Of the two, The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, I tend to favor The Daily Show because there are times when I find Stephen Colbert's schtick tiresome. True, Colbert can at times rise to the level of being brilliant, but there are other times when he gets on my nerves. In contrast, Jon Stewart tends to be more consistently funny.
However, tonight, there'll be a guest on who'll very likely get me to tune in to The Colbert Report on the night the show airs, rather than my usual practice of watching its rerun the next day. That's because on Monday, January 31 (i.e., today), Stephen Colbert's guest will be the man the anti-vaccine movement in general and the loons at the propaganda site for the anti-vaccine movement in particular (Age of Autism) loves to hate, the Dark Lord of Vaccination himself, Dr. Paul Offit.
Here's hoping the two bring the weapon of humor into play against pseudoscience and fear.
- Log in to post comments
The events page on FB is already full of foaming nutters repeating the usual outright lies and making 'Proffit' jokes. Some RI needed.
Is it true that Paul Offit has demonstrated, through his writings, that all vaccines, and all vaccine ingredients, no matter how many are administered, or at what age, including vaccines given to pregnant women have never caused, or triggered, neurological damage or disorders of any kind in any children, youth or adults, ever, and never will forever and ever amen?
WOW. Faith ... er ... science is wonderful.
@2
Yawn, stupid troll is boring again.
@2 Nirvana fallacy.
Of course side effects from vaccines occur. I had a sore arm for a day after my last shot.
"Of the two, The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, I tend to favor The Colbert Report because there are times when I find John Stewart's schtick and hamminess tiresome. True, Stewart can at times rise to the level of being brilliant, but there are other times when he gets on my nerves. In contrast, Colbert tends to be more consistently funny."
With these one or two minor revisions this is exactly my opinion.
Ok, maybe not minor.
I'd tune it in, except I'm usually busy then.
Well, I'll see what I can do.
@2: Uh, so when and where did Offit say that ?
Oh, in the deep recesses of your mind, where people say what you want them to say and do what you want them to do ?
The rest of us live in reality-land, where we're entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts.
Sorry. I haven't quite got the handle yet on being a good member of the herd. But I am not the only one.
I got the H1N1 for myself and my two sons last year. I was surprised that I had to sign a liability waiver when getting my shot. Imagine that! I have no idea why they waste money printing up waivers when science has proven forever and ever and ever that no harm can possibly result from injecting things into our arms.
PS What dialect is spoken here? Is it "moooooo" or is it "baaaaa"?
Idiot Lawyer said: "PS What dialect is spoken here? Is it "moooooo" or is it "baaaaa"?"
Neither. This is not the Age Of Autism s(h)ite.
Sorry Dave I am not a member of that herd either. But I am surprised to see you reject the "herd" theory of public health. Baaaaa.
Harold, I actually did think you were more intelligent than that. I guess I was wrong.
"Harold, I actually did think you were more intelligent than that. I guess I was wrong.
Posted by: Orac | January 31, 2011 6:00 AM"
Geez David H I am shocked, truly, truly shocked to see you resort to personal insults on this forum. That's just not like you.
lolantivaxer. Straw man and ad-hominem in one post, and complaining about personal insults in the next.
A herd of sheep?
And here goes Harold troll crawling out from his rock of hatred to blather to the world because... he can.
Orac has some patience and I'm shocked, truly shocked to see you write something stupid and then act like a child who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar who responds with an angry outburst because the child thinks that will deflect the attention of adults from the cookies.
That was a lie. I'm not shocked, truly shocked.
Harry, your comment is laughable because Offit has written quite the opposite.... not that you care. He clearly points out in his book the times that there HAVE been problems with certain vaccines in the past. He also was against the proposal to start re-vaccinations for Smallpox, due to fears of bio-terrorism, post 9/11 due to an insufficient risk/ reward ratio
I was surprised that I had to sign a liability waiver when getting my shot.
...just like you do when using gyms, swimming pools, sending the kids on class trips, going on a vacation cruise, renting a room at a hotel.... Only difference is many of these latter bury the liability waiver in fine print or even in laws so that you never notice them, whereas those who administer vaccines are required to get that waiver right up front.
