…and this is a 
Poll: you must choose between Jenny and Amanda
Category: Pointless polls
Posted on: September 30, 2008 6:20 PM, by PZ Myers
That is, Jenny McCarthy, ditzy mummy who opposes vaccinations because she thinks they cause autism, and Amanda Peet, smart woman who knows that inoculation is a great benefit. McCarthy has just sniped at Peet:
"(Peet) has a lot of [nerve] to come forward and be on that side, because there is an angry mob on my side, and I like the fact that I can say she's completely wrong. I look at (Peet) now and say to myself, 'That was me before I had autism in my life,' and until she walks in our shoes, she really has no idea."
Oh ho — so Jenny McCarthy's great logical defense of her position is that she fronts an angry mob? Well, two can play that game. Pharynguloid mob, get over there and support science and intelligence in their poll. Amanda is down, 46% to 54%!
Comments
Posted by: TSC | September 30, 2008 6:22 PM
Bad enough she's married to that ex-porn star goof of an overpaid actor husband.
Posted by: panne | September 30, 2008 6:24 PM
There, I did my duty and voted. Also, it must be because it's late and I'm tired, but I read "ditzy mummy" and pictured the other kind of mummy. You know, the scary type :-S
Posted by: TSC | September 30, 2008 6:25 PM
I despise Jim Carey. He's what New Age ecumenical drivel is all about...just listening to him run his mouth about spirituality is enough to cause polyps in one's colon.
Posted by: Pandora Neurospora | September 30, 2008 6:25 PM
"We are not against vaccines..."
Well you could have fooled me.
Posted by: biogeek | September 30, 2008 6:26 PM
50:50 now. Bonus: I like Amanda Peet, and don't reflexively turn the channel if I see her in a movie. This is not true for McCarthy, even before she admitted being an ignoramus with her belief that her son's condition is due to vaccination. Nice to know Amanda Peet is smart too.
Posted by: James F | September 30, 2008 6:27 PM
Done, and not just because I've had a crush on Ms. Peet since She's the One.
Posted by: rob | September 30, 2008 6:28 PM
Amanda Peet (68%)
Jenny McCarthy (32%)
Total Votes: 105
another worthless, un-scientific poll appears to be heading towards the side with evidence to back it up.
Posted by: andyo | September 30, 2008 6:32 PM
Yeah, calling for boycott of the sensible, nice and pretty lady's movies. Dickheads. I don't see anyone boycotting McCarthy's mov... er, let's use Carrey instead. I don't see anyone on the sensible side trying to boycott Carrey. No need when you're right and can back it up.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | September 30, 2008 6:32 PM
Funny, someone who elected to get a boob-job is speaking out against vaccines.
Posted by: DavefromMN | September 30, 2008 6:32 PM
Amanda's up to 80%...
Posted by: Ric | September 30, 2008 6:33 PM
We have fucking crushed that poll.
Posted by: Realist Golfer | September 30, 2008 6:34 PM
Impressive....Peet now WAY up....
Posted by: Bob L | September 30, 2008 6:34 PM
Mob rule rears its ugly head on the internets.
Amanda 83%
Jenny 17%
204
Looks like our mob of goons can shoat loader than their mob of goons.
Posted by: AndrewN | September 30, 2008 6:35 PM
Voted 88:12 now.
I have no idea who Jenny McCarthy is, but I would vote for anybody as pretty as Amanda :)
Posted by: WRMartin | September 30, 2008 6:35 PM
Tried to vote (first and only time, honest) and it said I had already voted. That and the occasional "you already commented" messages I get from here is starting to make me suspicious there is someone else in the building where I work reading, commenting, and obeying PZ and getting us confused because all our 'net traffic goes through the same proxy. Oh noes!!1! I'm associated with evil atheists more than I thought. Or maybe not, please don't let it be Pete Rooke. Please. Oh I feel faint - I may need to say a little prayer. Brb...
Posted by: themadlolscientist, FCD | September 30, 2008 6:37 PM
Amanda Peet (86%)
Jenny McCarthy (14%)
Total Votes: 252
Our angry mob can beat up their angry mob. So there. Neener neener.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | September 30, 2008 6:39 PM
Never mind vaccines, is Jenny McCarthy yet another data-point for the case that being blonde has a detrimental effect on intelligence.
Posted by: Kel | September 30, 2008 6:40 PM
Amanda Peet wins because she is way better looking than that hag McCarthy, but also because she's on the money. Who'd have thunk you could have looks and brains? :P
Posted by: Jared | September 30, 2008 6:41 PM
I'm curious, what is the mechanism these
wackjobscraziesnutcasesadvocacy groupswackjobs think vaccines are causing autism by?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15858952
Holy shit, it's not vaccines!
Not to mention, the "cause" they like to point to thiomersal, even though it's not used in childhood vaccines anymore.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18172138
Fucking retards.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 30, 2008 6:42 PM
No PZ, McCarthy's argument boils down to "I have a son with autism and you don't, so I can say whatever I want and you're just a big meanie who doesn't understand what it's like, boo-hoo-hoo-you're a horrible person-boo-hoo-hoo!"
To Jenny: let's talk about a real public health crisis. Unlike the vaccine-autism non-link, shameless appeals to emotion and claims that only members of the in-group truly 'get it' have been demonstrated to cause infectious stupidity time and time again.
Posted by: silencer | September 30, 2008 6:43 PM
Why is it in America, they ignore their own findings?
Johns Hopkins discovered the link decades ago and suggested waiting til children were older before giving them the shots, but you guys just keep on pumping out brain damaged Americans and making fun of anyone who tries to save people.
Thank god your economy is in the shitter, you guys suck.
Posted by: Tony Popple | September 30, 2008 6:44 PM
Pharynguloid mob?
We have become PZ's Flying Monkeys!
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 30, 2008 6:48 PM
Speaking of... The Calgary Herald had a nice, sane editorial today on this sorta thing (more specifically on a certain god-besotted twat's opposition to the Gardasil vaccine program, but with bonus mention of MMR, too).
(And it was 90/10 when I looked in on the McCarthy/Peet thing.)
Posted by: Slinky | September 30, 2008 6:48 PM
Oh noes, i'm not sure I dare disagree with Tanya (even if she is 100% wrong).
Posted by: Holbach | September 30, 2008 6:48 PM
Amanda is ahead of turnip brain McCarthy. Doesn't turnip brain have her god on her side? Who the hell caused her son's autism?
Posted by: mellowjohn | September 30, 2008 6:48 PM
peet way up, and besides - she looks better naked.
(yes, that's a sexist, objectifying statement. deal with it.)
Posted by: The Cheerful Nihilist | September 30, 2008 6:49 PM
You're crashing celebrity polls???
A shoat is a young pig. Mob of goons shoat loadering, indeed.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 30, 2008 6:50 PM
@ silencer #21
Citation, please... or are you just doing the "I know this cuz a friend of a friend of a friend once dun tol' me" thing?
Posted by: Jim | September 30, 2008 6:51 PM
Amanda's characterization of anti-vaccinationists as "parasites" is an apt one, as they benefit from the herd immunity vaccines help confer without contributing to it themselves (or rather, having their children contribute).
Posted by: Jenny McCarthy | September 30, 2008 6:54 PM
Why do Amish kids not have any autism? God? Or the lack of vaccines?
Or maybe just coincidence? Correlation doesnt mean causation.
Posted by: Embiggened Cromulence | September 30, 2008 6:58 PM
Amanda Peet all the way. Brains and looks.
Posted by: Dahan | September 30, 2008 6:58 PM
93% Now behind Amanda. The mob rules.
Stupid polls.
Posted by: Danio | September 30, 2008 7:00 PM
They do have autism, you fucking tool, and they do vaccinate. If you have nothing more than antivax lunatic 'talking points', please do us all a favor and beat your head against an oak wall if the urge to post here again strikes you.Posted by: MartinM | September 30, 2008 7:00 PM
They do. And the Amish do vaccinate, albeit typically at fairly low rates.
Posted by: SC | September 30, 2008 7:01 PM
Orac's post this summer on Jenny McCarthy and her Indigo-Children phase was hilarious:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/your_friday_dose_of_woo_generation_woo.php
Posted by: Nurse Ingrid | September 30, 2008 7:01 PM
OK, I think we Pharyngulites definitely count as a mob. The vote count is now over 600, with Peet leading McCarthy 93% to 7%. We RAWK.
A very close and dear member of my family has gotten caught up in this anti-vaccine hysteria, and it just makes me sick and sad. I can't stand the way they value emotion over evidence. Scary how the anti-science tropes can come from the left as well as the right...
Posted by: Dahan | September 30, 2008 7:02 PM
Jenny @ 30,
It's a myth that the Amish don't vaccinate. They do. However, it's not a myth that they have much lower rates of Autism.
Next.
Posted by: aiabx | September 30, 2008 7:03 PM
94/6. We hear and obey.
Posted by: Thomas D. Taylor | September 30, 2008 7:04 PM
People who want to learn more about autism can listen to free audio podcasts entitled "Autism and Vaccines: Parts I & II" put out by Midnight In Chicago at www.mic.mypodcast.com
Posted by: Jadehawk | September 30, 2008 7:05 PM
"Why do Amish kids not have any autism? God? Or the lack of vaccines?
Or maybe just coincidence? Correlation doesnt mean causation."
bwahahahahaa, awesome. because the Amish are such a great control group for vaccines; or any other the other thousands of things they do differently than the average American.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 30, 2008 7:05 PM
#30
Whether you are Jenny McCarthy or not, your statement is equally both frightening and ignorant.
First, the Amish DO vaccinate, and second, Amish children DO have autism... just not at the rates one would expect given the same number of population, statistically.
Please do some, you know, actual research before spouting such ignorance. Start here for this particular false claim:
http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23/do-the-amish-vaccinate-indeed-they-do-and-their-autism-rates-may-be-lower.htm
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 30, 2008 7:07 PM
Oh jebus, the mercury militia has arrived. Now all we need are the 9/11 twoofers and the Dilbert fans.
Posted by: Thomas | September 30, 2008 7:07 PM
Hmmm, I've had autism in my life. My younger brother is badly autistic, to the point that he will never be able to live on his own or really care for himself.
He was vaccinated later than most children and, in fact, manifested symptoms of autism long before he ever got a shot in the arm.
Posted by: name that tune | September 30, 2008 7:08 PM
95/5
Posted by: Mithrandir | September 30, 2008 7:09 PM
I'm not sure if you're trying to parody Ms. McCarthy or seriously posing this question, but the answer is: They do. Dan Olmsted didn't look very hard.
http://autism-news-beat.com/?p=29
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | September 30, 2008 7:12 PM
Jenny's kids better not go to school my with kids. Even though my kids have measles boosters, I don't know what other diseases her kids may be carrying.
It really didn't take long to swing this poll.
Power to the PZ Pod People!
Posted by: Slaughter | September 30, 2008 7:14 PM
Still 95-5 Amanda. Hot and smart beats hot and dumb any day.
Posted by: Patrick | September 30, 2008 7:15 PM
total domination.
Posted by: dogheaven | September 30, 2008 7:17 PM
This is going to give Peet a big head. Oh wait she's a TV star and anatomically I think they all havebig heads! Have you ever seen Robert Redford or David Hyde Peirce. Huge heads for their bodies. Juliette Roberts too.
Posted by: Kobra | September 30, 2008 7:19 PM
Not anymore.Posted by: jt512 | September 30, 2008 7:21 PM
I choose Amanda Peet. I don't even have to know what the question is; I choose Amanda Peet. Now, if I could just get Amanda Peet to choose me...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 30, 2008 7:22 PM
For those who think the ilk are just a bunch of "do as the tentacled overlord says", I viewed PA's post, I clicked the links, I saw stupidity versus intelligence, and voted, as always, on the side of intelligence.
Posted by: Skeptyk | September 30, 2008 7:31 PM
96 to 4 now, favoring Amanda Peet. Online polls are goofy, but it felt nice to click a key for the kiddies.
Posted by: Jparenti | September 30, 2008 7:32 PM
One side may have an angry mob, but the other side has reality.
And, of course, a mob just waiting to prove their point.
96% to 4%. Reality is winning.
Posted by: RobinSV | September 30, 2008 7:34 PM
OK, I voted. After forcing myself not to retch with disgust I voted for "Amanda Pete". Not that I wanted to vote for "Amanda Pete". I'd rather be asked to vote on the validity of evidence based biomedical research. Instead, I'm asked if to decide which side I "believe is right? Jenny McCarthy or Amanda Peet?" As if I should base my "beliefs" on the opinions of two "B" list Hollywood actresses. (Ok, maybe they're "A" list, but what do I know, I'm gay?) Seriously though, when did questions of epidemiology, and the efficacy and ricks of vaccination become something we can (or should) answer with American Idol like "opinion polls"? What's next? An unknowledgeable, incurious, self-proclaimed "hockey mom" being considered by nearly half of the voting population to be a qualified and viable candidate for the second highest (and one pretzel choke away from the highest) office in the land for no other reason than "she a lot like me"?
Dear god. If I wasn't already an expat i'd emigrate.
Posted by: fatherdaddy | September 30, 2008 7:35 PM
I used to say "I want to want to fuck Jenny McCarthy!". Now, I say "Fuck Jenny McCarthy!"
96/4 at last count
Posted by: JoshS | September 30, 2008 7:42 PM
Peet, 97-3. Oh yeah. It's my birfday.
Posted by: PaulG | September 30, 2008 7:42 PM
AP: 97% JM:3% You have an awesome power P. Z. Please use it only for good, never for evil.
Posted by: geru | September 30, 2008 7:43 PM
Wow. You just can't beat that logic:
"I happen to know someone who has condition/disease X, so this makes me an authority in the field of medical science concerning condition/disease X, and everyone else should keep their fucking mouths shut!"
Posted by: Moses | September 30, 2008 7:53 PM
Actually, that's what I did. I tend to ignore American practices when it comes to medicine and look to European practices instead. I do that because our system is to unduly influenced by money and governmental policy corruption.
OTOH, the woman with the Autistic child is just plain wrong. And the whole "vaccines = autism" movement is just plain wrong.
So, in fact, I find fault with most of the industry and its critics.
Lol. Don't worry, we're taking you with us... What our free-market idiots have done has the potential of making the Great Depression look like a cake-walk.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 30, 2008 7:54 PM
Somewhere a slightly grumpy clear box with blinking lights has powered up and is calculating the amount and density of Insolence that will be let loose.
Posted by: Patricia | September 30, 2008 7:54 PM
97% to 3%. That didn't take long.
Posted by: Kel | September 30, 2008 7:55 PM
"I lost my wife in the world trade center attack, so I'm an authority on terrorism"I wonder what evidence McCarthy has that the shot was responsible for autism? I'm betting none at all.
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD BMWCCA | September 30, 2008 7:56 PM
Who's Juliette Roberts?
Posted by: wrpd | September 30, 2008 7:58 PM
1. Being gay, I have never seen either of them naked but I voted for Amanda.
2. My older son is autistic, so I've lived in her shoes--not the 4" heels--but I have never had to strike out and blame someone or something for my son's condition.
3. Jim Carrey did porn? Now that is truly disgusting.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | September 30, 2008 8:01 PM
Jenny @ 30
Amish kids don't use light bulbs or zippers at anywhere near the same rate either, perhaps the reason is one of them. It can't be due to vaccination, since they DO vaccinate, as has been pointed out many times.
I would hazard a guess that the real reason may be genetic, since they are probably a fairly closely related group.
Posted by: dave | September 30, 2008 8:08 PM
1552 votes, reality winning 97% to 3%
Posted by: Patricia | September 30, 2008 8:09 PM
Danio - Nice shot by the way. ;o)
Posted by: Brad | September 30, 2008 8:11 PM
Yeah, and someday that's going to fail massively. If the non-vax rate rises from say, less than 5% to ten percent or so, that is a nation of thirty million within your borders without immunity to MMR and polio. They are not geographically distinct, but they are an immunologically distinct population overlaid atop the rest of you. Canada's not so bad for antivaccine activism, but stupidity crosses borders.I hope it is mumps or measles rather than polio that hits first; maybe people will smarten up. But they are all bad.
Posted by: Trillian | September 30, 2008 8:13 PM
Fixed.
Amanda 97%
Jenny 3%
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 30, 2008 8:14 PM
O.T., Sarah Pukin' interviewed by Hugh Spew-it.
HH: Do you think the mainstream media and the left understands your religious faith, Governor Palin?
SP: I think that there's a lot of mocking of my personal faith, and my personal faith is very, very simple. I don't belong to any church. I do have a strong belief in God, and I believe that I'm a heck of a lot better off putting my life in God's hands, and saying hey, you know, guide me. What else do we have but guidance that we would seek from a Creator? That's about as simple as it gets with my faith, and I think that there is a lot of mocking of that. And you know, so bet it, though I do have respect for those who have differing views than I do on faith, on religion. I'm not going to mock them, and I would hope that they would kind of I guess give me the same courtesy through this of not mocking a person's faith, but maybe perhaps even trying to understand a little bit of it.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/0c03d39e-df44-41fc-af7d-f2f9a7f56b68
Posted by: pale | September 30, 2008 8:15 PM
So being amicable is out of the picture?
