I don’t know what it is about the beginning of a year. I don’t know if it’s confirmation bias or real, but it sure seems that something big happens early every year in the antivaccine world. Consider. As I pointed out back in February 2009, in rapid succession Brian Deer reported that Andrew Wakefield had not only had undisclosed conflicts of interest regarding the research that he did for his now infamous 1998 Lancet paper but that he had falsified data. Of course, in response Keith Olbermann was totally played by the antivaccine movement, resulting in some truly mind-numbingly dumb criticism of Brian Deer, but that was more of a sideshow than anything else. Then, a couple of weeks later the Special Masters weighed in, rejecting the claims of autism causation by vaccines made in the three test cases about as resoundingly as is imaginable in the first test case. Then, in February 2010, in rapid succession Andrew Wakefield, the hero of the antivaccine movement, was struck off the British medical register, saw his 1998 Lancet paper retracted by the editors, and was unceremoniously booted from his medical directorship of Thoughtful House, the autism quack clinic he helped to found after he fled the U.K. for the more friendly confines of Texas. Then, to add insult to injury, the Special Masters weighed in again, rejecting causation claims of the remaining test cases of the Autism Omnibus so resoundingly that the antivaccine movement cried “conspiracy!” (as they usually do). Then, in January 2011, Brian Deer struck again, publishing more damaging revelations about Wakefield, referring to his work as Piltdown medicine in the British journal BMJ.

This year, things were different.

By saying that this year things were different, however, let me make it clear that I don’t mean “different” in the sense that there wasn’t another major story that roiled the antivaccine crankosphere. There certainly was. However, in 2009, 2010, and 2011, for antivaccine activists it was all unrelenting bad news as each year began. Indeed, I tend to view the period between 2004 and 2008 as being the high water mark for the antivaccine movement, at least in the US. It’s been (nearly) all downhill since then. It’s hard to tell yet if 2012 is going to be a glitch in that downhill progression, but tis year something happened that, at least to supporters of Andrew Wakefield, seemed like a great thing. To those of us who know his case and know how far Wakefield’s fallen, it smacked of sheer desperation every bit as much as when the National Vaccine Information Center’s Barbara Loe Fisher sued Paul Offit, journalist Amy Wallace, and her publisher Conde Nasttwo years ago for libel, yes, in January. (She lost spectacularly.) Yes, as 2012 dawned, Andrew Wakefield, for some inexplicable reason, decided to sue journalist Brian Deer, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee, and the BMJ for libel based on Deer’s 2011 expose. Actually, the reason wasn’t so inexplicable. My favorite legal folks informed me that the statute of limitations in Texas for libel is one year. Also, his lawyer is apparently a neighbor whose daughter knows Wakefield’s daughter through their activities with the Autism Trust USA. The lawsuit is dated very close to one year after the BMJ’s first article is published. In any case, this news greatly heartened the

Then, just last week, there was more than a bit of whooping it up in the antivaccine crankosphere, which appeared to be partying like it’s 2005, which was when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. first published his antivaccine screed in Salon.com and Rolling Stone. From the rejoicing that’s been going on, you’d think that Andrew Wakefield had been completely exonerated of fraud and proven right about his fear mongering that blamed the MMR vaccine for autism. This is odd, given that the news story that broke last week was not about Andrew Wakefield directly. Rather, it was about Professor John Walker-Smith, one of the co-authors of Andrew Wakefield’s discredited and retracted 1998 Lancet paper. The antivaccine crank blog is going wild with the news that Professor Walker-Smith has succeeded in his appeal of the General Medical Council’s decision that he should be struck off the medical record along with Andy Wakefield.

On AoA, no less a figure than Jenny McCarthy herself has returned to demonstrate that, as much as she has been keeping her antivaccine activism on the down-low lately, she hasn’t given it up. She did this by posting an article on the antivaccine blog affiliated with her group Generation Rescue entitled MMR Doctor Exonerated–Who’s Guilty Now? In it, McCarthy demonstrates once again that as a scientist she’s a great comedienne. Well, actually, she’s not much good at either, but she’s really bad interpreting science and proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt in this article. First, she crows about how the “parent autism community” antivaccine community is “buzzing with excitement” over the news of Walker-Smith’s success in his appeal of the GMC’s ruling to strike him off the British medical register. No doubt. J.B. Handley and company probably need a chiropractor for back strain from high-fiving each other. Next, there is the appeal to anecdote:

For parents of children with autism, this whole mess has always been a bit of a head-scratcher. The Lancet study’s conclusion that children with autism suffer from bowel disease is something any autism parent could easily confirm, and MMR, by far, has been the vaccine most commonly cited by parents as a trigger for a regression into autism. In my travels, I have heard the same story from parents about MMR leading to regression thousands of times.

Confirmation bias much, Jenny? In any case, Jenny can’t resist asking some rhetorical questions that indicate that she thinks that the Walker-Smith decision heralds the imminent exoneration of her hero St. Andrew not just legally but based on the science. She even goes so far as to ask:

Now what? If the foundation of the proof that the MMR does not trigger autism is crumbling, what in the world are parents supposed to believe? If Professor Walker-Smith is not guilty on all charges, will Dr. Wakefield be next?

The answer is no, Jenny. Sorry, but the “foundation of the proof that the MMR does not trigger autism” is not crumbling, as the issues in the Walker-Smith case were not nearly as clear-cut as they were in Andrew Wakefield’s case. Actually, they were pretty clear-cut in that I think Justice Mitting exhibits horribly mangled reasoning and demonstrates a very clear lack of understanding of medical ethics, in particular the distinction between research and treatment. In fact, this “foundation” gets stronger every year, which is why scientists have moved on to other issues about autism causation. The vaccine-autism hypothesis was a dead end.

Not that that stops McCarthy from asking hopefully:

Unfortunately, the GMC’s decision to turn Dr. Wakefield and Prof. Walker-Smith’s paper into a three-ring circus has put a chill on research into all the possible environmental causes of autism. Will this finally open the floodgates?

In a word: No. Also note that to an antivaccinationist like McCarthy, “possible environmental causes of autism” is code for “vaccines done it.” McCarthy is arguing that, just because Professor Walker-Smith succeeded in his appeal, Andrew Wakefield was right in his science. Seriously. Underneath the verbiage, that’s the argument being made. As I pointed out last week, if you doubt me, Justice Mitting’s full ruling can be found here. As usual, what the antivaccine movement is promoting and what is in the ruling are not necessarily the same thing. Also, as I pointed out last time, The implications of Mitting’s ruling are frightening in their potential. Basically, if his ruling stands, it’s hard not to wonder whether it’s open season on human research subjects in the UK. Autism quacks in the UK have good reason to rejoice. As it stands, one has to wonder whether they can now get away with essentially anything.

Be that as it may, antivaccinationist supporters of Wakefield (wait, I think that’s redundant given that supporters of Wakefield are virtually all antivaccine) really do think that Mitting’s ruling will lead to Wakefield’s prevailing in his libel suit. Truly, the ability of these people to delude themselves knows no bounds. For instance, here’s Dan Olmsted on the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism:

From the Editor: Suit-able

BMJ and Deer file response to Wakefield suit in Texas. Bad timing: Walker-Smith appeal just demolished most of their evidence that Andy is a “fraud.”

Except that it doesn’t, which is part of the reason why I find this comment particularly amusing:

It seems the BMJ is reluctant to have its case heard before a justice system …

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/03/bmj-brian-deer-file-anti-slapp-suit-against-andrew-wakefield/

Many Deer supporters have consistently asked for Andy Wakefield to take the legal route now it has happened it seems it’s a contest they don’t want to happen.

Interesting.

Yes, Brian Deer’s attorneys and Brian Deer himself have filed their responses to Wakefield’s lawsuit. This response consists, as I and many others have predicted, of an anti-SLAPP motion, to which Brian Deer adds his own 101 page supporting document. For those not familiar with the term, SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Basically, SLAPPs are lawsuits designed to silence critics in important public matters. They succeed in this by intimidation and burdening critics with the cost of legal defenses. Often, in fact, those who file SLAPP-style lawsuits do not expect to prevail in court. Rather, they expect to intimidate and burden their critics to the point of silencing them or, at the very least, greatly reducing their effectivenss. In general, wealthy interests, because they have more resources, can afford the expense of pursuing libel suits of this sort, while the defendants usually cannot. As a result, often defendants are silenced. Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to allow victims of SLAPPs to quash lawsuits and recover damages. Not surprisingly, Wakefield’s libel suit reeks of SLAPP.

The key pillars of Deer’s response to Wakefield’s SLAPP rest on demonstrating that, in fact, Wakefield’s lawsuit is a SLAPP and therefore should be quashed on those grounds. include arguing the factual background and pointing out that the truth is an absolute defense against libel, arguing that the Texas anti-SLAPP statute applies, arguing that Wakefield cannot show malice, and pointing out that Wakefield meets the definition of a public figure, making the bar for libel much higher. Basically, the outline (which I’ve abbreviated to only its main headings) tells you what you need to know:

I. Introduction

II. Grounds for this anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss

III. Evidence in support of this anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss

IV. Factual background

  • Dr. Wakefield and the MMR Scare
  • Brian Deer Begins to Investigate Dr. Wakefield and His Role in the MMR Scare
  • After the Longest Hearing in the History of the GMC, Dr. Wakefield’s Medical License Is Revoked
  • Deer Continues to Cover the MMR Scare with Reports in the Sunday Times in 2009
  • Dr. Wakefield’s Frivolous Libel Claims and Complaints against Deer The BMJ Articles and Editorials

V. Texas’ new anti-SLAPP statute applies to Dr. Wakefield’s claims

VI. Dr. Wakefield’s claims fail because he cannot show that the challenged statements are false.

  • Dr. Wakefield Must Prove that Defendants’ Statements Are Not
  • Substantially True.
  • Dr. Wakefield Is Precluded from Re-litigating the GMC’s Findings,
  • Which Establish the Substantial Truth of the Challenged Statements
  • The Undisputed Evidence Also Establishes the Substantial Truth of the Challenged Statements

VII. Defendants’ statements of opinion and hyperbole are not actionable

  • Several of Defendants’ Statements, Including that Dr. Wakefield’s Research Must Have Been “Fraud,” Are Nonactionable Expressions of Opinion
  • Defendants’ Expressions of Rhetorical Hyperbole and Colorful Language Are Not Actionable

VIII. Dr. Wakefield’s claims based on Brian Deer’s website publications are barred by the statute of limitations

IX. Dr. Wakefield is a public figure and he cannot show actual malice

  • Dr. Wakefield is a public figure
  • Defendants did not act with actual malice.

