So busy was I writing about America’s quack Dr. Mehmet Oz and, of course, the FDA hearing on regulating homeopathy that I didn’t take note of a story that came out the other day examining a study looking at the association between MMR vaccination and autism. More correctly, the study examines the lack of association between MMR and autism because that’s what every well-designed study that’s looked for such an association has found, a lack of association, as I’ve blogged about more times than I can remember over the last decade. Heck, there’s already been one study like this so far in 2015.

Of course, the myth that the MMR vaccine causes autism is what I like to refer to as a “zombie myth.” It’s undead. Like a herd of walkers in The Walking Dead, it just keeps relentlessly shambling along until it surrounds and devours reason and science. Or maybe a better simile is to liken this myth to slasher movie killers like Jason Voorhees in the Friday the 13th movie franchise or Michael Myers in the Halloween movies. At the end of each movie, the heroes have vanquished the killer. In many of the movies, the killer appears to have died at the end of the movie. Yet, inevitably there’s another movie and it turns out that the killer didn’t die after all. He’s still alive and slashing away. So it is with the myth that the MMR vaccine causes autism. No matter how much science is thrown at it, no matter how much it appears to be dead after each new study failing to find even a hint of a whisper of an association between MMR and autism, it always comes back.

Yet, scientifically, I prefer a different metaphor for the myth, and that’s to invoke Monty Python’s (in)famous Dead Parrot sketch, with antivaccine loons playing the role of the shopkeeper trying to deny to an unhappy customer that the parrot he had sold him was dead, telling the customer that he’s “not dead,” but rather “pinin’ for the fjords.” My response about the hypothesis that MMR causes autism goes along the lines: “It’s not pinin’! It’s passed on! This hypothesis is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’d be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now ‘istory! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, It’s shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-HYPOTHESIS!!”

And so it is that this study, published in JAMA as a collaboration between the Lewin Group, Optum, and the J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University, entitled Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status Among US Children With Older Siblings With and Without Autism, is yet another reason to label the MMR-autism hypothesis an “ex-hypothesis.” In fact, I rarely even bother to refer to it as a hypothesis any more because that grants too much credence to what is now a cranky conspiracy theory. (Is there any other kind?) In fact, I almost wasn’t going to write about this study for the simple reason that it’s just another in a long line of such studies that have all shown the same thing: There is no detectable association between MMR and autism. All of this leads me to wonder (and I’m not the only one) why another such study is even necessary. Certainly there doesn’t seem to be much purpose in studying the same question over and over and over again when the answer has been consistently negative. It’s reinventing the wheel, and in the process wasting resources that might otherwise be devoted to studying questions where there is genuine uncertainty about what the answer is.

Be that as it may, this study is different in that it takes into account families with an older sibling with autism or autism spectrum disorder. The rationale, given by the authors, for doing this is not unreasonable, even though they surely must have known what the result would be:

Two doses of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine are currently recommended for children in the United States: the first at age 12 to 15 months and the second at age 4 to 6 years. Although a substantial body of research over the last 15 years has found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorders (ASD), parents and others continue to associate the vaccine with ASD. Parents cite vaccinations, especially MMR, as a cause of ASD6 and have deferred or refused vaccinations for their children as a result. Lower vaccination levels threaten public health by reducing both individual and herd immunity and have been associated with several recent outbreaks of measles, with most cases occurring among unvaccinated individuals.

Families with a child affected by ASD may be particularly concerned about reports linking MMR and ASD, despite the lack of evidence. Surveys of parents who have children with ASD suggest that many believe the MMR vaccine was a contributing cause. This belief, combined with knowing that younger siblings of children with ASD are already at higher genetic risk for ASD compared with the general population, might prompt these parents to avoid vaccinating their younger children. In a recent survey of 486 parents of children with ASD, nearly 20% had declined or delayed MMR immunization in the younger siblings of these children. Furthermore, a Canadian study of 98 younger siblings of children with ASD found that younger siblings were less likely to be fully MMR immunized when compared with their older siblings with ASD. However, there were no statistically significant differences in rates of ASD diagnosis between immunized and nonimmunized children. To our knowledge, this very small study is alone in examining MMR immunization and ASD outcomes among the younger siblings of children with ASD.

Thus, we set out to report on ASD occurrence by MMR vaccine status in a large sample of US children having older siblings with ASD and to compare findings with those among children who have older siblings without ASD.

The study itself is a retrospective cohort study carried out using an administrative claims database, the Optum Research Database, which includes more than 34 million individuals per year and contains both commercially insured individuals and Medicare managed care enrollees. The database contains proprietary deidentified health claims data from a geographically diverse US population whose age and sex distribution is similar to that reported by the US Census Bureau. The previous study I discussed was a case control study, in which individuals with the condition under study (autism) were compared with controls who did not have the condition and risk factors associated with the condition assessed. A cohort study, on the other hand, looks at groups exposed to a putative risk factor and those not. In this case, the risk factor under study was the MMR vaccine. Participants included children continuously enrolled during the period of 2001 to 2012 in the health plan from birth to at least 5 years of age who also had an older sibling continuously enrolled for at least six months between 1997 and 2012. The children in the study were stratified according to how many doses of MMR had been received (0, 1, or 2) between birth and five years of age. There ended up being over 95,727 children in the study group.

So what were the findings? Surprise! Surprise! There was no association detected between MMR and autism:

Of 95,727 children with older siblings, 994 (1.04%) were diagnosed with ASD and 1929 (2.01%) had an older sibling with ASD. Of those with older siblings with ASD, 134 (6.9%) had ASD, vs 860 (0.9%) children with unaffected siblings (P <  .001). MMR vaccination rates (≥1 dose) were 84% (n = 78 564) at age 2 years and 92% (n = 86 063) at age 5 years for children with unaffected older siblings, vs 73% (n = 1409) at age 2 years and 86% (n = 1660) at age 5 years for children with affected siblings. MMR vaccine receipt was not associated with an increased risk of ASD at any age. For children with older siblings with ASD, at age 2, the adjusted relative risk (RR) of ASD for 1 dose of MMR vaccine vs no vaccine was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.49-1.18; P = .22), and at age 5, the RR of ASD for 2 doses compared with no vaccine was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.31-1.01; P = .052). For children whose older siblings did not have ASD, at age 2, the adjusted RR of ASD for 1 dose was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .50) and at age 5, the RR of ASD for 2 doses was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.78-1.59; P = .55).

Astute readers will note that most of the relative risks are below 1.0, which is actually in the protective range. They are not statistically significant, of course, but one of them, for children with an older sibling with an ASD who received two doses of MMR, the effect almost reaches statistical significance. Of course, no one is saying that the MMR vaccine is protective against autism/ASD, but rather that it is not associated with the condition. So what might explain these low adjusted RRs:

Although there were no statistically significant RR estimates indicating increased ASD risk at any age in either group of children (those whose older siblings had or did not have ASD), the statistically significant interactions in the final Cox model suggest differences in RR by both age and older sibling ASD status. The pattern in RRs across these groups was such that lower RR estimates (commonly extending into the protective range, ie, below 1.0) were observed at younger vs older ages and in children with older siblings with vs without ASD. Although protective estimates tended not to reach statistical significance, this pattern is worth further consideration. It is possible, for example, that this pattern is driven by selective parental decision making around MMR immunization, ie, parents who notice social or communication delays in their children decide to forestall vaccination. Because as a group children with recognized delays are likely to be at higher risk of ASD, such selectivity could result in a tendency for some higher-risk children to be unexposed. To be consistent with observed data, this would need to happen more often at younger ages. This seems feasible because by the time the child is older, developmental concerns are more likely to have been confirmed or ruled out and parents may then be less worried about a new exposure, such as a vaccination, influencing a child’s developmental trajectory. Estimates at older ages would thus be less susceptible to bias related to selective parental decision making, which also aligns with the pattern observed here. This explanation would also suggest that the estimate for the 1-dose RR estimate at age 5 years (1.10; 95% CI, 0.76-1.54) is least vulnerable to this bias because age 5 is several years removed from the time parents are typically deciding about the first MMR dose or weighing the importance of early developmental concerns.

In other words, the myth that MMR causes autism likely influenced these results to give the appearance of a protective effect of MMR against autism in some of these groups. We can’t conclude from this study that MMR is protective against autism, but we can conclude that there is no association suggesting that MMR could cause or contribute to autism. In other words, this study provides no support for a common antivaccine claim that, well, yes, MMR doesn’t cause autism in most kids, just in “high risk” and “genetically susceptible” kids, such as ones who have an older sibling with an ASD diagnosis. In other words, the parrot is still dead.

So why do we keep studying this question of whether MMR causes autism when so many studies have already been done and have all come to the same conclusion, namely that the answer is no? As I keep saying, from a scientific standpoint the parrot has been dead for quite some time, but unfortunately the antivaccine movement remains like the pet shop owner, claiming that the hypothesis isn’t really dead. It’s just pining for the fjords. Besides increasing degradation of herd immunity in pockets of low vaccine uptake with resulting outbreaks like the recent Disneyland measles outbreak, this is one of the significant harms of the antivaccine movement, a major waste of resources and funding expended studying the same question again and again. The problem, of course, is that these studies do not reassure the very parents who need to be reassured; all they do is to provide incrementally more confidence among scientists and pediatricians to their already high level of confidence that MMR does not cause autism.

Same as it ever was.

Comments

  1. #1 shay
    April 25, 2015

    it is not measles that causes the problem, it is trying to interfere with it that does

    By all means, let’s not interfere with something that puts 10-20% of those infected in the hospital and causes hepatitis, myocarditis, thrombocytopenia, encephalitis, pneumonia, otitis media, and death.

    Perhaps the vaccine should try harder.

  2. #2 JP
    April 25, 2015

    Well, y’see, shay, pneumonia, encephalitis, etc., are just examples of the body expressing its innate intelligence. Or something.

  3. #3 Darwy
    Røde grøde med fløde
    April 25, 2015

    “Look at the amount of crap in the vaccine.”

    I don’t know what planet you’re on, but a 0.5 ml vaccine doesn’t have a lot of ‘crap’ in it – we’re talking micrograms. Millionths of a gram.

    As far as the Polio/DDT canard – we didn’t start spraying DDT as an insecticide until the mid 40’s – so why did FDR have polio in the 20’s then?

    Logic – you’re lacking it.

  4. #4 shay
    April 25, 2015

    JP — so, we should all be getting in touch with our inner pathogen?

  5. #5 JP
    April 25, 2015

    JP — so, we should all be getting in touch with our inner pathogen?

    “Johnny” certainly seems to have gotten in touch with his.

  6. #6 Krebiozen
    April 25, 2015

    johnny,
    You really are the gift that keeps on giving. I find your inept and idiotic offerings here endlessly entertaining. You’re like a sort of antivaccine Mr Bean, but funnier. Thank you!

    it is not measles that causes the problem, it is trying to interfere with it that does.

    So trying to interfere with a virus that has only been affecting humans for a few hundred years causes autism? You really believe that measles was developed by some benign supernatural agency to give human immune systems a workout? How did humans survive before the 12th century?

    Look at the amount of crap in the vaccine, that’s enough to push anyone over the edge that is hovering.

    Which of the ingredients of MMR specifically do you believe is the culprit?

    The 1,000 TCID50 (tissue culture infectious doses) of measles virus; 12,500 TCID50 of mumps virus; and 1,000 TCID50 of rubella virus? Aren’t these viruses good for us according to your beliefs?

    Sorbitol (14.5 mg) – found naturally, in much greater quantities, in apples, pears, peaches, and prunes?

    Sodium phosphate – which occurs naturally, in much greater quantities, in the human body?

    Sucrose (1.9 mg), that’s table sugar, also found naturally, in much greater quantities, in fruits?

    Sodium chloride – common table salt?

    Hydrolyzed gelatin (14.5 mg), which occurs in many foods?

    Human albumin, which occurs, in much greater quantities, in human blood?,

    Fetal bovine serum (<1 ppm), which occurs in many foods in hugely greater quantities?

    Other buffer and media ingredients – mostly amino acids and salts that occur naturally in the human body?

    Or is it the 25 mcg of neomycin, which is an antibiotic given in daily doses up to 480,000 times higher than this?

    Come on, which of this "cr@p" is the culprit?

    In a way you could say the whole vaccine thang is a distraction, like with Polio – had nothing to do with a bug as such but spraying kids with DDT, putting it in baby milk, wallpaper etc. was more of what it was about.

    Hilariously, not only have you fallen for an utterly ludicrous claim – that polio was really caused by insecticides – but you have seized upon the wrong insecticide. Even prenatal exposure to relatively large amounts of DDT is not associated with any nervous system effects. If you have some evidence that DDT has an adverse effect on the human nervous system, “anterior horn demylination”, for example, and causes symptoms even remotely similar to polio, do share.

    Doctors even had a mantra “DDT it’s good for me”.

    The drug company that first produced DDT in the 1940s, true, but I doubt very much that doctors promoted it. DDT is remarkably safe in acute doses, but sadly it doesn’t biodegrade very fast and bioaccumulates as it moves up the food chain, leading to unfortunate ecological consequences. Still, it is far less toxic than I used to believe.

    Not hill, never was

    Still deliberately misspelling your own name in an attempt to throw everyone off? Sad.

  7. #7 Dangerous Bacon
    April 25, 2015

    The indiscriminate spraying of DDT on crops and other outdoor applications (and the detrimental environmental effects that ensued) should be differentiated from controlled indoor spraying (i.e. to combat malaria-carrying mosquitoes):

    “Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) (in 2006) announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.”

    “The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. “Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/

  8. #9 Darwy
    Røde grøde med fløde
    April 25, 2015

    I’m sorry, but posting a Natural News link gets you laughed off the internet, Matthew in Seattle.

  9. #10 johnny
    April 25, 2015

    “Be careful there. You’re starting to sound like THEO, who believes that parents should be allowed to decide that their children can be killed for science, and that babies should be tormented for their own good. Not exactly someone I’d look to for ethical advice.” justhesoundbites

    Ok, this smokescreen is getting rather boring. No vaccine, apart from the BCG, has ever been properly tested for efficacy against a real placebo (not a vaccine minus the antigen). In the case of the BCG it spectacularly failed – there was more TB in the vaccinated group. The real vaccine experiment is the one happening every day with every vaccine on the childhood schedule – non of them have been tested against placebo. To try and imply that withholding an untested vaccine is somehow going to risk life, ney put someone at risk – is total baloney.

    Ask all the kids with narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine experiment on children, that was state sanctioned and paid for by the taxpayer – only a total con man could pull that off.

    Are you implying that ‘proper doctors’ are ethical or able to offer any kind of useful health advice? LOL

  10. #11 johnny
    April 25, 2015

    “I’m sorry, but posting a Pubmed link gets you laughed off the internet, Darwy up the end pipe.”

