I don't know what it is about the beginning of a year. I don't know if it's confirmation bias or real, but it sure seems that something big happens early every year in the antivaccine world. Consider. As I pointed out back in February 2009, in rapid succession Brian Deer reported that Andrew Wakefield had not only had undisclosed conflicts of interest regarding the research that he did for his now infamous 1998 Lancet paper but that he had falsified data. Of course, in response Keith Olbermann was totally played by the antivaccine movement, resulting in some truly mind-numbingly dumb criticism of Brian Deer, but that was more of a sideshow than anything else. Then, a couple of weeks later the Special Masters weighed in, rejecting the claims of autism causation by vaccines made in the three test cases about as resoundingly as is imaginable in the first test case. Then, in February 2010, in rapid succession Andrew Wakefield, the hero of the antivaccine movement, was struck off the British medical register, saw his 1998 Lancet paper retracted by the editors, and was unceremoniously booted from his medical directorship of Thoughtful House, the autism quack clinic he helped to found after he fled the U.K. for the more friendly confines of Texas. Then, to add insult to injury, the Special Masters weighed in again, rejecting causation claims of the remaining test cases of the Autism Omnibus so resoundingly that the antivaccine movement cried "conspiracy!" (as they usually do). Then, in January 2011, Brian Deer struck again, publishing more damaging revelations about Wakefield, referring to his work as Piltdown medicine in the British journal BMJ.
This year, things were different.
By saying that this year things were different, however, let me make it clear that I don't mean "different" in the sense that there wasn't another major story that roiled the antivaccine crankosphere. There certainly was. However, in 2009, 2010, and 2011, for antivaccine activists it was all unrelenting bad news as each year began. Indeed, I tend to view the period between 2004 and 2008 as being the high water mark for the antivaccine movement, at least in the US. It's been (nearly) all downhill since then. It's hard to tell yet if 2012 is going to be a glitch in that downhill progression, but tis year something happened that, at least to supporters of Andrew Wakefield, seemed like a great thing. To those of us who know his case and know how far Wakefield's fallen, it smacked of sheer desperation every bit as much as when the National Vaccine Information Center's Barbara Loe Fisher sued Paul Offit, journalist Amy Wallace, and her publisher Conde Nasttwo years ago for libel, yes, in January. (She lost spectacularly.) Yes, as 2012 dawned, Andrew Wakefield, for some inexplicable reason, decided to sue journalist Brian Deer, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee, and the BMJ for libel based on Deer's 2011 expose. Actually, the reason wasn't so inexplicable. My favorite legal folks informed me that the statute of limitations in Texas for libel is one year. Also, his lawyer is apparently a neighbor whose daughter knows Wakefield's daughter through their activities with the Autism Trust USA. The lawsuit is dated very close to one year after the BMJ's first article is published. In any case, this news greatly heartened the
Then, just last week, there was more than a bit of whooping it up in the antivaccine crankosphere, which appeared to be partying like it's 2005, which was when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. first published his antivaccine screed in Salon.com and Rolling Stone. From the rejoicing that's been going on, you'd think that Andrew Wakefield had been completely exonerated of fraud and proven right about his fear mongering that blamed the MMR vaccine for autism. This is odd, given that the news story that broke last week was not about Andrew Wakefield directly. Rather, it was about Professor John Walker-Smith, one of the co-authors of Andrew Wakefield's discredited and retracted 1998 Lancet paper. The antivaccine crank blog is going wild with the news that Professor Walker-Smith has succeeded in his appeal of the General Medical Council's decision that he should be struck off the medical record along with Andy Wakefield.
On AoA, no less a figure than Jenny McCarthy herself has returned to demonstrate that, as much as she has been keeping her antivaccine activism on the down-low lately, she hasn't given it up. She did this by posting an article on the antivaccine blog affiliated with her group Generation Rescue entitled MMR Doctor Exonerated--Who's Guilty Now? In it, McCarthy demonstrates once again that as a scientist she's a great comedienne. Well, actually, she's not much good at either, but she's really bad interpreting science and proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt in this article. First, she crows about how the "parent autism community" antivaccine community is "buzzing with excitement" over the news of Walker-Smith's success in his appeal of the GMC's ruling to strike him off the British medical register. No doubt. J.B. Handley and company probably need a chiropractor for back strain from high-fiving each other. Next, there is the appeal to anecdote:
For parents of children with autism, this whole mess has always been a bit of a head-scratcher. The Lancet study's conclusion that children with autism suffer from bowel disease is something any autism parent could easily confirm, and MMR, by far, has been the vaccine most commonly cited by parents as a trigger for a regression into autism. In my travels, I have heard the same story from parents about MMR leading to regression thousands of times.