So I guess you never have done any of these things in your life or allowed your kids to do them, Harold, and that you're right out in public and on all the blogs vocally proclaiming "No more swimmin' for our precious kids!", right?
Sorry Andyo I am not an antivaxxer.
My sons have had all required and recommended shots. When my son with severe autism had a melt down and bit me a couple of weeks ago I received a tetanus shot and publicized it on my blog complete with a photo of my purple bicep. I recognize fully the important role vaccines play in preventing serious illnesses. I even got the H1N1 shot for my sons and for myself (although as a "tradtional" Canadian I am very doubtful about the efficacy of flu shots) and I have also publicized those facts on my blog.
What I do not do is mock those who have seen their children suffer from serious "events" immediately or shortly after receiving one or more vaccines. Nor do I believe that vaccine safety issues are all resolved and in the past. Look at the recent reports by public health authorities about febrile seizures in children after receiving flu shots. Yeah, I know correlation does not imply causation. That should actually say correlation does not necessarily but can imply causation.
I have never claimed or thought that my son's severe autistic disorder, a condition about which I know much more, with respect, than Orac, was caused by a vaccine. I do not, however, think that all vaccines or vaccine ingredients have been proven not to be involved as causes or triggers of autism disorders in specific vulnerable populations or when administered to pregnant women. The claim that the vaccines cause autism notion has been forever debunked by epidemiological studies is not persuasive given that those studies span periods of changing diagnostic definitions, increased autism awareness etc. factors routinely used to deny autism increases by some.
The call for a study of autism rates in vaccinated and existing unvaccinated populations has been made by Dr. Healey and Dr. Gerberding. Both said such studies could and should be done. Those who claim that too much money has been spent studying vaccine autism theories are preaching to the converted but will not persuade those who know that by far the greatest bulk of autism research dollars has been spent on genetic autism research with negligible results after two decades.
The attack strategies of Orac, Paul Offit, the BMJ and Brian Deer have had great effect with the mainstream media but they are not persuading people who do not live off of advertising dollars.
Notwithstanding the important role vaccines have played in public health around the world, people have a right to full information about vaccines before consenting to being injected, at least where the requirement of consent has not been removed by operation of law.
Exactly. Perhaps I should have used the term "ignorant" instead. It is quite possible to be intelligent but ignorant, and Harold's remark about Dr. Offit reveals, at a minimum, a shocking ignorance of what Dr. Offit has actually written. I suggest that Harold actually--oh...you know--read Autism's False Prophets and Deadly Choices. He should read The Cutter Incident: How America's First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis, too, while he's at it.
Basically Harold's remark alone reveals an incredible ignorance about the subject matter at which his comment was directed in that Dr. Offit has been quite straightforward and honest about problems that have occurred in the past with vaccines. Harold's response to having this pointed out will demonstrate whether questioning his intelligence also is justified.
Having read Handley's post on Offit this morning, which seems to be mosty projections (he called Offit a liar and a lunatic), I thought, well, that's enough nonsense for one day. And then I read Harold. I'm guessing Harold hadn't had his coffee yet, or he'd have stuck with Healy quotes.
"The attack strategies of Orac, Paul Offit, the BMJ and Brian Deer have had great effect with the mainstream media but they are not persuading people who do not live off of advertising dollars."
Exactly what "attack strategy" did Brian Deer use? Are you referring to outing Wakefield's fraud or something else?
Harold L Doherty writes:
genetic autism research with negligible results after two decades
You really think those research results are negligible? I'm a layperson and thus there's a great deal I'm not not aware of, but just the research I've heard and read about is fascinating and tremendously impressive.
I'd guess, without having any way of knowing for sure, that your minimization of these research efforts stems from failure to keep sufficiently abreast of developments, a desire to make genetic research seem a less promising alternative to yet more vaccine studies, or both.
So Harold you do, or do not subscribe to the 'herd' theory of vaccinations?
@Harold,
Harold, you posted a statement (disguised as a question) that was inaccurate and, when this was pointed out, you called the readers of this blog sheep. I think that's cause for Orac to lower his opinion of you.