It’s worth reading the entire response for its richness of detail, but I’ll “cherry pick” a few of the choice bits for my post. The first question that comes up, of course, is the very one that the AoA commenter brought up, because it signals to me what I’m sure will be the recurring attack launched at Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, and the BMJ, namely that Deer’s response is “cowardly” because it tries to get the lawsuit quashed based on Texas’ anti-SLAPP law. This is a profoundly silly argument. Legal actions are expensive, draining, and time-consuming, particularly when conducted across national borders. Given that Wakefield’s lawsuit has no merit, while it might be “noble” to let the suit proceed and use the opportunity to go toe-to-toe with Wakefield, it would be foolish and expensive. The law gives Deer and Godlee a tool to try to get this frivolous lawsuit dismissed, and they’d be foolish not to use it not only to do that but to punish Wakefield for abusing the legal process.

Moreover, as I’ve pointed out before, this argument is profoundly disingenuous in that it would not be in Wakefield’s interest to let this case go to the discovery phase. That would allow Deer and Godlee’s lawyers question Wakefield directly, and he couldn’t dodge that. Moreover, it would allow them to subpoena all sorts of information that Wakefield very likely would not be happy to reveal to the world, and I’d bet that such information would likely only serve to confirm the findings of the GMC and the conclusions of Brian Deer’s investigations. It might also, as I pointed out before, allow the defendants’ lawyers to depose all manner of Wakefield’s connections relevant to this libel suit, possibly even some of Generation Rescue’s luminaries and bloggers at AoA, given that it appears very much to me as though GR and AoA coordinate their attacks on Deer and Godlee with Wakefield. In particular, they are helping to raise money for Wakefield for his legal action.

One of the amusing bits in the anti-SLAPP response occurs when Deer’s lawyers point out that off-the-cuff remarks made by Deer are not actionable:

For similar reasons, Texas courts have long held that a statement of rhetorical hyperbole or one using colorful language is nonactionable. Such a statement “does not, in its common usage, convey a verifiable fact, but is, by its nature, somewhat indefinite and ambiguous. . . .”

Falk & Mayfield, L.L.P. v. Molzan, 974 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). For example, Texas courts have identified a long list of statements that are simply too indefinite to sustain a viable libel claim. See, e.g., id. (accusing a law firm of “lawsuit abuse” nonactionable); Zimmer, 257 S.W.3d at 512 (accusing coach of using “obscene gesture” nonactionable); Kerr, 706 S.W.2d at 799 (holding that an accusation of “cheating” in an editorial was nonactionable); Associated Press v. Cook, 17 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (labeling the plaintiff a “blight on law enforcement” who has caused “unbelievable problems” was nonactionable); Yiamouyiannis v. Thompson, 764 S.W.2d 338, 339-40 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1988, writ denied) (holding that statements calling the plaintiff a “quack, a hoke artist, and a fearmonger,” are “vintage hyperbole, and are not capable of proof one way or the other”). In fact, courts in other cases have considered the very same expressions challenged by Dr. Wakefield here and found them to be nonactionable.

Imagine my relief that, in Texas at least, calling Wakefield a “fraudster” is protected speech. Maybe that’s what I’ll call Wakers from now on.

My relief that many of my more–shall we say?–colorful utterances and writings about Andrew Wakefield are almost certainly protected speech notwithstanding, there’s no doubt that Andrew Wakefield has to clear a very high bar to have any chance of prevailing. He has to demonstrate the following:

Dr. Wakefield may have figured that, in Texas, there would be little “downside” to filing frivolous libel claims and using the suit to raise money and harass his critics. Not so anymore. To avoid dismissal under our State’s new anti-SLAPP statute, Dr. Wakefield must submit evidence to support each essential element of his libel claims. He cannot do this for several reasons. First, the statements he challenges are true. The GMC findings against him–numerous proven charges of “dishonest” and “unethical” conduct–are binding in this case, and they leave no room for Wakefield to argue that he was defamed by Defendants’ reporting and editorial comment. And Defendants have overwhelming additional evidence to establish the truth of the challenged statements.

Moreover, even if Dr. Wakefield could produce evidence of falsity and overcome Defendants’ other defenses, his claims would still fail. He is indisputably a public figure, and therefore must prove that Defendants acted with actual malice–that they knew what they were publishing was false. Again, this will be an impossible burden for Dr. Wakefield. The reporting he challenges was the product of years of investigation by one of the United Kingdom’s best reporters, exhaustively sourced, then subjected to multiple editorial reviews, including an external review by an expert pediatrician. And Dr. Wakefield’s credibility on these matters had been so thoroughly eviscerated by his repeated obfuscation, posturing, and outright lying that Defendants had no doubts about the accuracy of their reporting, despite Wakefield’s protestations of innocence.

Also, as is noted numerous times, Wakefield’s history of frivolous lawsuits does not help his case.

As Popehat notes, this motion, on an initial reading, looks very strong.

Particularly strong is the excruciatingly detailed reconstruction of the evidence against Wakefield, both from the GMC hearings and Deer’s own investigations. If you want to know why it’s purely wishful thinking on Olmsted’s and McCarthy’s part to think that the reversal of Walker-Smith’s loss of his medical license has any significant bearing on either Wakefield’s GMC case or, in particular, this frivolous lawsuit, you’d do well to read the sections in the anti-SLAPP response and Brian Deer’s response to Wakefield’s lawsuit describing Wakefield’s activities and the evidence against him. For example, in Walker-Smith’s case, the primary offense that the GMC found him guilty of doing tests (such as lumbar punctures, MRIs, and colonoscopies) for research purposes rather than clinical purposes. That’s it. Wakefield did so much more:

The GMC panel handed down its findings on January 28, 2010, concluding that Dr. Wakefield had been dishonest, violated basic research ethics rules, and showed a “callous disregard” for the suffering of children involved in his research.32 Included among them were four different proven findings of dishonesty against Dr. Wakefield, all proven to a standard of criminal fault–akin to “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the United States.33 Among other things, the panel found that Dr. Wakefield improperly subjected some children to invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and MRI scans. Dr. Wakefield also paid children at his son’s birthday party to have blood drawn for research purposes. The GMC panel found that Dr. Wakefield’s Lancet research was “dishonest,” “irresponsible,” “misleading,” and inaccurate. The panel found that Dr. Wakefield improperly failed to disclose his connections to planned litigation, his patents for a competing vaccine, and the bias inherent in his selection of study subjects. The GMC panel further found that Dr. Wakefield’s conduct “was such as to bring the medical profession into disrepute.”

Basically, at the very best if you accept the reasoning behind Mitting’s ruling, you must conclude that Walker-Smith was Wakefield’s dupe. At worst, if you don’t accept the reasoning behind Mitting’s ruling, Walker-Smith was complicit. Either way, Justice Mitting’s ruling will not help Wakefield in his libel action. After all, Wakefield’s lawsuit was all about the article that Deer published in the BMJ and the accompanying editorial written by Fiona Godlee. Neither rehashed of the GMC hearings, even though it’s clear that Wakefield is trying to relitigate the GMC hearings using the vehicle of a libel suit. More importantly, even if Deer’s and Godlee’s articles were nothing more than rehashes of the GMC hearings, to prevail Wakefield must prove that Deer and/or Godlee believed or suspected what they wrote was false. They clearly did not. The only thing Justice Mitting’s decision held was that the GMC gave more weight to the expert witnesses against Walkers-Smith than the expert witnesses for him (and hence its decision should be reversed) and that the GMC didn’t consider whether or not Walkers-Smith believed the medical procedures were clinically indicated (and hence the GMC decision should be reversed). I’m not sure about the former, and I find Mitting’s understanding of medical research and its ethics to be dubious at best, but even if his reasoning were spot on, neither of his conclusions sheds any light on whether Deer or Godlee thought what they were publishing was accurate or not, while Deer’s and Godlee’s anti-SLAPP response delineates the incredible lengths to which the BMJ went to assure that Deer’s article was accurate:

Not only did the BMJ fully trust Deer and his reporting, it and Dr. Godlee took extra steps to ensure the reporting was truthful. For Deer, who was ever mindful of Dr. Wakefield’s prior litigation and regulatory-complaint history, this meant five months of work to ensure that every word and every citation was verified.166 For the BMJ, this meant a separate fact-check of the first article by a deputy editor (Smith) and an external review for scientific accuracy by an expert pediatrician (Dr. Marcovitch).167 Pre-publication review by outside sources constitutes affirmative evidence of no actual malice. See, e.g., Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex. 1984).

In other words, the reversal of the ruling in Walker-Smith’s case has no bearing on Wakefield’s libel suit. Remember, Walker-Smith’s argument basically boiled down to throwing Wakefield under the bus by admitting he did everything in the GMC complaint but arguing that he wasn’t aware that Wakefield was conducting a research project, much less one without proper approval by an ethics board.

So what now? In a way, I’m rather surprised that Wakefield put himself in such a situation. It sure strikes me as extreme hubris. Consider: Surely Wakefield’s lawyer had to be aware that Texas had recently passed an anti-SLAPP statuted designed specifically to punish the filing of lawsuits of the type that Wakefield is known for. Even worse, by filing this lawsuit, Wakefield might very well have unwittingly set himself up to be the first major test case for the new law. That is not a good situation to be in.

Whatever Wakefield’s motivations, to rally his supporters, hubris and vanity demanding that he try to salvage a shred of reputation, or just a desire to punish those who did the public such a great service in revealing the depths of Wakefield’s perfidy, Wakefield is following an unfortunately well-worn path in suing the legal system to try to silence critics. It is what cranks do. What makes this interesting is that this time Wakefield might pay a price.

