Chuck Norris outdoes Jenny McCarthy on vaccines

By oracknows on November 7, 2011.

Believe it or not, sometimes I rather miss Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. Although McCarthy is still nominally the head of the anti-vaccine group Generation Rescue, she's really faded to a rather low profile over the last year or so. Indeed, the last time I even remember her spouting off about vaccines was way back in January when she defended Andrew Wakefield and, even more amazingly, during Autism Awareness Month (April) this year I don't recall seeing her on the major media anywhere. It used to be an annual thing that she'd show up on Larry King Live! or some other TV show. True, it's possible that I missed it, but I do have Google Alerts set up for various sets of words to flag the vaccine/autism manufactroversy, and I don't recall anything popping up. Otherwise, I probably would have blogged about it. As for Jim Carrey, ever since he and Jenny McCarthy broke up as a couple, he's disappeared completely from the vaccine-autism scene, no doubt because he never had any real interest in it on his own and jumped on the bandwagon because he was dating Jenny McCarthy. It's a shame in a way, because his sheer idiocy on the issue provided fodder for some of my best material.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending upon your point of view), it appears that there's someone to step into the breach, someone to lay down the swaths of intensely flaming anti-vaccine stupid in a way that only Jim and Jenny could do, like so many firebombs during World War II, with about the same effect on anything resembling science, reason, critical thinking or intelligence. But who? Who could this new neuronpenic person be willing to jump right into the anti-vaccine fray in such an amusingly brain dead fashion? It turns out that we've met him before, believe it or not. In fact, it was only a little more than a month ago, when I used this luminary of right wingnuttery as demonstration that certain forms of anti-science (anti-genetically modified organisms, for instance) thought to be more common on the left are actually quite common on the right as well. Still don't know who? Click to jump below the fold, and you'll soon see:

(Thanks to my reader, who did the Photoshopping. I stink at Photoshop.)

Yes, indeed. We're talking about everybody's favorite martial arts master turned 1980s movie action hero turned 1990s TV action hero turned right wing icon so far to the right that he writes for that repository of conspiracy-mongering nuttiness, WorldNetDaily, otherwise known as WorldNutDaily. I should have known after his anti-GMO anti-global warming denialist screed from five or six weeks ago that it was only a matter of time before Chuck tried to take a roundhouse kick at vaccines as in the picture above. There was no way he could be into so much anti-science nonsense and not be drawn to the ultimate anti-science, the One Anti-science To Rule Them All, anti-vaccine nuttery. And drawn to it he was in two articles that are basically slightly different versions of the same screed. The first was published on Friday and entitled Link between autism, vaccines 'biological certainty', and the second version, The venom in feds' vaccinations, followed on Sunday. I'll mostly stick with the latest version, as there's no real substantive difference between the two. Both are a litany of anti-vaccine talking points that were old when Evidence of Harm was just a gleam of money in David Kirby's eye and Andrew Wakefield hadn't even been approached by trial lawyers to do his infamous Lancet study. I mean, seriously. You can tell that ol' Chucky is a total newbie right from early on, when he buys into the myth of the "autism epidemic" and even quotes the National Autism Association on that score.

It doesn't take Norris long to dive straight into conspiracy central:

According to the CDC's website, however, "to date, the studies continue to show that vaccines are not associated with ASDs. ... The most recent and rigorous scientific research does not support the argument that thimerosal-containing vaccines are harmful. ... Is thimerosal in vaccines safe? Yes."

But PR Newswire reported recently that the Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs exposed a federal cover-up between the CDC and vaccine researchers. Despite the fact that the CDC received an email from CoMeD in 2002 that revealed a causal relationship between the removal of thimerosal from vaccines and a decline in the rate of autism, the CDC encouraged the publication of a study in Pediatrics that ignored certain data and misled the medical community and public by insinuating that thimerosal in vaccines does not increase the risk of autism.

Almost inconceivably, the study in Pediatrics actually purported that autism rates increased after thimerosal was removed.

The press release to which Norris is referring is this one, which has been wending its way through the anti-vaccine blogosphere over the last couple of weeks. Fortunately for you (and unfortunately for Norris), I've already looked at the e-mails in which, according to Norris and the press release report that one of the investigators wrote "but the incidence and prevalence are still decreasing in 2001." Check out the original e-mail and you'll see that there's nothing there that really tells us much of anything. Indeed, it's impossible to tell exactly what the correspondents are saying. There are only two brief e-mails, and much of the e-mails are redacted with black marker. They appear to consist of an exchange between Marlene Lauritsen, who's second author on the paper, and Kreesten Madsen, the first author. It's cryptically mentioned that the incidence and prevalence are "still decreasing in 2001," but the sentence immediately following it is redacted. Most of Madsen's reply to this e-mail is also redacted. What does this mean? Who knows? What I do know is that this is old news. I can't figure out why the mercury militia has decided to exhume the rotting corpse of this old bit of conspiracy mongering and release it as a press release again.

And Chuck Norris fell hook, line, and sinker for it.

Let's put it this way. Let's for the sake of argument assume that the Danish study actually was somehow falsified. It wasn't, but assume for the moment that it was. (Norris also falls for the conspiracy mongering about Poul Thorsen that nearly every anti-vaccine group was engaging in last year, spurred on by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and company.) Even if it were, that would not show that thimerosal in vaccines cause autism for the simple reason that there have been several other well-designed studies since then with large numbers of subjects that find the same thing that the Danish study did: There is no correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. You could completely eliminate the Danish studies and the scientific and epidemiological evidence would still show that there's no correlation between vaccines and autism. Not that that stops Norris from not only mentioning Poul Thorsen as though he were evidence of the utter corruption of the CDC but to add this chestnut:

And just last week, Dr. Kimberly Quinlan Lindsey, a top CDC official, was arrested and charged with two counts of child molestation and one count of bestiality."

What does this have to do with the science failing to find a link between vaccines and autism? Nothing. It's pure ad hominem, poisoning the well. Even if all the allegations were true, it would have no bearing on whether or not the science is correct. Indeed, it's so blatantly obvious that it's even more idiotic than I would have expected from Chuck Norris. On the other hand, he (or his ghostwriter) did write this:

To regress, the latest correlation revelation between vaccines and autism will fly in the face (or at least may cause some confusion) because of a 2011 August report from the Institute of Medicine, the nation's bastion of authoritative health and medicine advice, just cleared children vaccines as autism culprits.

But the truth is, as the NAA reports, "There are over 1,500 studies and papers documenting the hypoallergenicity and toxicity of thimerosal (ethylmercury) have existed for decades," with most recent research revealing commonness of speech delays and tics. The NAA added, "Recent studies have confirmed the association between the use of thimerosal and autism has moved from 'biologically plausible' [in 2001] to a 'biological certainty.'"

I wrote about the Institute of Medicine report soon after it came out. It was an excellent summary of the copious evidence looking at vaccine safety as it relates to vaccines and whether they cause chronic health problems or neurodevelopmental disorders. Particularly ignorant is the claim about "most recent research" causing speech delays and tics. This is pure cherry picking of the results of this study from four years ago. Basically, that study was consistent with random findings. There were a few findings, such as tics, that appeared to be associated with thimerosal-containing vaccines, and there were a few findings that appeared to indicate thimerosal improved neurodevelopmental outcomes. As I said a while back, if anti-vaccine activists are going to insist that the correlation, for example, with increasing mercury exposure and poorer performance on the GFTA-2 measure of speech articulation test (the speech delay that Norris talks about) is real, then it must also accept the findings of a beneficial association between mercury and improved scores on the identification of letters and numbers on the WJ-III test (another finding in the study), There is a priori no scientific reason to reject the second finding if you accept the first.

Of course, no one is claiming that thimerosal has beneficial effects on these particular test outcomes; the most reasonable conclusion is that thimerosal has no effect and what the investigators found was simply random noise, noise that goes away when multiple comparisons are corrected for. Norris is just too scientifically unsophisticated to realize that, or he just doesn't care about how wrong he is. When the authors of the study concluded that their results do not support a causal relationship between thimerosal and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, that was the correct interpretation, not Norris' regurgitation of anti-vaccine talking points.

Poor Chuck. Methinks he got so used to being the hero in his many movies and then for several years as Walker, Texas Ranger that he's built up an inordinate amount of confidence in his ability to come to conclusions about science. Now, he's the arrogance of ignorance personified. In his twilight years, he's been reborn as an all-purpose right wing loon, for whom no position is too out there. In retrospect, it was probably inevitable that the siren call of the anti-vaccine would draw him in. One wonders if he takes the term "mercury militia" a little too seriously.

You know, in the end, I think I like this version of Chuck Norris better. At least he's more amusing than the real thing:

And probably more intelligent, too.

More like this

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Poul Thorsen: The fine art of distraction from inconvenient facts

My first big splash in the blogosphere will have occurred five years ago in June, when I first discovered the utter wingnuttery that is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. It was then that I wrote a little bit of that not-so-Respectful Insolence that you've come to know and love entitled Salon.com flushes its…

The use of Poul Thorsen to distract from inconvenient facts about vaccine safety continues apace

AThe the nonsense from the anti-vaccine movement on the issue of Poul Thorenson, the Danish scientist indicted for defrauding the CDC of approximately $1 million in grant money continues apace... Just yesterday I pointed out how the anti-vaccine loons at Age of Autism were busily trying to poison…

2010: Another bad year for the anti-vaccine movement, as the Special Masters rule

Perhaps you've heard of the case of Poul Thorsen. Perhaps not. Either way, that anti-vaccine movement was making a huge deal over this Danish psychiatrist and researcher for two reasons. First, he has become embroiled in some sort of scandal involving research funds at his former place of…

Danish investigator Poul Thorsen: Custom-made for the anti-vaccine movement to distract from inconvenient science

Here we go again. If there's one thing about the anti-vaccine movement, it's all about the ad hominem. Failing to win on science, clinical trials, epidemiology, and other objective evidence, inevitably anti-vaccine propagandists fall back on attacking the person instead of the evidence. For example…

Man. I knew Norris was heavy into right-wing politics, but this ? Anti-vax nuttery ? Jenny McCarthy I could deal with, but I can remember watching Chuck Norris fight PKA in the 70s. It's a shame. But being a bad-ass and a movie actor does not grant omniscience. Sorry, Chuck, but you're way off the charts wrong here.

I found Norris article really great and interesting. Of course, I support him!

"There are over 1,500 studies and papers documenting the hypoallergenicity and toxicity of thimerosal (ethylmercury) have existed for decades,"

This is probably a foolish question, but why does the NAA consider hypoallergenicity to be a bad thing, worthy of being joined rhetorically with toxicity?

Oh, my, this NAA article is great! Did you know,

"In addition, 13 states have reported an almost infinite or infinite increase in autism from 1992-1993 in comparison to 2000-2001."

I presume the 13 states in question had *no* cases of autism from 1992-1993. Or, of course, the NAA is a bit hazy on elementary arithmetic.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111102/full/479022a.html

Chuck Norris:

It is your health, and they are your children, entrusted to you by God, so be bold in ensuring their safety and welfare. You still have the constitutional right to refuse any health care you deem unnecessary.

Meanwhile Science Based Medicine politics also made the news:

NC sterilization program targeted women, blacks

http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/07/8640744-victims-speak-…

âTo think about folks who went inâ¦and their doctor told them this was birth control and they were sterilizedâ¦the folks who didnât have the capacity to make the decisions, the uninformed consent,â

Science Based Medcine Doctors have always had the highest standards of morals and ethics. They continue these standards today. Of course these people were sacrificed by the state FOR the state in a very noble way. According to blogger based medicine this benefit outweighs the risks and anyone who selfishly challenges this is putting a dangerous burden on society.

Science Based Medicine believes that the state will do what's best for the state when it comes to coerced/forced mass vaccination.

"Trust your government on this one folks! Just get your damn vaccines!"

And these are not strawmen, they are accurate observations of the politics known as Science Based Medicine.

Seems funny that Chuck Norris would find common ground with RFK Jr.