    Quite so, apparently there are still people who think all you have to do is quote a piece of industry funded ‘research’ and it’s all tickyteeboo. Who came up with that idea?

  11. #12 johnny
    April 25, 2015

    Crude oil is natural, nothing healthy about that Krebby. You are starting to look like an identikit septic soldier. Try and do something more useful.

  12. #13 johnny
    April 25, 2015

    “DDT presents no health risk when used properly.” Dangerous bull

    I suppose if you say it quickly it just rolls off the tongue. Apparently we can have 10,000 vaccines, they have done the studies or do we apply Offit’s principle or maybe the Deer method? Just round it up with a quick RCT, publish and be damned. I could get good at this. Straw men all round.

    Yes, that is interesting, like mercury is completely harmless in a vaccine – isn’t that remarkable. Same with aluminum salts, innocuous in a vaccine. How do that do that?

  13. #14 johnny
    April 25, 2015

    “Still, it is far less toxic than I used to believe.” Krebby

    There we go, it is all about belief – where is the science?

    “I don’t know what planet you’re on, but a 0.5 ml vaccine doesn’t have a lot of ‘crap’ in it – we’re talking micrograms. Millionths of a gram. Loon

    Well Strontium 120 or whatever it was, try telling that to the Russian defector who dissed Putin. There is plenty of room for crap in a vaccine, you should know, look at the list.

    Not Mr Hill and

  14. #15 Darwy
    Røde grøde med fløde
    April 25, 2015

    Oh Johnny

    You need to work on that biting wit, it’s flagging a bit.

    So, please pony up your ‘evidence’ of a swine flu vaccine experiment on kids.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6196/498.short

  15. #16 Darwy
    Røde grøde med fløde
    April 25, 2015

    Strontium 120 is a red herring. It’s not contained in any vaccine. There are no compounds in any vaccine which are toxic at the dose present.

  16. #17 capnkrunch
    April 25, 2015

    johnny@212

    No vaccine, apart from the BCG, has ever been properly tested for efficacy against a real placebo (not a vaccine minus the antigen).

    I could’ve sworn I gave you a link to a saline controlled trial of Gardasil. Yup definitely did in #167.
    @213

    “I’m sorry, but posting a Pubmed link gets you laughed off the internet, Darwy up the end pipe.”

    Quite so, apparently there are still people who think all you have to do is quote a piece of industry funded ‘research’ and it’s all tickyteeboo. Who came up with that idea?

    Ok I get it. A Pubmed indexed study is not good evidence. There’s not really much I can do if NaturalNews and friends are the only references you’ll accept. johnny, you are so full of sh*t I think it’s dripping out your mouth onto your keyboard.

  17. #18 capnkrunch
    April 25, 2015

    @johnny
    A brief Pubmed search turned up saline controlled RCTs for multiple influenza vaccines (including the maligned H1N1 vaccine), TDAP, HiB, Hep B among other still experimental ones. Not going to bother with the links though since Pubmed means nothing to you and you just ignore anything that challenges your bull.

  18. #19 sadmar
    Observing different kinds of crazy...
    April 25, 2015

    Gamondes writing is both less-crazy AND more-crazy than it appears to skeptics. The big question, though, is what the heck does it say that AoA is publishing it?

    Less-crazy because what appears to be totally hallucinated random ramblings – mere gibberish – actually constitute a fairly sophisticated argument, explicted with interesting examples and citations of really smart people. She just can’t organize her thoughts into a proper rhetorical structure, or express herself in clear language. If she could, the theory mish-mash almost makes sense – if and only if you start with her first principle: ‘it is an objective fact beyond contention that vaccines cause great harm’.

    More-crazy because (duh), you have to be out of the reality loop to have that as a base premise. The result is that Gamondes readings of critical theory and pop culture aren’t meaningless gibberish – they’re inversions of the sources, twisting them to draw conclusions opposite in some way to what these things actually mean. But her evocations of the sources are ‘close enough’, you have to both know the proper context of the stuff, AND spot the distorting premises to get how thoroughly she’s stood her references on their heads.

    Which is to say, if you knew nothing of Foucault, Chomsky, Todorov, Arendt, Popper (!), etc., read her glosses of them with some patience, and then went back to check the individual sources, you MIGHT think she got their ideas more-or-less right, these folks writings more-or-less support her position, and these thinkers too are bat-gauno lunatics. Which they’re not.

    [I’ll spare y’all the proper explication of what Foucault’s up to with “panopticism”, for sake of time and bandwidth. Discipline and Punish is a true landmark book, as prescient as all get out, and not only accessible, but a pretty good read for the most part (other writings by Foucault, uhh, not so much)…]

    So, for anyone who values the thinkers she cites (which doesn’t mean agreeing with them by the way…), reading Gamondes is both amusing in it’s ultimate wackiness, and disturbing in its mangling of intellectual traditions. The few comments she receives are mostly comedy gold, though, as the AoA crowd mostly has no clue what sort of intellectual threads she’s trying to weave, and just tells her the posts are ‘beautiful’.

    OK, so what do we take from the fact AoA features these pseudo-intellectual travesties? IMHO:
    1) They’re way beyond trying to persuade any fence-sitters into their camp. The site is now devoted to community maintenance for hard-core anti-vax conspiracy theorists — re-enforcing and rallying their small group of partisans, not recruiting new members.
    2) They’ve been wounded enough with various forms of counter-argument, public pressure, bad press for their ‘heroes’ and events-on-the-ground that they’ve got a ‘legitimation crisis’ in their old narrative. Post-Disneyland, the idea that Merck is just engineering a cover-up to protect their profits doesn’t cut it anymore. It posits that too many people and authorities are asleep at the wheel to account for harm at the scale they ‘KNOW’ is occurring. They have to come up with an answer to ‘how could this horror be happening?’ The most readily-available tack, which many anti-vaxers are surely taking, is to weave ever more elaborate conspiracy theories. But these have the same root problem: motive. What kind of cabal would be so thoroughly evil as to pro-actively ‘destroy’ all those perfect-snowflake privileged white babies? Gamondes can’t extract conspiracy from her screeds entirely, but she understands just enough about ideology theory to realize it provides a more credible rationale for the ‘unquestionable’ vaccine-epidemic scourge: the harm doesn’t have to be conscious, no conspiracy is necessary, this is just the way authoritarian power manifests itself.

    AoA is so marginal and obscure that the living authors Gamondes cites and genuine students of the dead ones are likely never become aware of her travesties of their work, and if they did, they’d barely roll their eyes before getting on to better things to do. I’d guess besides JP and myself, you could count on your fingers and toes the number of people who know anything about the stuff Gamondes mangles and also attend to medical pseudo-science issues enough to have actually read (ok, skimmed) any of her posts.

    Anyway, my notes to skeptics:
    1) That Gamondes is featured on AoA is evidence the hard-core loonies are LOSING.
    2) You shouldn’t draw any conclusions about the actual ideas (or the coherence) of any thinker Gamondes cites from anything she writes. It’s all quote mining and then twisted at that. The safest assumption is that the folks she attempts to draw on are actually smart people with something valuable to say, who would snort whatever they drink onto their keyboards reading the distortions in her diatribes.
    3) As such, Gamondes does represent a danger to the cause of sbm, as ‘science-folk’ who scan her posts can get a big confirmation-bias tweak of their anti-humanities stereotypes. On sum, critical theory offers little comfort to medical pseudo-science, and much, much more to combat it. Lives are at stake here, and a due concern for the potential victims calls on us all to avoid driving unnecessary wedges among potential allies who might work to protect them.

  19. #20 Narad
    April 25, 2015

    I will just guess that he is having none of this ‘evidence-based’ approach and seeks to restore medicine to ‘clinical judgement’ and confirmation bias — knowing that people will correct me if I’m wrong.

    Despite the title, it has almost nothing to do with medicine. (The link in #196 just worked for me.)

    It just devolves into assertions that the Goldbach conjecture is unprovable, ball lightning cannot be explained, etc. The running head is “Towards a theory of irregularity,” while, to all appearances, it is a product a whopper of a case of irregularity. What it’s doing in a journal focusing on clinical practice is anyone’s guess.

    This similarly titled item looks insightful by comparison, although I strongly doubt that I’m going to find an institutional holding, given that the site has a response time suggesting that it’s hosted on a consumer-grade account.

  20. #21 Narad
    April 25, 2015

    I could’ve sworn I gave you a link to a saline controlled trial of Gardasil.

    The field trials of the Salk vaccine kind of dispense with such niceties in any event.

  21. #22 Narad
    April 25, 2015

    As far as the Polio/DDT canard – we didn’t start spraying DDT as an insecticide until the mid 40’s – so why did FDR have polio in the 20’s then?

    Well, assuming that FDR actually had polio, lead arsenate.

    This is what happens when Phildo’s sack of original screwups runs dry.

  22. #23 Brian Deer
    April 25, 2015

    “Johnny” @ 201 says: “it is not measles that causes the problem, it is trying to interfere with it that does.”

    Maybe he wants to explain that in more detail to the 1,600 litigants in the UK, and something like 6.000 litigants in the USA whose lawsuits depended 100% on “it is the measles that causes the problem”, and whose lawsuits went to the wall, at a public cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Of course, the whole thing rested on the most outrageous frauds by Andrew Wakefield – who concocted the measles theory – but rather than show him the door, victims continue to cling to him like boat people clutching hold of a concrete life-raft.

    Johnny: write to your buddy Andy explaining that it’s not the measles virus.

  23. #24 Lawrence
    April 25, 2015

    “Measles virus in the gut” – seems like a very simple hypothesis to test…..yet, after after 15 years, no one has yet to replicate the original findings, or better, run some simple tests and do it themselves.

  24. #25 Krebiozen
    April 25, 2015

    johnny,
    Why do you continue to lie when your lies have been exposed? Over and over again your silly claims are shown to be untrue, but you just bounce back repeating them over and over; I’m tempted to call you rubber johnny, but that would be unfair to prophylactics.

    In the case of the BCG it spectacularly failed – there was more TB in the vaccinated group.

    Citation needed. BCG isn’t the greatest vaccine against TB for some populations, but in others it is up to 90% effective with efficacy of 52% after 50–60 years. BCG appears to have other non-specific effects on the immune system, leading to lower incidence of melanoma, bladder cancer, leprosy and to a greater response to various other vaccines.

    Anyway, you are wasting your time trying to convince Americans that BCG is of no use, since it has never been used routinely in the US, though I’m sure you were injected with it at school in the UK, just as I was, after a sensitivity test to rule out active infection. Early detection and and treatment has been the mainstay of elimination in the US; TB isn’t particularly contagious so this approach can be just as effective as a vaccine.

  25. #26 Krebiozen
    April 25, 2015
  26. #27 capnkrunch
    April 25, 2015

    johnny@78

    Sorry Narad I am not Mr Hill, never have been.

    @136

    Not Mr Hill and never was –

    @138

    Not Mr Hill

    @201

    Not hill, never was

    @216

    Not Mr Hill and

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

  27. #28 Narad
    April 25, 2015

    In the case of the BCG it spectacularly failed – there was more TB in the vaccinated group.

    Citation needed.

    This bit of Phildo’s homework has already been done. He’s screwed it up several ways to Sunday, as is his wont.

  28. #29 ken
    April 25, 2015

    The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies ( 2013 )
    / Appendix D: Study Designs for the Safety Evaluation of Different Childhood Immunization Schedules–Martin Kulldorff

    Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule
    Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice

    INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE 
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

    “To date, there have been few comparative studies evaluating the safety of different vaccine schedules. A few of the existing studies have shown that there are cases in which the risk of adverse events can depend on the vaccination schedule used. Hence, it is both a feasible and an important area of study. ”

    books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=161

  29. #30 capnkrunch
    April 25, 2015

    ken@231
    What the hell point are you trying to make? This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Link, quote, no context, no original thoughts. That’s also a nicely cherry-picked quote you got there. How about this one from their conclusions?

    Instead, the committee made a judgment based on the literature that failed to link adverse effects to schedule exposures or multiple immunizations, concluding that there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe.

  30. #31 Narad
    April 25, 2015

    johnny@78

    Sorry Narad I am not Mr Hill, never have been.

    Is he still under the impression that I’m actually seeing his comments? (Spinning off a root-owned GM script helps in this regard.)

  31. #32 ken
    April 25, 2015

    #232 link please

  32. #33 ken
    April 25, 2015

    Continued….”As a relatively new field of investigation, the big question is what types of study designs will be most fruitful for evaluating different childhood vaccine schedules. A number of possible study designs are presented in this review to evaluate different features or components of the vaccine schedule. These include the timing of individual vaccines, the timing between doses of the same vaccine, the interaction effect between vaccines and concurrent health conditions or pharmaceutical medications, the interaction effects of different vaccines given on the same day, the ordering of different vaccines, and the effect of cumulative summary metrics such as the total number of vaccines or the total amount of some vaccine ingredient. Study designs for the comparative evaluation of one or more complete schedules are also considered. Methods are presented both for adverse events with an early onset, which are the easiest to study, and for adverse events with a late onset, including serious chronic conditions. It is concluded that a wide variety of different vaccine schedule components can be studied. “

  33. #34 Narad
    April 25, 2015

    #232 link please

    Oh, dear, someone has been cribbing.

  34. #35 ken
    April 25, 2015

    #232 Krunch
    “Instead, the committee made a judgment based on the literature that failed to link adverse effects to schedule exposures or multiple immunizations, concluding that there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe.”

    That’s because they had very few studies- Duh

  35. #36 THEO
    April 25, 2015

    @ johnny you are spot on regarding the placebo control. That’s not science that’s quackery. It just never ends with this topic. Vaccine science looks like a brick of Swiss cheese when its vetted.

    So this ‘study’ that captain Gorski has creamed his nuts over is no different than testing the real burn effect of petrol against the real burn effect of petrol.

    Dude your hilarious LMFAO. And narad nobred Bahaha

    This article is making the rounds.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/04/bretigne-shaffer/first-they-came-for-the-anti-vaxxers/

  36. #37 ken
    April 25, 2015

    Repeat
    “Instead, the committee made a judgment based on the literature that failed to link adverse effects to schedule exposures or multiple immunizations, concluding that there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe.”

    That’s because they had very few studies- Duh

    “To date, there have been few comparative studies evaluating the safety of different vaccine schedules. A few of the existing studies have shown that there are cases in which the risk of adverse events can depend on the vaccination schedule used. Hence, it is both a feasible and an important area of study. ”
    books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=161

  37. #38 Chris
    April 25, 2015

    Hey, ken, here something you should answer:

    The first MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1971. If MMR was associated with autism it would have been noticed in the USA before the UK as it is a much larger country using MMR much longer. Where is the verifiable documentation dated before 1990 that autism in the USA increased during the 1970s and 1980’s?