What’s also revealing is how antivaccine cranks view not just Wakefield’s libel suit but how they view legal processes in general. In a way, they view such issues in a manner similar to how people in general do, but with our normal tendencies to view results that we like as correct and results that we don’t like as incorrect cranked up to 11. For example, to them Walker-Smith’s success on appeal is not just a ruling that disagreed with the General Medical Council’s explanation of its reasoning for striking off Walker-Smith based on questionable understandings of clinical trial ethics and how medicine is practiced, it’s a vindication of their world view as embodied in Andrew Wakefield. Similarly, Wakefield’s lawsuit is also vindication. It’s not difficult to predict that, when Wakefield’s libel suit is dismissed (and, make no mistake, a frivolous lawsuit like this will be dismissed) and he is hit with Deer’s and the BMJ’s legal expenses, antivaccinationist will view it as more persecution of their hero.

Comments

  1. #1 lilady
    March 23, 2012

    “What tests should a pediatrician order on 14 month old male who s spikes a fever, has seizures which abate over time, and develops ear infections and or diarrhea in temporal proximity to well baby visit?”

    Here you go, Pro…tell us, using your expertise, how many of the children in the study had “medical indications” to justify lumbar punctures:

    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/80773-overview

    “On your board, Orac, Crosby is being smeared as a stalker. That line of attack is nothing less than medical McCarthyism, just as is so much of this nonsense. Eject Crosby from a public meeting at NIH? For what? For asking a questions? For making Dr. Offit uncomfortable? The players here are couching this in deliberately loaded terms to attempt Crosby’s professional destruction. It is shameful, it is disgusting, it obvious, and it’s on your watch, Mr. Orac.”

    Crosby has no “profession” and he will never have a “profession”. All a prospective employer need do is ‘Google’ “Jake Crosby Age of Autism” to locate his 73 yellow journalism, libelous, scurrilous posts:

    http://www.ageofautism.com/jake-crosby/

    His lack of employment in any profession in the future is his own doing…it’s always been an “inside job”.

  2. #2 Chris
    March 23, 2012

    lurker:

    @Chris- It’s a PDF you are lazy

    So, what is the URL of that pdf? Do you know what I mean by “URL”? It is the actual website address, which usually starts with “http”, sometimes includes “www”, and the one I want must include “.gov” (an example: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/rubella.pdf … see, has a “.gov” and is a PDF, notice how the letters are a different color). Quoting parts of it is not sufficient. So give me the URL that you are quoting.

    Proscientifica, I was asking for the House of Representatives report of June 15, 2000 that you claim to be quoting. It has to have a .gov URL (that means it is actually from a US government website). So why are you giving me a silly AoA link? Is English your second language?

    You made a claim about a report on Offit and a rotavirus vaccine, so you must support that claim.

    By the way (again), which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s: RotaShield or RotaTeq? What is the difference between them? It is a simple question, surely you can answer it.

  3. #3 lurker
    March 23, 2012

    “No safety or efficacy data are available from clinical trials regarding the administration of RotaTeq to infants who are potentially immunocompromised.
    No safety or efficacy data are available for administration of RotaTeq to infants with a history of gastrointestinal disorders.
    Vaccine virus transmission from vaccine recipient to non-vaccinated contacts has been reported. Caution is advised when considering whether to administer RotaTeq to individuals with immunodeficient contacts.
    In post-marketing experience, intussusception (including death) and Kawasaki disease have been reported in infants who have received RotaTeq.
    RotaTeq may not protect all vaccine recipients against rotavirus. “

  4. #4 Chemmomo
    March 23, 2012

    Proscientifica @197

    What tests should a pediatrician order on 14 month old male who s spikes a fever, has seizures which abate over time, and develops ear infections and or diarrhea in temporal proximity to well baby visit? Assume the child suffers from yellow, fouls smelling stools for a period of not less than six months starting at age 14 months

    Re Seizures: EEG.

    As for the rest, I can think of any number of causes of ear infections and diarrhea. Most of them are not at all related to vaccines (but depending on the waiting room, could be related to a well baby visit). Was the 14 month old recently introduced to milk? That can cause bowel issues for some – which will continue until you cut out the dairy products. And 14 month olds walk around, encounter other humans who may or may not be healthy, and they still stick a lot of random stuff in their mouths.

    Does it really make a difference if the child is male or female? What would we do a for female child having seizures? Oh, right, EEG.

    And what do you mean by “temporal proximity?” Wakefield’s two weeks?

    I think your bias is showing.

    You’re losing credibility by the post, proscientifica.

    By the way, when you start misspelling your own screen name, it’s time to call it a night. Did you intend to link an email address at #200?

  5. #5 lilady
    March 23, 2012

    lurker…I posed questions to you (post 198):

    Which rotavirus vaccine was licensed in 1998, and which pharmaceutical company developed that vaccine?

    Which other rotavirus vaccines have been licensed since 1998 and which pharmaceutical companies developed those vaccines?

    I’m still waiting, lurker.

  6. #6 Julian Frost
    March 23, 2012

    @Lurker:

    No safety or efficacy data are available from clinical trials regarding the administration of RotaTeq to infants who are potentially immunocompromised.

    Citation Needed.

    Vaccine virus transmission from vaccine recipient to non-vaccinated contacts has been reported. Caution is advised when considering whether to administer RotaTeq to individuals with immunodeficient contacts.

    Again, Citation Needed.

    In post-marketing experience, intussusception (including death) and Kawasaki disease have been reported in infants who have received RotaTeq.

    Citation Needed, specifically that the vaccine caused the deaths. Oh, and Age of Autism is not a reliable source.

  7. #7 Chris
    March 23, 2012

    lurker, you need to learn how to post website references. You cannot just pull quotes from the Internets and expect anyone to verify them without the actual URL address.

    Learn how to cut and paste the URL. You do not need to imbed them into HTML (like The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review), all you have to do is show use what is the web address. Something like (same link):
    http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.long

    We know that sometimes there is a learning curve. It took a bit of time for lilady to post links, but she learned and has been doing a phenomenal job of finding links to very pertinent documents. You can do the same thing if you set your mind to it.

  8. #8 lurker
    March 23, 2012
  9. #9 lurker
    March 23, 2012

    @Chris- Sorry it took so long I lost the URL see @Julian@208

  10. #10 Chris
    March 23, 2012

    lurker, how is that the US Government URL for the “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000”? Seriously? I am still waiting for someone to post the actual URL to that report, and definitely not something from AoA or whale.to.

    Now, again… which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s: RotaShield or RotaTeq? Why is that significant?

    Come on, lurker and proscientifica, answer those questions!

  11. #11 lilady
    March 23, 2012

    Trolls made the allegation that Paul Offit voted on a rotavirus vaccine during his tenure on the ACIP. Neither Troll has answered the questions posed to them by Chris and by me,specifically…

    Which rotavirus vaccine was licensed in 1998 and which pharmaceutical company developed that specific vaccine?

    Which rotavirus vaccines were licensed since then…and which pharmaceutical companies developed each of these vaccines?

    The “lurker” troll then cherry-picks some quotes from a rotavirus manufacturer’s prescribing information about “reports” “In post-marketing experience, intussusception (including death) and Kawasaki disease have been reported in infants who have received RotaTeq”. (lurker still does not get “it” that any reports, including unverified reports from parents on the VAERS system, are required by the FDA to be included in the Drug Manufacturer’s Prescribing Information Sheet).

    Here is a website that describes the three rotavirus vaccines that were licensed since 1998 in the United States, and the many studies that have been conducted. Note there “may be” increased incidence of intussusception, above baseline incidence of intussusception (in an unimmunized child). Note also that these reports represent more that 60 million doses of the two newer rotavirus vaccines…not the vaccine that was in 1998 licensed, and removed within 14 months of licensure in 1999.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/intussusception-studies-acip.htm

    Try again to answer my questions and the questions posed by Chris about which rotavirus vaccine was licensed in 1998…by which pharmaceutical company and, which other rotavirus vaccines have been licensed since then, by which pharmaceutical companies?

    I think your attempts to smear Dr. Offit are just as reprehensible as Crosby’s pathetic smear campaign.

  12. #12 Julian Frost
    March 23, 2012

    Lurker, thank you for the link, even though it’s not a Government Report. Having said that, and given that it came from Merck, I’d say that the comments you posted were typical CYA that all reports have. Secondly, where is your proof that the vaccine CAUSED the deaths? Correlation != Causation.

  13. #13 Chris
    March 23, 2012

    lurker and Proscientifica, please tell us which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s: RotaShield or RotaTeq? Why is that difference significant in regards to Dr. Offit?

  14. #14 Lawrence
    March 23, 2012

    After reading through Proscientifica’s comments, especially those in relation to Brian Deer, I get the feeling that if he was around in the mid-70’s, he’d be calling Woodward & Bernstein mentally unstable for their fixation on Watergate & Nixon……

    A good investigative journalist follows actual evidence – what our boy Jake Crosby does is invent evidence (his “six-degrees” rants) out of whole cloth. He shows up at speaking events & throws out the same questions over and over again, which have all been answered, in detail, in the past.

    Given that Deer & the BMJ hired Vincent & Elkins to defend against Wakefield’s suit in Texas (they are an AMLAW 50 law firm & the attorneys representing them as experts in this field of caselaw), it looks like they are prepared to fight this one to the end – not exactly looking like the “ice is melting under Deer.”

    Just my early morning thoughts – Pro, your true colors are showing…..

  15. #15 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 23, 2012

    The CA Dad letter appears in comments for article Deer’s BMJ Articles not Peer Reviewed comment number 40. You’re welcome. Regret you were not able to find, I suggest you try again. It is there.

    Its presence in the comments does not make Olmsted’s dishonesty in posting the edited portion and lying about the contents of the rest any better.

    Dr. Offit is mentioned exactly as I redacted in the 2000 Congressional Report. You have a problem with that, bitch at Congress, not me.