When my son with severe autism had a melt down and bit me a couple of weeks ago I received a tetanus shot and publicized it on my blog complete with a photo of my purple bicep.
What a feather in your cap.
So, anyway, now you're saying that Orac, Offit and Deer are advertising whores... hmm. So what does that make Wakefield?
@Orac: Why?
I have never claimed or thought that my son's severe autistic disorder, a condition about which I know much more, with respect, than Orac, was caused by a vaccine. I do not, however, think that all vaccines or vaccine ingredients have been proven not to be involved as causes or triggers of autism disorders in specific vulnerable populations or when administered to pregnant women.
Why stop there and single out vaccines? After all have all toys and toy ingredients been proven not to be involved as causes or triggers of autism disorders? What about sunlight? What about musical cot toys? What about baby formula? What about fluorine or calcium carbonate in water? What about super absorbent polymers in nappies? What about CFCs? What about mummy and daddy's deodorants? What about radiation from masts / phones / TVs? What about radon gas? What about pollen? What about the direction of magnetic due north? What about ley lines? etc. etc. etc. etc.
Are all of those proven not to be causes or triggers of autism disorders? How do you prove a negative anyway?
Maybe it's all that Mozart that they blasted through the mom's belly to make the baby smarter.
Harry, if people thought for a second that there was a reasonable belief that IF such a study were done and it concluded (once again) that there was no connection between vaccines and autism that people like AoA, Generation Rescue, et al would finally all agree that there's no real evidence that vaccines are linked to ASD, then I think people would vote to do such a study in a heartbeat. However, anyone that's ever observed such groups know that any study (including ones that they were associated) that doesn't fit their theory is rejected (often times simply by using the "pharma shill gambit") and/or followed by goal post moving.
Adam - in the past, I have (only half jokingly) suggested that it is the creamy desitin (as opposed to original formula). I even contacted johnson and johnson to try to find out when it came on the market, but could never get a straight answer. What are they hiding?
@ Adam, Andyo, & Pablo:
"super absorbent polymers in nappies", "all that Mozart that they blasted through the mom's belly", and "creamy desitin":
Gentlemen, has anyone *ever* conducted a study to measure the effect of these 3 variables in combination? I think not.
@HLD
Of course not, that's a straw man. Nobody would ever claim that safety issues are in the past. You're in Canada, right? Did you know that pretty much every vaccine in Canada is considered a group 2 biologic for the purpose of surveillance, requiring that they submit samples from each batch for lot release?
"Products requiring the highest level of assessment after issuance of an NOC are assigned to this Evaluation Group. Products in this group are subjected to Targeted Testing (Appendix II). A formal Release Letter which approves the sale of the lot in Canada is required from BGTD before each lot is sold. The targeted timeframe for products in this Group to be released is 6 weeks after receipt of all required information and samples. The timeframe for some products, such as those with long bioassays, may be longer. Expedited release may be granted in exceptional cases and upon appropriate justification (such as product shortage in Canada)."
We inspect every lot to ensure they meet specifications, which it a stricter monitoring than most drugs receive. Additionally, there is global monitoring of vaccine safety, as opposed to merely local. Vaccine safety is a big deal, and is recognised as such. The standards for vaccines are higher than for other classes of drug, since we administer them to healthy people.
You can't prove that something couldn't have caused a problem for certain populations. I could point to any of thousands of exposures, and make similar claims. You can't prove H0, you can only fail to reject it.
For example, to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, you can never tell whether eating a bologna sandwich on a Wednesday while pregnant will cause autism in the children of a select group of Wednesday-bologna-sandwich-vulnerable mothers.
Again, in Canada you've got fairly good access to information. We ensure that product monographs are publicly available; we have a searchable drug product database, and a database of adverse events. What information do you feel you are missing?
I'm baffled by some of this - and it may not pertain to you, specifically. Is it merely that people have a distrust of having others examine data? We don't insist that we get to fly an aircraft, as we recognise that it requires a set of skills to do so. We don't elbow a surgeon aside saying that we've read up on gallbladder removal, and that we should do it ourselves. Why is it different for the evaluation of drugs? It requires a set of skills and a great deal of knowledge, but for some reason anyone with the ability to type a search term into Google seems to think they are capable of evaluating clinical trials and determining whether a vaccine is safe.