Confirmation bias much, Jenny? In any case, Jenny can't resist asking some rhetorical questions that indicate that she thinks that the Walker-Smith decision heralds the imminent exoneration of her hero St. Andrew not just legally but based on the science. She even goes so far as to ask:
Now what? If the foundation of the proof that the MMR does not trigger autism is crumbling, what in the world are parents supposed to believe? If Professor Walker-Smith is not guilty on all charges, will Dr. Wakefield be next?
The answer is no, Jenny. Sorry, but the "foundation of the proof that the MMR does not trigger autism" is not crumbling, as the issues in the Walker-Smith case were not nearly as clear-cut as they were in Andrew Wakefield's case. Actually, they were pretty clear-cut in that I think Justice Mitting exhibits horribly mangled reasoning and demonstrates a very clear lack of understanding of medical ethics, in particular the distinction between research and treatment. In fact, this "foundation" gets stronger every year, which is why scientists have moved on to other issues about autism causation. The vaccine-autism hypothesis was a dead end.
Not that that stops McCarthy from asking hopefully:
Unfortunately, the GMC's decision to turn Dr. Wakefield and Prof. Walker-Smith's paper into a three-ring circus has put a chill on research into all the possible environmental causes of autism. Will this finally open the floodgates?
In a word: No. Also note that to an antivaccinationist like McCarthy, "possible environmental causes of autism" is code for "vaccines done it." McCarthy is arguing that, just because Professor Walker-Smith succeeded in his appeal, Andrew Wakefield was right in his science. Seriously. Underneath the verbiage, that's the argument being made. As I pointed out last week, if you doubt me, Justice Mitting's full ruling can be found here. As usual, what the antivaccine movement is promoting and what is in the ruling are not necessarily the same thing. Also, as I pointed out last time, The implications of Mitting's ruling are frightening in their potential. Basically, if his ruling stands, it's hard not to wonder whether it's open season on human research subjects in the UK. Autism quacks in the UK have good reason to rejoice. As it stands, one has to wonder whether they can now get away with essentially anything.
Be that as it may, antivaccinationist supporters of Wakefield (wait, I think that's redundant given that supporters of Wakefield are virtually all antivaccine) really do think that Mitting's ruling will lead to Wakefield's prevailing in his libel suit. Truly, the ability of these people to delude themselves knows no bounds. For instance, here's Dan Olmsted on the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism:
From the Editor: Suit-able
BMJ and Deer file response to Wakefield suit in Texas. Bad timing: Walker-Smith appeal just demolished most of their evidence that Andy is a "fraud."
Except that it doesn't, which is part of the reason why I find this comment particularly amusing:
It seems the BMJ is reluctant to have its case heard before a justice system ...
Many Deer supporters have consistently asked for Andy Wakefield to take the legal route now it has happened it seems it's a contest they don't want to happen.
Interesting.
Yes, Brian Deer's attorneys and Brian Deer himself have filed their responses to Wakefield's lawsuit. This response consists, as I and many others have predicted, of an anti-SLAPP motion, to which Brian Deer adds his own 101 page supporting document. For those not familiar with the term, SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Basically, SLAPPs are lawsuits designed to silence critics in important public matters. They succeed in this by intimidation and burdening critics with the cost of legal defenses. Often, in fact, those who file SLAPP-style lawsuits do not expect to prevail in court. Rather, they expect to intimidate and burden their critics to the point of silencing them or, at the very least, greatly reducing their effectivenss. In general, wealthy interests, because they have more resources, can afford the expense of pursuing libel suits of this sort, while the defendants usually cannot. As a result, often defendants are silenced. Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to allow victims of SLAPPs to quash lawsuits and recover damages. Not surprisingly, Wakefield's libel suit reeks of SLAPP.