    Your use of the word “redacted” is highly funny in this context. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    In any case, there is good reason, as Olmsted (and Pegasus/Emily in another thread) have recently proven, to be on one’s guard when an anti-vaxer waves some bit of text and says “see? see? these words were said! that supports my views! No, I won’t tell you what the context was! You don’t need to know, because the meaning of a sentence is never changed drastically by the context in which it appears!” That last sentence is of course completely false, because context – such as which of at least two rotavirus vaccines was being referred to – quite often changes import drastically.

    It struck me that NIH and Dr. Offit are not willing for whatever reason to allow Crosby to speak in a public forum. The worst he can do is embarrass himself. He might actually have a useful comment. Censoring him because his views are not appreciated makes NIH and Dr. Offit look scared and weak.

    This argument loses any force it has once you remove the anti-vaxer myopia and realize that there are other people in the world besides Jake Crosby and those other people are far more likely to have useful comments. Crosby has been given far more than his share of chances to actually contribute something useful to the discussion and has failed, quite consistently. The only people who think the best use of Q&A time is to let Jake Crosby harass the speaker are the same kind of people who defend Alan Yurko.

    Anyone here think the ice is melting under Deer? He would be the most convenient to throw under the proverbial bus so UCL and BMJ can kiss and make up. Oh, I forgot- that kind of speculation is a grand insult to the group think mentality. Regret considering a concept contrary to the party line.

    Unlike AoA, the SBM community doesn’t censor people for deviating from a party line. However, we do put social pressure on people to engage in realistic thinking based on facts. Your idea that “the ice is melting under Deer,” which you have been pushing since you first came in lying and pretending you were without a dog in the fight, is not based on facts or on realistic thinking.

  16. #16 Denice Walter
    March 23, 2012

    Here are some facts about AJW that are disturbing to me: perhaps his supporters can ease my mind and enlighten me.

    He applied for patents and set up companies based upon his postulated link between vaccines, GI issues and autism.

    He was associated with a firm seeking a class action.

    He accepted public legal funds.

    He did not replicate his research.

    He was let go by the Royal Free.

    He used legal manoeuvering in an attempt to silence critical press and television coverage.

    He was struck-off by the GMC and did not appeal.

    He again resorts to censoring criticism by legal means.

    You may notice that I deliberately left out his infamous study. Let’s pretend that I have no problem with that- however, what I do list above is enough for me to doubt his honesty.

  17. #17 JGC
    March 23, 2012

    What tests should a pediatrician order on 14 month old male who s spikes a fever, has seizures which abate over time, and develops ear infections and or diarrhea in temporal proximity to well baby visit

    Short answer? Exactly the same tests he’d order if these symptoms developed in the absence of temporal proximity to the well baby visit,

  18. #18 Militant Agnostic
    March 23, 2012

    Chris

    No, I won’t tell you what the context was! You don’t need to know, because the meaning of a sentence is never changed drastically by the context in which it appears!”

    This is a typical creationist tactic and was used to great effect by the AGW denialists with the stolen emails. Interesting that “Proscientifica” is operating out of the same playbook as the other anti-science movements.

  19. #19 Chris
    March 23, 2012

    Yes, I was suspicious of that “gotcha” quote from a congressional report when most of the websites I found using a Google search were whale.to, AoA, NVIC and other anti-vax site. The only two US Government websites with the words “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000” did not even have the words “Offit” or “rotavirus.”

    Their honestly is quite telling when they refuse to give the original link to congressional report, and even refuse to tell us where they cut and pasted the quote from.

  20. #20 Chris
    March 23, 2012

    Of course what was hilarious is that after explaining I could not find the official US government website, including explaining that that extension must be “.gov”, lurker replies with: “@Chris- It’s a PDF you are lazy”.

    I will note that neither Proscientifica nor lurker have told us which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s and why that information in regards to Offit is significant. It is yet another question that the anti-science anti-vax refuse to answer.

  21. #21 herr doktor bimler
    March 23, 2012

    Proscientifica:
    Right. I faked a Congressional Report.

    If the passage you quoted cannot be found on any of the government websites that exist to host reports of congressional hearings, then we are left with the conclusion that *someone* faked it. Obviously it is a *popular* passage — favoured by commenters pasting it to make their point in comment threads elsewhere (e.g. at LBRB) — but when the only primary source is a fraud-friendly website like whale.to, its popularity merely strengthens the suspicion of fakery.

    Lurker’s offer of an anonymous PDF encapsulation of the bare text — devoid of governmental watermarks or letterhead — does not help the case.

    Chris’ request seems reasonable, proscientifica. You quoted the passage so you must know where you cut-&-pasted it from. If it was a governmental source, pass on the details and everyone’s curiosity will be satisfied. If not, you were pwned.

  22. #22 Chris
    March 23, 2012

    lurker found it: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106hhrg73042/html/CHRG-106hhrg73042.htm

    The quote is from Dan Burton, who is not exactly unbiased. There is definitely context that is missing.

  23. #23 herr doktor bimler
    March 24, 2012

    Well, lurker found *the official* transcript of the June 15 congressional hearing, which does mention Dr Offit but does not contain any of the quotes provided by lurker and proscientifica.

    Those juicy quotes are present only in the “Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform”, as hosted at Whale.to and the “National Vaccine Information Center Archives”. This document is unsigned. Who prepared it is anyone’s guess. Whether it has any official standing is anyone’s guess. Perhaps it was prepared by Dan Burton’s staff, on his behest, in which case it deserves the usual credence you would give to a statement from a politician.

  24. #25 lurker
    March 24, 2012

    Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making
    Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform
    U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000
    The other .gov can’t be found at the moment. It is in the NVIC archives which is denigrated by Chris, lilady etc.
    Here’s the link anyway
    http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/conflicts-of-interest.aspx
    They deny this is a valid document.

  25. #26 Narad
    March 24, 2012

    They deny this is a valid document.

    Why are you copying and pasting the exact same shit over again when an actual version of what you’ve tried and failed to copetently refer to has already been provided? Are you not even reading?

  26. #27 lurker
    March 24, 2012

    @proscientifica- The “conflict of interest” debate is on the previous http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/the_promotion_of_an_antivaccine_propagan.php
    I am no longer commenting as I am trashed as a troll for supporting Dr. Sears
    and Dr. Gordon.

  27. #28 herr doktor bimler
    March 24, 2012

    Proscientifica, have you *read* that document you cited at #224? It does not contain the passages you quoted in your comment #169.

    That passage comes from the “Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform”, a document prepared by Dan Burton’s legislative aide Toni Lightle as a statement of Burton’s position… a list of the points he intended to make from the congressional hearing. What you have been quoting from is a political platform, one politician’s electioneering, which is possibly why it is hosted at NVIC rather than on any government website.

  28. #29 Chris
    March 24, 2012

    Proscientifica, which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s: RotaShield or RotaTeq?

  29. #30 lilady
    March 24, 2012

    @ Pro…I can only reiterate what other posters’ opinions are about the link you provided at # 244. I’ve read that link and it is documentation of the testimony that took place at the hearing between Burton and Waxman.

    Here…scrolling ~35 % down on your link is Burton’s statement, regarding his grandson’s onset of autism following vaccination:

    “…Mr. Burton. Well, I guess the point I’m trying to make, and
    the question I’m trying to make is that, I have a grandchild, I
    have two grandchildren. One of them almost died from a vaccine,
    the other one is now autistic, we believe, from vaccines. And I
    think that I, like most people who have children or
    grandchildren that are having these things put into these
    bodies, need to be assured that they’ve been thoroughly tested
    and that the people who are making the decisions on whether or
    not those should be mandated, mandated by law, don’t have a
    conflict of interest.”

    And further down, Burton states…

    “…Now, there’s a lot of parents who have had that kind of
    problem with other drugs and other vaccinations. My grandson
    got nine shots in 1 day. He was a perfectly normal child. And
    within about 3 or 4 or 5 days, a week, he became autistic. Now,
    it may be a coincidence. A lot of people say that’s
    coincidental.
    But the one thing I want to make sure of as a grandparent
    or as a parent is that the guys making these decisions or the
    ladies making these decisions, these doctors, these experts,
    don’t have some kind of a conflict of interest that skews their
    judgment in one direction or the other. And the American
    people, well, you can say, we shouldn’t be making this stuff
    public. Let me tell you something. Everybody in American who
    has a child who’s had this kind of a problem wants this stuff
    made public, because they want to know if the people making
    these decisions do have a conflict of interest.
    We go to the doctors and we get these shots for our kids,
    and we do it believing that the health agencies are above
    reproach, that there’s no danger to our children, or at least
    it’s minimal. And we put great confidence in CDC and FDA and
    all of our health agencies. And if we find out after the fact
    that our child has had a terrible, serious problem, and then we
    find out after the fact that people on that advisory committee
    that made those decisions did have a conflict of interest, it
    will weigh on us very heavily, because we’ll wonder, always
    wonder, if that conflict of interest led to the problem that we
    have in our family.”

    (Shades of Michele Bachmann…who claims that a parent told her that her child was vaccine-damaged. “She had the HPV vaccine and ‘thereafter’ became mentally retarded”)

    Why aren’t you and Rep. Burton concerned about the COIs and the cozy relationship that certain legislators have with supplement manufacturers and quack doctors?:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/goodbye_and_good_riddance_to_organized_q.php

  30. #31 Alain Gourrier
    May 2, 2012

    THIS THREAD READS LIKE PROPAGANDA WRITTEN BY A SINGLE PERSON. TWO THINGS:

    1) HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PARENTS KNOW, I REPEAT, KNOW FOR SURE VACCINES CONTENT (VIRUSES OR ADJUVANTS) GAVE THEIR KIDS GUT ISSUES LEADING TO AUTISM SYMPTOMS THEY ARE NOW RECOVERING FROM.

    2) BOTH MURDOCKS PROTECTED GLAXO (GSK, MAKER OF MMR) WITH BRIAN DEER. BRIAN DEER AND MURDOCK’S MALINTENTIONED MANIPULATIONS AND REAL MOTIVATIONS ARE REVEALED AS THE UK HACKING SCANDAL REVEALS THE REAL FACE OF THE MURDOCKS AND DEER.