Treat the mob as people with great thirst for knowledge and teach them.
Give them a piecemeal lunch, piece by piece. Ask them small, brief questions on how they define different terms and things.
For instance, make them explain how the increase in number of autistic children is measured? Make them be scientists about it. If they are impatient and unwilling to go through the hoops, be amicable again. Be royal about it.
There is a great chance to win hearts and minds for science but instead people will rather do anything to reinforce the image that scientists are really pricks the people say they are.
Jenny may be an ass but she's an ignorant ass. Being an ass while knowing better is really just a little bit worse.
Posted by: QrazyQat | September 30, 2008 8:18 PM
As Michael Clarke Duncan's character, Frankie Figs, said of Amanda Peet's character (an apsiring hitwoman) in The Whole Nine Yards,"You know, I can't think of nothing finer than a fine naked woman holding a gun."
Posted by: da | September 30, 2008 8:20 PM
Part of the reason for the rise in autism rates is also that it's being diagnosed as such at a higher rate, including border-line cases. That may be a factor in lower rates of Amish autism.
Posted by: Brandonazz | September 30, 2008 8:21 PM
IT HAS BEEN PHARYNGULATED, SIR.
Posted by: Kel | September 30, 2008 8:23 PM
Yes, the mob is going to listen to those who say everything's fine when there are a few alarmist voices out there telling them it's not...Posted by: martykay | September 30, 2008 8:25 PM
Amanda Peet 97%
Jenny McCarthy 3%
Total Votes 1978
Posted by: pale | September 30, 2008 8:30 PM
Kel,
yes, well, I do understand that it is difficult.
What I'm saying is, the negative emotions thrown back is not just bad PR, but reinforces the emotional conviction on the other side that there is really something fishy about the situation.
Be the better one. Not for the sake of being right and better.
Give the others respect even if they will throw it at your face and rather show that you care, but that you can not and will not give up on the principles of science.
Dealing with emotions you must first defuse the situation by engaging the emotions. The facts and science stands on its own.
By ridicule you are being _unscientific_.
Posted by: Justin | September 30, 2008 8:36 PM
Slightly off topic
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 30, 2008 7:07 PM
Oh jebus, the mercury militia has arrived. Now all we need are the 9/11 twoofers and the Dilbert fans.
WTF is up with Dilbert fans? I've been an avid follower of Pharyngula for a good six to eight months now, and I guess the whole Dilbert thing was before my time.. I keep seeing it referenced and I have no idea what anyone is talking about. Is it just the fans or is Scott Adams a total YEC/jebus freak/you hurt my cracker choad also? If someone could point me to the correct thread/controversy I would greatly appreciate it.
And the poll was completely destroyed by the time I got to it 97/3. Anything else I would say about it would sound utterly sexist, so I'm gonna shut up now.
Posted by: Kel | September 30, 2008 8:38 PM
Dogbert: "I've got something much better - anecdotal evidence"
Dilbert: "Who's going to believe anecdotal evidence?"
Dogbert: "I've narrowed it down to... PEOPLE"
Posted by: Hank | September 30, 2008 8:45 PM
As of two minutes ago:
Amanda - 97%
Jenny - 3%
Reality - WIN
BAW - EPIC FAIL
Poll crashing - priceless
In other unrelated news, EXPELLED (aka Excreted) is soon to be on DVD:
http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/09/29/expelled-redux
Enjoy!
Posted by: AmyD | September 30, 2008 8:55 PM
If Amish have a lower incidence of autism it is likely due to genetics. They are a highly closed society in all ways including genetics. Unfortunately, this means they have a high incidence of some other genetic problems caused by recessive genes.
I am the mother of an autistic boy and gratefully follow vaccine schedules for him.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | September 30, 2008 8:56 PM
Jenny McCarthy leading an angry mob? Oh dear. I am now picturing her in Kenneth Mars' role in Young Frankenstein as Inspector Kemp.
"A riot is an ungly thing... . undt, I tink, that it is chust about time ve had vun."
Posted by: SimonC | September 30, 2008 8:57 PM
Pale @ #78:
These people HAVE been shown the evidence, HAVE been fed it piecemeal and whole, HAVE been treated as people. The problem is that they insist on having something to blame rather than accepting that reality can be harsh and uncaring. Their behaviour is akin to a childish foot-stamping tantrum. Unfortunately their tantrum could affect a whole population in a very real and negative way. Sometimes a metaphorical slap is needed to end the hysteria.
Posted by: Pale | September 30, 2008 9:00 PM
SimonC,
mmh... maybe, you're right. Dunno.
I'd still aim for divide and conquer. Get one (1) person in their midst to convert and you've got that someone who has the mandate to turn the tide.
Posted by: Holbach | September 30, 2008 9:01 PM
Hank @ 81
Oh no, now we'll be inundated with commercials for the DVD of that insane crap. I only wish I could edit a few "Special Features" into the finished pile of shit!
Posted by: Dahan | September 30, 2008 9:05 PM
Justin @ 79,
Here's a place you can at least start.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/scott_adams_is_a_wally/P25/
Posted by: Kel | September 30, 2008 9:07 PM
Oh man did I pick the wrong time to quote Dilbert to make a point :P
Posted by: woodstein312 | September 30, 2008 9:13 PM
"Why do Amish kids not have any autism? God? Or the lack of vaccines?
Or maybe just coincidence? Correlation doesnt mean causation."
Jenny, look, I grew up in Lancaster, PA, the historic home of the Amish (No, I'm not Amish). My first job was working on an Amish farm and my family has lots of Amish friends and aquantances.
So take it from me when I saw that autism, downs syndrome, retardation and a host mental and physical ailments plauge the Amish society. Spend a day at the S. June Smith Center in Lancaster -- a facility that assists children with mental and physical handicaps, many of them Amish children -- and you'll see it for yourself. In fact, I encourage you to do that. The center does wonderful work and could use the exposure that a visit from a celebrity like yourself could bring.
Your assertion that the Amish don't suffer from autism is patently wrong.
The truth is that there are only a handful of original Amish families and -- save for a few that left the sect entirely --- they only marry within the Amish community.
This means that in-breeding since the 1700s and the resulting genetic complications that come with it are commonplace in Amish society.
I don't fault you for wanting to assign blame for the cause of your child's autism. After all, that is a very natural, human reaction. But people in emotional circumstances are often willing to be led down the primrose path of pseudo-science if it makes them feel better. I'm sorry to say this, but you're just wrong on this count. Doesn't mean you're dumb, just ill-informed.
Posted by: BMcP | September 30, 2008 9:14 PM
Angry counter online mob powers activate! Form of a Poll Crasher!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 30, 2008 9:29 PM
Ian H Spedding FCD @ # 17: Never mind vaccines, is Jenny McCarthy yet another data-point for the case that being blonde has a detrimental effect on intelligence.
Dude! Blonde jokes are, like, so pre-Palin.
Posted by: ABR. | September 30, 2008 9:30 PM
I just checked in on the poll on the Ecorazzi website and saw this:
[Update: Welcome Scienceblogs readers! Your poll mobbing is indeed impressive.]
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 30, 2008 9:36 PM
Not nearly as impressive as our evidence.
(Oh, and about the mocking of the Dilbert fans, I think this thread from January 2007 rather cemented the impression in the Pharynguloid consciousness.)
Posted by: swangeese | September 30, 2008 9:40 PM
Now this is one poll I'm all too happy to crash.
I'm an Aspie and I cannot stand the pity and fear mongers disguised as 'Autism Advocates'.
Posted by: Kel | September 30, 2008 9:41 PM
Win!I wonder if this is a good thing or bad. It does show very anedcotally (they like that stuff right?) that science is on the side of the sensible one.
Posted by: David | September 30, 2008 9:48 PM
[Update: Welcome Scienceblogs readers! Your poll mobbing is indeed impressive.]
PZ you need to start putting 'nofollow' on the links.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 30, 2008 9:48 PM
Hank @ # 81: EXPELLED (aka Excreted) is soon to be on DVD...
They must have finalized the box before Ebert offered them his recent quotemine.
The packaging (in the promo from the American Family Ass'n™, which by blessed coincidence sells said DVD) shows the traditional plug on the cover:
It's credited to (well, who else?) ... Ben Stein.
Posted by: craig | September 30, 2008 9:50 PM
I couldn't vote. I really am torn, I don't know what to think about the vaccine/autism debate. I'm waiting to see what Winona Ryder has to say about it before I decide. I trust Winona, she's gorgeouser than the other two.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 30, 2008 9:51 PM
Voted.
Amanda Peet (97%)
Jenny McCarthy (3%)
Total Votes: 2,830
Posted by: gsb | September 30, 2008 9:52 PM
'That was me before I had autism in my life,' and until she walks in our shoes, she really has no idea."
Well dang, I've had friends and family with cancer. I guess that makes me an oncologist now.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 30, 2008 10:12 PM
O.T., Sarah Palin says being gay is a choice:
"I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my "gay friend," she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made. But I am not going to judge people."
Nice refutation of this stupidity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM
Posted by: Jared | September 30, 2008 10:14 PM
My sister has kyphoscoliosis, that doesn't make me an expert. Reading tons upon tons of research also doesn't make me an expert on it, it just makes me more informed. Reading something you found on the internet from a "Dr. Anas" doesn't make you informed, it makes you gullible.
Posted by: Jared | September 30, 2008 10:25 PM
So sexual orientation is a choice now? I suppose when you're already convinced
your god is nice and made them heterosexual and they chose to be otherwise and thereby subject themselves to the eternal torment and early death by murder your neolithic superstition directs for said sexual orientationit's a choice before you see the evidence which contradicts that view, I suppose the cognitive dissonance would finally get the better of you...Posted by: Tom | September 30, 2008 10:29 PM
I am going to ask a favor of you guys and gals. Please don't use the term "retard". You see, my son has Down syndrome and there are people who think it is funny to use that word to describe him. McCarthy is a horse's ass. She is an ignorant butt head. But please avoid the r-word. Every time I read it it's like a little stab in the heart. To us in the disabled community it hurts like the n-word hurts. Thanks.
Posted by: Justin | September 30, 2008 10:35 PM
Those Dilberts posts are fucking painful. I'm sorry I even asked.
Posted by: Jason | September 30, 2008 10:49 PM
It would appear that Jenny McCarthy's mob is tiny and insignificant compared to reality's mob.
Posted by: Ex-PFC Chuck | September 30, 2008 10:49 PM
Just voted. The score is now Amanda 97%, Jenny 3% with 3K some votes cast.
On another matter, check out this hilarious exchange when Bill Maher appeared on The View earlier today: 'Sherri Shepherd, whose devout religious beliefs have provided fodder for the show before, asked, "When you did this movie, you talked to a lot of people about God -- have you ever just talked to God, and asked God what does he think?'
When Maher asked Sherri if God ever answered her, and she said that he did, Maher said: 'Well then we should call Bellevue.' Bellevue is a New York hospital known for its psychiatric facilities.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/sherri-shepherd-bill-mahe_n_130581.html
Posted by: craig | September 30, 2008 10:56 PM
Well, if we're sharing stupidity, check out the latest, greatest Sarah Palin video.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/33323/1/CBS-Palin-Newspapers.wmv/
Posted by: Verônica | September 30, 2008 10:58 PM
just in case you're wondering:
"Some families of children with autism believed that thimerosal might have caused autism, but numerous scientific studies conducted in the past 10 years have shown that thimerosal does not cause autism. Other families and one gastroenterologist falsely believed and promoted the idea that MMR might cause autism.
Ironically, Halsey says, "the MMR vaccine can prevent the very infection, rubella, that science does link to autism. When rubella infects a pregnant woman, the unborn child gets infected and often suffers severe neurologic damage, including autism in some children. Just as people should not be misled by promises of cures from fake medicine, we should not mislead people with false villains to blame when unexpected illness occurs." "
""The CDC recently announced that we have had more cases of measles in the United States this year than in any year in the past decade. Many of the children who developed measles had not been vaccinated because of false concerns about vaccine safety.""
from: http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/researchDetail.aspx?id=5268
last time I checked: 97/3
By the way..I really loved the special message to us "Pharynguloids"
Posted by: Monado in Toronto | September 30, 2008 11:08 PM
IF you get CBC: "Religulous" (Religious/Ridiculous) actors? producers? are on The Hour tonight! 11-12 Eastern Time: Larry Charles and Bill Maher.
Posted by: Jared | September 30, 2008 11:17 PM
craig @108
She reads ALL of them, huh? I doubt she's picked up Nature, National Geographic, Scientific American, or Science except maybe to get the latest copy of People or Entertainment Weekly...
Posted by: Monado in Toronto | September 30, 2008 11:19 PM
George Stomboulopoulos pronounces "Maher" as "Marr" - is that right?
The Hour
Link to video
Posted by: Atheist Chaplain | September 30, 2008 11:35 PM
I came, I saw, I voted, 97% for the good guys, 3% for the fools at 3000+ votes so far, I also commented as a father with a son diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder (Aspergers Syndrome, and every time I turn the TV on lately I see someone trying to portray an Aspy, what gives, it Aspergers the flavour of the month or something)I also pointed to some of the latest research that could indicate that Testosterone has more of a role to play in Autism http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7417.php
Maybe if Jenny McCarthy didn't have such big balls she wouldn't have this problem (my wife and I often joke that she has bigger balls than me, so before anyone starts down that track, get a grip)
Posted by: James F | September 30, 2008 11:36 PM
#112 Yes, that's right.
Posted by: scooter | September 30, 2008 11:37 PM
Posted by: mellowjohn
peet way up, and besides - she looks better naked.
Links please
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 30, 2008 11:57 PM
Could be the poll calculator has saturated.
Posted by: Phoesune | October 1, 2008 12:22 AM
I will begin with a common adage...Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.
I accept that vaccinations are good science and a benefit to humanity and I personally do not believe that vaccinations are bad. I do have concerns that the current schedule of vaccines is detrimental to children. You might think it is because of thimerosal, but it is not. Although thimerosal presents itself as the likely candidate as it has been shown to activate autism in those children already genetically predisposed to have it (as per the CDC). In other words, thimerosal can activate autism in children. I know they do not based on their current sample of studies have any evidence that thimerosal can cause autism.
I have reviewed the statistics presented by the CDC and the IDEA. You can review the stats for yourself and the schedule of vaccines here:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/stats-surv/nis/data/articles.htm#94
This link below from the CDC links to the IDEA for their Autism stats:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/faq_prevalence.htm
You can follow the link under the references to get the raw data.
I will summarize the information as I found it.
In 1994, the national average for vaccination was 75% of those sampled received immunizations. The schedule only included 5 vaccinations (DTP, Polio, Flu, Measles and Hep B)
By 2005, the the average had reached over 80% nationally. An increase but I will not say too much of one but an increase none the less on the percentages. The key increase was the number of vaccines had increased to 7 (DTP, Polio, Flu, Measles, Varicella, PCV, and Hep B)
Now these seem small until you understand the number of vaccinations per vaccine that were injected. The number of doses had increased across the board for all these immunizations.
*Also along with this increase does not include the other vaccines that were administered that are not covered by this study. (I am still looking for a reliable listing to link to support this list but I am working on anecdotal evidence to support that comment.)
If you look through the information, you will see a steady increase of vaccinations from 1994 - 2004.
In contrast to this information is the steady increase of the number of cases of autism over the same period. In 1994 the cases of Autism being reported was 1 in 10000. The current number as reported by the CDC is 1 in 150 (or 66 in 10000) Please note that the CDC states the 1 in 150 is for 8 year olds, but it does believe this number to be an overall representation of the whole with variations over and under based on the area of the country the individual is located.
I invite you to look over the state data and you will find a general correlation to the number of vaccines with the number of cases of Autism.
I think based on this, a review should be done to adjust the vaccination schedule. Also they should review a possibility of interaction between the vaccines that may cause some unknown effect that results in Autism.
In relation to the Amish community. This is based on an Article written by Dan Olmstead. It can be considered very unscientific. Many of the Amish children with Autism would not necessarily be reported in any studies as they usually will handle the children within their community and forego any medical assistance. Also, the Amish have a similar disease unique to their inbreeding that can be hide reports of autism as they have similar effects. Overall there rate is closer to the rates the general population experienced in 1994. Also the Amish do now get vaccinations but on a modified schedule.
So overall, I am left with a concern that something is fishy in Denmark, and a scientific review is called for based on the statistical data.
My vote is for Jenny McCarthy...this is the same Jenny that posed for Playboy right? I would like to something to be reviewed and sometimes you need extremist to get to the middle...
Posted by: Jared | October 1, 2008 12:30 AM
@117
Perhaps you should read up a bit on confirmation bias. Also, the rates of many diseases have gone up considerably and due to a lack of evidence, it is likely this is due to better diagnoses than increase in prevalence. When we get better data, make the call, until then, the data points to "no link to vaccines" unless you are talking about risk of death by childhood disease, in that case, vaccines are extremely linked to a lower death rate.