By the way, note the source of this statement from NAA,

Recent studies have confirmed the association between the use of thimerosal and autism has moved from "biologically plausible" to a "biological certainty" (Boyd Haley).

That name is familiar... Oh, yeah, he's the one who was selling "[a]n industrial chemical developed to help separate heavy metals from polluted soil and mining drainage" to be fed to autistic children to remove mercury (source). But it's okay to cite him as an authority in an issue where he has a direct pecuniary interest, because he's not part of Big Pharma.

Orac has discussed Boyd Haley several times (use the handy search function as I don't want to go into moderation by adding links).

And creationism! Don't forget that Chuck Norris is a hardcore creationist and hates the fact that biology teachers can flunk you for spouting nonsense on exams.

I would suspect that Mr. Norris has the same "true believer" mentality as Mr. Woo. Many of their news sources and favorite health experts are in the same circles. The sad thing is that once you get someone far enough into that area they refuse to listen to anything BUT those news outlets, etc., because those outlets assure them that the whole world is corrupt and only from THEM are listeners going to hear the "real truth."

There are many things I really admire about Chuck Norris. It's too bad that he hasn't been a little more willing to investigate the allegations from alternative sites a bit further so he could see a more balanced perspective.

I may not agree with Norris on many point but (to be fair) I think he has a point when he says the below. Forget the autism relation. Forget the CDC cover up. It doesn't appear to me that Norris is anti-vax just anti-thimerosal. Certainly science has come far enough to come up with a preservative alternative for a mercury compound. Based upon the NAA's "over 1500" studies and other research, I concur with Norris on this point:

"At the very least, shouldn't we avoid all thimerosal-containing products for precautionary reasons?

Jose Dorea, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Brasilia, hit the health nail right on the head when he recently said: 'The evidence continues to mount that mercury in vaccines is not safe, that negative effects happen even with vaccine levels of exposure. We must end the use of thimerosal as soon as possible. No pregnant mother or child should have to trade getting mercury injected into them for the prevention of an infectious disease.'"

Sharon...you can find info about thimerosal here.

factsnotfantasy.com/vaccines.php#Thimerosal

Also

Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine

from

fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#thi

It doesn't appear to me that Norris is anti-vax just anti-thimerosal.

We've heard that many times. There's a simple test. Ask him which vaccines he thinks are safe. At this point, most "concerned" people reveal themselves as antivax.

I googled your quote by Jose Dorea, btw. Aside from this blog, it only appears on antivax sites, some rabidly conspiracy-laden antivax. I also noticed Dorea (2009) cites Geier and Geier to support one of his points...and that article he cites has been deconstructed a number of times now.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627876/

LW:

This is probably a foolish question, but why does the NAA consider hypoallergenicity to be a bad thing, worthy of being joined rhetorically with toxicity?

Well, it's possible they misread it as "hyperallergenicity". But judging by the rest of the material, it seems more likely that they don't actually know that there's a difference.

This is hardly the only reason Chuck Norris isn't funny. He's a religious fundamentalist who thinks anyone who doesn't believe exactly as he does deserves to die. He believes disease is divine punishment, so of course vaccines wouldn't work.

"Jose Dorea, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Brasilia, hit the health nail right on the head when he recently said: 'The evidence continues to mount that mercury in vaccines is not safe, that negative effects happen even with vaccine levels of exposure. We must end the use of thimerosal as soon as possible. No pregnant mother or child should have to trade getting mercury injected into them for the prevention of an infectious disease.'"

@ Sharon T. Thanks for the quote lifted directly off the SafeMinds website.

Please share with us how a Professor of "Nutritional Sciences" might have the educational background or professional experience to be an expert in immunology and vaccine-preventable diseases? Would you also like to share with us some of the **1,500 studies that "your" experts (Chuck Norris and the Professor of Nutritional Sciences) that show deleterious effects of Thimerisol in vaccines?

**Please provide PubMed citations from peer-reviewed journals...thank you.

It appears that Jose Dorea, Professor of Nutritional Science at the University of Brazilia has also studied aluminum adjuvants in vaccine...

"Babies Suffer High Rates of Aluminum Post Vaccination

Posted by vaccinexchange on July 8, 2011 Â· 1 Comment

A Brazilian study published last year in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology points out the high rates of aluminum found in babies under six months old. Many vaccines that are currently recommended contain aluminum and/or mercury â toxic substances that have been shown to affect brain function.

Dr. Jose Dorea of the University of BrasÃlia and Dr. Rejane Marques of the Federal University of RondÃ´nia, authors of the study, observed high levels of aluminum and mercury in babies following vaccination against Hepatitis B and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. These levels are far higher than those potentially resulting from environmental factors like breast-feeding by the mother, and the toxins tend to stay in the infantâs body for a longer period of time.

The impact of this high dosage of toxic substances early in a childâs life has not been studied, and indeed, Drs. Dorea and Marquez admit they do not know what affect such exposure will have on the childrenâs development and learning ability. But this is a question that all parents must keep in mind as they consider how best to safeguard their childâs health."

This Professor Dorea is a real "heavy-hitter" when it comes to studying vaccines...I wonder if he has studied "leaky guts in children with autism" and other recurring themes/bogus theories advanced by the anti-vax crowd?

Oh Lord! CoMed**!

I predicted ( see "Pox Package" thread) that this crappy paper would be passed around AntiVaxNation like a mind-numbing joint. The Geiers' surrogate Hooker has appeared at the dens of thieves... I mean "alternative news outlets" I survey inspiring additional purple prose from the usual suspects.

In summation: "Mercury is bad. When thimerisol was eliminated from vaccines, there was less autism. But dastardly deeds by the Corrupt and Greedy covered up the Truth!, etc." Thorson is mentioned.

For some reason (although I hardly associate reason with this crowd), there has been a spate of recent activity along these lines-( I really "enjoyed" a paper @ AoA maligning the Dark Art of Statistical Analysis). Possibly, as autumn descended upon us like a like a cold, damp, wet blanket and chain drug stores started putting up their flu vaccination signs, our web woo-meisters began attempting to get people as afraid of flu vaccines as they are of childhood vaccines. Mike Adams' ran a few stories about people "reporting" how they were "abused" by Walgreen's employees trying to vaccinate them *against their will* or suchlike. Similarly, there are reports of younsters ( aged 12 +) in CA being vaccinated for HPV without parental consent. And children are "being used as guinea pigs,
to test Anthrax vaccine ( @ AoA); it seems the anti-vax sites even inveigh against a vaccine for malaria (not likely to affect most of the readers). Any vaccine will do.

Chuck Norris, not the brightest bulb in the lighting fixture, has his choice of ranting new articles on which to base his own spotlight grabbing manoeuvres.

** ( transcribed that way rather than "comed"- which looks too much like like "comedy")

Why did Chuck Norris grew a beard? Every time he's trying to shave his mirror image punches him in the face over the crap he writes in WND .

Sigh - another textbook case of Dunning-Kruger effect. What makes people think they can pontificate about a complex subject they have no training in because they've (mis)read a few press releases and scientific reports?

I wonder what Chuck Norris would say about someone who went around claiming to be a martial arts expert because they had seen all of Chuck's movies. That's pretty much what he's doing here.

Fantastic post I found it very good, so keep at.

Indulge me a little here - Chuck trying to write about vaccines reminds me of this classic Frantics sketch:
http://youtu.be/Z8VD4JXUozM

Chuck Norris, you fail to grasp the effectiveness of vaccines. Approach me that you may see...

Chuck Norris, wrong about everything. Also late to the mercury game.

There is no such thing as vaccination. Just a list of people Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

I hadn't heard about the CDC official charged with child molestation and bestiality. According to a news report:

"She is listed as "Top Leadership" on the organization's website, which also says she has worked extensively with bioterrorism prevention, HIV/AIDs prevention, and labratory (sic) testing."

ht_p://abcnews.go.com/ad/gmaintroad.html?goback=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fcdc-official-charged-child-molestation-bestiality%2Fstory%3Fid%3D14713259

Nothing about vaccines there. I suppose the charges against her instead mean that bioterrorism is a fraud, HIV doesn't cause AIDS and laboratory tests don't work.

I do want to know what pets she is accused of molesting however. I'd hate to think guinea pigs were involved.

The CDC official that was arrested was an immunologist, but didn't even work with vaccine research in the first place - she did work with HIV. So not only is it an ad hominem, it's one that invokes a person that wasn't involved to begin with.

@Edith Prickly

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I love that sketch. Haven't thought about it in such a long time. Very appropriate.

Sharon T., please list which pediatric vaccines are only available with thimerosal.

Now read that sentence carefully. I used some key words: "pediatric" and "only."

The Founding Mothers wrote:

There is no such thing as vaccination. Just a list of people Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

Damn you! I was going to make that same joke (only with "children" instead of "people").

More proof that Vin Diesel is cooler.

Pinkamena, Vin Diesel? I died right here...

Hardo @#26: Care to explain? I'm willing to throw Diesel under the bus if you've got a good reason.

If you were to tell Bruce Schneier that vaccines cause autism, he would give you a look of contempt that would vaporize your head.

Funny that Orac (a scientist) doesn't mention that the speech/language/tics problems associated with thimerosal have been replicated wheares the "beneficial" aspects have not. On second hand it isn't funny, just predictable.

@Sick
Citation?

@ Sicksauce:

[citation needed]

Citation?

A study done some years ago by Dr. I. M. Clueless of Getaclue University published in the International Journal of Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theories.

Since you mentioned the "cherry picking" of the results from Thompson's 2007 NEJM article:

The data from the 1047 children studied by Thompson et al. regarding possible association of thimerosal exposure with neuropsychological outcomes were re-examined in a recent study. The noise (a roughly even distribution of apparently positive and negative associations with increased exposure to thimerosal: e.g., in girls, improved digit-span recall; in boys, increased digit-span recall, but increased likelihood of verbal or motor tics) was reduced in this reanalysis.

"The authors found no statistically significant associations between thimerosal exposure from vaccines early in life" except for "a small, but statistically significant association between early thimerosal exposure and the presence of tics in boys." They concluded that even that possible associciation "should be interpreted with caution due to limitations in the measurement of tics and the limited biological plausibility regarding a causal relationship." [Barile JP et al. Thimerosal Exposure in Early Life and Neuropsychological Outcomes 7-10 Years Later. J Pediatr Psychol. 2011 Jul 23]

It looks like you've offended Poor Jake Crosby. He wrote this in the comment section of an AoA Post.

"Well pharma's mouthpiece of the blogosphere, Orac, has already weighed in:

"Indeed, it's impossible to tell exactly what the correspondents are saying. There are only two brief e-mails, and much of the e-mails are redacted with black marker. They appear to consist of an exchange between Marlene Lauritsen, who's second author on the paper, and Kreesten Madsen, the first author. It's cryptically mentioned that the incidence and prevalence are "still decreasing in 2001," but the sentence immediately following it is redacted. Most of Madsen's reply to this e-mail is also redacted. What does this mean? Who knows?"

What it means is the incidence and prevalence of autism is decreasing, because all their study was about is autism, Orac's doubt notwithstanding.

Then he spews this:

"with increasing mercury exposure and poorer performance on the GFTA-2 measure of speech articulation test (the speech delay that Norris talks about) is real, then it must also accept the findings of a beneficial association between mercury and improved scores on the identification of letters and numbers on the WJ-III test (another finding in the study)"

No, because unlike the "beneficial" effect, the speech problems and tics associated with thimerosal were replicated from previous research. That's why NAA cites those but not the numbers/letters results.

Seriously, these 80 words in this "Science"Blogger's 1842 word post are all that has anything to do, whatsoever, with science (dismissing it). This pharma-funded blogger drowns what his take-away message in nearly 2000 words of angry drivel, presumably to avoid getting refuted more easily."

love Nice Peter, and all those epic battles. have you seen those before or found that one by looking for something to accompany the post?

There is no brain inside of Chuck Norris' skull, just another fist.

What it means is the incidence and prevalence of autism is decreasing, because all their study was about is autism, Orac's doubt notwithstanding.