    WAKEFIELD MADE OBVIOUS MISTAKES. HE’S IS ULTIMATELY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNDENIABLE FACT THAT TOO MANY VACCINES BURDEN THE METHYLATION CYCLE OF SOME KIDS TOO MUCH AND CAUSE GUT ISSUES. THOSE FACTS, LIKE TOBACCO PROMOTES CANCER IN SOME PEOPLE, WILL BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE IN TIME. UNDERSTAND IT NOW, OR BE READY TO BE CORRECTED.

  31. #32 Chris
    May 2, 2012

    How compelling, we must all believe because of the use of ALL CAPS. Just like we must believe the guy yelling on the street corner.

    Tell, dear Alain Gourrier, using your superior and mighty ALL CAPS knowledge, could you point us to the evidence that autism started to increase dramatically when the MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA? That was in 1971, so just post the PubMed indexed papers that are dated before 1997.

  32. #33 Alain Gourrier
    May 2, 2012

    THIS UNDERLYING ANGER REMINDS ME OF BRIAN DEER’S WORKING FOR MURDOCK AND DEFLECTING ATTENTION FROM POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO GSK’S INCOME FROM VACCINES. WHO’S PAYING YOU TO WRITE ON THIS THREAD?
    FACTS SPEAK WITH TRUTH AND CALM.
    THE MMR VACCINE IS NOT THE CULPRIT HERE. ALL 36 VACCINES MANDATED IN THE US ARE, INCLUDING THE MMR.
    COULD YOU CONCEIVE THAT A 1 DAY OLD BABY MIGHT BE TOO FRAGILE FOR BEING INJECTED WITH TOXINS, AND THAT SUCH A TINY HUMAN BEING 1 DAY OLD COULD BE HURT BY A FLOW OF ALUMINUM OR FORMALDEHYDE IN HIS VEINS THE 1ST DAY OF HIS LIFE?
    COULD YOU CONCEIVE THAT THIS BABY WOULD PREFER YOU TO WAIT A FEW MONTHS FOR HIS BRAIN TO BE PAST ITS FIRST MILESTONES AND HIS IMMUNE SYSTEM STRONGER BEFORE BEING INOCULATED WITH LIFE SAVING SUBSTANCES?
    HERE’S A FACT YOU CAN BE PROUD OF:
    THE UNITED STATES HAS THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF MANDATED VACCINES FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5 IN THE WORLD (36, DOUBLE THE WESTERN WORLD AVERAGE OF 18) AND PLACES 34TH IN THE WORLD FOR ITS CHILDREN UNDER 5 MORTALITY RATE. CONSEQUENTLY, IT HAS THE HIGHEST AUTISM RATE IN THE WORLD (1 IN 88 CHILDREN)
    IN 1970, THE AUTISM RATE WAS 1 IN 10,000 FOR 2 VACCINES (DTP AND IPV, 9 DOSES TOTAL) AGAINST 1 IN 88 TODAY (9 VACCINES 36 DOSES)
    THE INCREASED DAMAGE TO CHILDREN IS UNDENIABLE.
    WAIT FOR A TINY BABY TO GET STRONGER AND TEST HIM FOR READINESS BEFORE YOU VACCINATE TO TRY TO SAVE HIS LIFE. HE DOESN’T WANT TO BE HURT.

  33. #34 lara
    May 2, 2012

    Thanks @Alain- my sentiments exactly- CAPS and all.

  34. #35 squirrelelite
    May 2, 2012

    Alain Gourrier,

    How did you get your Apple II to connect to the Internet?

    (That’s the one before the Apple IIe which introduced lower case letters.)

    I had trouble enough with my 1992 DOS/Windows PC which took all day to download the graphics over a dial up modem only to tell me it couldn’t display the page.

  35. #36 lilady
    May 2, 2012

    ALAIN GOURRIER….HAVE YOU ANY CITATIONS TO PROVE THAT WAKEFIELD SHOULD BE EXONERATED?

    BTW ALAIN, MILLIONS OF PARENTS KNOW THAT THE MMR VACCINE, AND OTHER VACCINES, PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN FROM SERIOUS AND DEADLY CHILDHOOD DISEASES.

  36. #37 Shay
    May 2, 2012

    Alain@233:

    News flash, you clanking all-caps idiot; ramping up the stridency of a post will not compensate for the utter lack of facts therein.

    Except of course, when you’re addressing the clueless. Like Lara.

  37. #38 novalox
    May 2, 2012

    @alan

    Because we know that all caps means SERIOUS BUSINESS.(sarcasm)

    But go on, keep entertaining us with your utter inanities and stupidity. I do need an idiot to entertain me, and you and lara seem like good candidates for a good laugh or two.

  38. #39 JGC
    May 2, 2012

    I’m sorry Alan, but all caps or not you’re quie simply wrong: hundreds of thousands of parents do not know for sure that “VACCINES CONTENT (VIRUSES OR ADJUVANTS) GAVE THEIR KIDS GUT ISSUES LEADING TO AUTISM SYMPTOMS THEY ARE NOW RECOVERING FROM”–they merely believe it to be the case.

    And no degree of faith, however sincere or deeply held, is sufficient to establish what one believes to be true acutally is true: establishing fact requires evidence. So–got any?

    I suggest you start by citing the evidence you beleive proves “TOO MANY VACCINES BURDEN THE METHYLATION CYCLE OF SOME KIDS TOO MUCH AND CAUSE GUT ISSUES”.

    Go ahead–we’re waiting.

  39. #40 Alain Gourrier
    May 2, 2012

    OBVIOUSLY YOU DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT AUTISM DOES TO A CHILD, NOR ANY INTEREST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM AUTISM.
    YOU’D RATHER PROTECT YOURSELF FROM CHILD DISEASES AND RUIN THE LIFE OF 1 IN 88 BABIES, 1 IN 49 BOYS.
    WITH ALL HIS FALTS, WAKEFIELD CARED TO INVESTIGATE A POSSIBLE CAUSE OF AUTISM. HIS PARTNER AT THOUGHTFUL HOUSE CONCURRED AFTER 2000+ COLONOSCOPIES: AUTISTIC KIDS HAVE A SPECIFIC ENTEROCOLITIS AND YES, MEASLES CAN BE FOUND IN MOST OF THEM. THAT DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING ABOUT THE MMR. JUST THAT IT’S PROBABLY PART OF THE PROBLEM.
    YOU ALL SHOULD GET BEHIND A SOLUTION OR YOUR GRAND KIDS WILL ALL BE AUTISTIC AT THE CURRENT RATE.
    PERHAPS YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR GRAND CHILDREN…

  40. #41 JohnV
    May 2, 2012

    “THE UNITED STATES HAS THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF MANDATED VACCINES FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5 IN THE WORLD (36, DOUBLE THE WESTERN WORLD AVERAGE OF 18) AND PLACES 34TH IN THE WORLD FOR ITS CHILDREN UNDER 5 MORTALITY RATE. ”

    ALAIN CAN YOU THINK UP ANY POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THIS BESIDES EVIL DEMONIC DRUG COMPANIES ARE MURDERING CHILDREN WITH VACCINES?

  41. #42 Sauceress
    May 2, 2012

    MISTAKES

    ?

    FALTS

    ?

    How euphemistic of you ALAIN. The term you’re searching for is FRAUD.

  42. #43 madder
    May 2, 2012

    This is obvious to everyone else here, Mr. Gourrier, but our rejection of Wakefield’s garbage does not automatically indicate that we don’t care about current or future autistic people. We sometimes find that analogies fail to help our resident trolls understand things, but I’ll try one with you: I have a magical postage stamp that prevents tiger attacks. Do you want to buy it? If not, clearly you don’t have any idea of what a tiger can do to someone, nor any interest in protecting people from tiger attacks.

    Yes, Wakefield has faults. Why is it that no independent researchers (without those faults) could ever replicate his results? Why did he feel it necessary to manipulate his results?

  43. #44 Lawrence
    May 2, 2012

    There is certainly a lot of underlying anger here, but I don’t think it is coming from the regular commenters here….

  44. #45 lilady
    May 2, 2012

    @ ALAIN: OH YES I DO KNOW HOW AUTISM CAN AFFECT A CHILD. MY SON WAS BORN WITH A RARE GENETIC DISORDER THAT CAUSED AUTISTIC-LIKE BEHAVIORS.

    MANY OF THE POSTERS HERE HAVE CHILDREN DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM AND SOME OF THE POSTERS ARE ON THE “SPECTRUM”.

    “HIS PARTNER AT THOUGHTFUL HOUSE CONCURRED AFTER 2000+ COLONOSCOPIES: AUTISTIC KIDS HAVE A SPECIFIC ENTEROCOLITIS AND YES, MEASLES CAN BE FOUND IN MOST OF THEM. THAT DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING ABOUT THE MMR. JUST THAT IT’S PROBABLY PART OF THE PROBLEM.”

    DO YOU MEAN THIS GUY, ALAIN?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Krigsman

    KRIGSMAN PRACTICES QUACKERY. HE HAS RUN AFOUL OF LICENSING BOARDS IN 2 COUNTRIES AND IN TWO STATES. I WOULDN’T ENTRUST MY CHILD TO HIS CARE.

  45. #46 Narad
    May 2, 2012

    Alain, may I ask whether you are low-sighted? As a radio hobbyist, this is what I tend to think of when I encounter sustained full caps.

  46. #47 novalox
    May 2, 2012

    @alain gourrier

    Do keep on entertaining us with your spittle-filled idiocy. It is quite amusing to see.

    Also, [citation needed].

  47. #48 Alain Gourrier
    May 2, 2012

    AUTISM IS NOT A RELIGION TO BELIEVE IN. IT WILL ENGULF YOUR FUTURE GENERATIONS WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN IT OR NOT.
    YOU ARE RIGHT. LUCKY IS THE IGNORANT… AND THE BULLY.
    THE BULLY FEARS THE TIGER AND BELIEVES IN THE STAMP, AND EXPECTS ALL TO BELIEVE IN THE STAMP, EVEN THE ERUDITE OTHERWISE INFORMED.

    WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT MURDOCK COULD BE DECLARED UNFIT TO RUN AN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY BY BRITISH LAWMAKERS?
    HE WAS TODAY.
    AUTISTIC KIDS WON’T BENEFIT FROM MURDOCK’S FALL, DEER BEING INVESTIGATED, AND WAKEFIELD BEING EXONERATED. IT’S ALL USELESS TO THEM.
    VACCINATING AUTISM PRONE BABIES AFTER 6 MONTHS OR LATER WOULD HELP AVOID THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRIGGERS CONTAINED IN VACCINES FROM PARTICIPATING TO THE PROBLEM. SCREENING THE BABIES AT RISK LIKE IT IS DONE FOR OTHER DISEASES MIGHT PREVENT BOYS FROM NEVER SPEAKING, OR ENJOYING FRIENDSHIP. IT’S A HUMAN RIGHTS MATTER.

  48. #49 Lawrence
    May 2, 2012

    @alain – the belief that vaccines cause autism is the next best thing to a religion, since there is no scientific proof that it happens. Now, please hit the shift key to deactivate the caps lock, because that’s just damn annoying.

  49. #50 madder
    May 2, 2012

    So he didn’t get it. Or maybe he just called himself a bully on purpose.

  50. #51 novalox
    May 2, 2012

    @alain gourrier

    Honestly, is there any point to your all caps blathering and conspiracy theory mongering?

    Or do you just like to type in all caps because it makes you feel all “important”?

    Either way, your idiocy is amusing, and you have provided me with a few good laughs.

    So keep on amusing me, I need a few good laughs.

  51. #52 Agashem
    May 2, 2012

    So I don’t really want to get into a p*ssing match with M. Gourrier, but how do you explain the autists who existed/lived before the advent of supposedly 36 shots? My own daughter on the spectrum received no infant vaccines as the Hep B was not routinely given at that time. Oh and by the way she would like you to know that she was BORN THIS WAY and vaccines had nothing to do with it and she is very content to stay the way she is and is not interested AT ALL in your so-called recovery therapies…….

  52. #53 Orac
    May 2, 2012

    Wow. We’ve had some dumb trolls here over the seven years I’ve been blogging, but Alain is giving the dumbest of them a run for their money. The all caps is the touch that put him over the “top,” I think.

  53. #54 herr doktor bimler
    May 2, 2012

    “The bully believes in the stamp”? What does Alain have against philately?

  54. #55 JohnV
    May 2, 2012

    If I didn’t believe in the stamp, I wouldn’t be able to mail my mom a mother’s day card 🙁

  55. #56 Sauceress
    May 2, 2012

    The kindest supposition would be that the all caps are a Poe hint, but as usual with most of the antivaxx ranters I see here,(especially those from the Wakefield fan base), I can’t distinguish the difference.

  56. #57 Merck Pharaceuticals Public Relations
    May 2, 2012

    Alain Gourrier: Thank you for informing people of the truth about Brian Deer; our company (and yours too, I’m sure) has suffered much from his so-called expose’. Once Deer has been taken down, our fortunes will again be assured, and rest assured, the efforts you have made on our behalf will be rewarded generously.

  57. #58 Alain Gourrier
    May 2, 2012

    Thanks David. Just wanted to confirm you and all your alter egos were just an silly one man show at the expense of handicapped people. One has to laugh somehow to forget about one’s burden, right?
    BTW why breast surgery? Hmmm…

  58. #59 Chris
    May 2, 2012

    I love how the ALL CAPS troll and friends still persevere on Brian Deer. It was pretty well settled before 2004 that Wakefield’s study was worthless, and completely wrong. All Deer do was find out why Wakefield was wrong: the fraud.

    Mr. Gourrier, please ask the voices in your head to show you how to use your keyboard’s “shift” key. Also, can you tell us which MMR vaccine Wakefield was supposed to be studying in his 1998 paper?

  59. #60 lilady
    May 2, 2012

    OMG Alain…is this you?

    http://onibasu.com/archives/am/295761.html

    Please don’t tell me that you IV chelated your child who has autism.

  60. #61 Chris
    May 2, 2012

    Mr. Gourrier:

    one man show at the expense of handicapped people.

    More than one person on this thread is autistic, and/or the parent of a disabled child. At least one disabled by a now vaccine preventable disease (the vaccine did not exist when my son suffered seizures from the disease). Stop making assumptions, especially with the old and tired Pharma Shill Gambit.

    Now, answer my questions honestly. Here is another one: the Royal Free Hospital offered Wakefield the chance to do a larger study, which he declined. They were done by someone else:

    Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9.
    Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.

    BMJ. 2002 Feb 16;324(7334):393-6.
    Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study.

    Are those dated before or after Brian Deer’s articles?

  61. #62 Denice Walter
    May 2, 2012

    Well, wouldn’t you know, I leave to fulfill my commitments and I miss the floor show!
    And I’m probably the only person here who actually owns both GSK and Newscorp.

  62. #63 Bronze Dog
    May 2, 2012

    Sometimes laughter is the most effective means to fight absurdity.

    Of course, Alain, if you bothered paying attention to the anti-vaxxers, you’d realize they’re actively dehumanizing autistic people by treating them as damaged goods, justifying reckless anecdotal “experiments” on them by treating them like property, and generally making life harder by wasting money on their wild conspiracy mongering instead of doing legitimate research to truly understand the condition. Bigotry against autism is entrenched in the anti-vax culture.

  63. #64 herr doktor bimler
    May 2, 2012

    an silly one man show at the expense of handicapped people.

    We are left wondering about the nature of the handicap to which Alain refers. The ALL-CAPS compulsion? A broken keyboard?

  64. #65 Composer99
    May 2, 2012

    Why is it all the Wakefield fans are such slime? I mean, really: rampant projection, dishonesty, intellectual bankruptcy, authoritarian submission (to Wakefield & like-minded movement leaders).

    Most telling IMO is the magical thinking revealed in the attempts to smear Brian Deer, Orac, and others, as if character assassination of those who disagree with you was a suitable substitute for evidence.

  65. #66 Which is It?
    May 2, 2012

    Alain: Why is Orac providing you with a forum for you to make comments, in spite of your insults? Do you think that he doesn’t know how to delete useless comments, or that he might be an evil pharma shill, but not so evil as to delete comments that COMPLETELY EXPOSE HIM FOR THE FRAUD he is? Neither possibility seems very likely. Maybe you’re really being paid by Orac to make antivaxxers look stupid – in which case – good job!

  66. #67 LW
    May 2, 2012

    Is Alain Gourrier seriously contending that Orac not only writes these long posts in his spare time, but also supplies all the comments? I am awed at Orac’s typing abilities. And patience. Just reading all the comments is more than I can manage after a full time job.

  67. #68 Antaeus Feldspar
    May 2, 2012

    First four posts from “Alain Gourrier”: ALL-CAPS, NO EXCEPTIONS.
    Fifth post from “Alain Gourrier”: No errors or even abnormalities in capitalization.

    Two most plausible scenarios:

    One, the Alain Gourrier(5) is not the same person as Alain Gourrier(1-4) but simply saw stealing Alain Gourrier(1-4)’s identity as a cheap way to make trouble.

    Two, Alain Gourrier(5) was deliberately making his opinions as Alain Gourrier(1-4) hard to read BY THE EXPEDIENT OF ALL CAPS. There was no legitimate purpose for doing so, of course; he simply wanted to make it look as though Orac’s readers were picking on a poor, helpless person for something that wasn’t under his control. Even though he was not poor and helpless and the Caps Lock was, as he proved, under his control after all.

    Either way, Alain Gourrier(5)’s bid for the moral high ground fails spectacularly.

  68. #69 JGC
    May 3, 2012

    VACCINATING AUTISM PRONE BABIES AFTER 6 MONTHS OR LATER WOULD HELP AVOID THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRIGGERS CONTAINED IN VACCINES FROM PARTICIPATING TO THE PROBLEM.

    Citations desparately needed here.

    By what reliable method can we distinguish ‘autism prone babies’ from all other babies?

    Which components, exactly, contained in vaccines represent environmental triggers of autism and what evidence demonstrates they do in fact trigger autism in these ‘autism prone babies’ but somehow not in anyone else?

    What evidence demonstrates there’s only a limited window during infancy during which these triggers may result in autism, such that delaying immunization until that window has closed will eliminate any risk of having one’s autism triggered?

    You do have some robust body of evidence from which your claims derive, right?

    Or do you simply feel that typing somethng in all-caps is sufficient to magically make it so?

  69. #70 Billy Hewitt
    May 10, 2012

    Hey Blogman “Old Orac” (sound like an acronym for Dracula) you obviously have eaten a lot of fish and failed to expel the mercury and are suffering from the onset of Alzheimer’s. CoMeD scientists have linked mercury to autism and ADHD and Alzheimer’s over 2 years ago. The average autism rate for America is 1 in 91 but in Utah it is 1 in 39 (Utah has a lot of mercury in environment and has increased their vaccination rate from 85% to 98%. The federal government just paid out $2.4 BILLION in vaccine injuries last year. The Amish refuse vaccinations and their autism rate is 1 in 15,000. After America and CDC forced S Korea to vaccinate their entire population with MMR vaccine in 2007 their autism rate skyrocked to 1 in 38 in 2009. They now pronounce CDC as OH S___ and they may start shooting CDC reps soon. Watch Andrew Wakefield present the MMR case for meningitis to the “Autism One” convention in Chicago, Illinois on channel 98713 of http://www.tvunetworks.com. This 52 minute video plays 6 times a day and is followed by LaJuan with her original christian song “Put Your Hands In The Hands Of The Man”

  70. #71 Kelly M Bray
    May 10, 2012

    Billy, Billy, Billy. If for nothing else you should put in jail for making anyone listen to that horrible song. My ears are still in pain. Oh, BTW, the rest of your screed is crap. The Amish vaccinate. I won’t even bother with the rest of the word salad as I already ate lunch.