  38. #39 herr doktor bimler
    April 25, 2015

    Sorry Narad I am not Mr Hill, never have been.
    Not Mr Hill and never was –
    Not Mr Hill
    Not hill, never was
    Not Mr Hill and
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    Johnny has not denied the main accusation about his honesty — that he has hidden behind enough sockpuppets and created enough untrue biographies to populate an entire season of “Game of Thrones”.

  39. #40 Narad
    April 25, 2015

    Hilariously, though, Ken fails to notice that Kulldorff scored an R01 on the very subject.

  40. #41 Narad
    April 25, 2015

    That’s because they had very few studies- Duh

    #237 link please

  41. #42 ken
    April 25, 2015

    Suggest you all petition IOM for their egregious error and ORAC address this.

  42. #43 Narad
    April 25, 2015

    Suggest you all petition IOM for their egregious error and ORAC address this.

    OK.

  43. #44 Roger Kulp
    April 25, 2015

    Liz Ditz@ 185
    Let us go even further.I was watching this YouTube video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx7OA60PRKg

    It tells the fascinating,and little known,story of the pioneering women who developed the pertussis vaccine in the 1930s.

    At 4:32 in this video,the narrator talks about how thimerosal was first used to culture vaccines starting in the Netherlands in the 1930s.Something I,and probably many laypeople,did not know.Is it safe to assume thimerosal was in broad use for all vaccine worldwide by the 1940s?

    Perhaps someone could fill me in here.

    If thimerosal was anywhere near as dangerous as St. Andrew and his followers claimed it was,we no doubt would have seen untold millions of autistic or brain damaged children worldwide by the late 1940s or 1950s.But as we all know from reading Mr. Deer’s writing,Wakekfield pretty much pulled his thimerosal theory out of his (fill in anatomy part of your choice).

  44. #45 capnkrunch
    April 25, 2015

    ken@239
    You cherry-picked one quote from their appendix and are ignoring their stated conclusion. Their conclusion was that the current schedule is safe, not that more study is needed. From p133, they conclude that the current schedule is safe,

    The committee acknowledges the evidence that reducing vaccine coverage is associated with increases in vaccine-preventable disease and found only inconsistent and anecdotal evidence to imply that the recommended immunization schedule is not safe. Furthermore, existing systems for the detection of adverse events provide confidence that the existing childhood immunization schedule is safe, and the committee recognizes that the federal government invests considerable resources to ensure vaccine safety.

    that vaccinated vs. unvaccinated RCTs are unethical,

    The committee supports the National Vaccine Advisory Committee Safety Working Group statement that “the strongest study design, a prospective, randomized clinical trial that includes a study arm receiving no vaccine or vaccine not given according to the current recommended schedule, would be unethical and therefore cannot be done” (NVAC, 2009, p. 38).

    that an alternate schedule to decrease the number of vaccines per visit is unfeasable,

    This modified schedule would provide immunizations within the time intervals approved by ACIP and would address the concern about immunization with too many vaccines at one office visit, but the committee did not view this option to be feasible for study.

    and finally:

    In light of the ethical and feasibility requirements and the available evidence, the committee concludes that new randomized controlled trials of the childhood immunization schedule are not justified at this time.

    In fact their recommendation for further research is more or less to keep doing what we’re doing (p134):

    The committee finds that secondary analyses of existing systems are more promising approaches to examination of the research questions that the committee identified in future studies of the childhood immunization schedule.

    Their concluding observations on p135 are also good. I’d recommend you read the whole page but since I don’t think you will here are particularly poignant excerpts:

    The committee’s efforts to identify priorities for recommended research studies did not reveal a base of evidence suggesting that the childhood immunization schedule is linked to autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures or epilepsy, child developmental disorders, learning disorders or developmental disorders, or attention deficit or disruptive behavior disorders.

    And the best for last because it directly contradicts your statement that it only looks safe because there is not enough data:

    The committee found no significant evidence to imply that the recommended immunization schedule is not safe. Furthermore, existing surveillance and response systems have identified adverse events known to be associated with vaccination. The federal immunization research infrastructure is strong.

    Try harder bro.

  45. #46 capnkrunch
    April 25, 2015

    That should be

    that a study of an alternate schedule to decrease the number of vaccines per visit is unfeasable,

  46. #47 ken
    April 26, 2015

    #248 Krunch Re#231 Why did the IOM add Appendix D to their publication if it contradicts previous conclusions?
    books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=161
    (People will cherry-pick according to their bias.)

  47. #48 Narad
    April 26, 2015

    Why did the IOM add Appendix D to their publication if it contradicts previous conclusions?

    You honestly can’t think, can you?

  48. #49 herr doktor bimler
    April 26, 2015

    Roger Kulp:
    At 4:32 in this video,the narrator talks about how thimerosal was first used to culture vaccines starting in the Netherlands in the 1930s.Something I,and probably many laypeople,did not know.Is it safe to assume thimerosal was in broad use for all vaccine worldwide by the 1940s?

    That assumption would *not* be safe… remember that thimerosal / methiolate is an antiseptic / preservative, so not a good idea for attenuated live-cell vacines.

    For the same reason I am skeptical that “thimerosal was [ever] used to culture vaccines”. But a slow intertubes connection, combined with a dislike for the medium, prevents me from watching the video to see what was said.

  49. #50 Krebiozen
    April 26, 2015

    ken,

    (People will cherry-pick according to their bias.)

    I just hurt myself laughing too hard. Some people have an astonishing lack of insight.

  50. #51 Krebiozen
    April 26, 2015

    Roger Kulp,
    Thimerosal has been used as a preservative for various biological products. In particular it has been used for many decades as a preservative for immunoglobulins in similar concentrations to those used in vaccines. Since immunoglobulins are often given repeatedly in much larger doses than vaccines, we know that thimerosal has no adverse effects except in doses several orders of magnitude greater than those present in vaccines.

    For example, this study (PDF) looked at patients with hypogammaglobulinemia who had receive doses of immunoglobulins containing an average 317 milligrams of thimerosal over an average 6.5 years. That’s 317,000 micrograms of thimerosal as compared to less than 150 micrograms of thimerosal in the entire childhood vaccination schedule before thimerosal was mostly removed. One patient had received an estimated 1,482,000 micrograms of thimerosal.

    Their conclusion:

    None of our 26 patients had overt clinical evidence of mercury toxicity. Neurological or intestinal symptoms that were present in our patients usually predated treatment and were attributed to the well-recognised complications of antibody deficiency. Three other patients (not included here) had uneventful pregnancies and gave birth to healthy children while receiving regular replacement therapy.

    When thimerosal in immunoglobulins given IV regularly over a period of years causes no problems, even in the babies of pregnant women, I find it hard to see how doses thousands of times lower could possibly cause problems in vaccines.

  51. #52 usethebrainsgodgiveyou
    April 26, 2015

    Aren’t those exceedingly high numbers of unvaccinated? Although there are pockets, the authors themselves found a rate of even 5% totally vaccine free to be unlikely.

    I’m too stupid to know how that would move the logic.

    Also, only one number met significance. Isn’t this all a rather lot of noise considering that?

  52. #53 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    April 26, 2015

    THEO @238: Lew Rockwell? You lose.

  53. #54 Hello
    April 26, 2015

    The point is not that the MMR causes autism. The point is that with the large number of doses from many different vaccines and from future vaccines as well for future generations, anti vaxxers think this increases the risk for autism. There is this idea that these vaccines given together act synergistically and additively in a negative way. Anti vaxxers want studies comparing vaccinated vs non vaccinated. Looking at one vaccine is simplifying it a bit, especially since there are other vaccines and autism is one of those often multifactorial diseases.

  54. #55 herr doktor bimler
    April 26, 2015

    Looking at one vaccine is simplifying it a bit

    AoA contributors are simple and have not accepted the need to move the goalpost.

  55. #56 Narad
    April 26, 2015

    Anti vaxxers want studies comparing vaccinated vs non vaccinated.

    Strangely, “they” refuse to specify the most rudimentary aspects of such a study, such as, oh, I dunno, what result threshold would suffice to shіtcan H.

    Perhaps you could check with “them” on this point, given that you’re splainin’ and all.

  56. #57 Chris
    April 26, 2015

    Hello: “The point is that with the large number of doses from many different vaccines and from future vaccines as well for future generations, anti vaxxers think this increases the risk for autism.”

    Here you go: Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism.

  57. #58 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    “Children were excluded who had any the follow-
    ing medical conditions with known links to ASD traits:
    fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, Rett syndrome, con-
    genital rubella syndrome, or Angelman syndrome. Control
    children were selected at random from the MCO popula-
    tions to match cases within matching strata defined by birth
    year, sex, and MCO” Christ

    There you go, imbalanced cohorts. The kids being looked at for increase risk of ASD had all the kids taken out that had known ASD traits. However the kids in the control were going to include these so the outcome was going to bias in favour of the study aims – to prove vaccination doesn’t cause ASD.

    Can’t you see that this is why people are shunning vaccination or are you a true vaccine believer? Or just a pharma shilllll. Not Mr Hil, never have been.

    Next

  58. #59 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    Another lovely gem in your study is that it was funded by the CDC. The authors, all proper doctors, had no conflict of interests to declare.

    Well of course they didn’t, who is going to bite their master and get a pat on the head.

    Can you really believe that the public is so dumb? This study, like all vaccine studies, has more holes than I can be bothered to make up a comparison with.

    Still not Mr Hillll and never have been.

  59. #60 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    “AoA contributors are simple and have not accepted the need to move the goalpost.” Hairy doctor

    What like in Christ’s study, take out all the ASD trait kids from the study group and then select the control from the random population – that might work.

  60. #61 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    ” I find it hard to see how doses thousands of times lower could possibly cause problems in vaccines.” Krebby pants

    Well you would, wouldn’t you, you are a vaccine believer. Not seeing is the preserve of the challenged, I wish you luck on your quest.

  61. #62 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    “Is he still under the impression that I’m actually seeing his comments?” Lord NobRed of the higher fold

    Such was the cutting wit of the mighty Johnny, even NobRed had had enough – driven blind by constant rebuttals to his nonsensical Pubmed spewing rants he finally gave up.

    What a mess you gotta clear up now, put something on it.

  62. #63 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    Sorrry, my typo. Should have read ‘lord NobRed of the lower fold’

  63. #64 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    April 27, 2015

    johnny:

    Another lovely gem in your study is that it was funded by the CDC.

    It always amazes me how antivaxxers are convinced that the CDC is in on some huge conspiracy to hide the “real dangers” of vaccines. One would think that an organisation that has public health as its main area of concern would be extremely anxious to find out whether or not vaccines cause harm, and if they did, to do something about it. Maybe even shut down vaccination if it was really as harmful as that.

  64. #65 Narad
    April 27, 2015

    Six “comments” in a row? It looks as though Philip “Fannyblaster” Hills has had to swap the U.S. and U.K. idioms.

  65. #66 Krebiozen
    April 27, 2015

    johnny,

    There you go, imbalanced cohorts. The kids being looked at for increase risk of ASD had all the kids taken out that had known ASD traits.

    Why would you include children with known genetic or prenatal causes of ASD in a study trying to see if vaccines causes autism? It would just include a lot of unnecessary noise. Children with those congenital conditions will have ASD-like symptoms whether they are vaccinated or not. Or are you suggesting that genetic disorders and CRS are caused by vaccines? It wouldn’t surprise me at all, given the depth of your ignorance.

    However the kids in the control were going to include these so the outcome was going to bias in favour of the study aims – to prove vaccination doesn’t cause ASD.

    The children in the control group did not have ASDs, by definition; they were even screened for ASDs to be sure. There is no way any children with “fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, Rett syndrome, congenital rubella syndrome, or Angelman syndrome” were included in the controls. The idea was to match children with ASDs with children without ASDs to see if the ASD children had been exposed to more vaccine antibodies.

    How could this study design possibly bias the results in the way you claim? If children with congenital disorders were included in the control group (they were not) they would be less likely to have been vaccinated, making it look as if vaccines prevent these disorders and ASDs, the opposite of your claim.

    Can’t you see that this is why people are shunning vaccination or are you a true vaccine believer? Or just a pharma shilllll.

    I can see why someone with a closed-minded and unshakable conviction that vaccines are bad, combined with serious problems understanding scientific papers, like you, might leap to the wrong conclusions.

    Not Mr Hil, never have been.

    Another deliberate misspelling? It gets sadder. You keep telling yourself that. No one here believes you.

  66. #67 Lawrence
    April 27, 2015

    @Julian – or accept the fact that the CDC has taken action when vaccines are suspected of causing harm, such as mandating the removal of DPT and also pulling the first Rotavirus vaccine from the market as well…..recommendations for both individual vaccines and the schedule have changed over the years, sometimes to the detriment of individual manufacturers – so exactly how does that jive with the anti-vax line that the CDC or FDA don’t care?

    It doesn’t, of course – because the anti-vaxers will always be about the conspiracy, even if the evidence shows exactly the opposite.

  67. #68 Lawrence
    April 27, 2015

    @Kreb – because he believes that all of those things are caused by vaccines, of course.

  68. #69 herr doktor bimler
    April 27, 2015

    Not Mr Hil, never have been.
    “I have no brother at all. I never had a brother in my life, and I certainly have not the smallest intention of ever having one in the future.”

  69. #70 Krebiozen
    April 27, 2015

    johnny,

    Another lovely gem in your study is that it was funded by the CDC. The authors, all proper doctors, had no conflict of interests to declare.
    Well of course they didn’t, who is going to bite their master and get a pat on the head.

    I love this bizarre idea that scientists are obliged to produce results that the people funding their research would like to see. On many occasions I have participated in studies to evaluate new methods for measuring various substances in blood and/or urine. More than once the new method has proven to be more or less useless.

    I remember in particular a serum creatinine method that resulted in a scatter plot comparing the new method to our existing method that looked like a random collection of dots on the page. There was no correlation at all, and the diagnostics company had to go back to the drawing board; how they got as far as asking us to evaluate this method beats me.

    That didn’t stop the diagnostics company from paying the laboratory (we had an amenity fund that was used to fund training and conferences), taking us all out for a nice meal to say thanks and coming back to us the next time they had a new method to evaluate. The last thing they wanted was to bring a useless diagnostics kit to market, any more than a vaccine manufacturer wants to find a new vaccine leads to adverse events and have to withdraw it from the market.

    In any case I struggle to see how any scientist desperate to please his/her funders would go about altering the results. At what point would this happen? Unless they are working more or less alone, like Cyril Burt (though his malfeasance has been recently called into question – one of his ‘imaginary’ collaborators turned up, IIRC), they would have to either include their co-authors and co-workers in the conspiracy or sneak about fiddling with the data, hoping not to get caught and lose their job.