One notes that Jake apparently didn't bother to read my further explanation:

Let's put it this way. Let's for the sake of argument assume that the Danish study actually was somehow falsified. It wasn't, but assume for the moment that it was. (Norris also falls for the conspiracy mongering about Poul Thorsen that nearly every anti-vaccine group was engaging in last year, spurred on by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and company.) Even if it were, that would not show that thimerosal in vaccines cause autism for the simple reason that there have been several other well-designed studies since then with large numbers of subjects that find the same thing that the Danish study did: There is no correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. You could completely eliminate the Danish studies and the scientific and epidemiological evidence would still show that there's no correlation between vaccines and autism.

As for Jake's other nonsense:

No, because unlike the "beneficial" effect, the speech problems and tics associated with thimerosal were replicated from previous research. That's why NAA cites those but not the numbers/letters results.

Uh, see the comment immediately above:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/chuck_norris_outdoes_jenny_mc…

And my original analysis of the Thompson study:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/09/a_bad_day_for_antivaccination…
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/sallie_bernard_responds_to_th…

Well, that's what you get when you rub shoulders with Cynthia Janak on renewamerica.com

Poor old Chuck. Not only does he make a complete idiot of himself trying to be intellectual, but he even manages to mess up the stuff he's supposed to be good at. Pause for snark: see that kick? The foot's all wrong; he's going for height rather than technique. Growing old is a terrible thing.

PS "Marshal" arts is a nice pun. Wish I'd thought of it.

Bacon - I remember the story when it first came out and she (and her husband or boyfriend) allegedly taped herself having sex with a child and a dog. No guinea pigs.

What it means is the incidence and prevalence of autism is decreasing, because all their study was about is autism, Orac's doubt notwithstanding.

Oh, goody, Jakey is learning about incidence and prevalance. Mind you, he's not learning them, he's learning about them.

If he had bothered to pay attention to Professor Cleary (Epi 101 at GWU, so I assume that's his professor), he would have learned that the only way prevalence (the number of existing cases divided by the population at risk for a unit time) goes down is if:

A) the number of people at risk (denominator) rises dramatically while the number of existing cases (numerator) staying the same, or

B) the number of existing cases goes down with the number at risk staying the same.

Neither is true in the case of autism.

New cases are being diagnosed (incidence) and those who are diagnosed do not recover from autism (prevalence) (except for Jenny McCarthy's son, apparently). Since we don't have a population explosion going on, the number of people at risk for autism hasn't ballooned either.

Someone once told me that Jake could get a degree in epidemiology, but he would never be an epidemiologist. True that.

Off-topic: The number of whooping cough cases in McHenry County, Illinois continues to rise.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8422097

Every autumn, the flu gets vaccinated against Chuck Norris.

(sorry, couldn't resist!)

Norris is just displaying more crank magnetism. I think it's high time we played the sides off each other. I'm going to tell my liberal friends, "Oh, I can't believe you feel that way about... Only Tea Partiers are into that." And vice versa with my conservative friends, just swap out "Tea Partiers" with "Socialists."

Seriously Hollywood, don't quit your day jobs.

Wait, what?

The NAA says,

"In addition, 13 states have reported an almost infinite or infinite increase in autism from 1992-1993 in comparison to 2000-2001."

But at the same time, Orac says,Â

Â "It's cryptically mentioned [in these emails] that the incidence and prevalence are 'still decreasing in 2001,' but the sentence immediately following it is redacted. Most of Madsen's reply to this e-mail is also redacted. What does this mean? Who knows?"

And thenÂ Jake Crosby says of those very same redacted emails,

"What it means is the incidence and prevalence of autism is decreasing, because all their study was about is autism, Orac's doubt notwithstanding."

So we have an infinite increase in autism in at least 13 states, during the very period when the CDC was covering up the fact that the indigence of autism was going down. Â Cool.

indigence -> incidence. My iPad helped me with my spelling.

All that redacting in the emails between Lauritsen and Madsen! What does that mean??! It means they had something to hide.

What the hell is an "infinite" increase in indigence incidence? It was 1 and then it was infinity?

I'm thinking someone was using their iPad and meant to write "definite".

They had something to hide, yet didn't bother to hide what you claim to be some sort of smoking gun of a conspiracy? Yeah, that makes sense.

@Sicksauce

You were asked some questions on #34 and #35 up there. You need to answer those first, even if you answer them with insanity, before you're allowed more drive-by insanity.

p.s. You can also redact emails that somehow put third persons' confidentiality at risk. Not everything is a conspiracy, except this comment. This comment was concocted by Big Bad Voodoo Government, implanted in one of my fillings, and delivered to my brain through an aluminum adjuvant where it incorporated itself into my memory neurons, making me type this message out to you.

Chuck Norris is an actor?!
Who knew?

Certainly science has come far enough to come up with a preservative alternative for a mercury compound.

You know who's fallen down on that job?? The antivaxxers! I mean, c'mon, if they've got all that scientific know-how, and they're so certain that thimerosal is way too dangerous to use as a preservative in vaccines, surely they can find a much better alternative preservative to use! I mean, if Boyd Haley can devise a mining chemical that doubles as a safe autism cure, he sure shouldn't have a problem coming up with a simple preservative, right??

What the hell is an "infinite" increase in indigence incidence? It was 1 and then it was infinity?

I'm thinking someone was using their iPad and meant to write "definite".

Not me, Ren. Look back at #4. NAA claimed an infinite increase in autism in 13 states. I think that means there used to be 0 and now there is 1.

Antivax conspiracy theorists are obsessing over e-mails supposedly noting that autism rates were decreasing in 2001 (after thimerosal was removed from most vaccines)?

Did they somehow fail to notice that reported autism cases have been increasing, not decreasing post-thimerosal?

"From 2006-2008, nearly 10 million children ages 3 to 17 had a developmental disability, according to parental reports. That's a 17% increase in the prevalence of disorders such as autism and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) since 1997, according to Coleen A. Boyle, PhD, and colleagues...Boyle's group analyzed data from the 1997-2008 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) to examine the prevalence of developmental disabilities according to demographic and socioeconomic parameters. They also looked at changes in this prevalence over time...For the current analysis, Boyle's group looked at (parental surveys involving) an unweighted sample of 119,367 children from NHIS obtained between 1997 and 2008...autism showed the largest relative increase during that same time period, with nearly a fourfold increase in prevalence from 0.19% in 1997-1999 to 0.74% in 2006-2008.

So, using AoA-style logic, did thimerosal in vaccines actually have a protective effect, seeing that its removal was followed by an upward spike in reported autism? Well no, not according to the NHIS report:

"The investigators offered some possible factors for the general increase in ADHD and autism prevalence such as:

Advances in behavioral disorder classification
Efficacy of clinical and behavioral treatments for ADHD
Increase in services for children with developmental disabilities
Improvement in clinical, parental, and societal recognition of disorders"***

ht_p://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/ADHD-ADD/26618

If the mystery redacted e-mails were supposed to prove that autism rates dropped after thimerosal was removed from most vaccines, how does that explain antivaxers insisting all this time that continued high/increasing autism rates are due to other dread vaccine "toxins"? Someone is failing to read the playbook.

***Of course, since the NHIS study is supported by the CDC, I suppose its findings are invalid, seeing that someone at the CDC allegedly had an improper relationship with a canine. :(

Someone once told me that Jake could get a degree in epidemiology, but he would never be an epidemiologist. True that.

If he actually makes it that far, he'll have a pretty piece of paper and not much else. But I just had a snigger; on the very off chance that Jake manages to land a public health post in communicable diseases, imagine all the nasty vaccines he'll have to get whacked up with.

When it comes to "high-powered" celebrities and actors, I think that they mainly have sold themselves to anti-vax propaganda instead of actually believing it. Sometimes people who spurt out anti-vax nonsense have something to sell you, be it some herbal pill or holistic procedures to remove all those 'nasty' vaccine chemicals. Companies who make money off the anti-vax sentiment would probably use celebrity endorsements, since this culture virtually worships them. Don't know how much of this is true, but it's a pretty plausible theory if you ask me.

If the mystery redacted e-mails were supposed to prove that autism rates dropped after thimerosal was removed from most vaccines, how does that explain antivaxers insisting all this time that continued high/increasing autism rates are due to other dread vaccine "toxins"? Someone is failing to read the playbook.

Ah, but that only matters to those who are not intellectually dishonest.

Substantial reductions in exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines in various countries and at various times have been uniformly followed by continuing increases in the prevalence of ASD. Jacob Crosby apparently believes that the increase of ASD prevalence in California following the removal of thimerosal was somehow due to what can only have been a mysterious increase in exposure to thimerosal, because, because, well, because thimerosal wasn't really removed from vaccines, and, of course, a small minority of kids received flu shots. Similarly, the removal of thimerosal from pediatric vaccines in Quebec was followed by continuing increases in ASD even among children born years after thimerosal was removed from pediatric vaccines, because, well because . . . Ditto for Sweden and Denmark, I suppose.

Curiously, you don't see many discussions at AoA regarding the evidence that children with ASD--particularly children with "regressive" autism--show evidence of developmental abnormalities that can only be explained by prenatal processes. I like this quotation from Dr. David Amaral,the research director for the UC Davis MIND Institute, who said during the most recent International Meeting for Autism Research that work at his institute "confirmed . . . that there is this precocious brain growth . . . so it actually casts doubt on the idea that a vaccine . . . would be actually the precipitating factor, because things were starting much, much earlier than that.â Amaral referred to the work that Dr. Eric Courchesne discussed in his keynote address at the meeting, in which Courchesne asserted that in ASD the evidence âpoints strongly to dysregulation of functions that govern [brain development] in the second trimester . . . to very early events that are driving the failure of the normal organization of the brain . . . All these things are being driven by events that are prenatal . . . because there are no known mechanisms for producing such a gigantic difference [a 25% to 65% excess in the frontal cortex] in neuron numbers postnatally in the human brain."

I can't wait for Jake's attack on Dr. Courchesne, because Courchesne, who was unable to walk as a child due to polio but recovered to become a top collegiate gymnast at Cal , must therefore by considered pro-vaccine and thus in the pocket of Big Pharma.

Epidemiology by Jake:

1) A confidence interval is that moment during finals when you are convinced you're not good enough to pass. But then you get your confidence back and all is well.
2) P-value is how much you urinate in a day.
3) Bar chart is the chalkboard at the pub that tells you how much a pint of different beers costs.
4) Association is causation.
5) The plural of "anecdote" is "data".
6) Denominator is the person who takes you out of the running for a prize rather than recommending you for one.
7) Hypothesis is a lower-than-average thesis.
8) Morbidity is the tendency to talk about dead people.
9) Relative risk is when your cousin takes you along to do BASE jumping.
10) Zoonoses are the little plastic pig or cow snouts they give you at the National Zoo as a kid.

Yes. Sounds just about right.

As I remarked earlier, anti-vaxxers have been extremely active recently posting articles against vaccination *of any type* ( including an AoA post about a boy "recovered" from rabies vaccination!). I read it ( or listen), take it in, sit awhile, and try to communicate my general impression of the great array of spurious nonsense to which I've exposed myself.

There are highly detailed accounts of supposed sculduggery and black ops as well as speculation into intricately misunderstood physiological processes: an informational overload of minutia piled upon minuscule factoids thoroughly steeped in a blended infusion of bits and pieces of barely related material.

Then I realised that what they're doing is actually *disruptive camouflage*: a mass of obfuscating detail- and more pouring out each day- to keep followers awash in a stream of endless complication hopelessly distracted by a wall of noise.

Needless to say, this makes our job so much easier.

latest correlation revelation [...] will fly in the face (or at least may cause some confusion)

Fly in the face of what? What is this man's first language?

Sicksauce, you can be a silly filly on your own time. Answer the questions and stop with the tinfoil-hat cowpies.