The key pillars of Deer's response to Wakefield's SLAPP rest on demonstrating that, in fact, Wakefield's lawsuit is a SLAPP and therefore should be quashed on those grounds. include arguing the factual background and pointing out that the truth is an absolute defense against libel, arguing that the Texas anti-SLAPP statute applies, arguing that Wakefield cannot show malice, and pointing out that Wakefield meets the definition of a public figure, making the bar for libel much higher. Basically, the outline (which I've abbreviated to only its main headings) tells you what you need to know:
I. Introduction
II. Grounds for this anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss
III. Evidence in support of this anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss
IV. Factual background
- Dr. Wakefield and the MMR Scare
- Brian Deer Begins to Investigate Dr. Wakefield and His Role in the MMR Scare
- After the Longest Hearing in the History of the GMC, Dr. Wakefield's Medical License Is Revoked
- Deer Continues to Cover the MMR Scare with Reports in the Sunday Times in 2009
- Dr. Wakefield's Frivolous Libel Claims and Complaints against Deer The BMJ Articles and Editorials
V. Texas' new anti-SLAPP statute applies to Dr. Wakefield's claims
VI. Dr. Wakefield's claims fail because he cannot show that the challenged statements are false.
- Dr. Wakefield Must Prove that Defendants' Statements Are Not
- Substantially True.
- Dr. Wakefield Is Precluded from Re-litigating the GMC's Findings,
- Which Establish the Substantial Truth of the Challenged Statements
- The Undisputed Evidence Also Establishes the Substantial Truth of the Challenged Statements
VII. Defendants' statements of opinion and hyperbole are not actionable
- Several of Defendants' Statements, Including that Dr. Wakefield's Research Must Have Been "Fraud," Are Nonactionable Expressions of Opinion
- Defendants' Expressions of Rhetorical Hyperbole and Colorful Language Are Not Actionable
VIII. Dr. Wakefield's claims based on Brian Deer's website publications are barred by the statute of limitations
IX. Dr. Wakefield is a public figure and he cannot show actual malice
- Dr. Wakefield is a public figure
- Defendants did not act with actual malice.
It's worth reading the entire response for its richness of detail, but I'll "cherry pick" a few of the choice bits for my post. The first question that comes up, of course, is the very one that the AoA commenter brought up, because it signals to me what I'm sure will be the recurring attack launched at Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, and the BMJ, namely that Deer's response is "cowardly" because it tries to get the lawsuit quashed based on Texas' anti-SLAPP law. This is a profoundly silly argument. Legal actions are expensive, draining, and time-consuming, particularly when conducted across national borders. Given that Wakefield's lawsuit has no merit, while it might be "noble" to let the suit proceed and use the opportunity to go toe-to-toe with Wakefield, it would be foolish and expensive. The law gives Deer and Godlee a tool to try to get this frivolous lawsuit dismissed, and they'd be foolish not to use it not only to do that but to punish Wakefield for abusing the legal process.
Moreover, as I've pointed out before, this argument is profoundly disingenuous in that it would not be in Wakefield's interest to let this case go to the discovery phase. That would allow Deer and Godlee's lawyers question Wakefield directly, and he couldn't dodge that. Moreover, it would allow them to subpoena all sorts of information that Wakefield very likely would not be happy to reveal to the world, and I'd bet that such information would likely only serve to confirm the findings of the GMC and the conclusions of Brian Deer's investigations. It might also, as I pointed out before, allow the defendants' lawyers to depose all manner of Wakefield's connections relevant to this libel suit, possibly even some of Generation Rescue's luminaries and bloggers at AoA, given that it appears very much to me as though GR and AoA coordinate their attacks on Deer and Godlee with Wakefield. In particular, they are helping to raise money for Wakefield for his legal action.
One of the amusing bits in the anti-SLAPP response occurs when Deer's lawyers point out that off-the-cuff remarks made by Deer are not actionable:
For similar reasons, Texas courts have long held that a statement of rhetorical hyperbole or one using colorful language is nonactionable. Such a statement "does not, in its common usage, convey a verifiable fact, but is, by its nature, somewhat indefinite and ambiguous. . . ."
Falk & Mayfield, L.L.P. v. Molzan, 974 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). For example, Texas courts have identified a long list of statements that are simply too indefinite to sustain a viable libel claim. See, e.g., id. (accusing a law firm of "lawsuit abuse" nonactionable); Zimmer, 257 S.W.3d at 512 (accusing coach of using "obscene gesture" nonactionable); Kerr, 706 S.W.2d at 799 (holding that an accusation of "cheating" in an editorial was nonactionable); Associated Press v. Cook, 17 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (labeling the plaintiff a "blight on law enforcement" who has caused "unbelievable problems" was nonactionable); Yiamouyiannis v. Thompson, 764 S.W.2d 338, 339-40 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1988, writ denied) (holding that statements calling the plaintiff a "quack, a hoke artist, and a fearmonger," are "vintage hyperbole, and are not capable of proof one way or the other"). In fact, courts in other cases have considered the very same expressions challenged by Dr. Wakefield here and found them to be nonactionable.