Posted by: AK47 | October 1, 2008 12:54 AM
I too have a kid with autism, and so by McCarthy logic I'm allowed to speak on this subject.
Jenny McCarthy, you're a moron. Amanda Peet was right.
Posted by: Phoesune | October 1, 2008 1:14 AM
I am familiar with confirmation bias and I will admit it is possible here. I cannot deny that fact.
I can agree also to the fact that better diagnosis also plays a part, but as of yet there has been no studies to confirm that the increase relates to better diagnosis. What I would like to see is studies that can define and explain these increases. I am very willing to admit they can be explained but ignoring these numbers because vaccines are good and therefore all vaccines are good is not good enough. the studies performed to date including the MMR study which are very good do indicate that each one of these vaccines on their own are good. It is the combination and frequency that I am saying that needs study. the data right now points to some correlation unless we can identify the cause of autism or the increase in the rate can be defined to be related to something other than the vaccinations.
I also will note that although the comparison to these two areas have a correlation, it may be some other item that may be contributing to autism, such as, for example only, the percentage of fluoride or arsenic in the drinking water that may also have the same statistical correlation. the problem is that these studies have not been published.
I will also accept those results and be happier for knowing the facts.
Posted by: aangus: Canuckistani | October 1, 2008 1:15 AM
AK47 #119,
Me too and I agree.
:)
Posted by: Caveat | October 1, 2008 1:15 AM
McCarthy was on CTV news this morning. She says she's not opposed to vaccinations - just to the intense protocols used today.
She also claims her child has recovered from autism through diet, etc.
She's entitled to her opinion, especially since she wasn't saying don't vaccinate - just be careful about it, much as vets are recommending for our pets these days.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 1, 2008 1:16 AM
It's been tried.
Next.
Posted by: Mike R | October 1, 2008 1:21 AM
@117
Thimerasol is an antimicrobial preservative that was used in multi-dose vaccines. Note the past tense; thimerasol has not been used in the regular childhood vaccines for a number of years. The Poling case involved a mitochondrial disorder that was potentially aggravated by immunological inflammation. The evidentiary hurdle for the vaccine compensation board is practically non-existent. It was not an autism case. So, you paraded out that shabby straw man for the fun of it? That's very nice, Nancy Drew. Let me remind you that correlation is not causation, lest we fear the dwindling number of pirates and their influence on average global temperature. What's the R2 on that correlation since you're playing statistician today? Do you honestly think that the vaccine schedule was established without thought or review? Because the 20+ peer-reviewed studies finding no link between autism and vaccines just isn't enough to drive the point home to you, you want to waste more research funds beating on a long dead horse. I fixed that for you. Your concern regarding your "not quite high school level" statistical analysis has been noted. It is often easier to place the round peg in the round hole rather then beating it through the square hole with a hammer.
Posted by: Leigh Shryock | October 1, 2008 1:24 AM
Correlation doesn't equal causation.
You could just as well say that global warming/any other changing factor is linked to the autism, unless otherwise proven not to... then go on to say that other correlations, or things that explain the correlation aren't proven yet...
Posted by: Phoesune | October 1, 2008 1:41 AM
To #124 Mike R
Very good response.
In reference to Thimerosal I would point you to the FDA's report.
http://www.fda.gov/CBER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm
It is still being used in trace amounts. in the Influenza vaccine for children. and for vaccine for those those over the age of 6. I do not state that it is the cause. I do not know...I just wanted to be sure to mention it and to point out that because of its nature it would seem like it, but I am not advocating that it is and in fact, I doubt that it is.
I love the correction to my comment on Dan Olmstead...
Please understand that I am not a right wing nut case. I am trying to be as impartial as I can be. I have come from a position that was the extreme non-immunization side of the case and have eliminated a great deal of the arguments from that side as bogus. I figured by posting my current viewpoint here I would get the needed critical response to challenge my position and I thank you for your review.
I will refer to my post # 120 in response to the rest.
Again thanks.
Posted by: Mike R | October 1, 2008 1:46 AM
You must not have tried very hard. Newschaffer et al. (2007) came to that very conclusion in a paper entitled "The epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders" in Annual Review of Public Health. Although, Rutter (2005) beat them to that conclusion in a paper entitled "Incidence of autism spectrum disorders: change over time and their meaning" in Acta Paediatrica. You should try out PubMed. That's the second one that I have fixed for you. And, it has been millions of times. If the schedule were the problem, those who deviate from the schedule would show the difference. Remember the Amish that you paraded out previously? They don't follow the usual schedule, yet autism spectrum disorders still happen. You're still failing basic statistics. A correlation does not imply causation. This is where you should have stopped. So, you've gone from I think that I can see a correlation by staring at survey numbers to I think that there are correlations regarding [insert random ion]. That's some fancy logical gymnastics there. Could it be that as part of proposing a study, you have to have some basis for the methodology and I have this really awesome hunch just doesn't work? Accepting only the evidence that you want to see is the road to conformational bias.Posted by: HCN | October 1, 2008 2:11 AM
Phoesune said "In relation to the Amish community. This is based on an Article written by Dan Olmstead. It can be considered very unscientific..."
First off, it is spelled "Olmsted". And second, the man claimed to have gone to Lancaster, PA, but never bothered to visit a clinic there dedicated to the care and research of the Amish (it is called the "Clinic for Special Children"). He only learned of it after his first article was written, and when he finally called them they refused to talk to him because they knew that he was not an impartial reporter, but one with an agenda... an agenda that does not include facts. See:
http://autism-news-beat.com/?p=29
And you also said "In contrast to this information is the steady increase of the number of cases of autism over the same period. In 1994 the cases of Autism being reported was 1 in 10000. The current number as reported by the CDC is 1 in 150 (or 66 in 10000) Please note that the CDC states the 1 in 150 is for 8 year olds, but it does believe this number to be an overall representation of the whole with variations over and under based on the area of the country the individual is located."
Do you realize that 1994 is also the year that the DEFINITION of autism changed? Do you not think that might have an effect?
I have a child who was diagnosed with oral motor dyspraxia in 1992, but not autism. The high school psychologist suggest he might actually have Asperger's with the more recent standards, but she was not qualified to diagnose him.
Anyway, never mind that... just give us the actual scientific evidence (real papers that I can find at my local medical school library, not anecdotes from news sources or random websites) that the MMR is worse than measles (which has a 1 in 1000 chance of real death, and a 1 in 5000 chance of severe neuro-damage to the others who survive), mumps (which tends to cause deafness and/or sterility), and rubella. Or at least the real actual factual scientific evidence that the DTaP is worse than diphtheria, pertussis (which kills over a dozen American babies each year) and tetanus (which emits two toxins, that tend to kill one out of ten who get it, and there is no such thing as "herd immunity" for tetanus).
Come on... this is SCIENCEblogs... show us your science!
Posted by: Mike R | October 1, 2008 2:12 AM
@124
The average age at formal diagnosis in the US is 61 months. Well, it's not. If thimerasol were the culprit, autism would have a very small incidence rate now. Chemical names can do that. Ethyl-mercury (the type found in thimerasol) is actually rather short lived. The half-life in infants is a little less than 4 days. I realized that you are trying to play the middle ground. That's somewhat of the problem. Science is about the evidence. Some ideas are simply wrong. That's one way to do it, but trying to disprove all competing ideas is the long way to go about it. A simpler approach would be to follow the evidence to the positive conclusion, such as autism is not a single disorder but rather a spectrum of varied but similar neurological disorders and that these disorders have a major genetic component that must be factored in before any single cause can be considered. Posting here is definitely a way to get a quick critical response; you just have to have skin think enough to handle the critical part.Posted by: Phoesune | October 1, 2008 2:14 AM
#127 Mike R
I think your second fix is incorrect =). You underestimate my ability to admit when I am wrong.
I will review the report and thank you for providing it.
The Amish comment was to point out that nothing could be derived from reviewing them. I didn't intend to put them forth as a defense of anything.
The comment regarding the fluoride was an attempt to indicate the absurdity of pointing out my correlation is causation statement.
Hopefully, the report you provided answers my question. I just want to make clear my position because from your response I do not think I came across correctly.
I am not saying that vaccines are the cause of autism. My view up to this point was that there has been a rise in Autism since 1994 to the tune of 66 times more reported cases. I feel that studies should be done to identify the reasons for the increases. As far as my research into the subject, so far, I could only find one area of correlation where there was sufficient data to have a correlation. I did consider diagnosis as a potential cause but could not find data. If the report you provided or others from that site or PubMed has that information then I will abandon any connection to vaccinations.
I went through a lot of stuff already debunking the other junk I used to believe about this. So I can and will accept good scientific evidence as valid. I mean two weeks ago, I abandoned religion because of the evidence. So (don't) give me a break!!! =P
Posted by: makita | October 1, 2008 2:14 AM
I have a son with autism. According to Jenny McCarthy this qualifies me to have an opinion. I'm with Amanda Peet on this one. Jenny McCarthy just pisses me off. I've said so before.
Posted by: Kel | October 1, 2008 2:22 AM
As pointed out by HCN
Do you realize that 1994 is also the year that the DEFINITION of autism changed? Do you not think that might have an effect?
Posted by: Phoesune | October 1, 2008 2:28 AM
to HCN #128
Come on... this is SCIENCEblogs... show us your science!
This is the reason I came here. I knew I could be directed to the right resources as I had pretty much reached my end as my search seems to have been focused on the wrong side of the problem. It's hard to find the cause, if your looking in the wrong area. Also, this discussion will help greatly in dealing with others in my family that are dead set against vaccinations.
to Mike R #129
Posting here is definitely a way to get a quick critical response; you just have to have skin think enough to handle the critical part.
I have a thick skin so don't worry. I did learn one thing from this...start out by stating my intentions before posting. I think I should have begun with "Help me out here." instead of sounding so dogmatic and psuper-psuedo-psientific.
Posted by: mr-zero | October 1, 2008 2:45 AM
94% to 6% !
Bring back Studio 60!
z
Posted by: Cujo359 | October 1, 2008 2:46 AM
Amanda Peet is now ahead 97 - 3 percent. You'd think the question was "Which one is better looking?"
Posted by: clinteas | October 1, 2008 2:52 AM
The long and short of it is,Amanda Peet is a classy intelligent actress,and Jenny McCarthy is a trashy dumb nutcase.
Posted by: mr-zero | October 1, 2008 2:55 AM
94% to 6% !
Bring back Studio 60! ...and in an unrelated theme Firefly.
z
Posted by: mandydax | October 1, 2008 3:05 AM
PZ, I can see how hot a topic this is, and I'm really glad you pointed that article out. I hope you'll plug the ScienceBlogs.com/bookclub which is discussing Autism's False Prophets starting today (1 Oct).
As for this: "In addition, the national autism advocacy group Autism United is calling for a boycott of all of Amanda Peet's movies." I already made the decision to avoid anything with Jim Carrey (which is sad because he's funny) or Jenny McCarthy (which won't be a problem, like, I'm sure, y'know?) in it. It's kind of like how I won't buy Clear Eyes anymore... >_>
Posted by: Timelord | October 1, 2008 3:11 AM
97% to 3%. Where's your mob now Jenny? Perhaps they are too stupid to use a computer!
Posted by: Tall | October 1, 2008 3:31 AM
Another well-crashed poll.
Perhaps PZ should arrange a proxy button for use in such polls, so that we can swarm off en masse and vote for reason without making it obvious that we're all coming from the same place ;)
Posted by: elbuho | October 1, 2008 3:31 AM
Wow, I thought the vaccines vs autism debate had been well and truly put to bed, I can't believe it's picking up steam again. Seems to me to be a classic example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Posted by: Kaiser | October 1, 2008 3:44 AM
How about heading over to Jon Stewarts Forum?
http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board?board.id=13123
People posting stupid stuff because Jon had Bill Maher on last night.
There are proofs of how god created the universe, how Einstein believed in god,... real stupid stuff.
http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board?board.id=13123
Posted by: elbuho | October 1, 2008 3:47 AM
The most recent comment on that site is worth noting (and responding to):
"Kate says: As a mother with TWO autistic children, I find McCarthy's ignorance appalling. Don't we have enough difficulty in dealing with and understanding the Autism Spectrum without letting fad pseudo-science sway our families away from proper health care for our children?
end of quote.
Hey call me the bitch but sometimes this is what it takes to get it through these people's heads. Hey Kate! Why don't you have another child vaccinate it and make it three for three!
The government wouldn't be making pay outs to people whose children are autistic as a RESULT OF VACCINATIONS.
Good luck with that 3rd child. they say 1 in 100 kids is autistic now. Yet I have hundreds of friends who didn't immunize their kids and NONE of them are autistic. Imagine that.
But you keep telling yourself that. Go for number 3. 3rd times a charm. I have no sympathy for people who are so stupid they blindly trust the DRUG COMPANIES. Go talk to plenty of scientists AND doctors who disagree with you.
Liz Finn (and yes my uncle is Tom Finn the attorney who helped many people in this country whose children died or fell ill (or became autistic) from Vaccines.
I'm sure we can all think of nice friendly things to say to Liz.
Posted by: clinteas | October 1, 2008 3:47 AM
//Seems to me to be a classic example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc//
Not even that,there was Autism going around long before vaccines,with or without mercury,we just didnt call it Autism.
People are just looking for something to put the blame on,which is somewhat understandable.
Posted by: Michaela | October 1, 2008 3:58 AM
Percentages haven't changed from #139, but I particularly liked this update to the poll:
"[Update: Welcome Scienceblogs readers! Your poll mobbing is indeed impressive.]"
Good job, guys. On behalf of autistic people everywhere, thanks for bringing some sense back into a fad nation where this kind of thing could really do a lot of harm to a lot of children.
(Both the ones who aren't vaccinated because their parents are led astray by this sensationalism, and the ones who are autistic and are given dangerous chelation treatments because "it's all due to the mercury.")
Posted by: clinteas | October 1, 2008 4:02 AM
Oh,and while we are talking about anti-vaccers :
Bill Maher on The View about Palin:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=N7fv9kTwOuw
Posted by: Knight of L-sama | October 1, 2008 4:28 AM
Between Phoesune and Caveat I think what this thread needs is heapin' helpin' of some (not-so) Respectful Insolence.
Orac is to antivaccinationists as PZ is to creationists.
Posted by: clinteas | October 1, 2008 5:00 AM
@ 147
//Orac is to antivaccinationists as PZ is to creationists. //
I disagree.
PZ gets his facts straight most of the time and follows the scientific method.
Can I just say to the RI admirers here,Orac is mostly on the right side of the argument,but facts are not his strongest side.
Posted by: Vidar | October 1, 2008 5:18 AM
Peet : 97 %
anti-innoculation butterface autist-phobe: 3%
Poll status: crashed.
Who in their right mind would not innoculate their children? How does McCarthy think innoculation against blights like polio cause autism? As far as I know, autism is a genetic condition, and can not be induced by anything in a siringe.
Posted by: clinteas | October 1, 2008 5:26 AM
//As far as I know, autism is a genetic condition, and can not be induced by anything in a siringe.//
Vidar,you dont want to go there,trust me,its one big can of worms.
And AFAIK noone knows whether its genetic or what.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | October 1, 2008 5:31 AM
If the Amish have much lower rates of autism, or any other disease, I would look to these 3 factors first, to try to find the reason.
1. Genome. The Amish who keep the culture going tend to marry people who were also raised Amish; if autism (or anything else) has a genetic cause, it may be their limited gene pool had a smaller chance of it going in.
2. Epigenome. Scientists have only fairly recently become aware of the importance of the layer of proteins that cover the outside of DNA. Turns out, they often serve an important regulatory function. The epigenome is effected by the environment to a greater extent than DNA is, and studies have shown a major stressor such as famine can effect the genome for at least 2 generations after. The Amish's very different lifestyle could have healthier epigenome coding passed down through generations.
3. Environment. Whether a child is vaccinated or not, an Amish child is less likely to drink out of plastic cups, sit close tot he TV, be exposed to volatile chemicals at the gas station, be exposed to strong, artificial cleaning agents... and so on, and so on.
Vaccines have been studied to prove they don't cause autism. So maybe instead of wasting so much time and energy on re-proving the same old thing, the anti-vaxxers could shut the fuck up and maybe donate money for *other* research that might find something useful.
Posted by: Scaryduck | October 1, 2008 5:32 AM
AAAAARGH! Another half-baked moron spouting the innoculations-cause-autism BAD SCIENCE.
Voted: 97% plays 3%
Where's your angry mob now?
Posted by: secularguy | October 1, 2008 5:37 AM
Phoesune wrote:
Congrats!
Posted by: complex field | October 1, 2008 6:28 AM
We have an angry mob. Argumentum ad baculum. nice.
Posted by: Carlie | October 1, 2008 6:45 AM
Can I just say to the RI admirers here,Orac is mostly on the right side of the argument,but facts are not his strongest side.
Citation, please????
I have to say, no poll-crashing has warmed the cockles of my evil little heart the way this one has. It's at 97% now.
