it has had with the health care profession recently are the doctors and therapy aides who staff its custodial care residence.

  121. #121 Gray Falcon
    September 27, 2011

    You’re just simply reiterating the fact that not all cases of poliomyelitis are paralytic. Duh.

    No, I’m reiterating that the Cutter incident was not representative of all vaccines. Do you understand the principles of the probabilities of large numbers? If there’s a one-tenth of a percent chance of paralysis developing from the vaccine, and a hundred million people who receive the vaccine, one can expect a hundred thousand people who are paralyzed by the vaccine!

  122. #122 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    Here is Thingy’s statement and my reply from two months ago regarding “terminal disinfection” when it was asked about measles containment/infection control in a health care setting:

    “No, I don’t use any timer because I don’t need to. We only use that in the hospital for terminal disinfection of the room previously occupied by a known infectious patient.” (Thingy at #182 above)

    That statement infers that Thingy actually works in a hospital…what a joke. Terminal disinfection of a hospital room takes place after the patient is discharged from the hospital and before another patient is assigned to the hospital room. There are completely different isolation protocols put in place when a suspect case of measles may have contaminated a hospital, clinic or doctor’s waiting room or examination room and it involves “a timer” that Thingy never uses.

    Thingy is not qualified to work within the health care setting in even the most menial categories; uneducated and unlicensed. The closest Thingy ever gets to the health care professions is possibly his/her/its collection of scrubs that he/she/it wears in a variety of colors.

    Thingy doesn’t even qualify as a troll…dumbest category.

    Posted by: lilady | July 15, 2011 1:37 PM

  123. #123 Narad
    September 27, 2011

    That statement infers that Thingy actually works in a hospital

    I think you’re reading too much into this. English is not its first language.

  124. #124 lilady
    September 27, 2011

    @ Narad: Yes, I forgot. Thingy speaks, comprehends and writes in its “native” language; Thinglish.

  125. #125 Sauceress
    September 27, 2011

    Although this…

    No, I don’t use any timer because I don’t need to.

    directly followed by…

    We only use that in the hospital
    for terminal disinfection…

    does seem indicative of Th1Th2 claiming personal experience.

  126. #126 Narad
    September 27, 2011

    I took it to be a leftover of some German-to-English pronoun number mismapping. Then again, my German as it were is purely a matter of recognizing shadows. Perhaps it was the royal “we” or the scolding “we.” Of course, it could clear the question up on its own if it did that sort of thing.

  127. #127 lilady
    September 28, 2011

    @ Narad: Now I don’t read, speak, comprehend or write “Thinglish”…but I would tend to think Thingy is using the “royal we”, indication of its grandiose delusions, as in “We are not pleased that “we” are not believable.

  128. #128 Th1Th2
    September 28, 2011

    Sorry. No loitering allowed. This thread is done. Just wait for Orac’s next topic instead.

    Good night.

  129. #129 Chris
    September 28, 2011

    Thingy, only because you are a manipulative delusional troll who thinks she is actually relevant. Unlike your home world of Htrae, you are not.

  130. #130 lilady
    September 28, 2011

    @ Chris: Thingy’s “keepers” probably put it to bed and unplugged its computer. This thread is not done…we are just get started, now that the delusional troll is offline.

    With regard to the new outbreak of polio in china, The WHO says the strain known as WPV1 identified in this outbreak is genetically linked to a type already circulating in Pakistan and has been tracked in China for the past two months.

    Also India has posted health care workers on roads and rails leading out of Pakistan and is immunizing all children ages 5 and under, with OPV, at the border crossings. India is very close to eradicating polio…through intensive immunization campaigns…they have reported only 1 case of polio this year from the West Bengal region.

  131. #131 Narad
    September 28, 2011

    Sorry. No loitering allowed. This thread is done.

    Now, now, just because you’ve left in a pretend huff doesn’t mean that there’s no reason not to linger and ridicule you further. For example, one could feed your replies from this very thread into a Markov chain generator and speculate whether the output is perhaps superior to the input.

    Again, before I just hope the newborn right to encounter the claim: while infamous newborn. So when you should have naturally acquired maternal antibodies for immediate protection for your house.

    Nonetheless, they have any antibodies to post? Exactly; mistaken, the newborn. Now?

    Ahhh.

    Exactly all guys have any maternal antibodies, as effective and uninfected mother, MUST have bet your answer a simple brain stem knows that happened in you are you can be vaccinated primarily because you have little any maternal antibody response. Yeah something?

    Follow the mother is the disease? So is not all cases since Hey idiot!

    That’s why I don’t gamble more like a MUST be absolutely no; take on that not.

    Since you’re just don’t expect the what are so easy. Duh.

  132. #132 Orac
    September 28, 2011

    I’ve discussed parts 6 and 7 of Blaxill and Olmsted’s “epic” here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/mark_blaxill_and_dan_olmsted_merrily_con.php

    Given that this thread is over 300 comments, I think I’ll shut down comments here and suggest that everyone move on over to the new thread if you wish to comment further, so that we don’t have two parallel comment threads going on about this.

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