Imagine my relief that, in Texas at least, calling Wakefield a "fraudster" is protected speech. Maybe that's what I'll call Wakers from now on.
My relief that many of my more--shall we say?--colorful utterances and writings about Andrew Wakefield are almost certainly protected speech notwithstanding, there's no doubt that Andrew Wakefield has to clear a very high bar to have any chance of prevailing. He has to demonstrate the following:
Dr. Wakefield may have figured that, in Texas, there would be little "downside" to filing frivolous libel claims and using the suit to raise money and harass his critics. Not so anymore. To avoid dismissal under our State's new anti-SLAPP statute, Dr. Wakefield must submit evidence to support each essential element of his libel claims. He cannot do this for several reasons. First, the statements he challenges are true. The GMC findings against him--numerous proven charges of "dishonest" and "unethical" conduct--are binding in this case, and they leave no room for Wakefield to argue that he was defamed by Defendants' reporting and editorial comment. And Defendants have overwhelming additional evidence to establish the truth of the challenged statements.
Moreover, even if Dr. Wakefield could produce evidence of falsity and overcome Defendants' other defenses, his claims would still fail. He is indisputably a public figure, and therefore must prove that Defendants acted with actual malice--that they knew what they were publishing was false. Again, this will be an impossible burden for Dr. Wakefield. The reporting he challenges was the product of years of investigation by one of the United Kingdom's best reporters, exhaustively sourced, then subjected to multiple editorial reviews, including an external review by an expert pediatrician. And Dr. Wakefield's credibility on these matters had been so thoroughly eviscerated by his repeated obfuscation, posturing, and outright lying that Defendants had no doubts about the accuracy of their reporting, despite Wakefield's protestations of innocence.
Also, as is noted numerous times, Wakefield's history of frivolous lawsuits does not help his case.
As Popehat notes, this motion, on an initial reading, looks very strong.
Particularly strong is the excruciatingly detailed reconstruction of the evidence against Wakefield, both from the GMC hearings and Deer's own investigations. If you want to know why it's purely wishful thinking on Olmsted's and McCarthy's part to think that the reversal of Walker-Smith's loss of his medical license has any significant bearing on either Wakefield's GMC case or, in particular, this frivolous lawsuit, you'd do well to read the sections in the anti-SLAPP response and Brian Deer's response to Wakefield's lawsuit describing Wakefield's activities and the evidence against him. For example, in Walker-Smith's case, the primary offense that the GMC found him guilty of doing tests (such as lumbar punctures, MRIs, and colonoscopies) for research purposes rather than clinical purposes. That's it. Wakefield did so much more:
The GMC panel handed down its findings on January 28, 2010, concluding that Dr. Wakefield had been dishonest, violated basic research ethics rules, and showed a "callous disregard" for the suffering of children involved in his research.32 Included among them were four different proven findings of dishonesty against Dr. Wakefield, all proven to a standard of criminal fault--akin to "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the United States.33 Among other things, the panel found that Dr. Wakefield improperly subjected some children to invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and MRI scans. Dr. Wakefield also paid children at his son's birthday party to have blood drawn for research purposes. The GMC panel found that Dr. Wakefield's Lancet research was "dishonest," "irresponsible," "misleading," and inaccurate. The panel found that Dr. Wakefield improperly failed to disclose his connections to planned litigation, his patents for a competing vaccine, and the bias inherent in his selection of study subjects. The GMC panel further found that Dr. Wakefield's conduct "was such as to bring the medical profession into disrepute."