Posted by: varlo | October 1, 2008 6:58 AM
I too tried to vote and was told I had already, and there is no one else here who could have. All I could do was leave a comment suggesting (no, stating) that it was a dishonest poll. I suspect that a certain percent of votes for the pollsters preferred outcome are automatically rejected ... or have I joined the ranks of the paranoid?
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | October 1, 2008 7:31 AM
Welcome to the world of rationality Phoesune and good luck on your journey.
Posted by: David N | October 1, 2008 7:35 AM
I note that the site in question has a link back to Pharyngula and a comment that our poll mobbing is truly impressive. Hey - they wanted opinions, they got them. As for innoculation causing the condition - no evidence that withstands any examination. Further, autism seems to be rather poorly defined, making it difficult to get a real estimate of the rate of occurence past and present.
Posted by: clinteas | October 1, 2008 7:43 AM
Carlie,@ 155 :
Im watching Indy4 right now and cannot possibly be bothered to go through years of blog posts.I know,its not a good excuse.....
Lets just say he has a tendency to talk numbers up(or down)when needed to make a point.
Posted by: Heather | October 1, 2008 7:49 AM
Sometimes people just need someone to blame for the bad shit in their lives. It's easy to throw all of the blame on vaccinations because really, what else CAN they get angry at for 'causing' autism? Even if there is no proof of a link, it still makes it easier for some people if they can point a finger and do their two minutes hate.
When we lost our son in the NICU at 11 days after birth, we had to keep coming back to that same NICU where his brother and sister were still being kept in isolettes. I had no problem accepting that somethings bad things happen, and it was really nobody's "fault" that my babies arrived 14 weeks early and one of them didn't make it. I knew going into it that a triplet pregnancy was inherently risky and we may have a bad outcome - or maybe not.
My husband wasn't prepared for that bad outcome at all. He hadn't rationally considered the odds of having three healthy full-term babies (33 weeks would have been considered term for triplets). He was having a really hard time dealing with it until he found someone to blame for the situation. There was a picture of the NICU founder on the wall, and I told him if he needed to hate and blame someone, why not that guy? The guy was long-dead or retired, but it made a good object for my husband's anger. He was able to deal with it a little better once he had a focus for the blame. Silly, but I can't deny that it helped him deal with a very long and difficult time in our lives.
Posted by: clinteas | October 1, 2008 7:54 AM
Heather,
very well said.Sorry for your loss ! NICUs can be tough places.
Posted by: Epinephrine | October 1, 2008 9:01 AM
Phoesune spake thusly:
I have a thick skin so don't worry. I did learn one thing from this...start out by stating my intentions before posting. I think I should have begun with "Help me out here." instead of sounding so dogmatic and psuper-psuedo-psientific.
Well, I'm glad you found it and that you have a thick enough skin.
If you want some reading on thimerosal and vaccines in infants, there was a 2008 paper on the subject:
M. E. Pichichero, A. Gentile, N. Giglio, V. Umido, T. Clarkson, E. Cernichiari, G. Zareba, C. Gotelli, M. Gotelli, L. Yan and J. Treanor (2008). Mercury Levels in Newborns and Infants After Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines. Pediatrics 2008;121;e208-e214
and here's one on vaccines and autism:
S. K. Parker, B. Schwartz, J. Todd and L. K. Pickering (2004).
Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Critical Review of Published Original Data. Pediatrics 2004;114;793-804.
There is plenty of evidence against autism-vaccine links, and while I won't state that all vaccines are worth having for all people, for the most part there's some solid epidemiology underlying their use.
Posted by: Dawn | October 1, 2008 9:02 AM
The only thing this post tells me (anti-vax parent, family of 5 injured) is just how DESPERATE you doctors and scientists are getting about keeping your beloved Vaccine Program in place. I have one word of advice for you - move to a communist country so that you may live under an extreme dictatorship where your services for the "greater good" will be appreciated. This kind of herd immunity mentality may be compared to the works of Hitler - in his own mind, his criminal acts were for the greater good of mankind.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | October 1, 2008 9:02 AM
Phoesune wrote:
"two weeks ago, I abandoned religion because of the evidence."
I'm pretty pleased and impressed. I also found your arguments in your original post well thought out and worthy of discussion. The subsequent posts proved comprehensive (congrats fellow pharguloids) seemed to address many of the concerns raised. Thick skin is essential, but it is well worth hanging on.
Mandydax (#138) - I like the look of your blog - especially the link to Christie MacAuliffe's missing lessons. I will try to call back to your blog again
Posted by: Brian | October 1, 2008 9:02 AM
Ugh,
My favorite morning radio show here in Atlanta is having Jenny McCarthy on at 9:30 this morning to talk about this little snit. One of the hosts actually had the nerve to call her stance "courageous." So ridiculous, giving that woman a platform from which to shout her garbage is insane.
Posted by: andyo | October 1, 2008 9:10 AM
Damn, Godwin in a vaccination thread! Well done, Dawn!
Hey, this "greater good" you speak of... yeah, gassing Jews and millions of actually saved babies, same thing.
Posted by: Oskar Kennedy | October 1, 2008 9:18 AM
If the angry autism anti-vax mob gets on Amanda Peet's case, can we call it McCarthyism?
Posted by: Epinephrine | October 1, 2008 9:22 AM
Oh oh... Dawn's here. Everyone type slowly, she doesn't read too well.
Hey Dawn, you wouldn't happen to frequent Today's Parent would you? I've run into a few anti-vax morons there that argue about as cogently as you do.
Posted by: Leigh Shryock | October 1, 2008 9:34 AM
Dawn: Once you can demonstrate the link with something other than anecdotes, I'll be glad to read the scientific article.
I truly hope that not vaccinating doesn't hurt your family, or those around it. I would hate to hear that someone's ignorance had caused others harm.
Posted by: Dahan | October 1, 2008 9:47 AM
Then you haven't learned anything. To bad, really. However, you've made up your mind about something without looking at the hard evidence in place, preferring to believe in anecdotal evidence and allowing yourself to be led by your emotions. You won't get much sympathy here when you do that.
Also, please look up Godwin's law. Save the Hitler comments for when the topic is Hitler and/or the Nazis.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 1, 2008 9:49 AM
For Dawn, Public Health = Nazism.
Nice.
Dawn, do you dump the contents your family's chamberpots into the local reservoir? Because, you know, public sewage and water treatment are just forms of genocidal Fascism.
Posted by: Dirty Hairy | October 1, 2008 9:55 AM
Pahryngula's angry mob > Ditzy's angry mob
What do we win???
Posted by: Epinephrine | October 1, 2008 9:58 AM
Wow, I think there's some counter mobbing of said poll - it rose from 3% to 5% support.
Perhaps we need to push a few more over there to vote.
Posted by: SC | October 1, 2008 10:01 AM
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Posted by: SC | October 1, 2008 10:04 AM
Hey Sven,
I was thinking of you yesterday! I had lunch in a little dive in Cambridge, and guess what were on the menu.
.
.
.
Frappes!
I had no one to chuckle with.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | October 1, 2008 10:15 AM
This just in. When I voted the page re-loaded with the following update at the bottom:
"[Update: Welcome Scienceblogs readers! Your poll mobbing is indeed impressive.]"
High praise for us.
Posted by: Orac | October 1, 2008 10:16 AM
Actually, yes it does appear to be a myth, as far as can be determined. I'll give a little wiggle room in that the Amish are notoriously hard to study and it's hard to get good prevalence data, but that difficulty cuts both ways: There's no way you--or anyone else--can say with such confidence that the Amish definitely have lower rates of autism.
Of course, even if they did, it wouldn't be particularly good evidence that vaccines cause autism. After all, why does it have to be the vaccines? The Amish are inbred, eschew most modern technology and conveniences, and live a pastoral lifestyle. There are so many confounding factors there that could explain such a difference, if it exists, in particular the inbred population given that autism has a large genetic/biological component. But to antivaccinationists, it always absolutely, positively has to be The Evil Vaccines That Done It! There could be hundreds of other possible genetic or environmental factors that could potentially explain differences in autism prevalence, but the antivaccine loon doesn't even consider all the other possibilities and instead zeros right in on vaccines. Because to antivaccine nuts, it is always the vaccines. Always.
As for the resurgence of the whole Jenny McCarthy vs. Amanda Peet thing, I tried very hard not to blog about it, but with PZ bringing it up I don't know if that will be possible any longer. Thanks a lot, PZ.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | October 1, 2008 10:32 AM
There's an interesting article that traces the history of the erroneous Thermosal=>autism link. It turns out the guy who started it, Andrew Wakefield, had a conflict of interest. He also has had his research results debunked. The Lancet and other publications (such as salon.com) have retracted his paper or issued retractions on stories about autism (respectively).
Here's my favorite quote:
A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can put its boots on. -- Winston Churchill.
Here's the salon article:
Inside the vaccine and autism scare
Posted by: Dahan | October 1, 2008 10:33 AM
Orac,
I could certainly be wrong, I'm not a scientist and can only go by what I've read here and there. However, it does at least seem the Amish have slightly lower rates of Autism.
That said, I'm with you 100% as far as your observations about all the variables that would need to be looked at and data sifted through to deduce why they have lower numbers. Those that have the default "vaccinationsdidit" mentality are idiots.
Posted by: Dahan | October 1, 2008 10:39 AM
Orac (again),
I shouldn't have said "much lower rates" that was a mistake.
Posted by: BdN | October 1, 2008 10:42 AM
Anyway, you are all wrong since it is cow milk that causes autism (and cancer, ear infections...) according the marvelously intelligent PETA :
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/09/peta_even_more_impossible_to_parody_than.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link
Posted by: Evolving Squid | October 1, 2008 10:44 AM
Hehe... that gave me my morning giggle.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 1, 2008 10:49 AM
Amanda Peet? Yes please. Always preferred brunettes anyway.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 1, 2008 10:53 AM
Careful, SC. I suspect that frappes cause autism. Or at least activate it. Somehow.
Posted by: Orac | October 1, 2008 11:02 AM
By the way, the clowns over at Age of Autism are trying to match their puny power against the might of the Pharynguloid hordes:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/10/vote-for-jenn-1.html
Heh. Perhaps PZ should unleash his hordes on AoA. :-)
Posted by: Natalie | October 1, 2008 11:14 AM
Holy crap, Dawn's here. Anyone who would like to witness the absolute insanity that is Dawn would do well to check out Orac's posts about vaccination from August.
Phoesune, another factor you should consider is that as autism diagnoses have risen, diagnoses for mental retardation have fallen. Autism Diva discusses one study here: http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2006/10/autistic-to-be-specific.html, and I think Prometheus has also blogged about it but I can't find the post right now.
From the linked post:
Posted by: Natalie | October 1, 2008 11:17 AM
For anyone too lazy to do the arithmetic, the increase in autistics was 9.1 per 10,000, while the simultaneous decrease in children with mental retardation was 9.3 per 10,000.
Posted by: Epinephrine | October 1, 2008 11:36 AM
I'm sure some of you have read cectic, but for the others...
Is Jenny McCarthy the Y.A.P.?
Posted by: Bob L | October 1, 2008 11:46 AM
Wow, this whole thing sound familiar. It is like they just cut and pasted the words "autism" and "vaccine" over "evolution" and "creationism". Argument from special knowledge, check, arguement from popularity, check, arguement from junk science check.
Posted by: jkessler | October 1, 2008 11:52 AM
There is an increasing number of commenters at that site promoting the vaccine link. Perhaps people should go over there again and explain?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 1, 2008 1:04 PM
Over 6300 when I voted, 96 : 4.
(obligatory link added)
Yes, and the world is soon to end. I'm not sure which is going to come first.
True blondness comes from within.
You mean you don't open polls in a new tab? For me that's always more convenient than going back and forth in the same one.
Posted by: Epinephrine | October 1, 2008 1:24 PM
Oh, btw Orac - I liked your article thanking Jenny. I'd never read your stuff before, but consider me a reader now :)
Posted by: HumanisticJones | October 1, 2008 1:38 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/10/01/intv.mccarthy.cnn
WHY! Why do they keep giving her a voice on this shit. Listen to the way they phrase the questions... "Why do you think they are reluctant to talk about a link?" Not "Why do you continue to insist on a link when all of the observed data shows otherwise?" or "What evidence can you provide to show that it was the vaccines and not some other factor that caused your son's autism?". They just jump straight in and hand her a platform to spew her garbage from.
Posted by: Dawn | October 1, 2008 1:59 PM
Yeah, you are damn straight us "anti-vax" are not going to shut up. I blame you doctors, nurses, scientists, etc for harming my family. Yes, I do compare your works to that of Hitler because he had an agenda...what was it? A "super race" - nobody could stand in his way. The weak (in his eyes) shall be exterminated. It is EXACTLY like the Vaccine Program. Even if ONE PERSON (we all know it is a lot more than that) died from a vaccine, what gives you the right to try to play God? Any people that sadly die from vaccines are worth it because it is for the greater good? What the hell planet are you from?
Orac even stated how bogus and seriously flawed VAERS is!! Someone reported that they turned into Hulk and it was put on record? Hello? That means that we have NO system of checks and balances and the only individuals responsible for making sure vaccines are safe are Big Pharm themselves?! Again, Vioxx, Heparin, and Paxil scandals...
Posted by: SC | October 1, 2008 2:11 PM
Ah, Dawn. She's given us such gems as
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/thanks_again_jenny_mccarthy_and_andrew_wakefield.php#comment-1064767
I'm sure that one will sparkle in my memory for some time to come.
Posted by: Jim1138 | October 1, 2008 2:13 PM
IP address vote lockout on http://www.ecorazzi.com/? I voted on my computer, told my wife who looked on her computer, but the vote totals were already showing and she could not vote. I checked on my other browser and it too showed the totals. This was around 3500 votes.
Posted by: orac | October 1, 2008 2:13 PM
Dawn is being hysterical again.
Uh, no, I said nothing of the sort. VAERS is flawed as a means of doing longitudinal studies of prevalence because it is so easily manipulated. But that's not its purpose, anyway. Its purpose is as a "canary in the coalmine," where anyone can report anything they believe to be a vaccine reaction. The problem is, even as an early warning system, it's been corrupted and coopted by antivaccine loons and trial lawyers, who urge parents to report every case of autism as a vaccine injury. Even aside from that, any time there's publicity about vaccines, there's a wave of new reports. It takes careful epidemiology to determine if reports to VAERS represent a real phenomenon, and that careful epidemiology shows no link between vaccines and autism. None. Nada. Zip.
Also, we do have another system of checks. It's called the Vaccine Safety Datalink. It's a lot more rigorous (only physicians and health care professionals can enter cases). It is also more suitable for longitudinal studies. Studies based on the VSD have also failed to find any link between vaccines and autism.
Posted by: co | October 1, 2008 2:19 PM
Oskar @ 167
Pure win!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 1, 2008 2:26 PM
I try to use the killfile sparingly; really, I do. But Dawn has just been treated to a well-earned place on the kill list. Still, in response to the last of her comments I will ever read:
Seriously, Dawn: if your brain really equates genocide as a means to purify a Master Race with vaccination to prevent the spread of potentially deadly communicable diseases, there is something really, really wrong with it.
If even one person dies as a result of vaccination, then the entire public health system should be dismantled?
Do you, like, drive on highways?
Posted by: Leigh Shryock | October 1, 2008 2:29 PM
Have you not noticed the medium that you are using to state that?
Play God?
But, seriously, I noticed that you didn't even mention the lives saved. Polio mostly eradicated (except in portions of the world where people are afraid of vaccines. Imagine that), smallpox eradicated, measles, mumps and rubella all but unheard of in the states. You would seek to undermine all of this progress in your anti-scientific vendetta. What is your reasoning?
Posted by: Pablo | October 1, 2008 2:43 PM
"What is your reasoning?"
It's selfishness.
I have mentioned this elsewhere, the choice to not vaccinate is not a "personal" decision, any more is the decision to drink and drive. By not vaccinating, it's not just your child who is at risk, it also puts MY child at risk by providing a vehicle for the re-emergence of disease. As such, I have a stake in your decision, as does everyone in our society. Your decision to not vaccinate puts US at risk.
So it's not all about them, no matter how much they think it is.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 2:45 PM
Oh awesome. Dawn is here.
The level of logic and honesty in this thread just plummeted quicker than the stock market on Monday.
Even if ONE PERSON became dumber (and we all know it is more than that) from reading your rants, what gives you the right to play the false Saviour and victim concurrently. All the people you dupe into believing your sewage laden trail of distortion and falsehoods are worth it because it makes you feel better about having someone to blame?
How about all the people your falsehoods and lies will cause to become ill and die from contracting diseases that they would never get had they and the people around them been properly vaccinated?
Posted by: Prometheus | October 1, 2008 2:46 PM
Dawn once again proves the adage that "...a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on."
I'm not saying that Dawn is lying - she doesn't strike me as someone who has the requisite abilities. No, but Dawn has bought the lie that others have told and is - as is the nature of parrots - endlessly repeating it.