Herr Doctor Bimler - merely fly in the face. Like when you're trying to take a nap and a fly keeps flying in (and landing on) your face, keeping you from achieving the sweet release of sleep...

i just came over by way of PhysOrg where there is this article.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-11-pre-birth-brain-growth-problems-l…

get the truth - Norris is correct -
will they let him live or will 'they'
do another David Carradine ?
please search - www.drmercola.com -
read about this subject and stay on
topic untill we truly understand this
horrible torture of children called
vaccinations. our doctor in with us.
will doctors vaccinate their own kids ??
love all - jim

On a relevant side note, the number of Americans suffering with diabetes is 200 times what is was in 1940 and the incidence has risen 300% over the last 15 years. What is behind this dramatic increase in the degenerative disease?

Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D., medical historian and President of the Center for Empirical Medicine in Washington, D.C., blames the increase in diabetes on routine childhood vaccinations.

In a testimony given before the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, Dr. Coulter explained (documented by animal experiments) that the pertussis vaccine stimulates an overproduction of insulin in the pancreas. This leads to eventual exhaustion of the organ. Underproduction of insulin then follows, then chronic low blood sugar and eventually full-blown diabetes.

Rubella and mumps vaccines are also linked to pancreatic damage and diabetes. Many case reports implicate mumps vaccination in the onset of diabetes, and in some cases the disease has started within one month of receiving the inoculation.

New Zealand researchers noted a 60% rise in juvenile diabetes following a hepatitis-B vaccination program.

Source: Spectrum Magazine/Alternative Medicine Digest, Aug/Sept 1997

Is this the same Houston Chiropractor, quoting the same study, conducted by the same researcher (Coulter), published in the same alternative medicine magazine....yet again?

I think so...best to just ignore this one.

New Zealand researchers noted a 60% rise in juvenile diabetes following a hepatitis-B vaccination program.

This is not true (or "Bullshit", if I may use a term of art).
Research reveals that an American researcher (J.B. Classen) wrote a letter to the NZ Medical Journal in 1996, claiming that a jump in New Zealand's diabetes statistics were caused by the hep-B vaccination (phased in during the late-1980s). This has nothing to do with the alternative vaccine distributed by Classen Immuno Therapies.

Classen does believe in vaccines. It's just that he has a "the sooner the better" philosophy and promotes vaccines given at birth; these apparently *reduce* the risk of autoimmune disease and diabetes in later life, whereas vaccines given later (e.g. at age 6 months) *increase* the risk (this being the selling point of his own product). His complete lack of familiarity with New Zealand social conditions is no obstacle to his interpretation of health-stat correlations.

I should add that Classen's letter to the NZMJ attracted two responses from more locally-based experts, pointing out that his argument was so full of Fail that it was not even wrong (as they say in physics). Thereafter it fell into well-deserved oblivion. Except in the alternative universe of alt-health dingbats, where it has been picked up and cited in increasingly distorted forms to the point where "Houston Chiropractor" can now confidently and completely wrongly spout crap about "New Zealand researchers".

@#64 and #65, if I had a rolled-up newspaper, I would be whacking the two of you on the noses with it. Nopony is getting away with that kind of factless crap this week.

"will doctors vaccinate their own kids ??"

Yes, they do. I was a doctor's kid; I got every recommended vaccine.

If I may, I have a problem with the way this blog has been, and continues to be, written. I just can't bite my tongue anymore. To give an example, You single out one line of Chuck's e-mail and call him on ad hominem... fair enough... good job. However, riddled through the entirety of each and every paragraph you write you have words and phrases like:
-idiocy
-nuttery
-swaths of intense flaming anti-vaccine stupid
-brain dead
-wingnuttery
-conspiracy mongering nuttiness
-worldnutdaily
-right wing loon.

This seems to be hugely hypocritical. Why is it ok for you to stoop to such childish levels but not Chuck? This tone has continued for a long time, and it's just not doing your arguments any favors. If your information is sound you should not need to point out that you have a clever way of calling people stupid in half of the statements you make. Your words should already carry with them the merit of scientific evidence. Perhaps these labels are correct and entertaining to some, however they are probably more fit for message board banter than a blog claiming to preach the soundness of science.

Just my two cents, take it for what it's worth.

Well, we still have Saxton Hale.

Joseph, that's not what ad hominem means.

You're wrong because you eat sugar : ad hominem (Eating sugar doesn't necessarily make you wrong.)

You're stupid because you're wrong : not ad hominem (Being wrong is what being stupid is all about.)

@#71:

Why is it ok for you to stoop to such childish levels but not Chuck? This tone has continued for a long time, and it's just not doing your arguments any favors.

Oh, you're a tone troll. YAAAAAWWWWNNNN.

What an idiot.

@#65:

On a relevant side note, the number of Americans suffering with diabetes is 200 times what is was in 1940 and the incidence has risen 300% over the last 15 years. What is behind this dramatic increase in the degenerative disease?

Which TYPE of diabetes are we talking about here? There are several types, each with its own pathogenesis culminating in the syndrome marked by chronic HIGH blood sugar (among other things) called Diabetes Mellitus (I presume that you meant Mellitus. Diabetes Insipidus is a totally different disease).
The two most important types (due to their greater incidence and prevalence) being type I and type II diabetes mellitus.

the pertussis vaccine stimulates an overproduction of insulin in the pancreas. This leads to eventual exhaustion of the organ. Underproduction of insulin then follows, then chronic low blood sugar and eventually full-blown diabetes.

Huh??
1. Primary OVERPRODUCTION of insulin, that too chronically, leads to chronic low blood sugar. This is NOT diabetes mellitus. Quite the opposite.
2. chronic UNDERPRODUCTION of insulin causes chronic HIGH blood sugar. This is TYPE I diabetes mellitus. More common at a younger age group. Auto-immunity and viral infections have been implicated in the pathogenesis.
3. TYPE II diabetes mellitus (which I believe has seen such a dramatic rise in the US) is a different entity. Here insulin overproduction does take place, BUT it is SECONDARY to insulin resistance causing hyperglycaemia. This hyperglycaemia in the face of insulin resistance is what causes a REFLEX RISE in the insulin production by the pancreas. This may eventually be complicated by insulin underproduction.
4. Genetics, lifestyle and diet play a very significant role as aetiological factors in the pathogenesis of TYPE II Diabetes Mellitus.
Now that I have cleared that up for you, please tell me what it is that you are trying to imply? Could you please provide the relevant statistical study in support of your claims?

"This seems to be hugely hypocritical. Why is it ok for you to stoop to such childish levels but not Chuck?"

I see you've met Orac, huh? This is his Modus Operandi.

This seems to be hugely hypocritical. Why is it ok for you to stoop to such childish levels but not Chuck?

Because Orac backs up his arguments with solid logic and facts from reliable sources, while Chuck backs up his arguments with press releases from PR Newswire, which will print just about anything that anyone gives them.

I might add...that regular (non troll) posters here, myself included, use somewhat similar verbiage when posting about medically illiterate internet "journalists".

We get to use these words because we know...and provide...the science behind immunology, vaccines and the diseases they prevent. Many of us are clinicians in the health care field, some have wide experience in public health and in medical laboratories. We also provide citations from peer reviewed journals and do not rely on quack doctors/researchers or celebrity internet "journalists".

Well Lilady that's good, I hope you are getting used to backing up stupid studies (Fombonne, Madsen), frauds -Thorsen and child/animal molesters. If you are a clinician or health care/lab worker I hope you can get used to the guilt you will have in knowing the damage you have inflicted on children.

@ Sicksauce: My comment was addressed to "joseph", not you.

Why don't you reply to questions posed to you above?

Perhaps you and "joseph" are morphing trolls.

Thank goodness you are not in the health care field...merely a drive-by troll with inane brain droppings.

Feel free to get your medical advice from the know-nothing, libertarian fading movie actor...I'll stick with the great research on the internet and with my own physicians who are REAL doctors and who practice science-based medicine.

O/T: Just a reminder that the Republican candidates debate will be televised this evening 8 PM-10PM, on CNBC...it promises to be the best show in town.

I took note of the return of "he whose name shall not be spoken" and how his provocative comment was ignored...great job guys!

I am wondering if he has resorted to morphing into sock puppets?

Wonder if Houston Chiropractor is the same defender of imaginary subluxations and antivax lunacy as this guy, who has at least 30 (count 'em 30) antivax articles up on his website?

h_tp://houstonchiropractic.com/index.php?searchTerm=vaccine&file=%2Fnyk%2Ftemplates20%2Fshared%2Farticles3.html

Hard to say if they're one and the same, seeing as how many chiros remain committed to both their own quackery, and denigrating genuinely successful aspects of evidence-based medicine such as vaccination.

Sicksauce sounds like another version of Common Sue. She keeps popping up every so often with a different name repeating lame stuff about various researchers.

My favorite was when someone posted a study by Hviid, and she went off badmouthing Madsen, even though he was not one of the authors.

Another doctor's daughter here -- I never escaped from a visit to his office without a jab. His office procured for me Gardisil when my OB wouldn't give it to me because of my advanced age.

the number of Americans suffering with diabetes is 200 times what is was in 1940

Houston Chiropractor evidently has some difficulty with orders of magnitude.

Pretty sure I'm not a troll.

I'm not a research scientist or anything, I'm just a parent making a simple observation that the way Orac writes gets a bit annoying after a while and makes me want to stop reading.

As I said, take if for what it is worth. If I am one parent that feels this way, there may be others... maybe I'm way off base.

Then, Joseph, don't read this blog.

Great! I'd like to see more postings like this-

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/scienceresearch/biologicsrese…

laura, get your own blog.

@ joseph: You are a tone troll, who hasn't made any comments about the contents of Orac's posting aside from chided him about his use of eloquent colorful language.

None of us are about to change our style of posting, so why do you continue reading this blog?

Great! I'd like to see more postings like this-

I don't quite follow. What, why and by whom would you like to see "more postings like this" from and about?

@92
@94

Au revoir!

Again?

Does this mean you'll be back in an hour or so?

Sick@33

Your refusal to provide a citation to your statement has relegated you to troll status. As a result you will now become the butt of all jokes and numerous new arseholes will be torn for you by the regulars. That may be a good thing as you appear to be so constipated that your affliction is giving you shit ideas.
Your appearance here is also good for the example you provide to the lurkers, proof that believers in magical thinking (Woo)are not worth the effort to engage in conversation.

Provide that citation.....put up or shut up

Laura, really? Taking your bat and ball and going home? Good for you as you were just making a fool of yourself here ;)

In other anti-vax news:
Andy does Chuck Norris one better...

Today Wakefield appeared @ Noontime Radio Woo ( ProgressiveRadioNetwork) sincerely 'splaining away his struck-off status now aided and abetted by David Lewis of Whistle-blowers; first meeting in Jamaica now b#tching to the BMJ.
Deja vu all over again?**
(similar courtesy of Sharon Hill)

** my apologies to Mr Berra....
I've had a very long day.

Okay I went to Laura's link and it's about investigating cell lines that are used to replicate viruses to be sure that they are safe. Can someone who understands her (do any of you understand her?) let me know why the FDA doing its job by investigating allegations about possible vaccine issues should be a problem for her?

Wait. Wait. Let me guess. She was reading on an alternative website or listening to an alternative radio station and that was listed as one of their references for why vaccines are bad for you. They were of course telling people that the FDA has decided to randomly infect people with all manner of simian and feline viruses on purpose to reduce disable 80% of the population and finally plan our deaths...

Sillyfillysauce, just answer the damn questions.

Joseph, smile more and cry less.

Laura/whateverthehellyourlasttennameswere, if you're going to post random crap then flounce away without explaining, don't bother posting. Nopony needs that.

To any other parasprites, just stick a cupcake in your craw and keep your crazy to yourself. (No, I don't need the irony of someone with a posting gimmick this outlandish telling others to reel in the crazy pointed out to me.)

Pinkamena, here is a virtual apple for you, just because I like your style.

(Especially psince I pscrewed up my Psorta Psychic pshtick)

@98

While Wakefield and his buddy were 'splaining on talk radio today, the BMJ published four new articles on the Wakefield debacle, which take a rather different view.