  71. #72 Thomas
    May 10, 2012

    Billy: Thank you for expressing your confidence in Orac’s willingness to allow opposing views to be aired on his blog (even when those views are ridiculous). Why is it that Andy Wakefield’s supporters censor opposing views on their blogs? Is it like “The Emperor’s New Clothes”?

  72. #73 Chemmomo
    May 11, 2012

    Billy @270

    “Old Orac” (sound like an acronym for Dracula)

    Do you understand what an acronym is? I’m only asking because “Dracula” doesn’t have any letters “O” in it.

    After that introduction, why would I pay any attention to the rest of your comment?

  73. #74 Narad
    May 11, 2012

    This 52 minute video plays 6 times a day and is followed by LaJuan with her original christian song “Put Your Hands In The Hands Of The Man”

    Ah, that’s not exactly “her original” song. It was written by Gene MacLellan and popularized by the band Ocean. Forty years ago.

  74. #75 lilady
    May 11, 2012

    Here’s LaJuan’s blog:

    http://projectexcell.blogspot.com/2011_12_01_archive.html

    I guess TSU is hard up for PhD candidates. Reminds me of another student who attends GW University…who hopes to eventually been employed as an epidemiologist. Just as crazy and just as paranoid.

  75. #76 Narad
    May 11, 2012

    One does have to wonder what the stethoscope is for, given the resume. And, Jesus, lose the Casio and spring for some real cymbals.

  76. #77 Science Mom
    May 11, 2012

    Anyone who would use the Geiers (CoMed) as a source for anything other than an example of egregious medical abuse doesn’t seem to have a promising career ahead of them. And if Billy Hewitt is LaJuan, then I would also worry about logic and grammar too.

  77. #78 Danny
    May 13, 2012

    There is plentyof evidence out there that there’s a link between vaccines and autism, but I think most of you prefer to enjoy being offensive to one another than bother to really search for the information. It’s all out there, and obviously it’s being suppressed wherever possible by the FDA and the vaccine makers. They are in each others’ pockets, and you should know that billions of dollars and high-powered jobs are constantly being transferred between big pharma and the FDA. One study showing that autism in Sweden was reduced when thimerosal was eliminated is mentioned here: http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2803%2900113-2/abstract
    There plenty more information but you have to want to find out!

  78. #79 Chris
    May 13, 2012

    Danny, please tell us exactly how it is more cost effective to stop vaccinating and just treat the diseases.

    Do tell us how not giving each child two doses of MMR and treating one of out four or so with measles in the hospital? Last year there were over two hundred cases of measles in the USA, and a third ended up in the hospital.

    By the way, the MMR never contained thimerosal since its introduction in 1971 in the USA. Which brings up another question: what evidence did Wakefield use to determine that autism may be affected by the MMR? It would seem to be the large upswing in autism when it started to be used twenty year before, but I can’t find the papers showing autism rising in the 1970s. Could you please find them for us?

    You do have the right idea for data, but try not to use cherry picking. That paper has been superseded by more recent data:

    Vaccine. 2012 Jan 5;30(2):247-53. Epub 2011 Nov 12
    Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.

    Pediatrics. 2010 Oct;126(4):656-64. Epub 2010 Sep 13.
    Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism

    Neurotox Res. 2010 Jul;18(1):59-68. Epub 2009 Sep 16.
    Are neuropathological conditions relevant to ethylmercury exposure?

    Pediatrics Vol. 126 No. 2 August 1, 2010 (doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-1496)
    Lack of Association Between Acellular Pertussis Vaccine and Seizures in Early Childhood

    Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
    On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400.
    Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.

    Pediatrics, February 2009, Vol. 123(2):475-82
    Neuropsychological Performance 10 years after Immunization in Infancy with Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines

    PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
    Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.

  79. #80 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    May 13, 2012

    Danny,

    Do you understand how to read a scientific study? Did you ignore this conclusion?

    Conclusion

    After considering all the existing evidence, in September 2001 the IOM concluded that “the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between exposure to Thimerosal from vaccines and … autism… . [However,]…the hypothesis is biologically plausible.”11 The authors of the IOM study found no consistent ecologic evidence linking the administration of Thimerosal-containing vaccines with an increasing incidence/prevalence of autism cases. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the body of existing data, including the ecologic data presented herein, are not consistent with the hypothesis that increased exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccines are responsible for the apparent increases in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide. Rather, it seems more plausible that other factors are affecting these changes, such as those mentioned above: an increased recognition of the disorder in the most and least developmentally delayed children (i.e., compared to children with IQs in the 50 to 70 range) and/or possibly other as-yet-unidentified environmental or genetic factors.

    Like every other study done has shown, there is no connection between vaccines and autism.

  80. #81 Denice Walter
    May 13, 2012

    @ Danny:

    Now exactly where is the information that links autism and vaccines?

    Oh, let’s see…hmmm. Could it have something to do with the work of Andrew Wakefield? Or is it from a book that Blaylock wrote? Can it be the revelations about the Simpsonwood conference unearthed by Mr Kennedy? Or is it about Hewitson’s autistic simians?
    Perhaps you’ve read books by Mssrs Blaxill and Olmsted or encountered their scientifc frolickings amongst their colleagues at Age of Autism? Maybe you’ve read NVIC, SafeMinds, ThinkTwice or CoMeD’s websites? Can it be that you’ve read what the Canary Party or the Thinking Moms have to offer? You might even follow Natural News, Dr Mercola or the Progressive Radio Network. There are many other sources that would fit right in amongst these sterling examples.

    Think a bit about where you’ve acquired your information…
    I’ll be right back.

  81. #82 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    May 13, 2012

    Denice,

    Don’t forget the highest authority of them all on all matters of science, human health and biology, Jenny McCarthy.

    Of course that would include other credible sources like Generation Rescue and by extension, Dr. ButtarBrain.

  82. #83 Denice Walter
    May 13, 2012

    Danny, if you truly believe that the FDA is suppressing information why do you also assume that those who tell you this are being perfectly honest? Is it not possible that they ALSO may have compromised opinions and conflicts of interest? Perhaps *they* might be suppressing information like the studies that show them WRONG.

    All of the individuals and groups I mentioned have ulterior motives that fall broadly into two classes:

    parents of children with autism who wish to believe that autism is caused by external sources- not genetics or accidental *de novo* variation- as an emotional mechanism to preserve self-esteem and cast out blame.

    those who market goods and services to families with autism ( doctors, alt med therapists, supplement manufacturers, legal professionals, authors of books) who stand to profit from the vaccines-autism hypothesis. Their egos also benefit because they buck the medical consensus and are thus admired as mavericks and lauded by those who agree with their ideas. Some members of the first group ( above) may join the ranks of the second when they publish a book, write on a blog or become famous as a parent spokesperson.

    Other interesting relationships occur between the two groups: a parents’ group and legal firm may have spurred the talented Mr Wakefield on to his scientific “glories”.
    I could go on for hours ( e.g. a blog owner/supplement seller who courts anti-vax customers to his enterprise- lots of these guys. Also see speakers’ list at AustismOne 2012 re goods and services) but I won’t.

  83. #84 Kelly M Bray
    May 13, 2012

    Danny, the paper you cited has even a shorter conclusion quote than the one above……….

    “The body of existing data, including the ecologic data presented herein, is *not consistent* with the hypothesis that increased exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccines is responsible for the apparent increase in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide.”

    I would call that an “own goal” for you

  84. #85 herr doktor bimler
    May 13, 2012

    I think most of you prefer to enjoy being offensive to one another than bother to really search for the information.

    This is NOT TRUE. I do, however, prefer — and enjoy — being offensive to abject agrammatical morons.

    It’s all out there, and obviously it’s being suppressed wherever possible by the FDA and the vaccine makers.

    Fortunately Danny is here! He has found the suppressed information and can pass it on to us!

  85. #86 Thomas
    May 13, 2012

    Danny: Thank you for citing this evidence for the safety of vaccines.

  86. #87 Danny
    May 13, 2012

    Oh and, by the way, would you not suspect that the pharmaceutical companies and FDA officials are influenced by the massive amounts of money which are involved in the vaccine programmes. And what benefit do you think the doctors and scientists who realise that there is a link between vaccines and neurolical damage are trying to obtain by sticking their necks out and saying something? It’s obvious that they’re risking being struck off, ridiculed and branded as quacks by the likes of you. They have nothing to gain, and if you search, you’ll find that there are a number of scientists and doctors who are very experienced in vaccine research who have realised that the benefits do not justify the risks, they are just too great. There is a book by Dr Natasha Campbell McBride who has cured her autistic son by healing his damaged gut lining (damage caused by a combination of factors compounded through at least 2 generations of antibiotics, vaccines, the pill, less breastfeeding, western diet, increase in sugar consumption and environmental toxins) with pro-biotics. It’s all explained and is very logical and sound, nothing “crazy” about it.

  87. #88 novalox
    May 13, 2012

    @danny

    [citation needed], because why should we believe you?

    You made the assertion, you post the evidence

  88. #89 Danny
    May 13, 2012

    So if the informaton was incorrect why did the Swedes act on it? The conclusion wasn’t theirs, that was your so-called protection agencies who are concerned with preserving the health and safety of you guys in America. I wouldn’t say their track record was exactly outstanding: not labelling Genetically Engineered foods, not allowing people to buy raw milk, allowing your environment to be poisoned with massive amounts of weedkillers and other environmental toxins – see youtube “contrails” but don’t beat me over the head if I haven’t given you the exact reference, or if there’s a spelling error here somewhere – it’s usually caused by speed and over-enthusiasm, my grammar is usually (to those of you that think you can define me so easily) OK.

  89. #90 novalox
    May 13, 2012

    @danny

    Like I said before, [citation needed], because why should we believe you?

  90. #91 Narad
    May 13, 2012

    There is a book by Dr Natasha Campbell McBride who has cured her autistic son by healing his damaged gut lining … with pro-biotics.

    I tend to think of this as the most salient endorsement of probiotics I’ve come across to date (1:49).