    In the case of a large study like the one Chris cited, a fraudster would presumably have to find controls that had been exposed to more vaccine antibodies than average, to mask the effects of the vaccines on ASDs. I suppose that isn’t impossible, but the idea that this has happened in every single study that has found no link is beyond belief. The motivation for a scientist to commit such fraud is unclear. Wakefield was paid by a lawyer to find the results he did, and had an alternative measles vaccine lined up to sell to people once he had scared them away from the MMR vaccine. A scientist funded by the CDC isn’t going to have his funding taken back because he didn’t get a specific set of results.

    Can you really believe that the public is so dumb? This study, like all vaccine studies, has more holes than I can be bothered to make up a comparison with.

    Spare us your made up criticisms. You clearly have no clue about the study design.

  70. #71 Krebiozen
    Procrastination City, priming the pump
    April 27, 2015

    johnny,

    What like in Christ’s study, take out all the ASD trait kids from the study group and then select the control from the random population – that might work.

    The study group consisted of children with ASDs, and the control group consisted of children without ASDs. Children with ASDs of known cause were excluded from both study and control groups. Explain how this would bias the study.

    ” I find it hard to see how doses thousands of times lower could possibly cause problems in vaccines.” Krebby pants
    Well you would, wouldn’t you, you are a vaccine believer. Not seeing is the preserve of the challenged, I wish you luck on your quest.

    “Krebby pants”? This is what you describe as “cutting wit”?

    Explain it to me. How is it that patients given up to 1,482,000 micrograms of thimerosal had no neurological symptoms, and pregnant women given hundreds of thousands of micrograms of thimerosal had neurotypical children, but less than 150 micrograms of thimerosal in vaccines given over the course of several years caused autism? What other substance can cause permanent neurological changes in some people in doses 10,000 times lower than those that cause no effects at all in others?

  71. #72 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    “Instead, the committee made a judgment based on the literature that failed to link adverse effects to schedule exposures or multiple immunizations, concluding that there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe.” Cuntmunch

    nice Cherry pick there, they wobbled on it looking like the schedule issue was an issue so they plundered the texts that failed to find a link? Nice work, now take the hairs out of your mouth.

  72. #73 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    “or accept the fact that the CDC has taken no action when vaccines are suspected of causing harm, such as mandating the removal of the urabe strain of mumps ..recommendations for both individual vaccines and the schedule have changed over the years, sometimes to the detriment of babies and children manufacturers –Even when drugs like Vioox had killed 360,000 people they waited until share prices dived on payouts before banning it. so exactly how does that jive with the vax line that the CDC or FDA care?

    It doesn’t, of course – because the vaxers will always be about the conspiracy, even if the evidence shows exactly the opposite.

  73. #74 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    Krebby pants – the group that was studied had all of the kids with ASD tendancies taken out. The control group was picked randomly. That looks to me like a rocket up the arse of your squealing appeals to see it your way.

  74. #75 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    “Explain it to me. How is it that patients given up to 1,482,000 micrograms of thimerosal had no neurological symptoms,” Krebby pants

    Well with the kind of studies you post, they probably screened everyone out with neurological symptoms.

  75. #76 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    “In any case I struggle to see how any scientist desperate to please his/her funders would go about altering the results.” Krebby and the Disney land of publication

    Well speak to Merck, they are up in court for forcing their staff to fiddle data on MMR efficacy. Speak to Roche, after the last swine flu fiddle and billions of tax payers spent money on their snake oil antivirals, after months of delay producing data for an audit on its efficacy – offical reply- lost it – the whole lot. There are lots of times that people fiddle data Krebby, do you live in the real world – how about the banking crisis, weapons of mass destruction? Or would you rather snuggle up to NobRed and watch an Offit promo with a pizza? Tell him to put something on it.

  76. #77 johnny
    April 27, 2015

    “So let me get this straight. Rates of autoimmune disease, neurological disorders, allergies, cancers, infant mortality go up as the number of vaccines increases. ‘Correlation does not mean causation’
    Instances of infectious disease go down as vaccines are introduced. ‘Correlation totally means causation’

    Can you spot the ‘medical anecdote’ masquerading as a fact?

    In fact if you are on a sofa with NobRed in front of anything to do with vaccine promotion – take some tissues-please!

  77. #78 ChrisP
    April 27, 2015

    The Hope Osteopathic Clinic must have a shortage of patients today.

  78. #79 shay
    April 27, 2015

    “Funding/Support: This project was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, and the US Department of Health and Human Services under contract HHSN-271-2010-00033-C.”

  79. #80 Denice Walter
    April 27, 2015

    AS much as I hate to interrupt this engagingly erudite conversation, I should note to all interested that AoA has put up a 10 minute video of Kennedy and Bill Maher that should be either enlightening or sickening depending on your viewpoint.

  80. #81 Dangerous Bacon
    April 27, 2015

    For all those tired of “Dr. Bob” Sears and “Dr. Jay” Gordon monopolizing the antivax discussion in southern California, be assured that there is an alternative – “Dr. Dane (Fliedner) in Newport Beach.

    Dr. Dane promotes an “alternative” vaccine schedule, because he recognizes that parents have fears about the chronic conditions linked to vaccines, including autism.

    Like Orac, Dr. Dane used to be on the medical faculty at an academic institution, before he saw the light:

    “Dr. Dane’s own children were experiencing chronic health conditions of their own which, despite seeing many specialists, were not getting answers using the conventional medical model. Out of frustration and desperation, his kids saw an alternative healthcare practitioner, who effectively diagnosed and healed them after one visit, when they had seen numerous specialists and general pediatricians over the years and essentially got nowhere! This was a very humbling experience, and was ultimately the beginning of his receptivity to alternative paradigms of health and healing.”

    Now Dr. Dane is into alt med in a big way, going for his certification in Functional Medicine (there is a Mark Hyman video on the website) and proudly citing his 500 hours of yoga and yoga therapy teaching experience attained in India (he is certified by the American Board of Integrative and Holistic Medicine, and of course by the AAP).

    http://raisingsagespediatrics.com/about-us/dr-dane-fliedner/

  81. #82 KayMarie
    April 27, 2015

    @DB #283

    One visit? Wow, I hope he only pushes for the one visit cures all woo and not the you have to devote your entire life to it for 2 years or more woo.

    I know he probably doesn’t want to share too much PHI about his kids but do you think he could at least reveal which woo is the one time cure woo?

  82. #83 THEO
    April 27, 2015

    @Julian

    It always amazes me how antivaxxers are convinced that the CDC is in on some huge conspiracy to hide the “real dangers” of vaccines. One would think that an organisation that has public health as its main area of concern would be extremely anxious to find out whether or not vaccines cause harm, and if they did, to do something about it. Maybe even shut down vaccination if it was really as harmful as that.

    People want to believe that, since doctors can put accident victims back together in one piece and can set broken bones and temporarily reduce inflammation, the practice of medicine must be uniformly successful across the board.

    People want to believe in SCIENCE.

    If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore vaccine science, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.

    It would shake and destroy the SCIENCE. it would jeopardize Obamacare it would shatter the trust of Doctors. In short it would cause a revolution.

    Vaccines are the holy grail and foundation of Modern Medicine It must be protected at all costs.

    Clearly you are unable to do the mental gymnastics to see this perspective.

    @ D Bacon, Functional Medicine is the future of medicine. Vaccines represent the past an old archaic approach that will be thrown into the dustbin of history. Doctors like this one are waking up all over the country and seeing how powerful food and supplements HEAL not toxic drugs and vaccines

    Johnny is kicking some ass in here as usual.

  83. #84 Gray Falcon
    April 27, 2015

    THEO- How many people died from smallpox this year?

  84. #85 Krebiozen
    April 27, 2015

    johnny,
    Your ignorance is astonishing.

    nice Cherry pick there, they wobbled on it looking like the schedule issue was an issue so they plundered the texts that failed to find a link?

    No, you are just ignorant of how scientific language is used.. They looked very thoroughly for evidence linking adverse effects to schedule exposures or multiple immunizations and found none. If I carefully look for evidence of an elephant in my backyard and find none, I can safely conclude there isn’t one there.

    Even when drugs like Vioox had killed 360,000 people they waited until share prices dived on payouts before banning it. so exactly how does that jive with the vax line that the CDC or FDA care?

    Vioxx didn’t kill 360,000 people and it wasn’t banned, it was voluntarily withdrawn even though it only has cardiovascular adverse effects when used in high doses for long periods. Both US and Canadian advisory panels voted to allow the drug to return to the market.

    Krebby pants – the group that was studied had all of the kids with ASD tendancies taken out. The control group was picked randomly. That looks to me like a rocket up the *rse of your squealing appeals to see it your way.

    Is your reading comprehension really that poor? The group that was studied all had ASDs. The control group did not. Neither the study group nor the control group included people with Fragile X etc.. Simply repeating your lies doesn’t make them true.

    Well with the kind of studies you post, they probably screened everyone out with neurological symptoms.

    So when you can’t find a problem with a study that contradicts your delusional beliefs, you simply make one up?

    Well speak to Merck, they are up in court for forcing their staff to fiddle data on MMR efficacy.

    You mean the two Merck whistleblowers whose claims are not supported by the epidemiological evidence? We’ll have to wait and see how that case goes, but I will note that they have a strong financial motivation to make those claims.

    Speak to Roche, after the last swine flu fiddle and billions of tax payers spent money on their snake oil antivirals, after months of delay producing data for an audit on its efficacy – offical reply- lost it – the whole lot.

    If you are talking about Tamiflu, that was data produced by one drug company. The studies showing no link between vaccines and autism have been done in multiple countries and by multiple independent researchers, not just by drug companies.

    There are lots of times that people fiddle data Krebby, do you live in the real world – how about the banking crisis, weapons of mass destruction?

    I asked you before for the RCTs that proved that banking deregulation was a good idea or that there were WMDs in Iraq. The whole point is that there was no convincing evidence for either, and there is a mountain of convincing evidence that shows no link between vaccines and autism.

    “So let me get this straight. Rates of autoimmune disease, neurological disorders, allergies, cancers, infant mortality go up as the number of vaccines increases. ‘Correlation does not mean causation’

    None of that is true. Multiple studies have found no link between vaccines and autoimmune disease, neurological disorders, allergies and cancers, and infant mortality is a fraction of what it was before vaccines were introduced.

    Instances of infectious disease go down as vaccines are introduced. ‘Correlation totally means causation’

    So explain why the incidence of chickenpox is the same as it ever was in the UK, but has plummeted in the US.

    Sometimes correlation is due to correlation, sometimes it is not. The point is not to assume causation just because of correlation

    Can you spot the ‘medical anecdote’ masquerading as a fact?

    You wouldn’t know a medical anecdote if it bit you on the backside.

  85. #86 KayMarie
    April 27, 2015

    And what are people going to do until we have enough emergency chakra realignment centers?

    And what if they take you to the wrong alt-med emergency room and they give you TCM treatments rather than Ayruveda, can you imagine the adverse reporting system we’d have to set up for that?

  86. #87 Narad
    April 27, 2015

    A scientist funded by the CDC isn’t going to have his funding taken back because he didn’t get a specific set of results.

    If Phildo is babbling about the DeStefano et al. cited by Chris, the AHIP contract (200-2002-00732) was hardly just for this, and both DeStefano and Wentraub are CDC staff.

  87. #88 Narad
    April 27, 2015

    ^ Weintraub

  88. #89 Krebiozen
    April 27, 2015

    THEO,

    If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore vaccine science, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.

    What a very strange fantasy life you have. I am confident that any competent journalists have the intellect to see that the vast majority of the evidence supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines. I honestly believe you must be either profoundly ignorant or intellectually impaired to conclude otherwise.

    It would shake and destroy the SCIENCE. it would jeopardize Obamacare it would shatter the trust of Doctors. In short it would cause a revolution.

    I’m sure it would, if any of your claims had any truth to them, but they don’t. You are simply deluded.

  89. #90 Krebiozen
    April 27, 2015

    Clearly you are unable to do the mental gymnastics to see this perspective.

    Heh.

  90. #91 Denice Walter
    April 27, 2015

    @ KayMarie:

    That’s hilarious!

  91. #92 Lawrence
    April 27, 2015

    “Mental Gymnastics” – more like a mental contortionist…..

  92. #93 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    April 27, 2015

    People want to believe that, since doctors can put accident victims back together in one piece and can set broken bones and temporarily reduce inflammation, the practice of medicine must be uniformly successful across the board.

    Excellent point! I heard that said just the other day by, er, by, well, by nobody really. In fact, I’ve never heard that said before. I’ve never once heard anyone seriously say that since aspirin works for headaches and splints work for broken bones that the entire structure of medicine is good, pure, and without stain.

    What I keep hearing is that every medical treatment should be backed with solid evidence that it is effective and (relatively) safe. That would be science.

    Science is not threatened by your views.

  93. #94 Denice Walter
    April 27, 2015

    Actually…
    even woo-meisters must admit that ’emergency’ medicine is peerless – who can argue with its ability to start stopped hearts and re-attach severed limbs?-
    But then they say that standard, everyday SBM is awful.

    As if the two entities are un-related, use different data sets and their practitioners are educated and trained in absolute isolation from the ‘opposite’ side.
    Again, I must say, AS IF.

  94. #95 shay
    April 27, 2015

    Science is not threatened by your views.

    Far from being threatened, in fact, Science is sitting back laughing itself silly over your views.

  95. #96 Ellie
    April 27, 2015

    @DB #283

    I just had a look at his website. How fortuitous for me. He’s assured me that I no longer have to worry about sodium in my diet, as long as I eat “pure Himalayan Crystal salt with 84 trace minerals and 1 iodine supplement” and not The Evil Table Salt. My nephrologist would probably not agree, but what does she know?

  96. #97 Gray Falcon
    April 27, 2015

    I keep worrying that someone will start selling “sodium free natural salts” that turns out to be arsenic salts, or “all natural mineral sweetener” that’s actually lead acetate.

  97. #98 capnkrunch
    April 27, 2015

    KayMarie@288
    I’ve been considering letting my paramedic license lapse and becoming an emergency chiropractic technician*. If we can get some of the doctors here become NDs or DCs we can really get the emergency alternative medical system kickstarted.
    That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E: h[]p://youtu.be/HMGIbOGu8q0

    *sadly emergency chiropractic technician seems like an almost real thing

    johnny@274

    nice Cherry pick there, they wobbled on it looking like the schedule issue was an issue so they plundered the texts that failed to find a link? Nice work, now take the hairs out of your mouth.

    Speaking of cherry-picking did you miss my other post or are you just dishonest? They concluded that the schedule is safe, federal surveillance is strong and vaxxed vs unvaxxed is unethical. Basically what they said was the schedule is safe and when it’s not we have the ability to detect that so let’s keep funding our current systems. In fact the (un)ethics of vaxxed vs unvaxxed has most of chapter 6 devoted to it.

    As far as you “cunning wit” is concerned it’s possible to be both offensive and inflammatory without being so vulgar. You don’t do your profession great credit Mr. Hills.