For a true conspiracy believer like Dawn, there is no contradictory data that isn't forged, no opposing viewpoints that aren't bought and paid for and no criticism that isn't further evidence of how wide the conspiracy has spread.
By now, a significant fraction of the US population must be "in" on the conspiracy. I wonder when they'll get around to using their mind-control device on Dawn?
I hope it's soon.
Prometheus
Posted by: Joe Fulgham | October 1, 2008 2:47 PM
Though I haven't bothered to blog about it yet, I got spam from Autism United asking me to boycott Peet's movies.
So not only are they ferociously uninformed about the lack of an autism link in vaccines, and the risk the trend of unvaccinated kids is to other kids, but they're dirty rotten SPAMMERS.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 2:50 PM
Ahh I see SC has covered this, and much more eloquently :)
Posted by: MartinM | October 1, 2008 3:24 PM
If by 'like' you mean 'opposite to,' sure. Vaccination protects everyone. The anti-vax movement will lead to everyone being exposed to endemic viruses like the measles, and let the weak, the young, the old, and the immunocompromised take their chances.
Posted by: Matt Morrison | October 1, 2008 3:45 PM
So not only are they ferociously uninformed about the lack of an autism link in vaccines, and the risk the trend of unvaccinated kids is to other kids, but they're dirty rotten SPAMMERS.
I assume that's meant to be ironic given that this comment is on a thread post whose entire purpose is to spam-bomb a poll into irrelvance? Which is in itself ironic given that this is taking place on a science-blog which - you'd think - would be interested in keeping a survey as honest and unmodified as possible.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 3:51 PM
Wow that was interesting.
Polls which ASK you to vote on them vs. email addresses not requesting your interaction.
Yes the same thing exactly Matt.
Internet polls are inherently flawed by their nature. If someone puts a poll on the internet for the purpose of having people on the internet vote on it. And people on the internet vote on it, that is dishonest or ironic?
Posted by: firemancarl | October 1, 2008 4:16 PM
Dawn you said
Teh woot? Your stooopid burns me at a rate close to that of fundagelicals.
Are you really comparing the vaccination program to Hitler? You think that vaccines are going to lead to a race of "super people"? My kids think i'm "super" and they have had vaccinations. There is link and causality there! You're onto something.
Sheesh. Maybe we should just give up vaccinating our children. We can let all sorts of bugs take over and start the elimination of the human race.
I am sure a case of smallpox would be a pleasant gift to give or receive during Christmas.
I am sure that due to your psychosis that you are ready to move to areas of our planet where there are no vaccination programs....right?
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 4:17 PM
I see none of you nitwits can present a decent argument so you have to start calling a woman names. Bunch of faggots.
Posted by: firemancarl | October 1, 2008 4:25 PM
John Best -hopefully, not the one I know from Va-said
Best unintentional ironic zinger of the day.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 1, 2008 4:26 PM
@John Worst #210
I see none of you nitwits can present a decent argument so you have to start calling a woman names. Bunch of faggots.
Funny. Following your link back to your sorry-ass excuse for blog reveals not merely name-calling and fallacious arguments that far exceed the most earnest attempts at parody seen here, but a measure of masturbatory hate-mongering that makes many right-wing blogs seem like journals of rational discourse.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 4:31 PM
OH fuck. Who left the door open.
John Best is here.
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | October 1, 2008 4:37 PM
@130 ... "My view up to this point was that there has been a rise in Autism since 1994 to the tune of 66 times more reported cases.
Yes, and there was a thousand-fold rise in the reported cases of Legionnaire's disease between 1977 and 1987 ... because they had a way of diagnosing it. It went from being hidden in the vague cloud of "pneumonia of unknown origin" to a bacterial disease.
In 1994 autism got some concrete diagnostic signs ... and it moved out of the vague cloud of "childhood schizophrenia"and "mentally retarded" into it's own niche. No increase in incidence needed, just better labeling. BTW, childhood schizophrenia is almost gone now, and the decrease in "mentally retarded" just about compensates for the increase in autism spectrum diagnosis.
These things can go the other way: My epidemiology professor cited a southern state where the reported cases fo "malaria" dropped from thousands to ZERO between one year and the next. The only thing that changed was the diagnostic criteria ... to report malaria you had to have a laboratory confirmed sighting of the parasite in a blood smear, not just a fever.
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 4:42 PM
Eric,
There's not much point in arguing with you queers during your little circle jerk here. All you idiots need to know is that your grade school stabs at propaganda won't stop us fathers of autistic kids from curing them.
I see you're also stupid enough to think there is a difference between left wing and right wing ideology. We independents never consider aligning with either group of morons. I wonder what you queers would say if were men and had children of your own.
Posted by: Dave | October 1, 2008 4:46 PM
John "Mr. Loon" Best: you couldn't cure a ham, much less autism. And your puerile insults do nothing to advance your cause.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 4:46 PM
Johnny, tell us more about queers.
Posted by: John Best at Nothing | October 1, 2008 4:46 PM
keep going, it's hilarious.
Posted by: andyo | October 1, 2008 5:00 PM
OK, not that he deserves it, but John, have you read the comments from parents of actual autistic children who support science? If being a parent of an autistic child was authority enough on the truth, why should we listen to you rather than them? Provide an argument there. (I don't expect one.)
The real argument, of course, is that that's not an argument at all. For or against, personal experience is nothing. Your or my suffering, I'm very sorry, means nothing. The truth is the truth and that's it. The difference is that those other parents have actually looked at evidence, and made an informed (and smart) decision.
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 5:05 PM
Sure, I'll tell you fags more about yourselves. You see, men would never come out with all of this bullshit that hurts children. Men protect children while queers like you go around behind pseudonyms trying to hurt them. That's why I can state my name here and most of you queers are afraid to do that. You're afraid men like myself will hunt you down and beat the hell out of you for propagating lies that hurt our kids.
Have any of you jerks met a kid who was cured of autism? I have, biomedical treatments give these poor kids their lives back. You queers are hurting severely disabled kids with your lies and you think it's funny. You're all pathetic.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 5:09 PM
Tell us about a woman's place next.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 1, 2008 5:11 PM
Mr Best: you seem to be flinging around accusations of homosexuality as if it were an insult. It isn't, nor is it a reasonable excuse for hunting someone down and "beating the hell" out of them. But it does tell me a lot about you, and it's telling me that you are the kind of thick-skulled bigot we don't want around here. Clean up your act, or you'll be gone.
You're a crank and a liar, and I'll happily accept any excuse you might give me to throw your tightly clamped sphincter into the dungeon.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 5:15 PM
Oh now PZ, Mr. best has cured his kid of Autism and anyone who doesn't accept his anecdotal evidence along with Ms McCarthy is a flaming homosexual out to destroy children. And if you are a Woman, you need to shut up.
He's just Speaking the facts man.
Posted by: andyo | October 1, 2008 5:21 PM
I'm gonna go beat some queer and make myself a man. Thanks for the suggestion, Best!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 1, 2008 5:23 PM
Damnit, is Dawn gonna start crashing in on all my favourite blogs now?
Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 5:24 PM
Trebuchet & chamber pots ready, Sir!
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 5:26 PM
Myers, you call yourself a scientist, yuh right. Do scientists run around the internet slinging bogus nonsense about a nightmare like autism that could prevent parents from learning how to help these kids.
Do you have kids? How would you like to watch your kid smash about 20 holes in the walls of your house with his head? Would you like to watch your kid smear feces all over himself and everyplace else every time he defecated? Would you like hearing your kid scream all day long from pain of constipation and have some ER doctor tell you he won't treeat autism, not even to address the chronic constipation or what ever other pain the kid has that also makes him bite his arms until he bleeds?
I went through all of that for a long time, years, before I was able to start chelation. All of that behavior and the constipation is long gone now. Chelation works because we identified the cause and removed it. I'm not done trying to repair the damage that was done to my son's brain but I got rid of the worst part of the autism. Why do you and your followers want to deny this to children?
You got one thing right, hunting down queers is not what I said. I only want to hunt down people who lie about autism because I don't like watching children suffer needlessly. There's nothing funny about it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 5:29 PM
Quote from johnny
Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 5:33 PM
PZ you sure do know how to amuse the Ilk. That Best is a howler!
Posted by: Jay Phat Buds | October 1, 2008 5:38 PM
And for one more record, he loves the cock!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 1, 2008 5:40 PM
All the trappings of True Believer(TM). Lots of venom and noise, but no substance. If he wants us to listen, try a few references to refereed journal articles.
Posted by: Martin Cowen | October 1, 2008 5:43 PM
Your choice of pictures for the two actresses illustrates your editorial bias in favor of Big Pharma.
Posted by: Phil | October 1, 2008 5:45 PM
Quick tangent, as this whole thing got me thinking and my fiance and I are expecting our sprog in March, could somebody point me to some of the current research on autism?
Actually, I'd rather have an autistic kid than have him turn into a science-illiterate redneck on me, but it does scare me.
Posted by: Joseph | October 1, 2008 5:55 PM
He hasn't. He claims to have cured his other kid of ADHD; a much more subjective claim. His autistic kid has been chelated for, I don't know, 3 years? Way beyond any treatment course for real and severe heavy metal poisoning as recorded in the medical literature. I understand the kid is as autistic as ever, just a bit more mature.
For that matter, I haven't seen actual evidence that Ms. McCarthy's son is non-autistic now. I've actually read indications to the contrary.
Posted by: Epinephrine | October 1, 2008 5:59 PM
Yeah Johnnie, that's it. I'm so terrified of your righteous rage that I hide behind a moniker. I'm actually psychic, and I predicted that I'd need this pseudonym years ago, so I began slowly building an alias. Finally, it has served its purpose - protecting me from you!
Moron.
Your gang is the one propegating lies, Johnnie. Read the headlines, look at the measles outbreaks. That's the tip of the iceberg if people promote this anti-vax crap.
Let's get this perfectly clear - if I choose to vaccinate my children, it has no negative effect on your children. In fact, my children's vaccinations protect your kids. If you choose not to vaccinate your children, they can serve as a disease vector to my children, because vaccines aren't 100% effective. Comprende, Johnnie? If anyone needs their ass kicked, it's you, you fucking parasite. Morons like you endanger other people's children as well as your own.
Posted by: SC | October 1, 2008 6:00 PM
On the other hand, it's nice to have the cool people from RI like Tsu Dho Nimh here at "home." Saves me the trip. :)
Posted by: Katharine | October 1, 2008 6:11 PM
John Best -
I'm gonna laugh when your kid needs hospitalization because of the chelation therapy. You are the worst of the worst.
I can see you're emotional because your kid has autism, but your overemotionality has caused you to lose any grasp on reality.
And stop being a homophobic needledick.
Posted by: Katharine | October 1, 2008 6:13 PM
And as for the physical threats - you are aware there's something called jail for assault, right?
Posted by: Orac | October 1, 2008 6:28 PM
PZ is welcome to him. I've had to put up with him intermittently for three years--dating back to before I even joined ScienceBlogs.
Posted by: Orac | October 1, 2008 6:35 PM
Hey, wait a minute!
Posted by: notmercury | October 1, 2008 6:39 PM
JB
Given his circumstance, I'd call that a reasonable response.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 1, 2008 6:47 PM
@Johnny the Homicidal Maniac
Well, that was unoriginal and batshit insane...
I wonder what you queers would say if were men and had children of your own.
and...
You're afraid men like myself will hunt you down and beat the hell out of you for propagating lies that hurt our kids.
Staggeringly wrong on multiple counts. My oldest son is a Marine. Who learned to fight before he ever went off to boot camp. From me. But since you've offered an implicit challenge - bring it, bitch.
Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 6:51 PM
Orac - There's your remedy. Next time ol' Johnny shows up at your blog being a blowhard, tell him there are some sluts and faggots over at PZ's joint that need help. He was ever so informative this time. *snort*
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 6:58 PM
Katharine,
There is no such thing as homophobia. People who use such idiotic terms are enablers of psychotic behavior.
Epinephrine,
Measles is no big deal. Another stupid argument from team nitwits.
My kid is autistic because he was vaccinated simpleton.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 1, 2008 7:03 PM
No doubt "men" like Johnny imagine that when they hunt us down and beat us up, they will effectively counter our Flaming Hammer of Big Pharma with a Flying Chelation Attack, or some such Z-grade action movie nonsense...
Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 7:06 PM
As a dog returneth to it's vomit, so doth a fool to his folly.
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 7:07 PM
Eric,
I learned to fight on a hockey rink. I also learned it was much better to be an officer than an enlisted guy so I went to college before I joined the military. Why weren't you smart enough to send your kid to college instead of encouraging him to be a grunt? Seems like the same sort of intelligence that would deny the truth about things in vaccines that hurt babies. And you call me a moron?
Posted by: abeja | October 1, 2008 7:08 PM
@244
I've read some blazingingly stupid comments before, but that has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read, seen, or heard.
Wow.
Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 7:13 PM
I learned to fight in the girls lavatory.
Posted by: Katharine | October 1, 2008 7:14 PM
Yes, there is such a thing. Read about the folks who kill gays for being gay. It's like racism, but against gay people. You're out of your fucking mind, dude.
Measles is a pretty fucking big deal. And your kid is autistic because his genetics weren't so good. You unwilling to think that your genes suck so bad? You unable to comprehend polygenetic inheritance, you kid-sickening scumbag? Yes, by giving your kid chelation therapy, you might make him end up like the 5-year-old kid in 2005 who died of kidney failure from chelation therapy. Fucker.
I'm a neuroscience student. Autism is under pretty heavy research right now, and I can tell you that the genetics are complex and we still haven't hashed it out yet, but, uh, every scientific study published, EVER, by any independent source has said that VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM. Most people on here have been vaccinated, and most of us don't have autism. Just because you're a parent doesn't mean you know everything about your kid's brain. Try listening to people who actually study it for a living.
And stop slinging around physical threats. There is precedent for calling the cops on your dumb ass. Fucking stop, before one of us decides to ruin your life.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 1, 2008 7:17 PM
Why weren't you smart enough to send your kid to college instead of encouraging him to be a grunt?
I didn't encourage him one way or the other. It was his interest, and I laid out the pros and cons (I grew up in the military myself, son of an enlisted man who is to this day one of the hardest-working and most honorable men I know) and let him make his own decision as an adult. From the comments you've left here, I can see how the concept of informed adult decisions would be extraordinarily difficult for you to grasp.
Seems like the same sort of intelligence that would deny the truth about things in vaccines that hurt babies.
You've caught me; I guess I'll have to confess a few other things to you, then - the moon landings were faked, aliens inhabit a secret base under Area 51, the collapse of the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition, and Hollywood is secretly run by the Jews. Yawn.
And you call me a moron?
Why, yes; yes I do.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 1, 2008 7:22 PM
Another thing - if you were indeed an officer, as you imply, then you would be in a position to know just how important a highly trained and dedicated force of enlisted personnel are to our nation's armed forces. That you speak with contempt of "grunts" is a good indicator that you were a piss-poor excuse for an officer.
Posted by: Katharine | October 1, 2008 7:28 PM
To say nothing of the high-functioning autistic individuals, though - their autism clearly doesn't affect them so pathologically and, indeed, being in the broader autistic phenotype can confer some advantages on people. People with more severe and pathological autism, though, well, then their genes subjectively didn't really work out so well for them.
To clarify my perspective, I'm not autistic, I know of several individuals who are and who have done well - Temple Grandin, for example, is an accomplished agricultural scientist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 7:32 PM
Johhny, tell us what you think about womenfolk.
Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 7:42 PM
Why Chimpy, you are a VERY naughty boy. *sly smirk*
Posted by: Kev | October 1, 2008 7:48 PM
You are wasting your time and energy with John. He is a troll welded immovably to his belief. Sadly, his son is the one who is paying.
If you want to read about his more exotic beliefs first hand please try my thread where his idiocy in most things is laid bare.
Other than that I would suggest ignoring him and that PZ plonks him.
Posted by: Katharine | October 1, 2008 7:49 PM
"
Katharine,There is no such thing as homophobia. People who use such idiotic terms are enablers of psychotic behavior.
Epinephrine,
Measles is no big deal. Another stupid argument from team nitwits.
My kid is autistic because he was vaccinated simpleton. DUH HUH HUH HUH I LIVE UNDER A ROCK"
FTFY ASSBAG
Posted by: Katharine | October 1, 2008 7:53 PM
Apparently I don't know how to use HTML tags .
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 7:54 PM
Eric,
I have no contempt for enlisted men. My father was an enlisted man. So were my grandfathers. I'm pointing out your stupidity and ineffectiveness as a father for not showing your son the benefits of education. For someone dumb enough to think vaccines are safe, that figures. Are you aware that lots of enlisted men are coming back home all screwed up from vaccines? If they worked for me, I'd pencilwhip the paperwork and get them out of the shots. Bonehead.
Posted by: andyo | October 1, 2008 8:03 PM
OK, McCarthy and Peet...
But where the hell are Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman when you need them?
John Best, you're such a cute homophobe by the way.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 8:05 PM
John do you live in Alaska and are you and expert on Foreign relations because Russia is just right over there
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 8:12 PM
by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 7:32 PM
Johhny, tell us what you think about womenfolk.