Sullivan at LBRB offers a good synopsis:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/11/brian-deer-on-andrew-wakefield…

Eric Courchesne's paper was also published today, in JAMA. He reported that there is a 67% excess of neurons in the prefrontal cortex of people with ASD--and, since those neurons are produced prenatally (early in the second trimester), that doesn't do a whole lot to support the "MMR-caused-an-epidemic-of-autism crowd". As Courchesne noted: "This huge increase [in the number of neurons] is very important to think about, because there are no known mechanisms for producing such a gigantic difference in neuron numbers, post-natal in the human brain "

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/18/2001.short

Not a good day for Wakefield--or AoA.

Re Houston Chiropractor's massive increase in Americans suffering diabetes,
- in 1940, people with type 1 diabetes died early. Insulin injections only become available in 1923, and diabetes management was primitive.
- in 1940, type 2 diabetes had ony just been recognised - hardly any diagnosed.
- in 1940, people with any form of diabetes easily died of septicemia - no antibiotics.
- in 2011, we vigorously check for and warn about type 2 diabetes, and estimate the numbers of people who have it without knowing.
- in 2011, lots of Americans develop type 2 diabetes because they are overfed, obese, inactive, aging, and consume far too much sugar. Eliminate obesity, bad diet and inactivity and you reduce the risk of type 2 Diabetes by 89%

@ brian: I read both links that you provided and they are terrific.

The "journalists" at AoA have been busy for weeks smearing Brian Deer by "analyzing" each of Deer's articles about their brave intrepid doctor/researcher. No, there will be no joy in Mudville, the mighty AoA has struck out.

While Andy has been busy making the circuits of Woo Radio, wifey Carmel and daughter Imogen have also been busy, back at the ranch.

Anyone ever hear of The Autism Trust-U.K...a charitable organization for the establishment of a "village" or "campus" to provide residences and "treatments", for older autistic people? We now have a branch of this charity in Austin, Texas.

At their website theautismtrustusa.org you will see how they propose to fund the building of the village, through charitable contributions and through trusts, set up by parents of older autistic children for their benefit.

Carmel Wakefield is on the National Board and on the Executive Committee of The Autism Trust-USA, while 16 year old daughter is on the Junior Advisory Board.

Wasn't the Thoughtful House facility where Andy was the Executive Director, also located in Austin? I wonder if he has interviewed for that position at Autism Trust-USA?

Two years ago, AoA's "journalists" reported about some sort of conspiracy involving the PM's office, to discredit this worthy charity and asked their readers to send letters to the newspapers in the U.K. about this conspiracy. They also mentioned that the charity had branched out to the USA.

If you visit the website or "Google" "Autism Trust USA Fundraiser at Lake Travis", you will see pictures of Jake Crosby and his parents Nicole and Giff being feted aboard a boat on the lake, this past July.

@101 - That, Sir, Is Pinkamina Diane Pie, and she is so random.

I just realized something. Ponies have invaded science websites. We're doomed, FOREVER!

I understand Chuck Norris is planning to defeat Big Pharma by punching it in the mouth.

Okay I went to Laura's link and it's about investigating cell lines that are used to replicate viruses to be sure that they are safe. Can someone who understands her (do any of you understand her?) let me know why the FDA doing its job by investigating allegations about possible vaccine issues should be a problem for her?

Well, it makes perfect sense if your grasp of logic is tenuous, as Laura's is, and you have no idea what an argument from ignorance is and why it's wrong. Laura starts with the beliefs "If there's something unknown, I get to assume it goes in the direction of my biases." That was her approach to the aluminum issue, after all, where she wanted science to prove the negative of there being no danger rather than for someone who believes there is a danger to actually put forth a falsifiable hypothesis.

Here, she takes the fact that the FDA is looking into an possible problems of this nature as evidence that there are problems of this nature. Despite the fact that, y'know, people generally investigate issues because they don't yet have the answer.

Very good post!

"Here, she takes the fact that the FDA is looking into an possible problems of this nature as evidence that there are problems of this nature."

And there may really *be* problems of this nature -- as I understood the article, they're looking also at new cell lines proposed to be used (note the repeated mentions of "new cell lines" and "novel cell substrates") and it's possible that some of those new cell lines may be rejected by this testing. The current cell lines seem to be safe, however.

@105 - Indeed. Our cold, dead, sciencey hearts will explode.

When I read it I assumed the discussion about possible transmission of simian or feline viruses and a link to chronic fatigue disorder was the part she was possibly crowing over. I noticed, though, that they were investigating to see if it was possible, as well as investigating new substrates for future virus production. Neither of these things prove causality for any problems nor do they demonstrate the FDA is sitting on its hands and assuring the public there is nothing wrong. It reads to me that they are in the process of continuing to improve vaccines and the safety of vaccination, and I can't understand why she would think that is a bad thing.

Antaeus - I have lurked here off and on for years, but entering the conversation has given me an even deeper appreciation for the logic and care required to solve a problem scientifically. It is a quirk of human nature that we often look from a cause of, well, whatever. Sadly, for some that ends up turning into a life where there are unseen terrible forces out to run the world because then every bad thing that happens has an explanation, rather than "bad stuff happens."

I watch Mr. Woo in that and I feel so bad for his anxiety from it. It seems counter-intuitive, you would think that knowing the cause of everything in the world would be a comfort. However, since bad things happen it has to mean very bad people are making them happen with an eye towards their own plans or satisfaction from it. It makes the world a very malevolent place indeed.

Poor Laura.

@ brian:

Sure. Makes perfect sense. On my own part, when I first read Wakefield ( when he published) it didn't sit well with the neurophysio I had studied ; in autumn 2001, my cousin consulted me about vaccine "dangers" that worried him as he had a new born; I remember telling him, "I wouldn't worry".
-btw- my cousin is a bright guy- he creates hi-tech "movie magic"- but he never studied neuro physio- like most people; he did decide on vaccination.

I survey alt med proselytisers who attempt to frighten people off of SBM: they rely on the fact that most people don't study health related topics in depth; they try to short circuit the bond of trust that most people had formerly enjoyed with doctors and other professionals for information. And supplant it with nonsense to sell products.

From the chatter I've heard for the past few weeks, I've guessed that something big was coming down the pike- the anti-vaxxers seemed to be doing a pre-emptive strike.

@ Mrs Woo:

So glad you came out of the shadows**.

People naturally want to "understand the causes of things" ( Virgil) to adapt to an unpredictable world- even when they botch it- however I like to think that we- because of our capacity for abstract thought and self-evaluation, etc ( executive function, formal operational thought)- can check our own errors through methods we've developed that attempt to eliminate the influence of our biases. In other words, what we call science is a product of our nature that balances out the conclusion-jumping pattern-mania aspect.

** that is part of my mission after all.

@Mrs. Woo

"Honi soit qui mal y pense"

I APPLAUD THE RESEARCH OF THE FDA! You are the ones twisting my intentions-
What a bunch of idiots you are. Read again.
I ask questions and post links -so far I have not received any good links for info from anyone.
You are doing the polarizing and I will no longer consider this blog to be of any use.
I think people who give pox parties are crazy, I don't believe in homeopathy but I
ignore the fringe elements of certain groups- which are certain elements of this blog also.

Au revoir Idiots.....

@laura

The problem is that you have established an identity that you are generally disposed toward questioning the safety of vaccines. When you post a link, with no explanation of why you're posting it or what your take on the link is, we are left to speculate your intentions based on what you have done before. If you do not want that to happen, then provide at least a modicum of context if you post a link. It could have been simply adding "Great work by the FDA!" to your post with the link.

It also does not help your cause by calling people "idiots" for trying to guess your unstated intentions. Communicate clearly and these sorts of miscommunications can be avoided.

@ Todd W.

SEE @91 or get glasses....

Your post @91 was either completely irrelevant and off-topic, or a poorly-executed attempt to slam vaccination. Forgive us for not assuming you're a clueless discourteous spammer (which is what posting random off-topic links without explanation would be).

@laura

In post #91, you failed to say why. Was it because it had some tidbit that could be spun to question vaccines? Was it because the FDA was doing a good job and you agreed? Based on your past postings, one would be led to believe you meant the first, rather than the second. Again, that is why providing more context would have avoided people misconstruing your post.

And no need to get snarky. I'm just trying to offer you some advice to avoid similar situations in the future.

@Denice - Thank you. My biggest reluctance is knowing what I don't know and worrying that I might leap to assumptions here and there.

I worked for a biotech company and had to develop a passing knowledge of viral vectors, cell culture, etc., to write their marketing and training materials for sales staff. I found the theory behind monoclonal antibodies fascinating. However, I was disappointed to learn about FDA black box warnings. It makes me uncomfortable to know the FDA will approve a drug that has known significant side effects (i.e., lymphoma) because of the argument "this is a novel therapy." As a patient I know that no doctor has ever said to me, "I would like to prescribe you this. x% of patients had this side effect, another x% had that side effect, but xx% had very few or only passing side effects with xx% improvement of the condition." Instead they usually say, "You have this disease; I will write you this prescription."

Further, the FDA allowing some questionable medications to go to market only to realize later that the possible side effects were real ones (i.e., Vioxx, which I took) makes me even more concerned about drugs with black box warnings. Sometimes it really seems like we are taking our own lives into our hands with some of the treatments out there. Oftentimes doctors, for one reason or another (possibly even because they are afraid if they suggest a bad side effect suggestibility will make the patient have a side effect wouldn't have had otherwise?), don't share possible bad side effects.

I think drugs like Vioxx have done a lot to damage credibility of medical professionals and the pharmaceutical companies as a whole. It is rational to believe that profit (or at least paying for all the research) is just as (if not more) important to a drug company as safety. We suspect the need to stay in business could lead drug companies to say that there is no 'direct correlation' when a side effect possibility crops up that might hinder approval or sales.

I am enjoying learning more. I've always had a curious mind. Didn't really consider myself in the dark as much as reluctant to possibly get jumped on and ridiculed if I misunderstood a concept or made an assumption.

Update: Well Lilady that's good, I hope you are getting used to backing up stupid studies (Fombonne, Madsen), frauds - Thorsen, Fiona Godlee and Brian (Deer), and child/animal molesters. If you are a clinician, health care or lab worker I hope you can get used to the guilt you will have in knowing the damage you have inflicted on children.

@Sicksauce

Still working on finding those citations asked for up at #34 and #35, eh?

@Todd W.

Thimerosal and Tics

In phase I at HMO A, cumulative exposure at 3 months resulted in a significant positive association with tics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14595043

@laura

I assume that you are responding for Sicksauce. If that is the case, then you cannot just pick one part of the study. You need to look at the whole thing. The conclusion is good for that:

No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed.

@ Mrs Woo:

Often patient demand is an issue: the products most maligned by alt med have serious side effects but are prescribed for real problems that cause suffering. AZT comes to mind as do atypical anti-psychotics and SSRIs as well as Vioxx. The conditions being treated are no cake-walk sans Pharma.

As a personal anecdote, my late father suffered from osteo-arthritis: his earlier meds produced gastric ulcers and he tried Vioxx ( in his late 80s) which helped but produced swelling so the doctor dis-continued it. Thus, he had to rely upon acetaminophen- when didn't have the side-effects but also didn't help as much. So he also did his own brand of physio-therapy ( stationary bicycle) and gritted his teeth.

@Todd W.

Nah, he and laura are working on how to look like complete fools on the internet.

My French is a bit rusty (maybe non-existent). I thought au revoir is translated to bye-bye, adios, ta-ta...

@ Todd W. Watch it...lest you are labeled as a "fascist".

@ Sicko: Actually, I had a very satisfying career in public health. I'd like to think that the measles vaccine and immune-globulin shots that I administered during outbreaks, just might have saved a life.

Participating in a 2-day public clinic, where 8,000 vulnerable people received influenza vaccine, in the years when there was a seasonal flu vaccine shortage, really did save lives. Of course the 8,000 people, were frail and/or elderly and maybe your "personal" sense of morals devalues these lives.

laura, read this: http://www.xkcd.com/169/
Specifically, read those last three panels.