  98. #99 capnkrunch
    April 27, 2015

    Gray Falcon@299
    Did you know there’s also chlorine in our salt? That the stuff in bleach! I want some of that elemental sodium. Heck, elemental evem sounds more natural.

  99. #100 JP
    April 27, 2015

    Speaking of johnny’s “wit,” I’ve never really been able to understand why terms referring to somebody who practices cunnilingus are supposed to be insulting. There is in fact a Yiddish version of johnny’s insult which is a term of endearment.

  100. #101 Roger Kulp
    April 27, 2015

    Krebiozen @ 253

    Thank you.I did not know any of this.My point was that thimerosal had been in use longer ago than many people thought,myself included.That had it been the serious neurotoxin the antis claim,we would have seen big problems with millions of children 50,60,70 years ago.

    THEO @ 238 clicking on your link,I saw this.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/bring-back-childhood-measles-parties/

    As you can imagine,it’s weapons grade burning stupid that makes Mike Adams sound sane and rational.You’d need a sheet of multiple antivax bingo cards here.

  101. #102 Helianthus
    April 27, 2015

    @ JP

    I’ve never really been able to understand why terms referring to somebody who practices cunnilingus are supposed to be insulting.

    I guess it’s done by people unable to give pleasure to their partners.
    I pity Johnny’s wife.

  102. #103 Krebiozen
    April 27, 2015

    JP,

    I’ve never really been able to understand why terms referring to somebody who practices cunnilingus are supposed to be insulting.

    Me neither, though it doesn’t surprise me that johnny would concur – he seems to be the sort of uptight sort who would find sex repulsive. I also find it peculiar that the slang name for female genitalia that johnny also used is probably the most insulting epithet; I have a great fondness for them myself (though not the word).

  103. #104 Calli Arcale
    http://fractalwonder.wordpress.com
    April 27, 2015

    Krebiozen:

    We’ll have to wait and see how that case goes, but I will note that they have a strong financial motivation to make those claims.

    Oh, but they’re only paid shills if they’re *pro* vax. If they’re anti-vax, then they’re merely receiving compensation for the bravery to speak out, right?

    Also, I think it’s hilarious that THEO doesn’t realize that when we say it takes “mental gymnastics” to see something, it is not actually a compliment.

  104. #105 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    April 27, 2015

    THEO:

    People want to believe in SCIENCE.

    You have got to be joking. Plenty of people loathe science as it doesn’t confirm their prejudices.

    Vaccines are the holy grail and foundation of Modern Medicine It must be protected at all costs.

    Now you’re starting to enter conspiracy mode. You are insinuating that vaccines cause huge amounts of harm. The fact of the matter is, for that to be true, so many people would have to be in on the conspiracy, and some of them (like the health insurers) would have to be working against their own interests, that it simply isn’t plausible.

    Clearly you are unable to do the mental gymnastics to see this perspective.

    I agree. It’s impossible for me to get my head that far up my posterior.

    Johnny is kicking some ass in here as usual.

    Insert relevant “Princess Bride” quote here.

  105. #106 justthestats
    April 27, 2015

    @THEO

    I’m confused. Just a few days ago you were so eloquently saying that vaccine research is good enough to find even side effects that harm less than 4 in every 10,000 doses, and that the CDC promptly reports those things, while today you’re saying things like:

    Vaccine science looks like a brick of Swiss cheese when its vetted.

    If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore vaccine science, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.

    Which is it, THEO?

    Alos, if vaccines are as terrible as you claim, why doesn’t this company’s database reflect that? Why would a health insurance company not keep track of what they are paying?

    powerful food and supplements HEAL not toxic drugs and vaccines

    Do you offer any food or supplements that aren’t toxic? I’m going to hold you to the same standard of “toxic” that you use, which means that counts as “toxic” even if it’s harmful only in amounts far higher than the recommended typical dosage.

  106. #107 Denice Walter
    April 27, 2015

    @ JP:
    @ Krebiozen;

    Why was that an insult?

    BECAUSE in the olden days, women were considered less worthy by virtue of having less power, value and prestige THEREFORE pleasuring them put that practitioner in an even lower position. What man would so lower himself? It should only be the other way around, the natural way. In addition, female genitalia were considered dirty and unattractive- only tolerated because of necessity.

    And *women* being servile themselves, should be the only servicers of others. ( since they dis-approved of same sex activities because that was even worse)

  107. #108 Denice Walter
    April 27, 2015

    I should clarify:

    servicing someone of the same sex was frowned upon- gay people and lesbians were probably rated lower than women.

  108. #109 JP
    April 27, 2015

    @Denice:

    Right; which only speaks volumes more about Philip Hills, Hope Osteopathic Clinic Essex. It’s also just a bizarre way to try to insult somebody in this day and age, at least in my circles – it’s like saying, “Geez, you must have a lot of sex, you loser!”

    I have to imagine that things were a bit more complicated, historically speaking, and that people enjoyed all kinds of fun sexy-time activities regardless of “proper” cultural attitudes. Because I have a hard time imaging a cultural/time/place where nobody was enthusiastic about all kinds of sex acts.

    But then I am a lousy prevert.

  109. #110 Narad
    April 27, 2015

    Right; which only speaks volumes more about Philip Hills, Hope Osteopathic Clinic Essex.

    Is it worth my while to disable the killfile to see what he managed to blunder into?

  110. #111 JP
    April 27, 2015

    @Narad:

    Just a certain epithet directed toward capnkrunch. “Pierge freser” would be one of the Yiddish equivalents.

  111. #112 JP
    April 27, 2015

    ^ S’iz poylish, bear in mind. And affectionately dirty.

  112. #113 ChrisP
    April 27, 2015

    Is it worth my while to disable the killfile to see what he managed to blunder into?

    No. It is just Philip Hills strange fascination with using sexual activity as insults. It is almost as if little Phil is jealous ’cause he doesn’t get any himself.

  113. #114 LIz Ditz
    United States
    April 27, 2015

    The Health Stranger has done it again.

    SB 277 will unleash “medical civil war” in California as parents demand doctors be arrested for felony assault

    I am now publicly predicting that, should SB 277 be signed into law, we will see a wave of California parents calling 911 to report their doctors while demanding the government press felony assault charges against medical personnel engaged in vaccine violence.

    It is doubtful, of course, that District Attorneys would carry out any government-sponsored prosecution of those doctors, but parents will retain the right of CIVIL prosecution of those doctors for violating their civil rights.

    This goes on for quite a while….

    SB277 will be heard in the Judiciary Committee tomorrow. I shall be present with a few friends. Should be interesting, given both Mikey & St. Andy’s inflammatory words.

  114. #115 Narad
    April 27, 2015

    I’m reminded of the death throes of Delysid, wherein he concluded that “accusing” me ad nauseam of having either an enormous schlong or amazing flexibility was an insult of the first water.

  115. #116 Delphine
    the pale moon rose in its glory
    April 27, 2015

    “Instead, the committee made a judgment based on the literature that failed to link adverse effects to schedule exposures or multiple immunizations, concluding that there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe.” Cuntmunch

    Go on…

  116. #117 Delphine
    April 27, 2015

    @299

    Don’t be giving anyone ideas.

  117. #118 Gray Falcon
    April 27, 2015

    I remember Delysid, his idea of clever was to ask people “How do you wipe your own ***?” whenever they brought up situations his ideal society couldn’t handle, such as crime, poverty, and fire.

    And THEO should keep in mind that James Buchanan declared “history will vindicate my memory” as he was dying. If you don’t know who he is, that’s exactly my point.

  118. #119 herr doktor bimler
    April 27, 2015

    If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore vaccine science

    So all the major news media are PART OF THE CONSPIRACY and collude in SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH!
    I didn’t see that coming.

  119. #120 Delphine
    April 27, 2015

    Orac, somewhat (okay a lot) off-topic, but someday, I’d like you to write about pet woo. We acquired a puppy this winter and discovered that dogdom is filled with quacks that make Daily Fail Boy look comparatively restrained.

  120. #121 Narad
    April 27, 2015

    I remember Delysid

    Who could fail to?

    (The subseqent story is that when this text was superposed on an image of his blankly sticking a finger into a pair of chattering teeth while wearing a lab coat, he eventually went insane about “doxxing,” which never occurred.)

  121. #122 JP
    April 27, 2015

    he eventually went insane about “doxxing,” which never occurred.

    I do know people who have gone insane, temporarily or maybe otherwise, who would never dream of saying things like those linked to above to, well, anyone. Despite demons chasing them through the forest until they collapsed, barefoot, disheveled and exhausted, and were found and taken to the hospital. Just for the record.

  122. #123 herr doktor bimler
    April 27, 2015

    Ah, Delysid. It seemed odd to see a supremely self-reliant, intellectually self-sufficient Objectivist accusing other people of autofellatio.

  123. #124 Narad
    April 27, 2015

    I still have a copy of an edition of this to remind me of his name.

  124. #125 Denice Walter
    April 27, 2015

    JP has missed out on some extremely high level ( or is it low level?) visitors: Chris mentions others on the “America’s quack” thread- Augustine, Medecein Man.
    Then there was H@ppeh ( his name triggers sirens, whistles and an immediate lockdown) .
    In addition we had the tranny ‘nym’d chiropractor Peg/ Emily/ Greg of Oz. And Grandma Marcia.

    Anti-vaxxers scampered about merrily whining and Jake came to school Orac’s minions in degrees of separation.

    I think we scared them away. They are too frightened of SB reality as well as our lovely minions’ sharp tongues.

  125. #126 Denice Walter
    April 27, 2015

    @ Liz Ditz:

    Heh. Well, Mikey has made lots of predictions – including a few about California: both he and the other idiot predict that- because of the drought- people will soon be ABANDONING the place by the millions. You’ll be able to buy properties for virtually nothing and ghost owns will multiply.

    Oooh. That’s a thought- perhaps I can get an historic mission or lighthouse for a song.

  126. #127 Narad
    April 27, 2015

    I was naturally reminded of Augie by virtue of Phildo’s recent pseduonym + obsession combo.

  127. #128 Narad
    April 27, 2015

    ^ Sorry, I meant psuedeonym.

    It’s luxurious.

  128. #129 Politicalguineapig
    April 28, 2015

    Sadmar: “However, I am not aware of any convincing evidence that shows what percentage of non-vaxed kids have ‘true believer’ parents, and what percentage of parents fall into ‘we didn’t go get the shots because we’re still on the fence’.”

    How many times do I have to point out that there aren’t any fence-sitters in the anti-vax camp? I think the only way to make people reconsider is to hit them in the pocket book- paying extra for having unvaxxed kids would make people reconsider.

    DW: Considering that we are talking about California, I am surprised the bill to eliminate non-medical exemptions got as far as I did. The problem is that Brown’s a flake- he’ll kill it. I hope Pan makes it to the end of his term alive.

  129. #130 johnny
    April 28, 2015

    Here is a lovely critique of that dreadful study that started this thread. Good job someone knows how to see through your voodoo masquerading as science.

    “As with almost all studies that dispute the link between vaccines and autism, there are two statistical “tricks” that are used to remove association.

    – Hiding data, in this case through age of test
    – Not discussing obvious results and focusing on areas where impact is not seen
    – Comparing unrelated items to make invalid conclusions

    For number 1, Dr. William Thompson of the CDC revealed that the age of the MMR had a large impact. The impact is before 36 months of age. In this study they look at well before (age 2) and well after (age 5). This could mask the problem, especially since you would be looking for a small population size, less than 1% of the total children.

    Second, In the initial discussion they reveal that 2% of children had an older sibling with ASD, but only 1% of these children had ASD themselves. This states that the risk of autism in a younger sibling is cut in 1/2. This is extremely significant and brings the question of, what was different with these kids, how did they cut the autism rate in HALF. There is no way these doctors did not notice this. They made it the first sentence of the results, yet the wording is such that it is not obvious on the first reading.

    The study then reveals that the MMR vaccine rates were lower and more delayed for the children with siblings with autism. This scream that there is a significant relationship between the two. So how did the study not see it and why did they not discuss this?

    That brings us to number three, When they go to look at risk of the MMR they compare against the total population, this has the effect of diluting the connection. The previous findings should have had them compare the MMR rates for children with older siblings with ASD (994) that;

    – had ASD (134)
    – did not have ASD (860)

    By doing this I can already tell you there is a statistically significant relationship. Unfortunately the full data set would be needed to prove this and getting that may be difficult.

    This is not to say the paper is not true, it just does not tell the whole story and is misleading. A more accurate conclusion should be. For the population of children that are at risk of autism there is a statistically significant risk of autism.” Touche

  130. #131 johnny
    April 28, 2015

    Get a box of tissues – NobRed, you are gonna need them

  131. #132 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    April 28, 2015

    johnny, put “William Thompson” into the search box. Suffice to say, you’re talking nonsense.

  132. #133 Narad
    April 28, 2015

    What, only two protein stains so far from Philip “Nancy” Hills?

  133. #134 Krebiozen
    April 28, 2015

    johnny,

    Here is a lovely critique of that dreadful study that started this thread. Good job someone knows how to see through your voodoo masquerading as science.

    You didn’t attribute the critique to its author, Eben Plettner, who is an contributor to AoA, and who claims to be a rocket scientist with a higher degree in math and statistics. That seems a little unlikely given his performance.

    “As with almost all studies that dispute the link between vaccines and autism, there are two statistical “tricks” that are used to remove association.

    This should be interesting.

    – Hiding data, in this case through age of test […]
    For number 1, Dr. William Thompson of the CDC revealed that the age of the MMR had a large impact. The impact is before 36 months of age. In this study they look at well before (age 2) and well after (age 5). This could mask the problem, especially since you would be looking for a small population size, less than 1% of the total children.

    This assumes that Hooker’s execrable paper came to accurate conclusions i.e. that African American males who received the first MMR prior to 36 months of age are at increased risk of ASDs. The fact that Hooker only came to this conclusion because he failed to account for confounders such as premature birth and utterly mangled the statistics seems to have escaped Eben Plettner despite his higher degree in statistics.

    – Not discussing obvious results and focusing on areas where impact is not seen […]
    Second, In the initial discussion they reveal that 2% of children had an older sibling with ASD, but only 1% of these children had ASD themselves. This states that the risk of autism in a younger sibling is cut in 1/2.

    The rocket scientist appears to suffer from reading comprehension problems. Here’s what the study says:

    Out of 95 727 children in the cohort, 1929 (2.01%) had an older sibling with ASD. Overall, 994 (1.04%) children in the cohort had ASD diagnosed during follow-up. Among those who had an older sibling with ASD, 134 (6.9%) were diagnosed with ASD, compared with 860 (0.9%) diagnosed with ASD among those with siblings without ASD (P < .001).

    How anyone could interpret that to mean the risk of an ASD in a younger sibling is halved, when the actual figure is 6.9%, beats me. That doesn’t fill me with confidence in the rest of this self-proclaimed statistics expert’s analysis.