I think you and this Katharine idiot would make a nice couple.
Kev,
Still afraid to face me huh? Need more bananas?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 8:15 PM
I'm sure Katherine is a wonderful woman but I'm married.
I'm curious Johnny boy. What's your thoughts on a woman's place?
Posted by: Homer-phobe | October 1, 2008 8:16 PM
John, I hate gays too.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 1, 2008 8:20 PM
@Johnny Pencil-neck
I have no contempt for enlisted men.
Yet you spoke of enlistment in a
I'm pointing out your stupidity and ineffectiveness as a father for not showing your son the benefits of education.
In other words, you have no idea what kind of education enlisted men receive when they choose particularly difficult and challenging fields in their service in the armed forces, as my son has, nor do you appreciate how valued they will be in the civilian world after their service. I repeat; piss-poor excuse for an officer. Fuck off, butter bars.
Are you aware that lots of enlisted men are coming back home all screwed up from vaccines?
I am aware that you are a pathological liar with delusions of adequacy, a misogynistic homophobe visibly seething with closeted self-hatred, and a fringe conspiracy nut who is barely able to get past the same handful of long-discredited talking points in any given incoherent screed.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 1, 2008 8:22 PM
@Johnny Butter-Bars
First line should have read "Yet you spoke of enlistment in a contemptuous way." I apologize for the mental vapor-lock you undoubtedly suffered trying to parse that.
Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 8:23 PM
Everyone here is facing you John. Not one of us is afraid. It's quite amusing to watch you thrash around in impotent rage.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 1, 2008 8:25 PM
Wow. Look at the vaccine knuckle draggers go. They should wipe their chins and take a few deep breaths before they burn up the last of their brain cells.
Posted by: Tiffany D | October 1, 2008 8:30 PM
Yay - Amanda Peet on 93%, Jenny McCarthy on 7%.
Total Votes: 9,519
Posted by: Elaine Vigneault | October 1, 2008 8:44 PM
Jenny wins.
When someone tries to tell you how to parent or to gamble with your child's life, they deserve a good smack-down. Jenny is in the right; Amanda needs to stop telling other people how to raise their kids.
Furthermore, Jenny isn't against vaccines. She's against the toxins in vaccines. She just wants to clean them up.
(I say this as someone who caught measles as a baby because other people weren't vaccinated and I was too young to get vaccinated.)
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 8:48 PM
sted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 8:15 PM
I'm sure Katherine is a wonderful woman but I'm married.
I'm curious Johnny boy. What's your thoughts on a woman's place?
That's a difficult question. Eight Belles placed place in the Derby. But, then she broke her ankles and had to be destroyed, it was sad. Maybe you could be more specific as their are probably different places for different women. Julie Gerberding's place should be prison while Julie Krone's place was the Jockey's hall of Fame.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 8:54 PM
I was just curious because you seem to be into choosing to insult people based on their sex, well only women of course, and you like to throw around homophobic slurs.
Seems to me you have some issue you need to address. you know, deep down issues.
Did your mommy not love you?
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 8:54 PM
Patricia,
I see that some of you are presenting your stupid arguments but I was only addressing Kev. I've made him look like a fool so many times, all he can do now is cry for help when he knows he can't debate his points.
Eric,
I was one of the people who educated those enlisted men. This would be a good time for you be quiet so you can read and learn.
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 8:58 PM
Chimp,
I was insulting the whole group of you, regardless of sex. It just seemes that no father would begrudge anyone curing their son so, perhaps I made a bad assumption that you were all queer.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 1, 2008 8:59 PM
@Johnny Butter-Bars
I was one of the people who educated those enlisted men.
The word "was" makes me glad that you are no longer in a position to damage the good and decent young people who serve our country.
This would be a good time for you be quiet so you can read and learn.
Psychotic fucktards like yourself have nothing of value to teach myself or anyone else, Butter-Bars.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 1, 2008 8:59 PM
JB, the officers I knew would disown you. You are a sorry piece of shit and need to apologize to all the brave men and women who serve their country without your attitude.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 1, 2008 9:08 PM
@Nerd of Redhead
Agreed. I know many current and ex-military, both officers and enlisted, from different branches of the service and I guarantee that every one of them would stockade this sniveling little bitch of man if they heard him conduct himself in such a manner. Come to think of it, that's probably why he's no longer there, isn't it...?
Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 9:14 PM
John -I gave you no argument. I simply stated that none of us are afraid of you.
You are a homophobic blowhard. We've seen and heard that so many times it's a bore. You'll have to try much harder to ruffle the petticoats here.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 1, 2008 9:15 PM
John Best, #274, wrote:
Er, you are aware that gay men can - and do - father male children, aren't you?
Then again, from the display of ignorance you've made here so far it wouldn't surprise me that basic physiology is beyond your comprehension.
And, for the record, your misogyny is sickening. I hope you don't have any daughters.
Posted by: SC | October 1, 2008 9:21 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/the_jenny_mccarthy_rally_tomorrow_antivaccine.php
***
Somehow I suspect John Best would have no trouble hiding his from the magic-thieves in Africa.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | October 1, 2008 9:21 PM
Because, silly, it gets the viewers worked up and more of them tune in and the ratings increase, which results in revenue.
Journalism 101: conflict sells. If you don't have some ready-made, stir some up. That's the real reason for the "balance in all things" school of "two sides to every story" journalism: one-sided stories don't sell.
Posted by: notmercury | October 1, 2008 9:23 PM
Correct. Dishonorable Discharge. Officer my ass.
Posted by: HCN | October 1, 2008 9:59 PM
Just out of curiosity I visited the AoA blog and noticed that some of the folks from here got comments posted. Were there many that did not get posted? I have left a few comments there, and only one has been posted.
Oh, by the way Ms. Vignault said "Jenny wins.
When someone tries to tell you how to parent or to gamble with your child's life, they deserve a good smack-down. Jenny is in the right; Amanda needs to stop telling other people how to raise their kids."
Actually, the vote on what science shows is not based on popularity contests. Here are the studies on MMR (which never contained thimerosal):
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf
and then for thimerosal:
um, well all pediatric vaccines are available without thimerosal, so what is the point?
If you have any real scientific evidence that the MMR is worse than measles, mumps or rubella, please present it (oh, goody you survived measles... 1 out of 1000 do not). If you have any real scientific evidence that the DTaP is worse than diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis, please present it.
And my irony meter broke with your comment... Ms. Peet is telling folks that vaccines are safe, while Ms. McCarthy is going around telling parents to give up lattes to pay for thousands upon thousands of dollars for supplements, not to let them have milk or wheat, treatments and all sorts of crap. She just a got a special stripper pole for her son:
http://www.autismvox.com/mccarthys-er-autism-pole/
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 10:11 PM
Patricia,
You're a slow learner, there are no homophobes. There are people who think they should go back in the closet where they belong and keep their perversion to themselves. I suppose if I told you I disapproved of NAMBLA you'd call me a NAMBLAphobe. Or, if I disapprove of liars who promote false information about autism, I might be a liarphobe, right?
Eric,
I was in the military a long time ago. The officers I knew would have joined me in beating you bastards senseless for abusing children, then we'd have thrown the queers out of the military and had a few beers to congratulate ourselves for a job well done. You liberal pukes need to get your heads out of your asses.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 1, 2008 10:14 PM
Translation: I'm a rationalizing homophobe.
Posted by: Katharine | October 1, 2008 10:23 PM
Hey PZ, where's your killfile? This kid-killing, homophobic, right-wing fundamentalist fuckface needs a banhammer.
Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 10:33 PM
John Best - I do not approve of child abuse in any form. Your homophobia is disgraceful. You are correct, I was a slow learner regarding gays and lesbians. Simply because they are so terrorized by christian fanatics where I live that I didn't know any. Now I do. What delightful companions they are! Witty, charming and down right fun to be around. Not once has a gay or lesbian person made an indelicate advance toward me. Grow up.
I fear John doth protest too much. Check the stance John.
Posted by: abeja | October 1, 2008 10:40 PM
Off topic, but I need some info and I thought this might be a good place to ask. I thought I remembered some research that was done not too long ago that showed that particularly homophobic men show strong homosexual preferences. Something like that, anyway. I need to dig up that study--does anyone know where I can find it? :)
Posted by: Kel | October 1, 2008 10:43 PM
This sounds just like Scott from Oregon's brilliant witty remark "there are no poor people in America"Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 10:52 PM
If I found out John Best lived in my home town it wouldn't shock me in the least.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | October 1, 2008 10:54 PM
First Jenny McCarthy, now Johnny Best.
There seems to be a stronger correlation of autism in the children of psychopathic fruitcakes than there is in vaccinations.
Posted by: Patricia | October 1, 2008 11:01 PM
I'm not playing with you any more John. Your behavior is not acceptable amongst decent people.
Hurl him please PZ.
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 11:05 PM
Patricia,
Thanks for telling us you're prejudiced against Christians. Do you wear your KKK hood proudly?
Does my Christianity threaten you? God doesn't like queers either. That doesn't make Him a homophobe.
Posted by: Kel | October 1, 2008 11:09 PM
The all-loving God of Christianity here on a platter. Jesus loves you and forgives you for your sins... unless you are a fudge-packer in which case he's going to enjoy watching all you pillow-biters suffer.If God hates homosexuality, then why did he invent lesbian porn? ;)
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 1, 2008 11:10 PM
"Thanks for telling us you're prejudiced against Christians. Do you wear your KKK hood proudly?"
The KKK is a Christian organization.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 1, 2008 11:12 PM
@Johnny Butter-Bars
I was in the military a long time ago. The officers I knew would have you damn kids git off my lawn and keep the wimmenfolk in the kitchen and Gawd bless the John Birch Society blah blah blah zzzzzz...
Gosh. I'm truly sorry, Butter-Bars; I had no idea that your dick was THAT small. I'll bet you're upset about those uppity Negroes, too.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 1, 2008 11:14 PM
Newsflash, Einstein - the KKK is an exclusively Christian organisation. You're a pig-ignorant, racist, homophobic misogynist turd.
Your son - heck, every son - deserves a better father than you.
Posted by: Orac | October 1, 2008 11:48 PM
Actually, I feel as though I should apologize to PZ for Best. After tolerating his vile antics for nearly three years at my blog, I finally banned him this summer when he started dissing my dog who died back in July. He's also lately been accusing me of being a NAMBLA member based on a "NAMBLA member list" posted around Usenet back around 2000 by Holocaust deniers trying to discredit those of us who took an interest in refuting their lies. He knows the list is bogus and came from neo-Nazis, but he used it anyway.
It takes a lot for me to ban someone, but I think you'll agree that Best long ago passed the threshold. That I put up with him for so long should be testament to my dedication to free, unfettered speech.
Posted by: John Best | October 1, 2008 11:59 PM
Wowbagger,
If you know what KKK stands for, you can figure out which kind of Christianity I subscribe to. Nitwit.
Orac,
What I know about you is that you're a liar. You commit malpractice all day long by lying about mercury, autism and chelation so who knows what else you'll lie about. Why should I believe anything you say? Am I supposed to be bothered by being banned from some nitwit infested blog?
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 2, 2008 12:04 AM
And on that note, we say adieu, John. You won't be at all bothered to learn that you have been banned from another nitwit infested blog.
Posted by: SC | October 2, 2008 12:08 AM
*fireworks, pealing of bells, cheers ring out across Pharynguland*
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 2, 2008 12:09 AM
I'm honestly surprised that Johnny Butter-Bars hasn't yet stridently declared that vaccinations are a conspiracy cooked up by the troika of the Skull and Bones Society, the Illuminati, and the International Jewish Monetary Conspiracy. It wouldn't be any less frothingly demented than anything else he's said thus far...
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 12:14 AM
He's not the sharpest tool in the shed, just an idiot with a fixation on the evils of homosexuality... Just like Ted Haggard.
Wouldn't be surprised if he were a closet homosexual; maybe that's why we wants them back in the closet. He's been sitting in it all alone waiting for them to come back and give him a reach-around.
Posted by: Patricia | October 2, 2008 12:14 AM
Orac - You have the patience of Job to put up with that much troll poop for three years.
Posted by: Patricia | October 2, 2008 12:19 AM
Way to hurl PZ!!!!
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 2, 2008 12:20 AM
Huh. I was kind of curious as to what this meant:
"If you know what KKK stands for, you can figure out which kind of Christianity I subscribe to. "
Probably not important.
Posted by: windy | October 2, 2008 12:20 AM
And on that note, we say adieu, John.
What, I missed the action! But I found a recreation on YouTube.
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 12:20 AM
Love the dungeon inscription
Posted by: Atheist Chaplain | October 2, 2008 12:45 AM
It seems that Jenny McCarthy's book is polling well on Amazon, maybe its time to balance the reviews a bit.
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0525950699/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Posted by: Patricia | October 2, 2008 12:47 AM
Wait a minute - didn't he get that wrong too?
The muzzy brain tries to recall - didn't we decide we have dickwits, titwits and nipwits here? err...that left out the clitwits, that's just not right.
Posted by: Kev | October 2, 2008 1:30 AM
"I'm honestly surprised that Johnny Butter-Bars hasn't yet stridently declared that vaccinations are a conspiracy cooked up by....the Illuminati. It wouldn't be any less frothingly demented than anything else he's said thus far..."
He does believe that. A blog post of his: http://tinyurl.com/d1ckh34d
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 2, 2008 1:43 AM
My, you're stupid. You think the words Ku Klux Klan have meaning relative to a sect of Xinanity? I guess I can extrapolate that you're referring to the particular version of sky-daddy-and-son ooga-booga that the Klan held in low regard: the cracker-worshiping, child-rapist supporting kind.
Good riddance, as they say, to bad rubbish. Try learning something - you may actually be able to be good father to your son.
Posted by: PML | October 2, 2008 3:12 AM
Hi Kev @ 311,
It seems Johnny took his ball and ran home to his own miserable excuse for a blog: here's a more up-to-date posting, being an even more scurrilous rant about PZ and all of the apparent "queers" that post here:
http://tinyurl.com/h0m0ph0be
Regards, Philip (queer and unashamed)
Posted by: Kev | October 2, 2008 7:29 AM
He usually does Philip :) - basically, if you don't agree with him he froths and insults and rants and then loses his energy (he's not a young man) and gets his wife to mop his brow ;)
Posted by: Erwin Alber | October 2, 2008 7:49 AM
People who vaccinate are twits and morons, so Jenny and Amanda are obviously both twits and morons; only, Jenny is (like me) a reformed moron, while Amanda is still suffering under the illusion that vaccines prevent diseases.
Watch my presentation "Vaccination: Miracle or Mayhem?" on youtube videos. Part 1 is about the disgusting ingredients in vaccines, part 2 about vaccine-injured children. There will be 10 parts in the series when it is complete.
Posted by: Katharine | October 2, 2008 8:01 AM
Oh fuck, we have another troll again?
Fuck off, Erwin, we've had our fill of anti-vaxer idiots who don't know anything about vaccines and why they work.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 2, 2008 8:07 AM
Erwin, any chance you appropriately reference refereed medical journals anywhere in your videos? If you don't, your videos are pure trash, the ravings of a TrueBeliever(TM).
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 8:11 AM
It would be interesting if any of the anti-vaccination people were actually real medical scientists and preferably medical statisticians. If they brought an impartial look at it through the use of corroborating data instead of hearsay and scaremongering then there might be a case.
As with everything: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 8:19 AM
10 parts of fail.
There is no evidence based science that supports the vaccination autism link.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 2, 2008 8:55 AM
@Kev
He does believe that.
Oh, fuck; sometimes real life IS the parody. And AIDS is artificial and deliberate??!?!?!??!?!?!?!? You know, I once considered that idea. Twenty years ago. For about ten minutes. Then evidence knocked and said "The Fifties called; they want their stupid paranoia back." Holy shit, however deranged we think these asylum-dwellers are, they are infinitely worse...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 9:01 AM
Eric I posted this link earlier, but I figure it's worth posting again.
It's John Best's greatest hits.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 2, 2008 9:24 AM
It's John Best's greatest hits.
?
!
?!?!?!?!!?!??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???
Holy shitburgers. That is weapons-grade fucknuttery right there. How does this twit's head not spontaneously combust????!?!?!
Posted by: Natalie | October 2, 2008 9:54 AM
Elaine @ 270
You appear to be the post and run type, so I'm not holding my breath for an answer, but:
1. What ingredients does McCarthy want removed from vaccines?
2. How does she know these ingredients are toxic at the doses they are used?
3. What does she propose to replace the "toxins" with, as every ingredient in a vaccines serves a specific purpose?
4. How will the replacement ingredients affect the vaccine's efficacy and/or safety?
Erwin @ 315
Aside from the fact that I don't personally find any vaccine ingredients disgusting, the fact that something is disgusting doesn't mean it's not medically sound. Using maggots to clean wounds sounds incredibly disgusting to me. But that treatment is supported by actual medical evidence, so the fact that it's gross isn't really relevant.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 10:49 AM
"Toxins" (yes scare quotes) she 100% doesn't understand. They are either not in the vaccines or in safe doses.