  91. #92 Danny
    May 13, 2012

    So if it’s not thimerosal, you can still take your pick from aluminium (English spelling), formaldehyde, mercury… you don’t seriously think that dose after dose of these substances given to tiny bodies is harmless, do you? And I’m sure you’re already aware that the symptoms for mercury poisoning and autism are exactly the same?
    Another thing which to me doesn’t seem logical is how, considering that maybe 1 in 100,000 children were autistic around 20 years ago, and now the CDC figures quote 1 child in 88 (translating to 1 in 48 boys!) you can believe that it was just misdiagnosis or some such explanation. Surely you must see that something is going seriously wrong, and massive damage is being done? Vaccines have never had a clean track record. They are cultured on live animal tissue and we don’t know what is going to come out of this – brain tumours have been linked (by famous neurologists, not quacks) to simian virus SV40 in vaccines; the HIV virus, thoroughly researched by Edmund Hooper came about through a massive vaccination campaign in the 50s in just that part of Africa where the virus appeared most concentrated – presumably you believe what you were supposed to, that a hunter cut himself when skinning a monkey and suddenly we had AIDS. Is it likely that the pharmaceutical companies and the DCD are going to say: “Oh and by the way, we’ve been responsible for the massive increase in autism through our aggressive vaccine campaigns, and for AIDS in the world, so sorry but too bad folks…”

  92. #93 lilady
    May 13, 2012

    @ Danny…We’ve already discussed Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/08/gaps_in_a_doctors_reasoning_about_vaccines.php

    Narad…And here I was thinking Joe Cocker didn’t “do” probiotics.

  93. #94 herr doktor bimler
    May 13, 2012

    We’ve already discussed Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, here:

    In which it emerged that she’s a lying fraud.

  94. #95 Denice Walter
    May 13, 2012

    Oh my. Dr Campbell-McBride apparently is appreciated by Dr Mercola. ‘Nuff said.

    Her own blog sells books, videos, CDs, probiotics ( her own especial formula, Bio-Kult), various other supplements and kitchen equipment. Her educated opinion may be compromised by her business interests, just like AJW’s was and is.

    Danny, please don’t tell me that you believe that AIDS was also a side-effect of vaccines.

  95. #96 herr doktor bimler
    May 13, 2012

    Danny, how do we know that you’re not part of the conspiracy to suppress the proof? You could be lying to us. The reverse vampires are tricky like that.

  96. #97 Denice Walter
    May 13, 2012

    If HIV was somehow *created* because of mass vaccination in Africa, why are other mammals like apes and cats also subject to similar species-specific, immunity-ravaging virii? Who went around vaccinating them in the wild? Or is it more likely that the simian and human virii may be related? And independent of vaccination efforts.

  97. #98 Thomas
    May 13, 2012

    “So if it’s not thimerosal, you can still take your pick from aluminium (English spelling), formaldehyde, mercury…”

    Yes, just because you were wrong about thimerosal, doesn’t mean that you’re wrong about the next ingredient. But how about showing yourself to be right first about any one of them. I know that’s going to be harder for you, but if you expect people to listen to you, you really need to step up your game to “barely competent”

  98. #99 Chris
    May 13, 2012

    Danny, I have been mostly gardening today, so I missed your answers to my questions.

    Prior to the 1960s almost every child had measles before their fifteenth birthday. As you can see from the link I gave about one third of the over two hundred cases of measles in the USA last year required hospital care. I can tell you from personal experience that a day in the hospital is very expensive.

    Now please explain to me exactly how it would be better to stop giving each child two doses of the MMR vaccine (which has been used the USA for over forty years), and just treat a large percentage of children in the hospital with several becoming permanently disabled and some not surviving.

    Here are some samples of data I am going on:

    The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review

    West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.
    Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.

    West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.
    Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.

    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S210-5.
    Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.

    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
    Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.

    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45
    An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.

    J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93. Epub 2005 Oct 12.
    Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.

    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.
    Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.

  99. #100 Danny
    May 13, 2012

    Obviously there is a lot of information out there so it’s difficult to find specific links at this moment, but here’s a site which has a lot of history and is full of links if you want to read on… of course if you are in denial, or just don’t want to think about it, don’t go into it, but then don’t protest so loudly when you hear or read something you don’t want to know..
    http://www.whale.to/vaccine/vaccine_autism_proven.html

  100. #101 herr doktor bimler
    May 13, 2012

    Obviously there is a lot of information out there so it’s difficult to find specific links at this moment

    There is SO MUCH information that Danny cannot locate ANY of it.

    I find this excuse also works when fobbing off requests from charities. “Obviously I have a great deal of money so it’s difficult to donate specific amounts at this moment.”

  101. #102 MI Dawn
    May 13, 2012

    Danny just DIDN’T quote whale.to as a reliable source, did he? You have got to be KIDDING me! I hereby invoke Scopie’s Law and pronounce Danny as the total loser in any discussion, since he has no idea what credible citations are.

  102. #103 Chris
    May 13, 2012

    Scopie’s Law:

    In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately …and gets you laughed out of the room.

  103. #104 Antaeus Feldspar
    May 13, 2012

    So, Danny, if you think whale.to is a reliable source that we should believe, do you also believe in flying dolphins? Do you believe that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is an authentic document rather than a vicious plagiarised hoax, because it appears on whale.to?

    If not, please tell us why you think whale.to should be believed about vaccines but not about flying dolphins.

  104. #105 Denice Walter
    May 13, 2012

    @ Danny-
    I say this in all sincerity because I think that you truly believe in what you’re writing-
    some of these sources are not worth your time or effort: they are created by people who are contrarians and seek fame by going against consensus information that has been accumulated through painstaking effort by dedicated scientists from all over the world. Rather than DOING THE HARD WORK themselves ( getting an education, doing research, seeking grants, publishing results) they tear down others’ lifework.

    Altho’ I must go, I’ll beg your indulgence to consider this: how are the contarians ( those I listed above at my first comment today) able to criticise the entire panorama of medicine and health when they often are: business professionals, nutritionists, editors, motherss? Why are the few doctors in this area a vanishingly small minority in their fields?
    -btw- I’m not a doctor, nurse or health professional but I see how they butcher my own field, psychology. And before you say I’m beholden to pharma- WRONG- I don’t work with SMI or LD people who might need meds- different area, you see but I did have to study general and clinical psych to fulfill requirements.

  105. #106 Chris
    May 13, 2012

    Danny must be new to this, and must not be aware of how Scudamore and his website are considered. Since Scopie’s Law came out, we just have not seen whale.to that much.

    At least a decade ago when I was hanging around UseNet I tangled with Scudamore a few times (I do have a whale.to page with my former ‘nym). Then my sister-in-law sent me a “helpful” email about vaccines that was just a link to whale.to. I did not pull punches in my reply to her. She stopped sending me “helpful” emails.

  106. #107 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    May 13, 2012

    Danny,

    First of all, it’s Edward Hooper, not Edmund Hooper.

    Secondly, he’s been long discredited and his “theories” have been disproven scientifically. Beyond any doubt.

    Wow, you’re batting 1000% with your references here today! Papers, books, whale.to, Hooper…All worthless so far.

  107. #108 ken
    May 13, 2012
  108. #109 Militant Agnositc
    May 14, 2012

    How did you all miss this gem from danny

    see youtube “contrails”

    Danny – are you aware of what causes contrails? The combustion of hydrocarbons such as jet fuel results in the production of CO2 and Water Vapour. Under certain conditions of temperature and humidity, the water vapour forms ice crystals which are visible. This is much more plausible explanation than a vast conspiracy involving thousands of airline pilots, aircraft mechanics and other airline employees.

  109. #110 Kelly M Bray
    May 14, 2012

    Contrails = chemtrails….that’s the new, latest, greatest conspiracy nut meme over at The Hive. It’s fresh, new, and shiny!!!

  110. #111 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    May 14, 2012

    MA,

    I suspect he meant chemtrails, since he hangs around whale.to and was talking about weed killers and vaporized toxins.

    Of course chemtrails are real: how else are “they” giving us Morgollon’s diseases?

  111. #112 Militant Agnostic
    May 14, 2012

    Marc Stevens is Insane @311

    I assumed that was what he was talking about. I was hoping t was a way to reach him since the scientific explanation of the phenomenon is so simple and the alleged conspiracy is so unwieldy.

    Kelly M Bray @310

    Which Hive – AoA or HuffPoe?

    If it is the latter, it is a good thing if the ativaxxers are letting their freak flag fly.

    Danny – You should be aware that people post all manner of made up nonsense on YouTube. YouTube does not prevent Seriously Mentally Ill people (like the woman who thought seeing a rainbow in the spray from her lawn sprinkler was evidence that “they” were putting “chemicals” in the water supply) from posting videos.

  112. #113 Kelly M Bray
    May 14, 2012

    At HuffPo…. They are doing *chemtrails* at AoA yet…..

  113. #114 Shay
    May 14, 2012

    Don’t tell me…chemtrails cause autism? I hadn’t heard that one but I don’t spend as much time in the wretched hive as others here do (can’t help it, I have a weak stomach).

  114. #115 Denice Walter
    May 14, 2012

    @ Shay:

    While I agree with you- I loathe HP- altho’ I know a great person who writes there ( non-woo), I avoid it like the plague.

    I have a suggestion for you:
    perhaps your digestive tract can tolerate interspersed doses of equally repugnant idiocy. If so, why not sample Thinking Moms’ Revolution? They have it all: ideas obviously not screened by neo-cortical activity, bad writing, grandiosity, bad ‘nyms, promotion of woo, WAY too much personal information and (unfortunately) it’s predominantly women shrieking “Girl Power” at 110 decibels.

    Equally unfortunately they count amongst their staff a social worker ( Ms MacNeil) and a (school) psychologist, Ms “Saint”. Awful. Now, herr doktor bimler and I need to get out the proverbial paper bag ( *a la* Orac when he discusses a woo-bent surgeon). No one is immune.

  115. #116 Shay
    May 14, 2012

    Denice: I tried, I really tried. Unfortunately, I cannot get past the multiplicity of unnecessary.punctuation.marks.on.the.TMR.home.page.

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