    The study then reveals that the MMR vaccine rates were lower and more delayed for the children with siblings with autism. This scream that there is a significant relationship between the two. So how did the study not see it and why did they not discuss this?

    There is an obvious explanation for this, that thanks to the relentless misinformation spread by the antivaccine movement the younger siblings of children with ASDs are less likely to get vaccinated with MMR due to parental concerns. The authors did see this and discussed it:

    As seen in our data and other studies, MMR immunization is lower in children with older siblings with ASD. It is also plausible that parents of affected older siblings would be especially attentive to developmental delays in their younger children and decide to forestall immunization. Developmental abnormalities in affected older siblings may also have appeared and raised parental concerns prior to encounters generating ASD claims.

    It amuses me that this self-proclaimed statistics expert is demanding an explanation for what appears to be a protective effect of MMR on the development of ASDs, but hasn’t noticed that there is one on the paper.

    – Comparing unrelated items to make invalid conclusions
    That brings us to number three, When they go to look at risk of the MMR they compare against the total population, this has the effect of diluting the connection. The previous findings should have had them compare the MMR rates for children with older siblings with ASD (994) that;
    – had ASD (134)
    – did not have ASD (860)

    They didn’t compare MMR RR with the total population, they compared it with children of the same age because, obviously, the likelihood of having had MMR and the likelihood of having an ASD diagnosis both increase with age. What would comparing MMR RR in children with ASDs who also had older siblings with ASDs to the MMR RR in children without ASDs who also had older siblings with ASDs tell us? We can see in Table 2 that children with an older sibling with an ASD who have been vaccinated are less likely to have an ASD than those who are vaccinated. This association disappears when corrected for various confounders.

    By doing this I can already tell you there is a statistically significant relationship. Unfortunately the full data set would be needed to prove this and getting that may be difficult.

    How can he tell there is a statistically significant relationship when he doesn’t have the data? The only statistically significant relationships in this study show an apparent protective effect of MMR against ASDs but these relationships disappear when adjusted for confounders.

    This is not to say the paper is not true, it just does not tell the whole story and is misleading.

    I see nothing in this analysis that suggests the results are at all misleading.

    A more accurate conclusion should be. For the population of children that are at risk of autism there is a statistically significant risk of autism.”

    No, the conclusion the study’s authors came to is perfectly reasonable:

    In this large sample of privately insured children with older siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD.

    Younger siblings of children with ASDs are less likely to get vaccinated with MMR. However, this does not lead to lower rates of ASDs in those unvaccinated children, which suggests that MMR does not cause ASDs.

    Touche

    Not even close.

  134. #135 herr doktor bimler
    April 28, 2015

    By doing this I can already tell you there is a statistically significant relationship. Unfortunately the full data set would be needed to prove this

    In the meantime, in the absence of statistical tests, Plettner uses the term “statistically significant” in a special sense, vaguely meaning “betokened by a secret message concealed within the froth on his latte”.

  135. #136 THEO
    April 28, 2015

    @ gray falcon Google Liecester England and Small pox

    @ Julian

    Now you’re starting to enter conspiracy mode. You are insinuating that vaccines cause huge amounts of harm. The fact of the matter is, for that to be true, so many people would have to be in on the conspiracy, and some of them (like the health insurers) would have to be working against their own T

    They cause far more side effects and problems than we are officially being told. Why would the insurance companies care when all these side effects get swept under the rug by pediatricians as NORMAL? They are not being reported. Doctors are brainwashed/trained NOT to look into vaccines for there side effects. Do some original research and look into the history of medicine and you will find it littered with junk science and experiments that are covered up.

    If you come into this debate TRUSTING pharmaceutical companies and their research *YOU LOSE* Thats the first error in judgement. This is where the mental gymnastics must begin. If you cannot complete this simple exercise your susceptible to the propaganda they push. This is well known outside of the establishment and even inside as shown here.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Drug-Companies/dp/0375760946

    http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sale-Government-Corporations-Universities/dp/1626360715/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430225528&sr=1-1&keywords=science+for+sale

    @Just the stats

    Do you offer any food or supplements that aren’t toxic? I’m going to hold you to the same standard of “toxic” that you use, which means that counts as “toxic” even if it’s harmful only in amounts far higher than the recommended typical dosage.

    Eating foods with toxins vs injecting toxins bypassing the immune system is totally different.

    I shop at Whole foods and prepare all my meals. every once in a while I eat out. I don’t drink flouridated tap water either.

    I have said this before and I will say it again. Children don’t need vaccines to thrive in this country in 2015. Thats the dirty little secret. We should all be thanking PLUMBERS not vaccines for disease eradication.

    There are fearless parents refusing to vaccinate like myself. we are not nervous about our decision at all. Actually were excited and relived to know that our child wont be assaulted by the schedule.

    From Sherryl Attkinson

    The supposedly best medical experts in the world who deny vaccines have anything to do with autism remain at an utter loss to explain this generation’s epidemic. To declare the science “settled” and the debate “over” is to defy the plain fact that many scientists worldwide are still sorting through it, and millions of people are still debating it.

    The body of evidence on both sides is open to interpretation. People have every right to disbelieve the studies on one side. But it is disingenuous to pretend they do not exist. Sherryl Atkinson. She calls out ORAC in her piece too

    http://sharylattkisson.com/what-the-news-isnt-saying-about-vaccine-autism-studies/

  136. #137 THEO
    April 28, 2015

    This is from a pediatric doctor DC who writes text books for his profession.

    The vaccine is effective and you must take it, and it is ineffective (waning immunity) and you must take it. The vaccine is effective and the nonvaccinated are at risk and the vaccine is ineffective and you need another one.

    You have the right to self-determination (personal autonomy), and you don’t have the right to self-determination. You need to be legally ordered to get something against your will because it is proven safe, but we can’t show you the controlled prospective longitudinal study, because it’s already proven to be safe due to post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

    Vaccines no longer contain thimerosal and flu vaccine contains thimerosal.

    Thimerosal was put into vaccines because it is safe and it has been removed (except in the flu shot) because it is potentially dangerous, but it is also safe.

    Vaccines are ineffective but are proven effective and therefore we need no further studies as well as ANY studies (e.g. vaccinated vs. unvaccinated), but we need more comparison (noncontrolled) studies to show they are safe, which we already know to be true.

    If the risk of a vaccine is 1/100,000,000 then you need 3 million subjects in a study to have 95% confidence of that estimate, but you need 1000 subjects or 100,000 subjects to show a vaccine is safe.

    It is proven safe but we need protection from lawsuits because they are safe.
    The absence of proof is the proof of absence.

    Must be the high fructose corn syrup, nothing to see here, and move along.

    Antivaxxers are lunatics about mercury in vaccines, and the FDA is not a lunatic for removing mercury from most vaccines.

    Carry on LMFAO are you folks in this much denial?

  137. #138 novalox
    April 28, 2015

    @theo

    You do know I show your comments to a few doctors and nurses that I work with. All of them said that you cannot possibly be that stupid right?

    If so, they recommend that you never seek out medical care, since you seem so entrenched against it.

  138. #139 Helianthus
    April 28, 2015

    @Theo

    Black and white thinking. Look it up.

    Cars are safe. You can start yours and hope it will not fall apart as you drive on.
    Planes are safe. You can plan an air trip and hope you will land in one piece.
    Vaccines are safe. You can get injected with one and hope not to turn into the the Hulk.

    Sometimes, things break. Yet, we still have cars and planes. And hopefully, vaccines.

  139. #140 TBruce
    April 28, 2015

    THEO:

    Sharyl Attkisson? Are you freakin’ kidding me?
    This is the genius who thought a stuck backspace key was the Feds hacking her laptop.
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/10/31/benghazi-sharyl-attkisson-claims-govt-hacked-her-computer-actually-her-backspace-key-was-just-stuck-video/

  140. #141 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    April 28, 2015

    They [vaccines] cause far more side effects and problems than we are officially being told.

    What side effects? How many more? How was that number obtained? What’s the quality of the evidence for that? You don’t trust pharmaceutical companies, and I get that. That may be a fully justifiable position. It’s not evidence.

    I have said this before and I will say it again. Children don’t need vaccines to thrive in this country in 2015. Thats the dirty little secret.

    That’s true enough – the current incidence of vaccine preventable diseases in this country is pretty low. That is, to a large extent, because people vaccinate and the diseases don’t become epidemics. If people were tot stop vaccinating, we would reasonably expect some diseases to re-surge.

    We should all be thanking PLUMBERS not vaccines for disease eradication.

    It depends on the disease. You should also thank the makers of soaps and hand sanitizers, detergents, paper tissues, air filters, and a whole list of other things that reduce disease transmission. Clearly having treated, uncontaminated, fluoridated water and good waste treatment reduces the spread of cholera, typhoid, various worms, and so on. It does nothing for airborne diseases, those found in food, or those spread by direct contact.

  141. #142 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    April 28, 2015

    THEO @338:

    [Vaccines] cause far more side effects and problems than we are officially being told.

    Show us your evidence.

    Why would the insurance companies care when all these side effects get swept under the rug by pediatricians as NORMAL?

    Given that the insurance companies would be the ones paying for the consequences of these supposed “side effects”, I think they would care. They’d care a great deal.

    They are not being reported.

    Anybody can submit a report to VAERS, even someone who isn’t a medical practitioner. In fact, antivaxxers have skewed VAERS by entering false reports. Your assertion that side effects are not being reported is dubious, to put it mildly.

    Doctors are brainwashed/trained NOT to look into vaccines for there side effects.

    I had a flu vaccine today. You have no cooking clue what you’re writing about.

    If you come into this debate TRUSTING pharmaceutical companies and their research *YOU LOSE*

    Firstly, I don’t blindly trust anybody. Secondly, there are numerous studies into vaccine safety not funded by pharmaceutical companies. The study this post is about is one such.
    I have done my research. Vaccines work and are far safer than the diseases they prevent.

  142. #143 Krebiozen
    April 28, 2015

    THEO,

    Google Liecester England and Small pox

    If you are referring to the Leicester method of notification and quarantine of smallpox cases (PDF), I see nothing that supports your claims. Residents opposed to vaccination tried to use this as the sole way of dealing with smallpox, instead of in combination with vaccination, and the result was hundreds of cases of smallpox and 21 deaths:

    Even some of the hospital staff refused vaccination, including the matron; five of them subsequently developed smallpox, and one died.

    That doesn’t seem very effective to me. It was notification, quarantine and vaccination together that finally eradicated smallpox.

    They cause far more side effects and problems than we are officially being told.

    Why do you believe this when hundreds of large studies, many of them by independent researchers, carried out all over the world, do not show any such thing?

    Why would the insurance companies care when all these side effects get swept under the rug by pediatricians as NORMAL? They are not being reported. Doctors are brainwashed/trained NOT to look into vaccines for there side effects.

    Insurance companies care very much if something is making their clients sick because it costs them money. The reason they support vaccination is because it reduces illness and their costs. Insurance companies are not stupid and use very sophisticated statistics to maximize their profits. If vaccines made people sick insurance companies would not support them.

    Do some original research and look into the history of medicine and you will find it littered with junk science and experiments that are covered up.

    I have, and there are some cases of junk science and corruption, but to extrapolate from this to claim that all scientific research is bogus is simply ridiculous.

    If you come into this debate TRUSTING pharmaceutical companies and their research *YOU LOSE* Thats the first error in judgement.

    I am suspicious of pharmaceutical companies and would never rely entirely on their research, but as I wrote above, there is a large amount of research done by independent scientists with no motive to cover up vaccine damage, and they find that serious vaccine injuries are vanishingly rare, so rare that we can’t be sure they are caused by vaccines.

    This is where the mental gymnastics must begin. If you cannot complete this simple exercise your susceptible to the propaganda they push. This is well known outside of the establishment and even inside as shown here.

    You link to a book by Marcia Angell who edited the NEJM for over 20 years. Not everyone agrees with Marcia Angell. Some even suggest that, “Angell’s arguments […] are rife with inaccuracies and fallacies”.

    Then you link to a book by David Lewis, the retired sewage sludge researcher who supports Andrew Wakefield and blunderingly supplied Brian Deer with the colitis score sheets that put a final nail in Wakefield’s fraud coffin. He is hardly a reliable source of information.

    Eating foods with toxins vs injecting toxins bypassing the immune system is totally different.

    Why, when toxins like methylmercury are rapidly and almost completely absorbed?

    I shop at Whole foods and prepare all my meals. every once in a while I eat out. I don’t drink flouridated tap water either.

    Why is it that cranks are incapable of spelling “fluoridated”? It’s almost as reliable a marker of being a loon as using the word “dis-ease”. What is the natural level of fluoride in your drinking water?

    I have said this before and I will say it again. Children don’t need vaccines to thrive in this country in 2015.

    I don’t know how anyone can make such a monumentally dumb statement with their bare face hanging out. Vaccines have saved aproaching a million lives since 1994 in the US alone.

    Thats the dirty little secret. We should all be thanking PLUMBERS not vaccines for disease eradication.

    How does plumbing prevent diseases spread by close contact such as meningitis, measles, chickenpox, diphtheria, rubella, mumps, pertussis or HPV?

    There are fearless parents refusing to vaccinate like myself. we are not nervous about our decision at all. Actually were excited and relived to know that our child wont be assaulted by the schedule.

    You should be very nervous indeed about your decision. You have greatly increased your child’s risk of serious illness, permanent disability or death. Well done.

    From Sherryl Attkinson

    Why would anyone believe a word this idiotic ‘journalist’ says?

    The body of evidence on both sides is open to interpretation. People have every right to disbelieve the studies on one side. But it is disingenuous to pretend they do not exist.

    Every study I have seen that purports to show a link between vaccines and autism is very badly designed, or horribly mangles the statistics used. Attkinson writes:

    “Permanent brain damage” is an acknowledged, rare side effect of vaccines; there’s no dispute in that arena. The question is whether the specific form of autism brain injury after vaccination is in any way related to vaccination.

    What a remarkably stupid statement, If there is a question about whether the brain injury is in any way related to vaccination then there is indeed “a dispute in that arena”. She links to the CDC page on the DTaP vaccines which says:

    Several other severe problems have been reported after
    DTaP vaccine. These include:
    – Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
    – Permanent brain damage.
    These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine.

    How is a page that states clearly that permanent brain damage after vaccination is so rare we can’t tell if it was caused by vaccination evidence that “there’s no dispute in that arena”? In my opinion the woman is a dangerous idiot.

  143. #144 Gray Falcon
    April 28, 2015

    THEO: I looked up “Liecester England and Small pox”, and the first thing I noticed was that you misspelled Leicester. The second was that isolation only played a partial role in the eradication of smallpox, so did vaccination. This article should set you straight:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1082657/

  144. #145 Gray Falcon
    April 28, 2015

    If the risk of a vaccine is 1/100,000,000 then you need 3 million subjects in a study to have 95% confidence of that estimate, but you need 1000 subjects or 100,000 subjects to show a vaccine is safe.