The dose makes the poison.
Posted by: lurker | October 2, 2008 12:53 PM
These people lauding Amanda Peet are delirious. They should just stop drooling over her here and whack off somewhere else as they don't seem to care about the actual issue at hand. Look, attacking vaccines alone is silly. Vaccines aren't the point and I doubt there is still much that is toxic in them. Vaccines were dangerous when they had thimerosal in them, and it's not out of all the vaccines anyway. That mercury should have never been taken out of the issue when it was the real culprit. Those who knew about the dangers of thimerosal should never have looked for other things about the vaccines to blame when they became discouraged by the falsifiers.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 2, 2008 12:59 PM
Lurker, I can't make out your point. Do you have one?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 1:04 PM
Show your work.
Posted by: Dave | October 2, 2008 1:13 PM
At this point, I'm wondering if Best's kid being no longer autistic (assuming that's true -- Best isn't exactly the most reliable witness) is a good thing. Now he can grow up to be a violent homophobic psychopath like his old man.
Well, maybe I'm being too pessimistic. Unlike autism, being a homophobe (or violent) may not be genetic.
Posted by: Joseph | October 2, 2008 1:23 PM
That's a myth. There's actually no evidence that the Amish have a lower incidence of autism. I wouldn't be surprised if it's higher actually. The prevalence of developmental disability seems to be higher in some Amish communities.
"The Amish are 12 percent of the local population, but their children represent close to half of the area's most severe cases of mental and physical retardation."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E7DF153FF933A15755C0A9649C8B63
I've written about the prevalence of low functioning autism among the Amish here.
Posted by: lurker | October 2, 2008 3:33 PM
"I can't make out your point. Do you have one?" Stop acting like a creep that is clueless. Those who put thimerosal in vaccines are the ones that are guilty and caused harm. This other vaccine scandal is a distraction. Period.
"Show your work." It's not my work. Find out about the evidence of dangers and toxicity of thimerosal yourself that have been covered years ago.
Posted by: kev | October 2, 2008 3:34 PM
Eric - this is why John can't be reasoned with. I've been trying for 3 or 4 years and got nothing but pointless insults made to my autistic daughter as a result. He thinks people don't argue with him because we're all ascared. In reality its because we're really, really bored.
Dave - John's son (Sam) is most definitely just as autistic as he was when John started using him as a guinea pig. John (like Jenny McAirhead) claims his child is better, then worse, then better, then almost cured depending on what audience he's writing for. The truth is the poor lad is just an autistic child trying to make his way - can you imagine living under the pressure of being John's son? No wonder he's constantly head-butting.
Posted by: Kev | October 2, 2008 3:36 PM
lurker - sorry but your comments make next to no sense at all. I suggest calming down a little bit and trying again.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 3:38 PM
Um no. You are making that assertions. Show me the links that prove Thimerosal caused some kids to get autism.
Go ahead. You can link it right here in the comments. If you can't you are either lying, don't have a link or are just regurgitating what someone told you.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 2, 2008 4:11 PM
There is no causal evidence. Period. Parents just want someone to blame for their child's autism. They can't accept that it's probably inherited genetics or a mutation that happens in the first 8 weeks from conception.
You get way more mercury from eating fish than you do from a vaccine. Are they going to blame fish sticks and tuna salad too?
Posted by: Best John | October 2, 2008 4:15 PM
Damn straight! Fish sticks scrambled my kid's brain! Mrs. Paul is a homo!
Posted by: lurker | October 2, 2008 5:37 PM
Kev, yes the comments do make sense. You don't make sense you sissy! I don't need to calm down so I can be a sedated emotionless wimp like you.
"Um no. You are making that assertions. Show me the links that prove Thimerosal caused some kids to get autism." Um, yes. Not everything said here is backed up by links. Anyone here should have a rudimentary knowledge of the controversy and should have heard something about it. Besides, you won't believe anything I present anyway.
Geier, D. A., and Geier, M. R. 2007. A prospective study of mercury toxicity biomarkers in autistic spectrum disorders. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, A 70:1723-1730.
Austin, D., Shandley, K. (2008). An Investigation of Porphyrinuria in Australian Children with Autism. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 71(20), 1349-1351.
Nataf, R., Skorupka, C., Amet, L., Lam, A., Springbett, A., and Lathe, R. 2006. Porphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder: Implications for environmental toxicity. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 214:99-108.
"You get way more mercury from eating fish than you do from a vaccine." Why don't you prove that? And why not prosecute the people who release mercury into the environment which ends up as methylmercury in fish?
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 5:46 PM
Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine (2004)Basically you anti-vaccinaters are putting your own children and other children at risk by spawning conduits that could facilitate a measles outbreak. The vaccines are there for a reason, they prevent debilitating and deadly contagious diseases. To ignore that because hearsay tells you otherwise is not only dangerous to your own children, but it puts the lives of other children at risk.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 5:52 PM
being called a Big Pharma shill in 3..2...1...
I'll do some research on those articles and get back at ya.
Geier should be good.
Posted by: Kev | October 2, 2008 6:50 PM
"Kev, yes the comments do make sense. You don't make sense you sissy!"
Awwww....you're copying what i say! How cute. I think from now on, I'll just call you mini-me.
"I don't need to calm down so I can be a sedated emotionless wimp like you."
No, but you do if you want anyone to take you even remotely seriously Mini Me.
Posted by: lurker | October 2, 2008 9:56 PM
Kev, I think it's funny how lunatics like to call other people crazy and lacking in credibility.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 2, 2008 10:02 PM
Lurker, can you show me any large scale statistical study proving that vaccines are linked to autism? Or this the reverse true--all large scale studies prove no cause/effect? Unless you have the proper data you are wrong.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 1:12 AM
I heard that some of the early CDC studies, which weren't publicized, found strong links. The subsequent ones by the CDC contained many faulty and devious adjustments which decreased the relative risks shown for autism.
"Unless you have the proper data you are wrong." No. Lack of evidence of something doesn't mean something isn't true.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 3, 2008 1:18 AM
Lack of evidence of something doesn't mean something isn't true.
it does allow you to make up any BS you wish, though, fool.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 3, 2008 1:22 AM
Why don't you prove that?
would labels warning of high mercury levels near every can of tuna in your supermarket count as evidence for you, I wonder?
I wonder if a child who dies of a preventable infectious disease, laid at your feet, would count as evidence of what happens when one DOESN'T inoculate their kids?
OTOH, who cares, you're a moron.
Posted by: Kel | October 3, 2008 1:23 AM
Of course, but it doesn't make speculation any more valid. Presently there's no evidence to suggest a link between autism and vaccination. There is however, plenty of evidence that shows why vaccination is good. To be opposed to vaccination without any evidence to do so is downright dangerous, it puts the lives of children at risk and it gives a breeding ground for dangerous diseases.Posted by: Kev | October 3, 2008 2:04 AM
"Kev, I think it's funny how lunatics like to call other people crazy and lacking in credibility."
I don't think I called you crazy did I Mini Me?
See? Babbling incoherently and making stuff up doesn't make you crazy - just a worthless debate opponent Mini Me.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 3:24 AM
Ichthyic and Kel, I'm not talking about not vaccinating. As long as the thimerosal has been removed from the vaccines, there isn't a reason to not use them. I heard there still is thimerosal in flu vaccines and I heard that not all countries are using vaccines that are without thimerosal. Those who previously were harmed by thimerosal are still around, so there isn't a reason to stop talking about it.
Vaccines themselves weren't the problem. This anti-vaccination hysteria is a problem and a distraction. The people who tried to expose the mercury connection should have been persistent against the liars, instead of resorting to blaming the vaccines themselves. There has been a lot of evidence of a link between thimerosal containing vaccines and autism among other things, and it hasn't been cogently refuted. The corporate perpetrators still shouldn't get away with it.
Kev, you don't like debating because you can't make a reasonable argument for what you contend. You're full of crap and you're a certified lunatic who won't deal with his own issues, so you spew nonsense at others. There used to be a time when the assertions of the nutcases were met with suspicion in favor of sane people.
Posted by: Kel | October 3, 2008 4:22 AM
There's absolutely no evidence that thimerosal causes autism though.
the World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines and no reason on safety grounds to change to more-expensive single-dose administration.
Besides, it's been removed from most vaccinations yet the autism rate hasn't gone down.
In the U.S., the European Union, and a few other affluent countries, thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in routine childhood vaccination schedules.
Your argument speaks of a non-existent danger. That's the problem, it's arguing from hearsay and conjecture. And even if it were true, it's downright negligent to remove any medicine based on a rumour. Real evidence is needed, we don't even know what causes autism. So blaming it on a preservative with no evidential link is downright fallacious. But scaremongering propagates much faster than empiricism...
Posted by: Kel | October 3, 2008 4:27 AM
I'm trying really hard to find ANY reputable organisation that thinks that. They all keep saying it's safePosted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 9:15 AM
"There's absolutely no evidence that thimerosal causes autism though" Lie. Many people won't be duped into believing there is no evidence.
"the World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines and no reason on safety grounds to change to more-expensive single-dose administration" What do they care? Who have they ever helped? I don't trust the big organizations. Corporate interests, who want to save money at any cost, could suffer if the truth about thimerosal was accepted, and they have the power and money to protect themselves and the government has been happy to help them.
"Besides, it's been removed from most vaccinations yet the autism rate hasn't gone down." How do you know? There is no evidence that the autism rate has stayed the same.
"Your argument speaks of a non-existent danger. That's the problem, it's arguing from hearsay and conjecture. And even if it were true, it's downright negligent to remove any medicine based on a rumour. Real evidence is needed, we don't even know what causes autism. So blaming it on a preservative with no evidential link is downright fallacious. But scaremongering propagates much faster than empiricism..." The existence of the danger doesn't depend on whether you acknowledge it or not. The poisoning shoudn't be allowed to go on because someone declares there isn't any "evidence" even as evidence is piling up. Putting 3 periods after a sentence means someone is full of arrogant crap. Thimerosal has no therapeutic value, so ridding it from whatever vaccines it still is in isn't taking away medicine. A better way to preserve vaccines should be used. I think the scaremongering of implying that poisoning with horrific consequences must be accepted to maintain safety is a shining example of tyrranical intentions. A lot is coming into knowledge about autism causes, so don't act like nobody has a clue.
Posted by: Kel | October 3, 2008 9:24 AM
That was an inane piece of rubbish; borderline conspiracy theory at the start then complaining that we are ignoring non-existent evidence at the end. Not to mention you ignored the part about the preservative not being used anymore. But that would hurt your argument, especially as autism rates aren't dissipating at it's removal.
But of course that won't convince you. The preservative has been removed yet you are still making a big deal about it. Why can't you just say "we don't know what causes autism and it should be something that is looked into" instead of coming to an unsupported conclusion with a degree of certainty that borders on fanaticism?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 9:26 AM
Lurker, you are at blog about science. In science you are wrong until you prove yourself right. We may take the word of somebody who has a good track record, but that precludes you. Can you show any large scale evidence that 1) thimerosal is present at any significant levels in present childhood vaccines, and 2) any large scale study showing cause and affect of thimerosal and autism? If you can't, you are just wrong.
I would suggest looking at Califonia data of reported autism for the last 10 years and see if you can tell me which year thimerosal was banned.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 11:10 AM
Kel, so what I sound like a conspiracy theorist? Things happen, and I refuse to believe everything the government tells me. I didn't ignore that it wasn't used anymore. It should be removed from all vaccines everywhere so it doesn't become injected into infants anymore. People in countries where it has been taken out of vaccines don't have to worry about it, except for the flu vaccine. There is no reliable evidence that autism rates stayed the same or went up. What is this obsession with California data for prevalence? Why is this cherry picking going on? And California DDS data are worthless cause I think it could be too erratic. There should be a system to report total numbers of cases of autism in specific age ranges, within a country over time.
"In science you are wrong until you prove yourself right." Then how can you prove yourself right besides making snooty comments and judgments?
"We may take the word of somebody who has a good track record, but that precludes you." You're not a paragon of scientific reasoning, but a lapdog of vested interests that manifest themselves in snotty pretentious attitudes. Screw the "good track record" of whoever you believe.
"thimerosal is present at any significant levels in present childhood vaccines" Irrelevant question. Thimerosal has been removed from most vaccines except for the flu vaccine. I'm talking about what happened years ago that the falsifiers want people to ignore.
"any large scale study showing cause and affect of thimerosal and autism?" Check out the earliest CDC studies that were put aside. Particularly the analyses done in Nov. and Dec. of 1999, in which they actually used a control group that had no injections containing thimerosal.
"If you can't, you are just wrong." Once again this fallacy that a lack of evidence means someone is wrong. It would mean I could be wrong, but it doesn't prove I'm wrong. Besides, the evidence is out there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 11:20 AM
Lurker, you did not address the California data. California banned thimerosal prior to the FDA doing so. Please use the reported autism data to show which year this happened. If thimerosal was a problem, there should be a dip after the ban went into effect. Please show the data.
Science-you're trying to do it wrong. You are wrong until you prove yourself right. Period.
Posted by: Joseph | October 3, 2008 11:35 AM
@lurker: You haven't heard that Geier & Geier are completely discredited? Just like Wakefield.
Even if you don't care about that, it's interesting to look at their work. They never control for any confounding. They always take advantage of correlations that are evidently not causative. I'd be surprised if they don't know what they are doing. Mark Geier is a professional expert witness in vaccine injury cases.
As to the association between porphiria and autism, even if it were confirmed (it isn't - there are some methodological questions to be resolved), does that imply heavy metals are associated with autism? No. It only tells us porphiria is associated with autism.
Is that the evidence you have?
Posted by: Joseph | October 3, 2008 11:43 AM
Here you'll find a graph of the 3-5 autism caseload in California DDS from Q2 2002 to Q1 2007. The data is so erratic that, get this, the R^2 of a linear fit of the data is 0.9954.
Can you spot removal of thimerosal there? Maybe they are making up autistic kids in California these days.
They actually have thousands of autistic kids in California. It's a pretty good data set in this sense. Of course, these are only autistic kids who have been identified and registered with CDDS, not all autistic kids from California.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 11:51 AM
"California banned thimerosal prior to the FDA doing so." How does that make the data better? I'm not the only one who thinks the DDS data are unreilable. How can a bureaucratic entity be expected to have a proportional correspondence between actual prevalence rates and numbers of cases in their system, when so many changes in policy can take place over the years? Not to mention, diagnostic criteria changes.
I haven't looked at the California data. To see a dip after a ban went into effect, I think the dip should be expected specifically after the stocks of thimerosal vaccines actually ceased to be used.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 3, 2008 11:54 AM
Yet you trust the numbers from the ultimately biased groups that make these claims.
Interesting.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 11:55 AM
Lurker, so you are saying you don't believe the Califonia data beceause it doesn't back up your assertions? That is what it sounds like to me. If this is true, it makes anything you say liable for the highest level of skepticism.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 12:25 PM
Joseph, I've heard a lot of the smear material about the Geiers, and I don't believe the conclusions of it. Those studies didn't show an association of porphyria and autism. Why did the studies show that autistics had elevated levels of specific porphyrins which were markers of heavy metal exposure? And how come in one of those studies after they administered chelating agents, the levels of those markers went down?
How does there being thousands of autistics in California make their data better? What is making CDDS' caseload rates go up consistently? How can those rates be reflective of actual prevalence? Think of all the factors affecting their numbers. What about changes in funding available for the CDDS to use for their caseloads, as well as policy for how their money is allocated for specfic conditions, and choices of who will get to receive services? Who knows how much changes in policy over time happen with changes in the bureaucratic officials and goals of the CDDS? What about the public who seeks out those services in possibly ever increasing numbers because of the high publicity about autism? Who knows how much overdiagnosis there could be in California.
A couple of people on your side don't think DDS data are reliable for tracking prevalence either. I don't think you should use data only when it suits your purposes.
Posted by: Joseph | October 3, 2008 12:33 PM
I posted the graph. Based on a CDC survey of vaccine providers across the US, availability of TCVs dropped from 56% in Sep, 2001 to 1.9% in Feb, 2002 (it was quick). So when should we see a dip in the 3-5 caseload?
While it is true that the DDS count is not an exact count of all autistics in California, it is clearly at least an approximate lower bound. Even considering this, you should still see a dip, obviously. If, let's say, recognition of autism in a given year is 50%, and growing an extra 5% per year, and there's a drop in the actual 3-5 prevalence of 50% in, say, 3 years, what should we see? Unless levels of recognition shoot up at precisely the same time, we should see a dip to about 32% of actual prevalence, or a drop of 40% in caseload.
In other words, if there is anything to the thimerosal hypothesis, the trend should've at least flinched a little. It didn't.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 12:39 PM
Redhead, no. I don't believe the CDDS data because there are too many factors affecting the data to find an answer as to the question of true prevalence changes. I heard that some of the other people who believe in thimerosal causation cited the CDDS data at times to try to show a decreasing rate of autism after thimerosal removal, but I disagreed with that tactic, because those numbers aren't reliable and won't hold up. There should be straightforward ways of tracking prevalence.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 12:45 PM
Well Lurker, you have just admitted you are a liar, bullshiter, and fraud. Nothing you say will be held as any truth and you will have to back up everything you say with hard data from this point forward. Opinion is worth the electrons it is writen with. You are all opinion, no hard data. Time to STFU and take your paranoia elsewhere.