Sillyfillysauce, since you're not going to answer those questions, can you at least let us in on why you refuse to answer them? Certainly you must have an amazing reason why not. Failing that, could you enlighten us on why you're (lamely) attacking the studies that prove your paranoid anti-science beliefs wrong? I am honestly interested in this.

Chance @#105: I doubt you could call my presence here an invasion. I just sort of assume that other pony fans are keeping it under wraps. They don't need a gimmick; they've got knowledge.

@Denice - the drugs I had in mind were Enbrel and Remicade, both approved while I was working for the biotech firm and determined to cause lymphoma during clinical trials. Though rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, etc., are very difficult diseases I almost felt like it was unfair to leave a patient with the risk of cancer to weigh on the other side vs. the debilitating effects of their illness.

On the personal anecdote - I understand how he felt. I took Vioxx for spinal stenosis and was disappointed to have it removed from the market. Further, I have a pretty much orphan illness with only two approved treatments, only one of them oral. Neither treatment is effective for even as many as 40% of patients and the side effects they were approved with are troublesome.

However, I was disappointed to learn about FDA black box warnings. It makes me uncomfortable to know the FDA will approve a drug that has known significant side effects (i.e., lymphoma) because of the argument "this is a novel therapy."

It's not that it's a 'novel therapy;' the therapeutics I'm familiar with that have black box warnings are typically therapies that have known AEs, but that treat a condition for which there are limited options such that the tradeoff may be worth it. E.g., thalidomide has a black box warning for VTE, but if you have multiple myeloma, that might be a worthwhile tradeoff. Bevacizumab has black box warnings for hemorrhage and wound healing (not too surprising, consideering MOA), but you might consider that a fair tradeoff if you have a cancer that responds.

Even aside from novel, I've taken a black box-ed medication - cipro - and I'm glad I did, UTIs suck. Prescription-strength acetaminophen and ibuprofen are black-boxed. It's about informed decisions - there's a benefit, and a risk, and you can choose where you want to sit.

@antaeus @107

Chris Shaw 's research on aluminum hydroxide-

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013409001809

Laura, so what? He is a crank who was at the Anti-vaccine conference last January in Jamaica with Wakefield and others.

Is this some more of your irrational fear of aluminum and alum?

Ooops, aluminum hydroxide is not alum.

From the wiki page on aluminum hydroxide:

Aluminium hydroxide is included as an adjuvant in some vaccines (e.g. anthrax vaccine). One of the well-known brands of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant is Alhydrogel, made by Brenntag. Since it absorbs protein well, it also functions to stabilize vaccines by preventing the proteins in the vaccine from precipitating or sticking to the walls of the container during storage. Aluminium hydroxide is often mis-called "alum" even by researchers; however, "alum" properly refers to aluminium sulfate.

From the wiki page on alum:

Alum is used in many subunit vaccines as an adjuvant to enhance the body's response to immunogens. Such vaccines include hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and DTaP.
Alum in powder or crystal form, or in styptic pencils, is sometimes applied to cuts to prevent or treat infection.
Powdered alum is commonly cited as a home remedy for canker sores.
Preparations containing alum are used by pet owners to stem bleeding associated with animal injuries caused by improper nail clipping.
Alum is listed as an ingredient of some brands of toothpaste or toothpowder.
Alum powder dissolved in 5 parts water has been used to shrink hemorrhoids and stop them from bleeding.

And going on the wiki pages, Laura should be afraid of lots of things!

While trying to figure out which aluminum salt was in which vaccine, I did find this recent article: Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination.:

Using these updated parameters we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.

I APPLAUD THE RESEARCH OF THE FDA! You are the ones twisting my intentions-
What a bunch of idiots you are. Read again.

You know Laura, I kindly asked you what your intent was regarding your FDA link, you responded with another cryptic post and yet another good-bye. Do you know what good-bye means?

Chris Shaw 's research on aluminum hydroxide-

Read it, binned it. What's your point? What do you find so compelling about Shaw's research? Have you carefully vetted the methodology and results? There are some serious problems there. Can you spot what those are?

Aluminum is only safe when it's used for tinfoil hats.

@Chris, your post at 132 says nothing about safety. Pointless.
Your "updated aluminum pharmacokinetics..." doesn't mean a damned thing. LOL- they had to add the" benefits outweigh any theoretical risk" gambit.
See what this doctor thinks about aluminum given to infants:
www.askdrsears.com/topics/vaccines/vaccinefaqs

@Sicksauce

Bwahahahahaha! Oh. You're serious? You mean, Dr. Bob "I don't actually have any scientific evidence to support anything I say" Sears?

I see Common Sue's newest sock puppet continues to have reading comprehension issues. Oh, yeah, Dr. Bob who can't tell the difference in volume between IV fluids and a vaccine!

@Todd W-
Please present the compelling evidence for Dr. Offit's conclusion- Pregnancy and
Aluminum- but he's above it all when providing evidence I guess....

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/hot-topics/aluminu…

Even Science Mom and Chris couldn't find it. But then since lilady diagnosed me with
dementia- I must be missing something.

@laura

You mean like those references at the bottom of that page?

Crikey! I forgot that any physician or scientists opinions that don't align with Scienceblime scientists, nurses and docs cannot, I repeat, cannot, be right or valid. Nor can any studies that find problems with vaccination be right. Funny that the physicians and scientists who are questioning vaccines (and you have to keep in mind this may reflect the expanding schedule for infants/children) are increasing in number (apologies for no citation re. that).

Put "Sears" into the search box. You'll see all the voluminous documented demonstrations that he's full of BS and has no credibility.

I believe I posted this earlier, though it may have been on another thread where Laura was displaying her irrational fear of the most common metal element on this planet's crust:
Cashing In On Fear: The Danger of Dr. Sears

It is not surprising that Common Sue's most recent sock puppet is still venomous and silly. She must be unaware that several vaccines have been replaced or removed due questions, and better ones coming along. She must not know about the version of the single measles vaccine that was removed from the market decades ago, or that the IPV has replaced the OPV, that the DTaP has replaced the DTP or that RotaShield was replaced by RotaTeq and RotaRix.

It must be part of her continuing issues with reading comprehension, or inability to read anything that goes against her close minded beliefs.

@Todd W

References are inadequate- "essential metal"? "Play an important role in the development of a healthy fetus"? Supported by what findings-citations please....

Well Todd and Chris, at least Paul's aluminum info page, "Vaccine Education Centre" from the Children's Hospital of Philidelphia, says,

"You should not consider the information on this site to be specific, professional medical advice for your personal health or for your family's personal health."
At least he's honest about that and I sure won't be considering his advise as anything much at all.

So Laura and Common Sue, are you also afraid of any food grown in feldspars? Or airplanes? Or baked goods? Or pickles? Or chain link fences? Would you freak out at the almost one pound bag of alum on my kitchen counter? (used it as mordant for dying fabric)

Can it be that Chris is admitting any problems with vaccines, with her comment of " better " ones coming along? I wonder why she thinks they're bettrer?? Less VAERS reports, less damaged children? Citations, please.

"Even Science Mom and Chris couldn't find it. But then since lilady diagnosed me with dementia- I must be missing something."

I think I located that article days before Laura did and referred her to it...because she has been fixating on aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines. So, instead of reading The CHOP article and thanking me for finding this easily read and easily understood article, she doesn't thank me but calls me a "fascist".

I suppose she is upset that I told her that IV solutions that rarely result in aluminum toxicity in preterm babies and in renal-impaired patients, have nothing to do with the amount of aluminum adjuvant used in certain vaccines.

VACCINES ARE NOT GIVEN VIA THE IV ROUTE and billions of doses of vaccines that have been administered worldwide, since the 1930s, have never resulted in aluminum toxicity.

I think "our Laura" is sundowning, again.

Common Sue, people who do real science do admit when there are better methods. Unlike your closed little mind.

I forgot that any physician or scientists opinions that don't align with Scienceblime scientists, nurses and docs cannot, I repeat, cannot, be right or valid

A real scientist - and actually, any decent human being - should not care about opinions, but only about evidence.
Got any?

Funny that the physicians and scientists who are questioning vaccines [...] are increasing in number (apologies for no citation re. that).

Apologies rejected. You don't believe us, why should we believe you?

Aluminium exposure from parenteral nutrition in preterm infants and later health outcomes during childhood and adolescence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21781356

But lilady, the schedule has increased quite a bit since the /30's, wouldn't you say? Or do you dispute that?

Well now she's really done it...she has Sicko on her side...ignorant trolls.

@ Chris: Even "laura's guru" Dr. Bob Sears, was unable to link IV solutions toxicity with aluminum adjuvants. She should look for citations from peer-reviewed journals to back up her latest "theory". We want to know of any studies that have proved that adjuvants can result in toxicity. And, she really needs to think about getting some help for her fixations.

Gee, Common Sue, do you really want haemophilus influenzae type b to return? Do you like seeing kids suffer for two weeks with itchy pox? Do you delight in the rivers of poo from rotavirus infections?

Wow, you have been in the sick sauce!

I was refering to the section on Pregnancy and Aluminum-

The above reference completely contradicts the statements made in
@138 about pre-term infants and aluminum.

Lilady needs a course in reading comprehension- I'm sure she was a very dedicated
nurse in her day but now....?

No Laura, you need to take some reading comprehension courses...make certain you take them before you take some immunology and epidemiology courses.

You already questioned the statement contained in the CHOP article that I referred you to...don't you remember? Don't you remember that Chris and Science Mom were unable to find any studies about aluminum serum levels being elevated during pregnancy? Don't you remember that you said "au revoir"?

We are still waiting for your citations that show aluminum toxicity related to childhood vaccines...maybe you want to pose the question to Dr. Sears. Just "remember" that billions of doses of vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvants have been administered worldwide, since the 1930s.

Laura needs a course in reading comprehension- I'm sure she was a very dedicated mommy in her day but now....?

Aluminum may possibly be an essential nutrient (at least in goats), but its ubiquity means that deficiency is extremely unlikely. From the WHO publication 'Trace elements in human nutrition and health':

There is no substantiated evidence that aluminium has any essential function in animals or humans. However, while goats given low-aluminium semisynthetic rations (162 Âµg/kg) for 4 years failed to exhibit any adverse effects on feed intake, growth, reproduction or milk production, they did have a significantly reduced life expectancy, as compared with that of control goats receiving 25 mg/kg. These results await independent confirmation.

To the lurkers:

You reside in the darkest depths of cyberspace silently listening, carefully considering. I realise your vast hidden potential and great value so I humbly offer myself as your champion and guide. Whatever your path in life may have been it has led you here: I rejoice whenever one of you steps forth into the light of the shining screen and begins *talking* to us. Welcome you are amongst friends!

Although I am not a prophet- only an evangelist- I must talk about things to come: in the next few days there shall be war- the lines have already been been drawn and the opening volleys have sounded. We shall be visited by our opponents who shall accuse us of horrible and atrocious actions and motives: our fearless ( and peerless) leader shall be mocked and our comrades assaulted. If you are new, don't fear, we are made of sterner stuff: not easily frightened by pyrotechnics.

Because trying to understand how the world works is no easy task, we are in it for the long haul. I imagine it'll be an exciting and productive ride. Come along.

Sincerely, DW

Aluminium exposure from parenteral nutrition in preterm infants and later health outcomes during childhood and adolescence.

Laura, you seem to have a bad habit of selectively answering questions/statements. Why haven't you answered my questions regarding the Shaw et al. study you posted a link to? Are you embarrassed that you haven't read it or understand it? Have you read and/or understand the study you linked to above? What are the results? What are the methodological flaws? What are the implications regarding vaccines? Did you read Chris' link in #132? It is very relevant to vaccines and contradicts everything you seem to believe and it has been performed by actual scientists and not wannabes like Dr. Sears.