    If the risk of a vaccine is one in a hundred million, then it is vastly safer than the disease. THEO, have you considered aiming at something other than your foot?

  145. #146 Helianthus
    April 28, 2015

    @ MO’B

    Clearly having treated, uncontaminated, fluoridated water and good waste treatment reduces the spread of cholera, typhoid, various worms, and so on. It does nothing for airborne diseases, those found in food, or those spread by direct contact.

    And funny enough, most vaccines are against diseases which are airborne (flu, measles, mumps, smallpox, tuberculosis) or use direct contact (polio)…

  146. #147 Helianthus
    April 28, 2015

    Ah, forget blockquotes around 1st paragraph. Apologies.

  147. #148 THEO
    April 28, 2015

    @Juilan
    I had a flu vaccine today. You have no cooking clue what you’re writing about.
    Sounds awful did you at least get the one with no mercury?
    I would never ever ever ever get that shot.

    @ novalox

    You do know I show your comments to a few doctors and nurses that I work with. All of them said that you cannot possibly be that stupid right?

    Newsflash MD’s dont think FOOD heals so of course they think I am stupid. It goes back to there upside down training on pharmacology.

    If so, they recommend that you never seek out medical care, since you seem so entrenched against it.

    I AVOID MD’s at all costs unless its an emergency like a bullet wound, car accident or broken leg. For chronic diseases they are an utter failure and USELESS. tell them that. They are excellent at Trauma

    Medical doctors can’t even cure heart burn and acid reflux without toxic drugs. Thats how ignorant they are.

    here us the real solution. Detox and food elimination diet

    I would go to a chiro, ND or functional medical doctor like Dr Hyman for a REAL solution not drugs thats don’t solve anything.

    Dont you guys understand there is more than 1 view on healthcare and its rising up through a grassroots movement based on the understanding that the human body is 100% fully equipped to handle all diseases it just needs the proper building blocks to fight. NOT Vaccines, drugs, chemo radiation and surgery. Sure in some cases but not in ALL cases like we are lead to believe.

    Functional medicine with the help of Nutritional supplements is where health care is going.

    OH its coming you better wake up

    I get the impression all of you are in the medical field in one way or another defending your beliefs

    One of my friends kids has loss of hearing in both ears and the doctors call it congenital. WRONG vaccines

    http://adc.bmj.com/content/69/1/153.full.pdf

  148. #149 capnkrunch
    April 28, 2015

    johnny@332
    You should know that quoting without citing your sources is plagarism. Not very surprising though, given that you’ve pretty clearly demonstrated a lack of integrity already.

    For number 1, Dr. William Thompson of the CDC revealed that the age of the MMR had a large impact. The impact is before 36 months of age. In this study they look at well before (age 2) and well after (age 5). This could mask the problem, especially since you would be looking for a small population size, less than 1% of the total children.

    Besides the fact that this premise is based on Hooker’s flawed and retracted paper (as Krebiozen already noted) there are are 2 more problems I can see here. First, the CDC schedule recommends MMR at 12-15 months and 4-6 years; it wouldn’t make sense to evaluate at 3 years since that is pretty far outside the schedule. Second, 2 and 5 was when the patients were evaluated, not when MMR was administered. You would need to see the whole data set to make the claims you are making and even then, as you noted, since it is so far outside the schedule there is not likely to be a large population.

    Second, In the initial discussion they reveal that 2% of children had an older sibling with ASD, but only 1% of these children had ASD themselves. This states that the risk of autism in a younger sibling is cut in 1/2. This is extremely significant and brings the question of, what was different with these kids, how did they cut the autism rate in HALF. There is no way these doctors did not notice this. They made it the first sentence of the results, yet the wording is such that it is not obvious on the first reading.

    Despite what Hooker thinks, simple is not always (or even generally) better for evaluating statistics. You can’t just grab two numbers, divide them and say holy sh*t they halved the risk. When you comparec children with ASDs who have older siblings with ASDs vs those who don’t you see that the risk is actually several times higher not lower (as Krebiozen already noted).

    The study then reveals that the MMR vaccine rates were lower and more delayed for the children with siblings with autism. This scream that there is a significant relationship between the two. So how did the study not see it and why did they not discuss this?

    You are dividing apples by oranges which invalidates your conclusion. Even that wasn’t the case the vaccination rates were 11% and 6% lower at 2 and 5 years respectively. That’s not nearly enough to account for the halving that you claim. Even if we assume your analysis is correct (hint: it’s not) the effect is clearly minor.

    That brings us to number three, When they go to look at risk of the MMR they compare against the total population, this has the effect of diluting the connection. The previous findings should have had them compare the MMR rates for children with older siblings with ASD (994) that;

    – had ASD (134)
    – did not have ASD (860)

    That is what they did:

    For children with older siblings with ASD, at age 2, the adjusted relative risk (RR) of ASD for 1 dose of MMR vaccine vs no vaccine was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.49-1.18; P = .22), and at age 5, the RR of ASD for 2 doses compared with no vaccine was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.31-1.01; P = .052).

    [emphasis mine]

    By doing this I can already tell you there is a statistically significant relationship. Unfortunately the full data set would be needed to prove this and getting that may be difficult.

    How do you know if you can’t prove it? A gut feeling rather than thinking with your brai? Though Keith Bell would claim they are one and the same.

    This is not to say the paper is not true, it just does not tell the whole story and is misleading. A more accurate conclusion should be. For the population of children that are at risk of autism there is a statistically significant risk of autism.”

    The population at risk for autism is at risk for autism. Brilliant observation.

    Touche

    I don’t think you’re using that word correctly.

  149. #150 novalox
    April 28, 2015

    @theo

    Ok then, then prove your statements.

    Oh yeah, you cannot prove it with any reliable science. All you can rely on is base pseudoscience and cranks.

    Please, keep on posting, The doctors and nurses that I work with, those with actual education and are actually helping those with real medical conditions, not ones that are made up by quacks like you and that you believe in, really do need a laugh and more determination against the lies that you attempt to spread.

    And I certainly don’t think that they will be quaking in fear at your empty pronouncements, less of all the regulars here.

  150. #151 LouV
    France
    April 28, 2015

    johnny @338

    If you come into this debate TRUSTING pharmaceutical companies and their research *YOU LOSE* Thats the first error in judgement.

    As bizarre as it may seem to you, some people who are extremely critical of the pharma industry in general are still mostly pro-vaccination.

    See for example Ben Goldacre, whose book “Bad Pharma” is far from a glowing endorsement of the industry.

    Marcia Angell, that you cited, has this to say in one of her books (“The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It”, p.91-92)
    “While me-too drugs flood the market, there are growing shortages of some important, even lifesaving drugs. (…) In 2001, there were serious shortages of many important drugs,” [follows a long list including vaccines against flu and pneumonia in adults] “Perhaps the worst shortages are of childhood vaccines.”

    In France we have the journal “Prescrire”, funded only by their suscribers, whose very mission is to check pharma companies’ claims and to educate doctors against marketing practices such as medical visitors.
    They didn’t hesitate to be pretty negative about Vioxx as soon as july 2000, or about our national scandal the Mediator.
    However, as far as vaccines are concerned, they are still mostly favorable ; they however don’t hesitate to criticize them when it is warranted (for example, they don’t think that Gardasil is dangerous, but criticize Sanofi’s french ads which vastly overstate its known benefits).

  151. #152 LouV
    France
    April 28, 2015

    ^^
    Oops, 338 was Theo.

  152. #153 Dangerous Bacon
    April 28, 2015

    “Touche”

    “I don’t think you’re using that word correctly.”

    Well, he _does_ seem touched.

  153. #154 johnny
    April 28, 2015

    ” Doctors are brainwashed/trained NOT to look into vaccines for there side effects” Noblux

    Are you kidding, doctors are trained to follow the NICE guidelines except when they don’t want to because of some anecdotal tosh that fever must be suppressed at all costs.

    Most doctors try very hard to come up with a solution to a problem in 8 minutes or so, pick something from a list and go down it until it is exhausted. The patient is only allowed to mention one problem. They finish the day and then pick up Josinter from the point to point in the range rover and go home. One wonders why such a profession has a high suicide rate? The idea that doctors spend their life on the internet when at home researching new cures for new diseases is a fantasy.

  154. #155 justthestats
    April 28, 2015

    Eating foods with toxins

    This is redundant, essentially, since the wide variety of biologically-produced chemicals that scientists call “toxins” exist pretty much everywhere life exists, and I assume you don’t eat anything that isn’t primarily previously living.

    vs injecting toxins

    I see. You’re one of those folks that somehow think that there is some impenetrable barrier in the GI tract that keeps all the bad things out. But think about it. Plant toxins wouldn’t be worth producing if they only killed the herbivores that injected them, would they? Bacterial toxins generally aren’t aimed at you, but haven’t you noticed that the bacteria manage to get places deeper in your tissue?

    THEO, there are people that spend their whole lives studying how toxins and other toxic chemicals such as ethylmercury interact with the body. They are called toxicologists, and the study of what happens when you come in contact with toxic substances is called toxicokinetics. It is a very well-studied area.

    For any chemical you would ever care to get scared about, there are many animal studies that show exactly how the poison gets into the body, where it goes when it gets there, and how the body gets rid of it, assuming that the animal survives. So we know that generally anything that would harm you when injected will harm you if eaten. The GI tract is just not very good as a barrier. Sorry to disappoint you.

    It may surprise you to learn that deliberately poisoning people for science is considered unethical, even for children whose parents are willing to sacrifice them, but we know enough from people who have accidentally been poisoned that we have a pretty good ability to translate the animal data to humans. Then for good measure we set acceptable dosage levels to be hundreds of times lower than the lowest levels that cause harm.

    bypassing the immune system is totally different.

    Generally your immune system has nothing to do with the neutralization and elimination of toxins and other toxic chemicals. That’s your liver’s job, although the kidneys are also pretty important in that area.

    I shop at Whole foods and prepare all my meals. every once in a while I eat out.

    Not very clear or specific, but it doesn’t matter. I’m sure you eat plants, which are full of lots of toxins which would love nothing better than to kill you and would do it, too, if your pesky liver didn’t get in the way.

    Your food is no doubt full of small amounts of other kinds of toxic chemicals such as sodium chloride. I can say this with some confidence because people who don’t eat sodium chloride eventually die.

    I noticed you’re being uncharacteristically coy about which supplements you use, THEO.

    I don’t drink flouridated tap water either.

    I didn’t realize you were a fan of tooth decay, but it doesn’t surprise me. If you want to avoid toxic chemicals, you should stop drinking all together. The reason for this is simple: water is TOXIC. Water will POISON you. I’m being 100% serious here. If you’re of average weight, drinking a mere six liters of water in a short period of time will have a 50% chance of killing you, not because of drowning or stretching your stomach out but because of its toxic effects on the cells of your body.

    Of course drowning is another reason you might consider removing all water from your life. You can never be too careful.

    Thats the dirty little secret. We should all be thanking PLUMBERS not vaccines for disease eradication.

    So you’re saying that diseases were eliminated because we started spreading around enormous amounts of that TOXIC chemical, water?

    I’m not aware of these advances. What are the disease-specific plumbing technology improvements that made individual disease eradications possible? Why were they put in place quietly and invariably at the same time that vaccination campaigns took place for the same disease, so that it looked like the disease was being eradicated due to not being about to infect people?

  155. #156 johnny
    April 28, 2015

    “You should know that quoting without citing your sources is plagarism. Not very surprising though, given that you’ve pretty clearly demonstrated a lack of integrity already.” Ccrunch

    You know, sometimes it makes no difference what one says or does to the brainwashed, the paper that G posted at the top of this thread is so full of stat tweaking it is worthless as a piece of science.

    Believing in vaccination is like believing in anything – the idea that you have science backing up vaccination is LOL.

    If you had the guts to do the definitive test and ignore paid lackeys like the deers of this world we would find out that vaccination is as useful as extracting a load of pus from a cow and injecting it into children and proclaiming a cure for disease. The only saving grace here is that hopeful, unless you are a gaggle of hypocrites you are all keeping up with the vaccine schedule.

  156. #157 justthestats
    April 28, 2015

    @THEO

    If the risk of a vaccine is 1/100,000,000 then you need 3 million subjects in a study to have 95% confidence of that estimate, but you need 1000 subjects or 100,000 subjects to show a vaccine is safe.

    You do know that people get killed by their own beds, right? At rates comparable to one in three million a year? Does that mean we should ban beds because they aren’t safe?

    I’m also confused why you care about rates of harm at that level when you’re perfectly content to advocate getting measles, which has a wide variety of harmful effects at rates much higher than that, even for people who take Vitamin A supplements like you suggest.

  157. #158 Sarah A
    April 28, 2015

    @LouV #353

    And don’t forget the anti-vaxxers’ 2nd most hated nemesis (after Dr. Paul Offit) – Brian Deer. Prior to his exposure of the confilcts of interest, lack of ethical oversight, and outright fraud that riddled Andrew Wakefield’s MMR study, he wrote multiple stories exposing various deceptions within the pharmaceutical industry, including the infamous Vioxx scandal. If you go to his webpage, the top story is entitled “Doctoring the evidence: what the science establishment doesn’t want you to know.” Yep, obviously this guy is far too trusting of the pharmaceutical industry and biomedical research in general.

    In France we have the journal “Prescrire”, funded only by their suscribers, whose very mission is to check pharma companies’ claims and to educate doctors against marketing practices such as medical visitors.

    That sounds like a great idea – is there an English-language version?
    <

  158. #159 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    April 28, 2015

    One of my friends kids has loss of hearing in both ears and the doctors call it congenital. WRONG vaccines

    Ok Mr Researcher, show us how you arrived at that conclusion, if you can, that is.

  159. #160 LouV
    France
    April 28, 2015

    @Sarah A
    Here is the english version if you are interested : http://english.prescrire.org

  160. #161 Narad
    April 28, 2015

    If the risk of a vaccine is 1/100,000,000 then you need 3 million subjects in a study to have 95% confidence of that estimate

    One can only imagine how this string of words was arrived at.

  161. #162 justthestats
    April 28, 2015

    @johnny

    You know, sometimes it makes no difference what one says or does to the brainwashed, the paper that G posted at the top of this thread is so full of stat tweaking it is worthless as a piece of science.

    Total self awareness fail.

    I’ll spell it out for you. You’ve posted at least three different completely contradictory theories about how this paper “is so full of stat tweaking it is worthless as a piece of science.” As far as I can tell, the first was from not reading the paper, the second from selective misreading, and the third by plagiarism. The main points of each allegation were easily refuted by quotes from the actual paper, usually the same paragraphs each time.

    It sounds like it makes no difference what one says or does to you, your mind is made up. You have decided in advance that the paper has “tweaked” stats.