Unfortunately, we can't protect the public from misinformation, logical fallacies, cognitive biases, etc.
Here's a question I don't think Colbert will ask (from this morning's interview at The Thinking Person's Guide to Autism
Liz, that's a terrific interview. Thanks for posting the link.
Check out the facebook thread for Colbert's appearance. Reads like a RI thread...
http://www.facebook.com/#!/thecolbertreport/posts/152109008176451
Orac, thanks for the information. Hubby always TIVOs the Colbert Report, and I will make certain to view it in the A.M.
I will also alert some of my friends about Offit's appearance...the ones who still have lingering doubts about vaccines' merits.
"What I do not do is mock those who have seen their children suffer from serious "events" immediately or shortly after receiving one or more vaccines."
Aside from the fact that correlation does not equal causation, what is "seen" and what is remembered are two very different things. If this was a frequent occurrence, there would be verifiable scientific evidence for it somewhere, no just anecdotes from obviously distressed and grief-stricken parents.
@ a-non: Wow that Facebook thread is just full of stupid.
"Sorry Dave I am not a member of that herd either. But I am surprised to see you reject the "herd" theory of public health. Baaaaa."
Just on the off-chance that Idiot Lawyer was talking to me: I side with the theory that herd immunity provides protection for the few in the herd who cannot - for proper medical reasons - be vaccinated.
As for Orac's comment about the Idiot Lawyer, I'll go on record as saying that I have known that Idiot Lawyer was not very intelligent for some years now.
if anyone is interested there is an actual scientific discussion going on now at the Oz post. Or would that be too much to ask on a Science Blog?
Done posting at FB site. Last straw were these gems (from a woman having "10,000 hours" of vaccine research under her belt): â"'Respect is earned', indeed! And no one gets less respect from me than doctors who are poisoning children with absolutely no idea of what they are doing and then puffing their chests about how wonderful they are for doing so. Below cretinous. I would say good night to you but I hope it's not because you should not be able to sleep doing what you do. 'No snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible' just as you do not feel responsible, but you are. You're responsible for the effect your ignorance has on innocent children's lives," and "At least my research is *recent* and relevant. You graduated medical college in the 80's and gloating about how great vaccines are and how much you promote them, while admitting you were not formally educated about them. On the other hand you would seek to criticize ME for not having 'expertise' and also call me arrogant? Yeah okay. Good luck to you sir and even moreso to your patients."
Yikes!! As a pediatrician with two autistic children, I felt I could make a dent. Hope I did.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=189488647742418
People are actually arguing that dead kids are better than autisitc kids on that FB page (the comment thread a-non linked). WTF
DrEdward,
thanks for hanging in there. It is a dirty, dirty job, but I do think it makes a difference.
Enkidu, I just saw that--along with the contention that autism kills too, because mothers kill their autistic children and/or themselves because they can't handle their hellish existence. Conversely, they opine, nursing a sick child through childhood diseases is an inherent part of motherhood and vaccination robs us of all that bonding and snuggling. I've seldom seen so much unchallenged idiocy outside AOA. brrrrrrr.
Jenbphilips: I think it might actually make a difference for doctors, scientists to discuss immunology such as Pd has tried at the Oz post. If not on a Science Blog then where?
Jenbphilips: I think it might actually make a difference for doctors, scientists to discuss immunology such as Pd has tried at the Oz post. If not on a Science Blog then where?
Oh, that is horrible! Especially with the murder of two teenagers by their mother in Tampa. I shall save my sanity and stay away.
@5 - For the first ten minutes, Colbert is great - usually much better than Stewart's opening. But the last two thirds of Colbert often lags - in that sense, Stewart is more consistent than Colbert. But the main reason I favor Colbert is that recently Stewart seems to be falling into the false equivalency trap on occasion [i.e., the "Yes, numerous famous conservatives call liberals traitors and baby killers, but remember, some unknown liberal blogger called Sarah Palin a jerk, so liberals are just as bad" kind of thing.] I've seen Colbert do this sort of thing a couple of times, but not nearly as often as Stewart.