As for Dr. Offit's statement about a biological requirement for aluminium, he is wrong, plain and simple. That does not negate all of the accurate statements he has made regarding vaccine safety and efficacy. He has developed a vaccine himself and has spent decades investigating vaccines, again, this puts him in a league far surpassing the likes of Sears and Shaw who have a personal (financial) agenda and performs dodgy science for a paying audience, respectively.

DW that is awfully tempting but no, I will not go on your Bizarre bilge-filled ride with Scienceblechs.

@ 138

The section on Pregnancy and aluminum is pure drek.

The section on Pregnancy and aluminum is pure drek.

No Laura, one statement is false, the rest is accurate. Could you please answer the questions I posed to you?

@DW #157

I'm in, and have so far packed the following:

*One pack of TUMS (I get reflux when reading blatantly stupid arguments)
*Flame retardant suit (for flaming stupid arguments)
*Protective headgear (for own face palm protection)
*Troll sign + 3 billy goats

Is there anything else I should bring along?

Thank you for your honesty. I have read the study on aluminum adjuvants that
Chris posted but this is purely theoretical- no live infants were studied.
Chris Shaw merely suggests he feels further study is needed.

Thank you again for your integrity; I would like to think that we all want to insure
the safety of our children and grandchildren.

@ Hinterlander:

Your 'nym tells me you'll feel right at home in the wilderness:
I suggest you bring a rolled up copy of the latest issue of the BMJ- very useful for swatting at pests.
Pack lightly: reason, data, and common sense don't weigh anything.
Maybe bring a laptop, I may need a scribe ( Oh wait)
Sarcasm and popcorn.

Glad to have you along!
Sincerely, DW

Chris Shaw merely suggests he feels further study is needed.

However, Chris Shaw doesn't really believe that. He's one of the organizers of the Jamaican Antivaxapalooza (with such esteemed speakers as Russell Blaylock, Andrew Wakefield and BLo). He also boasts that his younger child is not vaccinated.

TBruce: And that (unvaccinated) child is probably healthier than most these days.

@Sick-o-Sauce-o

What makes you think that an unvaccinated child is healthier? Did Sid "Robert Schecter" Offit sell you that lie, too?

Oh, wait... wait. Was it that idiotic online survey? Was it?

It was, wasn't it? Hahahahaha... I mean, no, yes, totally healthier than most. Totally.

So, Sillysauce, you gonna answer those questions, or are you gonna keep paraspriting along with those pithy, childish little talking points?

Everypony's waiting. If you're so sure, show us the evidence.

Common Sue, you must have been on the sauce (which is probably why you are sick) when this paper came out:
http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/pdf.asp?id=80869

The evaluation showed that vaccinated children and unvaccinated children differed substantially only in terms of the lifetime prevalence of vaccine preventable diseases; as is to be expected the risk of such diseases is notably lower in vaccinated subjects.

Laura, you seem to have a bad habit of selectively answering questions/statements.

I'm pretty fond of the repeated leaving in a huff only to promptly carry on as though nothing had been said, myself.

@ Sicksauce quite far up

But lilady, the schedule has increased quite a bit since the /30's, wouldn't you say? Or do you dispute that?

Yes and no.
The number of injections has increased from 1 to 11 types of different vaccines since 1900, but the total number of injected molecules, after reaching a peak in-between the 60's and the 80's at over 3000 proteins, is now down to under 130 proteins or polysaccharides.
A reduction in complexity by about 25 times.

Source: Tables 1 and 2 in an article by Paul Offit and others scientists published in the journal Pediatrics. A review article with references to scientific evidence.

@ Heliantus: You've linked to the "famous" 10,000 antigens article authored by Dr. Offit that the "science journalists" at AoA always quote, misquote and misinterpret.

I've just "bookmarked" it for ready reference...and for the links the article provided to other studies of vaccine safety.

The number of injections has increased from 1 to 11 types of different vaccines since 1900, but the total number of injected molecules, after reaching a peak in-between the 60's and the 80's at over 3000 proteins, is now down to under 130 proteins or polysaccharides.

Stupid analysis. Take away the smallpox and WC pertussis vaccines from the equation and that would be an increase from 17 antigens in 1960 to 126 antigens in the year 2000.

A reduction in complexity by about 25 times.

Or you mean a reduction in "protective antigens". That would be a terrible idea when you're promoting vaccines from a pro-vax POV.

Please don't feed delusional, disease-promoting, uneducated, health care provider wannabe troll. It needs "terminal disinfection".

@Thingy:
What is a protective antigen?
Are all the antigens on a pathogen protective antigens?
How does the the protective antigen help in protection?

When you find the answers to this question, we will discuss how streamlining a vaccine by reducing the number of antigens is not necessarily less protective.

@Lilady: Do you encourage answering-the-troll-to-educate-the-lurkers?

T-Reg: You've opened the proverbial can of worms!!

Thingy craves "engagement" and will, with its incessant postings, derail all the threads on this blog. I think that the "lurkers" can separate the insane Thingy postings from the postings of the "regulars" here. We do, of course, encourage any delurked lurkers to post

I'm not certain what Thingy's "personal best" number of posts on a particular subject is...it must be 200-300.

Narad:

I'm pretty fond of the repeated leaving in a huff only to promptly carry on as though nothing had been said, myself.

That does make her amusing. It reminds me about my experience with bowling in high school where I was more amusing than competent, because I just could not get that stupid ball to go where I wanted it to go (don't laugh, the female dressing area was being remodeled at Balboa High School, so we did activities that did not require sweating... so one section of Physical Education was to go across the street to the Canal Zone Bowling Alley!).

Though the last time she did say "Au revoir", which actually means "see ya later!" Kind of like "Hasta la vista." So it was a warning that she would be back.

Don't worry all you regulars, the lurkers all know Thing is nuts. Best not to feed it as it does not respond rationally.

the repeated leaving in a huff

I prefer to leave in a high dudgeon, myself. It is a more commodious vehicle without the danger of squashing one's hat against the roof.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: When it comes to Thingaling, don't feed the parasprites. Get Greasemonkey, get Killfile, and practice the ancient art of out-of-sight-out-of-mind.

@166 - except that studies have, in the past, demonstrated that antigenic exposure in the first few years of childhood decreases the risk of development of asthma and other atopic diseases. In fact, it's been theorized and limited evidence has shown that the commensual microbiota of the human body helps the immune system develop.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987708000467

In addition to this, the addition of 126 polysaccharide, glycoprotein, or protein antigens from a series of vaccines is utterly meaningless, considering there are billions of antigens in a single drop of saliva alone from the oral microbiota.

LW asked:

This is probably a foolish question, but why does the NAA consider hypoallergenicity to be a bad thing, worthy of being joined rhetorically with toxicity?"

My understanding is that he's talking about a mythical allergy whose undetection is explained by it being "hypo" but which can still be supposed to have awful and evil effect on the sufferer. As you recall, postulating unpleasant phenomena just beneath the detection margin â like monsters just beneath the bed margin â is fairly common in pseudoscience.

Ah, homeopathic allergies. I see now.

@Lilady: Do you encourage answering-the-troll-to-educate-the-lurkers?

T-reg, that's a common practice around here ... but Thingy is the immunological equivalent of the Time Cube guy. It's pretty rare that she says anything which even the most undereducated lurker won't spot as crankery.

Here's why Th1Th2 should be ignored:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/06/the_cost_of_the_anti-vaccine_…

@ Lilady

You've linked to the "famous" 10,000 antigens article

Yeah, I realized this ("oh, that's this one"). So I had sort of mixed feelings linking to it. What can of worm am I opening?
On the other hand, the data I wanted are all referenced and clearly written down in nice tables. As I say before, all we should concern ourself about is data, not random opinions.
And anyway, deaf-on-purpose trolls will always find stupid ways to wiggle out of the data.
Like "oh, but if your remove smallpox vaccine, it was not that huge"
Well, yes, it was my point moron - the vaccine schedule is less huge now than it was in the 60's because complex and crude vaccines have been removed from schedule and replaced by less complex ones. So whatever an increase in vaccine complexity could bring as bad side effects, it is very likely that we should be seeing more during the 60-80's than now.
The "autism epidemic" doesn't fit this model.

@Thingy:
What is a protective antigen?

The last time I checked WC pertussis vaccine only has 5 antigens, not 3000. I'm convinced provax are so gullible and ignorant.

Are all the antigens on a pathogen protective antigens?

No.

How does the the protective antigen help in protection?

For the so-called vaccine-induced "immunity" (i.e. "better and more protective than the previous vaccine" script)

Here's more Th1Th2 for you:

It's easy to see you're in a bargaining stage. Sorry but you can't turn back time. It's a tragedy to have an autistic child, not a blessing. Nobody wants to have an autistic child. You should be blamed for everything but you were in denial for a long time. You're just digging yourself deeper into the hole. Learn from your mistakes. Sorry, but there's no second chance. Poor kiddo.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/the_2011_measles_outbreak_and…

@Lilady and Gray Falcon: I've had an argument with thingy before, but "that" in the link posted by Gray Falcon is extreme stupidity... She doesn't recognize logic and reason even if it slaps her in the face.

@ Heliantus: Actually the "can of worms" (Thingy troll) remark was posted at T-reg. One of the last comments I specifically directed at Thingy can be located on the link provided by Gray Falcon:

@ Thingy: I thought, after our communications between postings # 55 through # 65 above, we would have heard the last from you on this particular subject.

You are a totally uneducated, ignorant, crass, devoid of any humanity POS troll. Now go crawl back to the sewer you inhabit...this blog is not here for your sicko amusement and we find your brain droppings offensive.

Posted by: lilady | June 15, 2011 4:49 PM

Yes, I will comment ABOUT Thingy's lack of education, its "imaginary" health care career, its mental problems and its bizarre postings, but try to not engage it directly.

Thank you again for the link to the article...it's a wealth of information...for the times I go "slumming" at anti-vax websites.

Well, yes, it was my point moron - the vaccine schedule is less huge now than it was in the 60's because complex and crude vaccines have been removed from schedule and replaced by less complex ones.

The smallpox vaccine was removed but not replaced and current acellular pertussis vaccine still contains four of the five original antigens found in WC pertussis vaccine.

Less huge? How many vaccines do we have now compared to that of 1960?

@Gray falcon: And this same insensitive troll talks about insensitivity of doctors.

And, thingy's response to my question further illustrates how utterly clueless she is about what she is talking. Ignorance truly is bliss for this one.

Please don't feed delusional, disease-promoting, uneducated, health care provider wannabe troll. It needs "terminal disinfection".

@ Gray Falcon: Thanks for that second link. Trolls have a particular vicious side to them as well. My personal stalking troll (he whose name shall not be mentioned), took great pleasure by referring to my disabled medically fragile son as vaccine-damaged.

TBruce: And that (unvaccinated) child is probably healthier than most these days.

Until he or she contracts a vaccine-preventable disease, thanks to the loss of herd immunity promoted by Shaw and his buddies.

TBruce, well thanks to your buddies we're paying out a lot of money in vaccine damages and special needs education/rehab. Not to mention the human cost. OH God my child has chicken pox, they're doooooooooommmmed.

So SS - how much exactly would we (society) be paying out for health care costs associated with historical infection levels of Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Polio, et. al?

Not to mention (because you did) special needs / rehab costs associated with birth defects associated with Rubella (for one)?

You don't have a clue......

@Lawrence

Then there are deafness and blindness from measles. Encephalitis from a wide range of illnesses and so forth. A small look at the costs to treat the diseases prevented by vaccines can be found via the link in my name.

@Todd - love the website, point people to it as often as I can to dispel a lot of the myths out there.

Actually, thhe measles / deafness link is pretty interesting. Living close to Gallaudet University, I've been exposed to a bit of the history of deaf culture in the US - and the total deaf population in this country has decreased significantly over the past 50 years, particularly with the introduction of the measles vaccine, which has resulted in a serious drop in total student population there (and in the last ten years, the debate about the Cochlar implants has been much more contentious).

But this is a very tangible result of the success of the measles vaccine.