Posted by: Joseph | October 3, 2008 1:02 PM
The fact is that they plagiarized an early draft of a paper. Anyone can go and confirm this. They also created an IRB (an ethics review board of research on humans) that consisted of themselves and their partners.
But like I said, it's interesting to look at examples of their work as well. See EpiWonk's recent deconstruction of one of their papers.
As to the studies on porphyrins, there are several issues. One possible confound (brought up by NotMercury) is that autistics have lower levels of creatinine. So urine measures that are controlled based on ratio to creatinine could be easily skewed.
Another issue is that autistics could have slightly elevated levels of heavy metals that are nevertheless not causally associated with autism. Dietary differences are noted usually. Other confounds seldom considered are (1) Pica, and (2) the fact that autistics are recognized more often in more densely populated areas (basically, if you compare random groups of autistics vs. non-autistics, the autistics will more often live in cities).
Whether the porphyrins that are found to be elevated are specific markers for mercury is not something I can really comment on, but I believe that's an unconfirmed claim by one researcher.
NotMercury is an expert on these types of things. He wrote about it here.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 1:27 PM
"While it is true that the DDS count is not an exact count of all autistics in California, it is clearly at least an approximate lower bound. Even considering this, you should still see a dip, obviously. If, let's say, recognition of autism in a given year is 50%, and growing an extra 5% per year, and there's a drop in the actual 3-5 prevalence of 50% in, say, 3 years, what should we see? Unless levels of recognition shoot up at precisely the same time, we should see a dip to about 32% of actual prevalence, or a drop of 40% in caseload." That sounds reasonable, but I think there are other factors that would affect the numbers. Recognition of autism would be among them, and those type of considerations may be more complex. I doubt the CDDS is run the same way over time and wonder how policy changes could affect who gets access to their system. I found some analysis here.
http://citizencain.blogspot.com/2005/08/autism-epidemiology.html
If the thimerosal hypothesis is contradicted by the CDDS data, how can the alternate hypothesis of autism being purely genetic be considered in light of the same data? If it's only genetic, and with there being a very low chance of change in genetic prevalence over time, why would the CDDS numbers show a steady large increase if the prevalence of autism is the same over time?
The CDDS data wouldn't be consistent with either hypothesis because of other considerations, such as awareness or increased availability of services, or whatever. But the existence of those factors aren't mutually exclusive with the possible realities of either hypothesis, so how can that data rule out or show anything?
Posted by: Joseph | October 3, 2008 1:28 PM
I was one of the first to critique that. I didn't say, "CDDS data is useless" although others did say something close to that. It's clearly not useless. There's a reason why they produce it. It probably takes a lot of work to produce. There's a wealth of information there.
The problem is that some people pay no attention to the caveats of the data, and don't know how to interpret it or analyze it.
What they did is take the caseload one quarter and subtracted it from the caseload the next quarter. They called this "new cases" and tried to see if "new cases" (intended as an indication of incidence) were dropping. The problem is that this calculation doesn't give you "new cases" at all, as CDDS itself warns in their caveat documentation. (The Geiers have a paper that makes this exact mistake, BTW).
To illustrate, imagine I wanted to see how many people were born in the US between 2007 and 2008. To do this, I subtract the population in 2007 from the population in 2008, and I call it "number of births." You see the mistake? What I actually calculated is number of births minus number of deaths.
In the long run, as the population levels off, the "new cases" in CDDS should drop. This is to be expected. What is happening in CDDS with "new cases" at the moment, though, is that it fluctuates. It's not on a downward trend yet, but it should get there eventually.
Anyway, that's why it was proposed that the 3-5 caseload is what should be looked at instead. Kirby's infamous prophecy comes from this.
"If the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 3, 2008 1:35 PM
Who says the only alternative is that it is purely a genetic disorder?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 1:43 PM
Any scientist looking at the California data would see no effect on autism rates due to removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines. QED. Same is true of all large scale studies world wide.
You have problems with what the data says, so you are trying to weasel out in some fashion. That doesn't say much for your intellectual integrity. If you don't like the way the studies have been run, why don't you run your own and publish it in an approriate refereed journal? That is what any scientis would do. Oh, right, the data isn't there to support your presumptions.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 1:53 PM
Redhead, why won't you acknowledge anything I said? I have been addressing your questions numerous times and you haven't really followed up on it. You haven't been able to come up with a reasonable rebuttal of what I say and your smears are ridiculous so you go into attacks on character. I just admitted I don't find validity in all the data cited by my side, like the CDDS thing. You're the one that would just take the word of someone who you deem to have a nice track record. Sounds like cronyism to me. I have to back up everything I say with hard data? But your fellow cover up artists don't? That says a lot about your ethics. I think everyone should back up what they say. You're nothing but an ass kissing, establishment bolstering, pharma shill with a snooty way of dismissing things you don't want to recognize! Paranoia? For what? All I'm doing is trying to see things for the way they are. I guess I should just believe that the government and vested interests would never lie to me so I can be a nice little sheep!
Posted by: Joseph | October 3, 2008 1:54 PM
There are some indications that California policy changes have an effect, albeit minor and not long lasting, in autism caseload. It's not an effect that could offset thimerosal removal, if indeed thimerosal is a major cause of autism. It's something that would have to occur at precisely the right time, too. You saw the graph. It would take a lot to keep that line straight.
It reminds me of David Kirby's bizarre excuses: thimerosal removal was offset by crematoria, forest fires and mercury plumes from China (as if these things didn't exist prior to the removal of thimerosal).
The hypothesis that autism is purely genetic would simply say that actual prevalence is (roughly) stable, while prevalence of diagnoses is increasing. This is consistent with the data. The thimerosal hypothesis says actual prevalence had increased and then decreased, a key part of the hypothesis being that we could tell actual prevalence was increasing by looking at data sets like CDDS. This is now inconsistent with the data.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 3, 2008 1:56 PM
Ahh yes. The Pharma shill gambit.
I know it was coming sooner or later.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 3, 2008 2:00 PM
knew even
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 2:07 PM
Lurker, you keep putting up strawmen agruments that I see through. As any practicing scientist would see through. If there is a thimerosal/autism link, you need to show some positive unrefuted proof for it (your cited paper was refuted by a citation from Joeseph). All large studies to date prove no link. At the moment you are making a lot of noise with little substance.
You also ignored or attempted to handwave away the California data that is very, very conclusive, but doesn't say what you want to hear. So you have very selective hearing.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 2:17 PM
What effects could those confounders you mentioned have on this? If the ratios were higher because of a lower level of creatinine rather than from heavy metals, why did the ratios go down after administration of chelating agents? I think that finding really puts down a lot of doubt about the heavy metal association.
"Another issue is that autistics could have slightly elevated levels of heavy metals that are nevertheless not causally associated with autism" That would be an immense coincidence. I wonder who could be convinced of that. And the Geiers aren't the only ones who looked into the porphyrin thing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 2:28 PM
Back to your perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps. Maybe. Throwing suspicion on things isn't science. Determining the facts with good methodology is. The facts say there is no thimerosal/autism link. You just can't seem to deal with that. So you try to change the subject a bit.
You are the one making the claims, so the burden of proof is always on you in science. Show me data from refereed journals confirming your perhaps and maybes. If you cannot supply the proof in science, you need to step away from the claim until you can do so. Time for you to step away and you do the work required for confirming your hunches and publish it in refereed journals.
Posted by: Joseph | October 3, 2008 2:57 PM
What is the specific paper about chelation of porphyrins again? I haven't had the chance to look into it yet.
Unless you're referring to the Geier & Geier paper. I automatically consider any paper by Geier & Geier suspect. It's not that I automatically consider all anti-vax papers suspect. They are a special case.
It's not a coincidence. It's a documented fact. I'm aware of research (not yet published I think) that shows levels of mercury are statistically the same between autistics and non-autistics once you control for seafood consumption. For some reason, autistic kids are given more seafood. Pica is well know to occur in children with developmental disabilities. The association with urbanicity is also well known.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 3:06 PM
Joseph, I wouldn't doubt that other environmental sources of mercury would complicate studies of prevalence, but I think that such exposures likely would have to change over time to explain unexpected changes in prevalence.
"The hypothesis that autism is purely genetic would simply say that actual prevalence is (roughly) stable, while prevalence of diagnoses is increasing" Since diagnoses are increasing, why couldn't that trend coexist with the reality of thimerosal causation, where those diagnostic increases were due to something other than higher prevalence during the recent years? I think that the prevalence went up way back when thimerosal was in vaccines and the diagnoses went up with it, and the prevalence likely went down after its removal, but the diagnoses continued to go up for some other reason.
Redhead, what is with this strawmen crap? I hear that crap from just about every one of you mercury lovers. Who up in command is instructing you to use arguments with that word? Who funds all of those large studies that "disproved" the link? Why can't those studies be refuted? What unrefuted proof of a link? Check out the November and December analyses of the VSD study, the analyses done before the study was changed to dilute the link that was found. There is lots of evidence making the link seem likely.
I don't agree completely with Joseph's refutation. He nearly admitted there may be slightly elevated levels of heavy metals in autistics. What is the conclusion about the California data? The same data repudiated by two thimerosal link deniers. Here's one of them:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/citizencain/112372930229902214/#14693 The same data once used by the Geiers.
It seems like you dismiss data when you don't like the conclusion and use the same data when its presented to show what you want. I don't run any studies because I'm not a scientist. Why not look for real prevalence studies to find the changes in prevalence over time? I doubt it could take more effort than analyzing the DDS messes. What do you fear will be revealed?
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 3:34 PM
Redhead, the facts do not disprove a link. Harm has not been disproven. You wouldn't recognize any credibility if I talked in terms of certainty. While there still is a doubt, caution should still be exercised against using thimerosal at all. There is too much at stake to forgo action because of lack of scientific certainty. Scientific certainty isn't always easy to come by.
Joseph, I don't remember which one was about chelation and porphyrins. It was one of the two earlier ones. I've heard there is evidence of decreased ability to detoxify mercury in autistics due to genetic susceptibilities.
Posted by: Joseph | October 3, 2008 4:02 PM
Couple points: (1) You're trying to have your cake and eat it too; (2) That's not really possible. You see, there's a pace to the increase in recognition. It would be unbelievable if you remove a major cause of autism, and the trend in diagnoses doesn't change at all. I think I already explained this.
That's not how it works. There are correct ways to interpret data, and there are incorrect ways to interpret data. I for one have never dismissed the raw data.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 4:05 PM
Joseph, both the Geier and Nataf et. al. studies tested chelation on porphyrins.
This study shows there isn't a lower level of urinary creatinine in autistics, and even corrects for age and gender.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120124578/abstract
Posted by: SSB | October 3, 2008 4:43 PM
McCarthy use to say her son was autistic because he was an Indigo Child -- a more highly evolved human who was at the vanguard of our evolution toward a more telepathic, sensitive society. Okely Dokely, crazy person.
I support Peet's opinions and her right to express those opinions with threat of retribution by the fringe group who follow McCarthy and her cult of personality.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 4:57 PM
"It would be unbelievable if you remove a major cause of autism, and the trend in diagnoses doesn't change at all." That sounds reasonable, but I'm not settled on what the cause of the recent increases in diagnoses leading to the continuing of the ever steady increase in numbers is from. I'm not sure why there was a steady upward trend in the years before the thimerosal was removed. I suspect there is recent overdiagnosis. And the increases from quarter to quarter are influenced by other factors.
I saw some explanations about complications with CDDS from two sources that don't believe in a thimerosal link.
http://www.theautismwiki.com/Datasources/CDDS
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=501
Posted by: MartinM | October 3, 2008 5:08 PM
It's called education, you blithering imbecile. People who are intelligent enough to recognise fallacious forms of argument and informed enough to identify them by name will actually tend to do so.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 5:32 PM
Lurker, you aren't getting it. Science is positive field. You make a hypothesis, and then try to prove it. You can't prove a negative (disprove something). So if you are searching for a cause/effect relationship for diseases, a scientist usually picks up on a possible cause through epidemiological studies, then you need to go to the lab and demonstrate cause/effect typically using animal studies. There is no relationship shown between thimerosal and autism. Period. Your feeble attempts to try to show one is laughable. If thimerosal fails, you pull out other crap. At this point, the burden of proof is upon you to show the harm from the agents you mention, not science to show the non-harm (which has already been done in clinical studies).Posted by: Joseph | October 3, 2008 5:34 PM
Not to make a fine point of it, but I've been critical of statements to the effect that CDDS cannot be used for epidemiology. It's a mistake to put it that way. (One of the blogs you cited, LB/RB, is a group blog where I can post). In fact, Schechter & Grether (2008) is clearly epidemiology and it uses California DDS data. Many epidemiological studies use data sets that are either equivalent to California DDS or even of poorer quality.
Again, the problem is not the raw data. The problem is the meaning people assign to the raw data, which is often mistaken. A typical example is that people cannot tell the difference between autistic children in general, and autistic children who happen to be diagnosed and registered with CDDS.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 5:39 PM
Education! Wow Martin. I bet it's like reeducation camps, so others can be indoctrinated to think and act like they are told to. I'm sick of you elitist homos who stick up their noses at what they don't want to acknowledge and talk with snotty obnoxious voices, and refuse to admit the phoniness of their own flawed arguments. I'm sick of all you smart people living it up while I have to endure being consumed by shit everyday, while you claim to represent all of the facts of reality. What forms of argument are acceptable to you?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 3, 2008 5:44 PM
Hate to quibble, since your larger point is right on, but philosophers of science (esp. of the Popperian variety) would disagree. The usual formulaiton is something like: no hypothesis can be proven correct, but many hypotheses--the good ones--can indeed be disproven (falsified). Disproving a positive statement is not the same as proving a negative statement, as you seem to imply.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 5:53 PM
Lurker, you seem to want science to do something for you, but your aren't learning enough about how science works to know what you can reasonably expect. I suspect you want science to prove that something in vaccines cause autism. Never mind that science shows otherwise. There is no vaccine/autism link, therefore no one component in vaccines can be the culprit.
Autism, which is really several disorders linked under one diagnosis, is either genetic or developmental in its origins. The timing of the diagnosis frequently happens after the vaccinations are given, but that is due to how children develop and become mature enough for a diagnosis to occur. It cause people to believe vaccines are the cause when they aren't.
And you keep forgetting that mercury has been removed from childhood vaccines.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 6:05 PM
Redhead, I think studies have proven a link. I don't care what the falsifying studies say. For the upteenth time, the early CDC VSD study analyses showed a link. Look at this animal study:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=35740&mesg_id=36267
Thimerosal is not safe. Ethylmercury that comes from it isn't safe. There is evidence of lack of dexotification ability in autistics.
Joseph, then I would take serious issue with such epidemiological studies. I still think CDDS is inconclusive about some things. I wish someone would procure better data sets for such studies.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 6:13 PM
Lurker, that study has been refuted. Thimerosal is no long in vaccines. There is no cause and effect proven.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 6:31 PM
"I suspect you want science to prove that something in vaccines cause autism" I want the truth to be proven. Those who suspected vaccines knew what was in them that was suspect. Mercury is one of the most toxic elements out there. How could it be anything else in vaccines besides mercury? How is it safe to inject small amounts of mercury into babies who have undeveloped brains? Not to mention, not every child may have the ability to detoxify those amounts of mercury.
"Never mind that science shows otherwise. There is no vaccine/autism link, therefore no one component in vaccines can be the culprit." Not true.
"Autism, which is really several disorders linked under one diagnosis, is either genetic or developmental in its origins" Genetic or developmental? How are they mutually exclusive?
"The timing of the diagnosis frequently happens after the vaccinations are given" I've heard that lying explanation years ago.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 3, 2008 6:41 PM
Wow lurker. Just give up. Go somewhere else. We actually understand how science and data works. Your "I don't accept those findings because it falsifies what I WANT TO BELIEVE" is stupid. We get those types of arguments from creationists claiming there was a global flood or that the earth is less then 100,000 years old.
Posted by: lurker | October 3, 2008 6:44 PM
Redhead, I don't believe every refutation. Don't remind me that thimerosal is out of vaccines. I'm talking about what happened years ago when it was in vaccines, and all you do is derail the conversation and pretend your claims are irrefutable.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 6:44 PM
Lurker, I still don't quite understand what you want.
Mercury has been remove from childhood vaccines with no decrease in reported autism. This equals no mercury/autism link. Most mercury people absorb comes from living near a coal fired electrical generation plant. It is also ubiquitous in soil. You are obsessed with mercury. It isn't the cause.
A large contingent of reseachers are looking for the cause.
As for the timing, that is the truth whether you like it or not.
You, sir are a True BelieverTM in mercury theory of autism. The facts won't change your mind.