Basically, at the very best if you accept the reasoning behind Mitting's ruling, you must conclude that Walker-Smith was Wakefield's dupe. At worst, if you don't accept the reasoning behind Mitting's ruling, Walker-Smith was complicit. Either way, Justice Mitting's ruling will not help Wakefield in his libel action. After all, Wakefield's lawsuit was all about the article that Deer published in the BMJ and the accompanying editorial written by Fiona Godlee. Neither rehashed of the GMC hearings, even though it's clear that Wakefield is trying to relitigate the GMC hearings using the vehicle of a libel suit. More importantly, even if Deer's and Godlee's articles were nothing more than rehashes of the GMC hearings, to prevail Wakefield must prove that Deer and/or Godlee believed or suspected what they wrote was false. They clearly did not. The only thing Justice Mitting's decision held was that the GMC gave more weight to the expert witnesses against Walkers-Smith than the expert witnesses for him (and hence its decision should be reversed) and that the GMC didn't consider whether or not Walkers-Smith believed the medical procedures were clinically indicated (and hence the GMC decision should be reversed). I'm not sure about the former, and I find Mitting's understanding of medical research and its ethics to be dubious at best, but even if his reasoning were spot on, neither of his conclusions sheds any light on whether Deer or Godlee thought what they were publishing was accurate or not, while Deer's and Godlee's anti-SLAPP response delineates the incredible lengths to which the BMJ went to assure that Deer's article was accurate:
Not only did the BMJ fully trust Deer and his reporting, it and Dr. Godlee took extra steps to ensure the reporting was truthful. For Deer, who was ever mindful of Dr. Wakefield's prior litigation and regulatory-complaint history, this meant five months of work to ensure that every word and every citation was verified.166 For the BMJ, this meant a separate fact-check of the first article by a deputy editor (Smith) and an external review for scientific accuracy by an expert pediatrician (Dr. Marcovitch).167 Pre-publication review by outside sources constitutes affirmative evidence of no actual malice. See, e.g., Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex. 1984).
In other words, the reversal of the ruling in Walker-Smith's case has no bearing on Wakefield's libel suit. Remember, Walker-Smith's argument basically boiled down to throwing Wakefield under the bus by admitting he did everything in the GMC complaint but arguing that he wasn't aware that Wakefield was conducting a research project, much less one without proper approval by an ethics board.
So what now? In a way, I'm rather surprised that Wakefield put himself in such a situation. It sure strikes me as extreme hubris. Consider: Surely Wakefield's lawyer had to be aware that Texas had recently passed an anti-SLAPP statuted designed specifically to punish the filing of lawsuits of the type that Wakefield is known for. Even worse, by filing this lawsuit, Wakefield might very well have unwittingly set himself up to be the first major test case for the new law. That is not a good situation to be in.
Whatever Wakefield's motivations, to rally his supporters, hubris and vanity demanding that he try to salvage a shred of reputation, or just a desire to punish those who did the public such a great service in revealing the depths of Wakefield's perfidy, Wakefield is following an unfortunately well-worn path in suing the legal system to try to silence critics. It is what cranks do. What makes this interesting is that this time Wakefield might pay a price.
What's also revealing is how antivaccine cranks view not just Wakefield's libel suit but how they view legal processes in general. In a way, they view such issues in a manner similar to how people in general do, but with our normal tendencies to view results that we like as correct and results that we don't like as incorrect cranked up to 11. For example, to them Walker-Smith's success on appeal is not just a ruling that disagreed with the General Medical Council's explanation of its reasoning for striking off Walker-Smith based on questionable understandings of clinical trial ethics and how medicine is practiced, it's a vindication of their world view as embodied in Andrew Wakefield. Similarly, Wakefield's lawsuit is also vindication. It's not difficult to predict that, when Wakefield's libel suit is dismissed (and, make no mistake, a frivolous lawsuit like this will be dismissed) and he is hit with Deer's and the BMJ's legal expenses, antivaccinationist will view it as more persecution of their hero.
- Log in to post comments
THIS THREAD READS LIKE PROPAGANDA WRITTEN BY A SINGLE PERSON. TWO THINGS:
1) HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PARENTS KNOW, I REPEAT, KNOW FOR SURE VACCINES CONTENT (VIRUSES OR ADJUVANTS) GAVE THEIR KIDS GUT ISSUES LEADING TO AUTISM SYMPTOMS THEY ARE NOW RECOVERING FROM.
2) BOTH MURDOCKS PROTECTED GLAXO (GSK, MAKER OF MMR) WITH BRIAN DEER. BRIAN DEER AND MURDOCK'S MALINTENTIONED MANIPULATIONS AND REAL MOTIVATIONS ARE REVEALED AS THE UK HACKING SCANDAL REVEALS THE REAL FACE OF THE MURDOCKS AND DEER.