    If you had the guts to do the definitive test

    Ok, got a few questions for you.

    1) Why would we believe that someone who was willing to do what you’re referring to as “the definitive test” wouldn’t be willing to do less unethical things like lie about the results?

    2) Who would publish such a thing?

    3) What plausible reason is there to believe that the “definitive” test would give a different result than all the epidemiological studies, including the case-controlled and cohort studies?

    4) Why should we believe that you’d change your tune in the immensely likely case that the “definitive test” had the same results as all the not-quite-“definitive test[s]”? How can you prove to us that you wouldn’t rationalize them away the same way you rationalize away all the other studies?

  162. #163 justthestats
    April 28, 2015

    @Narad

    If the risk of a vaccine is 1/100,000,000 then you need 3 million subjects in a study to have 95% confidence of that estimate

    One can only imagine how this string of words was arrived at.

    THEO uses all-natural “Whole Statistics” for his statistical power analysis. Sure, you may think his invocation of the notion of “confidence interval” is nonsensical, given that any sample size greater than one can give you one (useless as it may be), but that’s simply because you lack the mental gymnastics to be able to understand how Whole Statistics uses the term. I suspect brainwashing.

  163. #164 justthestats
    April 28, 2015

    People have every right to disbelieve the studies on one side.

    Real studies do not have “sides.” People interested in truth don’t look at studies in terms of “sides.”

  164. #165 Lawrence
    April 28, 2015

    Well, there are studies supported by sound science, and studies touted by cranks supported by either no or just poor science…..

  165. #166 justthestats
    April 28, 2015

    If the risk of a vaccine is 1/100,000,000 then you need 3 million subjects in a study to have 95% confidence of that estimate

    One can only imagine how this string of words was arrived at.

    I think I figured it out. Someone once told him that to have a 95% chance of detecting an event with a probability of 1/100,000,000, he’d need a hair under 3 billion subjects. He then put it in his own words.

  166. #167 capnkrunch
    April 28, 2015

    johnny@358

    You know, sometimes it makes no difference what one says or does to the brainwashed, the paper that G posted at the top of this thread is so full of stat tweaking it is worthless as a piece of science.

    You know, I kind of lobbed you a softball there with the plagarism thing, no science involved, and you couldn’t even answer that. Like justthestats said your lack of self awareness is astounding. You have failed to make a single substantive reply to any of the criticisms leveled at your ideas.

  167. #168 Narad
    April 28, 2015

    I think I figured it out. Someone once told him that to have a 95% chance of detecting an event with a probability of 1/100,000,000, he’d need a hair under 3 billion subjects.

    Well, that saves me the trouble of actually trying to compute the sample necessary for an effect size of 0.00000001.

  168. #169 Narad
    April 28, 2015

    ^ I think you’ve got an extra of magnitude in there, though.

  169. #170 Narad
    April 28, 2015

    ^^ “order of”

  170. #171 herr doktor bimler
    April 28, 2015

    This is from a pediatric doctor DC who writes text books for his profession.

    Details would be nice. Without them, or a link, THEO’s textbook-writing source sounds about as genuine as my Canadian supermodel girlfriend.

  171. #172 herr doktor bimler
    April 28, 2015

    I get the impression all of you are in the medical field in one way or another defending your beliefs

    At least some are psychologists, conducting cruel experiments to do with cognitive dysfunction.

  172. #173 justthestats
    April 28, 2015

    @Narad:

    I think you’ve got an extra of magnitude in there, though.

    Meh, close enough for THEO work.

  173. #174 herr doktor bimler
    April 28, 2015

    Most doctors try very hard to come up with a solution to a problem in 8 minutes or so

    In contrast to (say) osteopaths, who have plenty of spare time for their clients, or in the absence of such, for their keyboards.

    [Doctors] finish the day and then pick up Josinter from the point to point in the range rover and go home.

    Oh dear, class envy and thwarted aspirations are not a pleasant sight.

  174. #175 capnkrunch
    April 28, 2015

    herr doktor bimler@373

    Details would be nice. Without them, or a link, THEO’s textbook-writing source sounds about as genuine as my Canadian supermodel girlfriend.

    He’s just emulating his hero johnny. Whether it’s plagiarism or lying I’m not sure but the distinction is hardly important.

  175. #176 Narad
    April 28, 2015

    In contrast to (say) osteopaths, who have plenty of spare time for their clients, or in the absence of such, for their keyboards.

    It seems to be soft-tissue manipulation either way for the case in point.

  176. #177 Narad
    April 28, 2015

    How can you prove to us that you wouldn’t rationalize them away the same way you rationalize away all the other studies?

    I’m pretty sure that Phildo has been asked what level of similarity between the two groups (assuming a nonrandomized, non-prospective study) would get him to admit that he was just picking his feet in Poughkeepsie and responded with… nothing, which seems to be the inevitable outcome of asking this straightforward question.

  177. #178 Delphine
    great white north
    April 28, 2015

    herr doktor bimler, I’m sure your Canadian supermodel girlfriend is very sincere.

  178. #179 shay
    straying
    April 28, 2015
  179. #180 herr doktor bimler
    April 28, 2015
  180. #181 Denice Walter
    April 28, 2015

    Heh.
    But seriously, I swear these furry opportunists may eventually take over our cities and suburbs.
    Pretty soon they’re be feeding US scraps and cat food.

  181. #182 shay
    April 28, 2015

    One of ’em got our cat a few months ago. Why chase rabbits? Cats are slower and there’s more meat on their bones.

  182. #183 JP
    April 28, 2015

    Well, here’s a video of a fox making a sandwich in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

  183. #184 johnny
    April 29, 2015

    “You know, I kind of lobbed you a softball there with the plagarism thing, no science involved, and you couldn’t even answer that. Like justthestats said your lack of self awareness is astounding. You have failed to make a single substantive reply to any of the criticisms leveled at your ideas.” muntlunp

    You are so up yourself with the idea that your critique has any value, it’s laughable. Why you claim to believe in the stat tweaked pubmed world is only known to you, I can’t fathom it out. Post something of interest and value and I will have a think about it, don’t cite some medical peer reviewed crap as evidence – it’s worthless

  184. #185 Krebiozen
    April 29, 2015

    shay,

    Sorry, but when I saw this I had to think of Krebiozen:

    I had nothing to do with that stunt, I promise.

    One of ’em got our cat a few months ago. Why chase rabbits? Cats are slower and there’s more meat on their bones.

    Sorry to hear that. Are you sure? Our cat, a small rescue cat who would be no match for a fox, likes to watch our local foxes, and I have never seen them interact at all; they keep their distance from each other. I guess if they were hungry enough they might go for a cat. When I lived in a rural area I heard tales of foxes taking down lambs, but lambs don’t have sharp claws and teeth.

  185. #186 Krebiozen
    April 29, 2015

    johnny,

    Why you claim to believe in the stat tweaked pubmed world is only known to you, I can’t fathom it out.

    It doesn’t surprise me that you can’t fathom out why peer-reviewed science is accepted by thousands of scientists and doctors all over the world, and rejected by a few merely because it doesn’t support their bizarre delusions. I note that you still don’t understand what PubMed is, and still seem to think it does research.

    Post something of interest and value and I will have a think about it, don’t cite some medical peer reviewed crap as evidence – it’s worthless

    You wouldn’t recognize something of interest and value. You are so completely brain-washed that you are unwilling to even consider anything that doesn’t support your idées fixes.

  186. #187 capnkrunch
    April 29, 2015

    johnny@386

    You are so up yourself with the idea that your critique has any value, it’s laughable. Why you claim to believe in the stat tweaked pubmed world is only known to you, I can’t fathom it out. Post something of interest and value and I will have a think about it, don’t cite some medical peer reviewed crap as evidence – it’s worthless

    You just can’t stop digging that hole can you? I didn’t cite Pubmed, I accused you plagarism due to your quoting someone without attribution. Anyone with a shred of academic integrity would want to defend themselves against such an accusation. Plagarism is quite serious in reality land, it’s not all that different from stealing. Really all you had to do was provide a link to your source. Heck, I would have accepted just naming your source. But no, you can’t even address something so simple and your inability to even comprehend why you should speaks volumes.

  187. #188 Narad
    April 29, 2015

    You just can’t stop digging that hole can you? I didn’t cite Pubmed, I accused you plagarism due to your quoting someone without attribution.

    You’re not the first.

  188. #189 shay
    where the wild things are
    April 29, 2015

    Kreb — coyotes are a possibility, but they rarely wander into town. On the other hand, there is a fox den across the alley (they’ve dug themselves under the side of the post office. Oh, the singular delights of living in a country village).

    I’m not ruling out an owl.

  189. #190 LouV
    April 30, 2015

    johnny @386
    I’ll bite. Define what you mean by “something of interest and value”.

  190. #191 Krebiozen
    April 30, 2015

    shay #391,
    It isn’t just rural areas – some years ago I worked in an urban hospital that had a small store outside, in a portakabin. The extraordinary noises the foxes made at night during the breeding season almost drowned out the screams from the labor ward. They were certainly more blood-curdling 🙂

  191. #192 Sia
    June 4, 2015

    I wonder if we’re missing the point in some way with the ‘no, vaccines don’t cause Autism’ argument. Not saying they do but….trying to do a shoes thing here.

    You’re an terrified new parent, and your child has just been diagnosed as Autistic. You happen to reside in America and what you think of as THE Autism charity regularly puts out psas that say that ‘There is no cure for Autism. Autism destroys your social life, your marriage, your life is now an endless round of social clinics and therapies. And this is the reality for 3000 families.’

    What they tell you is that there’s no cure. They don’t tell you that acceptance, accommodations and sometimes, modifications go a long long long way.

    What they show you as an example of autism is usually a child with lots of co-morbidites but you don’t know that. You think it’s all ‘Autism’

    You’ve seen examples of children who can’t speak and have self-injurious behaviours because they’re so frustrated but you just see ‘Autism’ What you don’t see is what happens when they’ve learnt to use Augmented/Alternative communications

    So when you hear ‘your child is Autistic’, your mind flashes on this picture of this hopeless child who will forever be ‘like a baby’.

    So there’s this picture in your head. And when you go online, these commenters are Autistic….nope…doesn’t match with what you know about Autism…so they must be high-functioning and NOTHING like your child, right? So therefore they don’t know about your situation.

    Disclaimer: Not a parent, just tl;dring what I’ve read.

  192. #193 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    June 8, 2015

    Sia, Autism Speaks is viewed with extreme hostility by most autistics for precisely that reason.

  193. #194 Roger Kulp
    June 8, 2015

    Sia,Julian

    The problem is there is twofold.There are too many different and varied disorders classified under the broad umbrella of “autism”.There are those who are very high functioning with few,if any,comorbidities.That would be those that speak up against Autism Speaks,and those in the neurodiversity movement.There are those only who have autism and ADHD.There are those that are very high functioning,and have autism plus psychiatric disorders,such as childhood onset bipolar disorder.This can be quite severe as I know from my family.Then there are very complex disorders with autism and many medical conditions,with or without intellectual disability.They can either be autoimmune,chromosomal,or involving mitochondrial disease,or other inborn errors of metabolism,like I have.

    And it’s all “autism”.

    This situation is very,very wrong,and one I do not see going away any time soon.The other part of the problem is the fact that those who rail against Autism Speaks are woefully uneducated about all this.

    What I would like to see is for more high functioning types who are so vocal in their opposition to Autism Speaks,to educate themselves about these various types of autism before they start shooting their mouths off about “genocide” and “eliminating autistics”.Such talk only makes parents of more severely disabled children more angry,and only serves to make the divides and differences across the spectrum even worse than they are.

  194. #195 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    June 8, 2015

    @Roger Kulp

    This situation is very,very wrong,and one I do not see going away any time soon.The other part of the problem is the fact that those who rail against Autism Speaks are woefully uneducated about all this.

    Excuse me?! Excuse Me?!?! Autism Speaks constantly punts the “Autism as an unmitigated Tragedy” line. In 2013, John Elder Robison, the only autistic member of Autism Speaks’ board, resigned over an advertising campaign. Secondly, the fact that you assume that we (the critics of Autism Speaks) are unaware of the severely disabled on the spectrum is laughable.

    What I would like to see is for more high functioning types who are so vocal in their opposition to Autism Speaks,to educate themselves about these various types of autism before they start shooting their mouths off about “genocide” and “eliminating autistics”.

    Roger, you are being rude, presumptuous, obnoxious and very ill-informed. Autism Speaks constant punting of that line dehumanises us, cut it how you like. Your assuming that we don’t know about the severe end of the spectrum is mindblowing. You suggest we educate ourselves? Educate yourself.

  195. #196 Sia
    June 17, 2015

    (TW: functioning labels, cure.)

    I do wish people would stop ‘splaining about it being a spectrum though – autistic adults know that. t’s not like the only neurodiversity advocates are high-functioning autistics/Asperger’s, for that matter.

    And what else would you call selectively aborting a fetus based on the genes it has? (Because protip: that’s what the ‘cure’ that’s being looked at is and it isn’t unreasonable to fear that selective abortion might be the case.) And I’m talking about selectively aborting, not pro-choice/pro-life stuff, here.

    And how would you NOT eliminate autistics with a cure? Is that not the complete point of a cure … to wipe whatever it is you’re talking about out?

    It’s not like a tumor where you can excise it and be left with the same person or like dementia where if there was a cure for it, you’d get back the same person you had before. You would be left with a completely different person than you had before you started.

    But….honesty is important….

    “Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts…” and
    “Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, currently or by history…”

    That is what Autism is, per DSM-IV, along with “Where the disturbance is not better explained by Rett’s disorder or CDD”. In other words, anything (other than Rett’s or CDD)

    I hear people talking about seizures (which is epilepsy or maybe, a slightly lower seizure threshold but not actually epilepsy as seen in febrile seizures) but that isn’t Autism.

    I hear people talking about GI distress which isn’t Autism either. Allergies aren’t Autism, either. Seizures aren’t Autism. All of those can exist within the same individual but they’re not the same thing.

    ” At any rate, if people are honest with themselves, all “low-functioning” really means is someone who is both autistic AND has a lower score on IQ and/or adaptive living skills assessments. (Additionally, to some it likely also means an autistic person who is primarily nonspeaking.)

    In other words, “low-functioning” is the presence of an autism diagnosis and intellectual disability (and again, to some, also the characteristic of being a nonspeaking individual). These are the ONLY differences between those who are “low-functioning” and those who are high-functioning.” Nothing else.”

    I’ll repeat that again: Low-functioning is the presence of a)Autism and b)An intellectual disability and maybe c)nonverbal. C is irrelevant over the internet though.

    Seeking a cure for Autism will not help you obtain your goals though….because since “High-Functioning Autism/Asperger’s” has to do with the absence of an intellectual disability, what you really want, Roger is a cure for intellectual disability.

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