I feel the same way about TDS/TCR, but I watch both of them daily. Usually as I'm falling asleep, so I record and watch the next day. Very rarely make it to the Colbert interview before losing coherent thought, though, will have to try hard to stay awake tonight, or watch first thing in the AM as I'm getting ready, instead of when I get home.
I do like how both of them use anti-vaccine people as punchlines of irrational thinking.
jenbphillips: I got a "karmic threat" in that thread because I was offended at their dead child > autistic child nonsense. There is a little Enkidu voodoo doll now with pins sticking out of it somewhere in crazy Anti-vax Land.
I saw that! But, obviously it wasn't a threat--she was just making an objective observation about karma *eyeroll*
I'm pitching in over there now, for whatever it's worth.
Of course you know those two are just manipulating us with that "good comic/bad comic" thing.
Enkidu, you got the karmic threat, I got called a bitch. Never a prouder moment.
He did a good job.
Correction: ANOTHER reason to watch The Colbert Report. :)
(I prefer The Colbert Report to The Daily Show. By far. Jon Stewart is often excellent, but some of his correspondents are annoying.)
I was good. Colbert's character was a bit combative, but in a way that led Offit through covering all the basic points.
I think Colbert was merely playing Idiot's Advocate- we can't call it "Devil's Advocate" since he was interviewing the Devil Himself- citing typical anti-vax ideas histrionically. Very brief but hit major points.
I find it incredible that people "believe" in science. Science is about Questioning.
Science is about seeking answers.
I love science - but I do not "believe in it". Which is why I often go straight to the actual studies. Which is why I knew Deer was, if not a liar, an extreme manipulator of the truth.
Science is not about manipulation and manipulating data to get the information you want. I've seen the rigged studies, the misleading graphs, the way classification of a disease is changed to get the results that were wanted, even the outright lies as vaccines from different companies are switched around, or quietly removed from the market like MeNZB and hailed as a success and figures are massaged to get the wanted picture instead of the actual one.
Kudos to Offit. At least he knows the difference between different types of studies. Maybe if he was aware of the work done in Europe, Japan, and in fact many other countries that aren't Britain or America then he would realise Britain's original MMR was withdrawn because of an unsafe mumps component (Japanese study) While the virus in the gut theory looked like it was about to be backed by an American study that was pulled shortly after they announced their interim result - and the funding was pulled etc etc and the study abandoned.
Why?
I ask. Because I love science and science is about asking questions. Dammit I'm not a herd creature. If all your friends were jumping off a cliff- would you?
Maybe
If it was to get away from something even more dangerous. But right now - I can't see the bottom of the cliff and I need more than an angry billy goat to drive me off the edge.
If you really believed that, then you wouldn't be trying to tear down Deer in the mistaken belief that that could somehow rehabilitate Wakefield.
You make strong accusations about "rigged studies", "misleading graphs", "outright lies" but you don't back up a single one of those accusations; if you had actually seen evidence of such when you went "straight to the actual studies", it would've been to your advantage to at least tell us which studies you were referring to, so that others can look at your evidence. The fact that you provide no such evidence, essentially saying "take it on my unsupported assertion," tells us that you really have no such evidence. That's about the only way that anyone can now defend delicensed-for-cause Wakefield and the "virus in the gut" theory that he produced his rigged studies and outright lies to prop up -- the only thing that Wakefield's supporters have to turn to is unsupported allegations.
@AJ: yes, we are all well aware that the mumps component of the MMR used in Britain had problems, while the component in the US did not. How does that explain that autism rates between the US and Britain are about the same. How does the fact that the US has been given the MMR since the early 1970s without any "autism epidemic" until the change in the DSM relate to this?
And what evidence do you have that Dr Offit is "unaware" of studies done in other countries? Have you read his books? IIRC, he is quite cognizant of the other studies.
And what evidence do you have (besides your saying so)that
What study? What intermin results? Inquiring minds want to know.