Morphing to avoid killfiles, Sillysauce? And still no answers? Come now, you're better than that. (Well no, actually everypony knows you're not, but you can change that.)

Still waiting for those answers...

Common Sue on the Sicky Sauce:

TBruce, well thanks to your buddies we're paying out a lot of money in vaccine damages and special needs education/rehab

Citations, please. Similar to the following:

Impact of Vaccines Universally Recommended for ChildrenâUnited States, 1900-1998

From that article:

Before the first vaccine was licensed, an estimated 20,000 cases of Hib invasive disease occurred each year, and Hib was the leading cause of childhood bacterial meningitis and postnatal mental retardation.

Again, Common Sue, do you really want haemophilus influenzae type b to return? Why?

Lawrence:

But this is a very tangible result of the success of the measles vaccine.

Oops, failed to close blackquote. Only the first line should be in a quote.

Thanks for the info..

Man how did people ever live hundreds of years ago without pumping children full of chemicals... I have lived an overly healthy life along with my 12 and 15 year olds without any chemicals put in our bodies. Parents that force chemicals into childrens bodies should be put to death. There is a correct way to be healthy and stabbing children with chemicals is not it....

agent:

Man how did people ever live hundreds of years ago without pumping children full of chemicals...

They had a dozen children hoping that a couple would live to adulthood. Mary Shelly, who wrote "Frankenstein", had five children and only one lived to adulthood.

How come you don't know this?

@ agent: My cousin contracted measles before a vaccine was developed; he had lifelong lasting disabilities due to measles encephalopathy. My early childhood friend died of polio, before the Salk vaccine was developed.

You have been fortunate so far that your children haven't contracted a serious, sometimes deadly, vaccine-preventable disease.

Did you mistakenly wander over here...where "intelligent" and "educated" people post? Perhaps you would feel more comfortable posting on another site where unintelligent and uneducated people post.

@agent

So you live in a vacuum without eating, drinking, or breathing, and manage to survive? This is an incredible breakthrough. Why aren't you sharing this miraculous chemical-free lifestyle with the rest of humanity? You've performed a feat contrary to everything we know about physics and violated entropy! Please share your secrets to chemical-free life.

I have lived an overly healthy life along with my 12 and 15 year olds without any chemicals put in our bodies.

Define "chemicals"?

How about chlorophyll?
How about the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, sulphur, magnesium, silicon, boron, chlorine, manganese, iron, zinc, copper, molybdenum ,nickel, selenium, and sodium present in plants?

I won't even mention those found in air and water.

Idjit!

Oh come now, Sauceress. We all know how to tell the sorts of chemicals she means. It's all in the names! Pure lemon juice -- 100% natural, organic, and healthy*, right? But what about these things? You don't want to touch them**!

2-[3-[(4-Amino-2-methyl-pyrimidin-5-yl)methyl]-4-methyl-thiazol-5-yl] ethanol

7,8-Dimethyl-10-[2,3,4,5-tetrahydroxypentyl]benzo[g]pteridine-2,4(3H,10H)-dione

Nicotinic acid

3-[(2,4-dihydroxy-3,3-dimethylbutanoyl)amino]propanoic acid

(2S)-2-[(4-{[(2-amino-4-hydroxypteridin-6-yl)methyl]amino}phenyl)formamido]pentanedioic acid

* Well, unless, like me, you're allergic to it.
** They are, respectively, the IUPAC names for thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid, and folic acid, all B vitamins, and all found in lemon juice.

If you're going to pontificate about someone blabbering nonsense outside his specialty, at the very least do not make brain-dead spelling errors. Norris has studied "martial arts". Otherwise, this blog entry was fairly good. It was just glaring for someone who makes a point of defending scientific accuracy to make such a simple terminological error.

Bryan, who is the "you" in your first sentence? If you mean Orac, I think you will find he does not tolerate grammar/spelling pedants.

Spelling and grammar Nazis are the most tiresome form of troll. I'd like to see them write 2,000 words a day and not make the occasional typing fart.

If the Thompson study showed both positive and negative impacts of Thimerosal... then why just assume that that means it had "no impact" as you do (which would be a large assumtive leap to me, to see impacts and assume no impact?) So why would you not instead consider and further explore hormetic or non-monotonic dose responses to delineate the issues? Something it seems neither side considers.

aka...that the impact can be positive or negative depending on the system, timing, dose or the state of the system it is put into? Those to me seem equally if not more scientifically plausible than "no impact". Yes? Since that is not what the evidence suggests..

@215 demonstrating hormesis is extremely difficult to the point where it is difficult to reliably show that it Is even a real thing. In any case, the study referenced is not set up to show dose-response the uneven raw data which appear to conflict just underline the inability of the study to refute the null hypothesis. The variance is far more likely explainable by chance than some contrived nonmonotonic model. Do the study again. Show me the U curve. Then we can talk.

All it takes for someone to really become educated about vaccine's permanent neurological side effects is to have one of their own children completely lose all their language and social skills directly after a round of vaccinations. It is then and only then that the determination to get to the facts is extreme. On the surface....Yes, of course if you could choose for your child to either develop rotavirus or not, you would choose the latter. But if there is even a greater risk of them developing neurological damage from the combined effects of multiple vaccines at one time (the effects of which have never been studied), it leads to a very tough decision of whether or not to vaccinate your child fully.

There are so many vaccines in the works right now. Who knows what the CDC and AAP will be recommending in 10 years. Our children may get 85 vaccinations before they turn one year old. At what point is it too much? There is definitely a toxic/immune threshold. No one has even studied combined effects of vaccinations. The studies that are done on the vaccinations are done by the drug companies themselves. There is a federal vaccine court that reimburses families of the vaccine-injured. Billions of dollars have been paid to these families. The drug companies are not liable for any damaging effects of vaccinations. It is corruption at the highest possible level.

Our children may get 85 vaccinations before they turn one year old.

Well, there's a new one.

Carrie:

Yes, of course if you could choose for your child to either develop rotavirus or not, you would choose the latter.

My son did get rotavirus as a toddler. It was over a week with rivers of diarrhea, even with multiple diapers (cloth plus plastic), it escaped. He also became dehydrated, and then had a seizure which prompted an ambulance trip to the hospital.

But if there is even a greater risk of them developing neurological damage from the combined effects of multiple vaccines at one time (the effects of which have never been studied), it leads to a very tough decision of whether or not to vaccinate your child fully.

Actually it has been studied. Now you need to tell us exactly what the rate of neurological damage comes from the vaccines versus the diseases. Here is a paper on the effects of measles (it is free online from PubMed):
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S4-16.
The clinical significance of measles: a review.

It says: "Postinfectious encephalomyelitis (PIE) occurs in 13 per 1000 infected persons,". Be sure to tell us which vaccine causes encephalomyelitis one out of a hundred doses. Be sure to document your answer from the standard scientific literature.

And do please tell us why it would be more cost effective to treat measles instead of preventing it. Because, how do we know you are not from "Big Hospital Supply."

Oh, and do list those 85 vaccines before age one. We'd love to see that, especially since that is before the MMR is given.

By the way, here is an interesting blog post on the two billion dollars spent on vaccine injury compensation over the last twenty-plus years: OH NO! The US has paid out $2 BILLION in vaccine injury compensation! That must mean vaccines are dangerous!.

Also, it is bad form to post on an old blog article when there are newer ones on the same subject being actively discussed. Go to the left side of this page and click on one of the links under the words "Recent Posts." You will see one that is cryptically titled "The annals of "I'm not anti-vaccine," part 9 (The first volley of 2012)."

Chris lies about the diseases her children got-caught a lie in one of her posts.

ken, please prove where I lied. List the article, comment number and date.

What on earth are you talking about? My son got a now vaccine preventable disease that sent him to the hospital.

Was there a vaccine for rotavirus in 1990? Yes or no?

Here is an exercise for you, ken. Put the words "chris rotavirus ambulance" in the search box on the left hand side of this page. Tell us what you find, preferably with full sentences.

(Seriously, what grade are you in? You are acting like a child.)

Our children may get 85 vaccinations before they turn one year old.

Hunh. Normally, when I pull numbers out of thin air I just use the Heinz "57"... So there's a shred of creativity there, at least.

-- Steve

@225 Anton: It's really not creative, it's a steal from The Manchurian Candidate, but a good one since it's a fabricated number there, too.

@ken: I have been following all of Chris' posts, including the topic of he child's dreadful episode of rotavirus...I don't think she ever lied.

Why don't you look for yourself and report back here. (I also expect that you will apologize to Chris if, following your investigation, you find you maligned Chris).

"Oh, and do list those 85 vaccines before age one. We'd love to see that, especially since that is before the MMR is given."

Ah, alas...reading comprehension fail. That, or you only see what you want to see.

Let's look at the relevant quote in full context, yes?

"There are so many vaccines in the works right now. *Who knows what the CDC and AAP will be recommending in 10 years*. Our children *may* get 85 vaccinations before they turn one year old."

Essentially, what is being said here is that in 10 years, our children MIGHT BE GETTING 85 vaccinations before they turn a year old.

Please, if you're going to nitpick and berate a commentor, at least try to comprehend what they are saying instead of accusing them of saying something else entirely.

Oh, wait...I forget. It's the bread and butter of you sycophants to attack strawmen.

OIAQ:

Please, if you're going to nitpick and berate a commentor, at least try to comprehend what they are saying instead of accusing them of saying something else entirely.

That was only one of the silly things she said. Now what about the rest of what she said?

If you are going to continue to nitpick how respond to silly comments, perhaps you should try to answer the questions the questions our responses. So please do tell us with actual evidence which vaccines cause severe issues more often than the diseases. Plus exactly how is treating a disease more cost effective than preventing a disease?

If you don't answer those questions you are a hypocrite.

"Our children may get 85 vaccinations before they turn one year old."
Extremely unlikely.
The current schedule calls for vaccination against 8 diseases before 1 year old (DTaP, Hib, PCV, HepB, rota, IPV), each given in 3 doses, plus another 2 for the flu. Add them all up and you get 26 vaccine doses (of course, the actual number of vaccines is less, since D,T, and P are not given separately, and usually Pentacel or Pediarix 5-in-1 cut the numbers down even more, but we'll allow 26 for the sake of argument).
So to reach 85 vaccinations, we would need to add another 59 vaccines to the current schedule. Even assuming each vaccine requires 3 doses, that still leaves 20 separate vaccines.
I don't know exactly what's in the pipeline, but I'd be highly skeptical that there are 20 different vaccines currently being developed that would be standard and given to all children routinely. In any case, 20 different and new routine vaccines would certainly be a record, as that number has not been introduced in any previous decade. And then we'd need to figure out how to give them, since logistically it's hard to give more than 4 vaccines at a time; the manufacturers would have to make some impressive combination vaccines. Since it took years and years just to come up with two 5-in-1 vaccines, based on all existing "components," this also seems very unlikely.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good scary story.
"At what point is it too much? There is definitely a toxic/immune threshold."
You sound very confident about this. You also imply that we might be near it. Could you provide some evidence to back up your assertions? And please point to specific toxic thresholds, or evidence of antigenic overload, in your reply. Because Paul Offit has already written very convincingly why he believes we are nowhere close to such a hypothetical threshold.

Chuck Norris outdoes Jenny McCarthy on vaccines

More like this

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Poul Thorsen: The fine art of distraction from inconvenient facts

The use of Poul Thorsen to distract from inconvenient facts about vaccine safety continues apace

2010: Another bad year for the anti-vaccine movement, as the Special Masters rule

Danish investigator Poul Thorsen: Custom-made for the anti-vaccine movement to distract from inconvenient science

Turning out the lights and moving on: Goodbye, old ScienceBlogs blog, hello new blog

A quick update on the migration to a new domain

A change is gonna come. Respectful Insolence is moving.

And the box of blinky lights has arrived in Manchester for QEDCon

On the "integration" of quackery into the medical school curriculum

Even Better than a Halloween Costume: Life Size Cutouts!

Spider gastrulation

The Mersey monster is photographed!!!