WAKEFIELD MADE OBVIOUS MISTAKES. HE'S IS ULTIMATELY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNDENIABLE FACT THAT TOO MANY VACCINES BURDEN THE METHYLATION CYCLE OF SOME KIDS TOO MUCH AND CAUSE GUT ISSUES. THOSE FACTS, LIKE TOBACCO PROMOTES CANCER IN SOME PEOPLE, WILL BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE IN TIME. UNDERSTAND IT NOW, OR BE READY TO BE CORRECTED.
How compelling, we must all believe because of the use of ALL CAPS. Just like we must believe the guy yelling on the street corner.
Tell, dear Alain Gourrier, using your superior and mighty ALL CAPS knowledge, could you point us to the evidence that autism started to increase dramatically when the MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA? That was in 1971, so just post the PubMed indexed papers that are dated before 1997.
THIS UNDERLYING ANGER REMINDS ME OF BRIAN DEER'S WORKING FOR MURDOCK AND DEFLECTING ATTENTION FROM POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO GSK'S INCOME FROM VACCINES. WHO'S PAYING YOU TO WRITE ON THIS THREAD?
FACTS SPEAK WITH TRUTH AND CALM.
THE MMR VACCINE IS NOT THE CULPRIT HERE. ALL 36 VACCINES MANDATED IN THE US ARE, INCLUDING THE MMR.
COULD YOU CONCEIVE THAT A 1 DAY OLD BABY MIGHT BE TOO FRAGILE FOR BEING INJECTED WITH TOXINS, AND THAT SUCH A TINY HUMAN BEING 1 DAY OLD COULD BE HURT BY A FLOW OF ALUMINUM OR FORMALDEHYDE IN HIS VEINS THE 1ST DAY OF HIS LIFE?
COULD YOU CONCEIVE THAT THIS BABY WOULD PREFER YOU TO WAIT A FEW MONTHS FOR HIS BRAIN TO BE PAST ITS FIRST MILESTONES AND HIS IMMUNE SYSTEM STRONGER BEFORE BEING INOCULATED WITH LIFE SAVING SUBSTANCES?
HERE'S A FACT YOU CAN BE PROUD OF:
THE UNITED STATES HAS THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF MANDATED VACCINES FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5 IN THE WORLD (36, DOUBLE THE WESTERN WORLD AVERAGE OF 18) AND PLACES 34TH IN THE WORLD FOR ITS CHILDREN UNDER 5 MORTALITY RATE. CONSEQUENTLY, IT HAS THE HIGHEST AUTISM RATE IN THE WORLD (1 IN 88 CHILDREN)
IN 1970, THE AUTISM RATE WAS 1 IN 10,000 FOR 2 VACCINES (DTP AND IPV, 9 DOSES TOTAL) AGAINST 1 IN 88 TODAY (9 VACCINES 36 DOSES)
THE INCREASED DAMAGE TO CHILDREN IS UNDENIABLE.
WAIT FOR A TINY BABY TO GET STRONGER AND TEST HIM FOR READINESS BEFORE YOU VACCINATE TO TRY TO SAVE HIS LIFE. HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE HURT.
Thanks @Alain- my sentiments exactly- CAPS and all.
Alain Gourrier,
How did you get your Apple II to connect to the Internet?
(That's the one before the Apple IIe which introduced lower case letters.)
I had trouble enough with my 1992 DOS/Windows PC which took all day to download the graphics over a dial up modem only to tell me it couldn't display the page.
ALAIN GOURRIER....HAVE YOU ANY CITATIONS TO PROVE THAT WAKEFIELD SHOULD BE EXONERATED?
BTW ALAIN, MILLIONS OF PARENTS KNOW THAT THE MMR VACCINE, AND OTHER VACCINES, PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN FROM SERIOUS AND DEADLY CHILDHOOD DISEASES.
Alain@233:
News flash, you clanking all-caps idiot; ramping up the stridency of a post will not compensate for the utter lack of facts therein.
Except of course, when you're addressing the clueless. Like Lara.
@alan
Because we know that all caps means SERIOUS BUSINESS.(sarcasm)
But go on, keep entertaining us with your utter inanities and stupidity. I do need an idiot to entertain me, and you and lara seem like good candidates for a good laugh or two.
I'm sorry Alan, but all caps or not you're quie simply wrong: hundreds of thousands of parents do not know for sure that "VACCINES CONTENT (VIRUSES OR ADJUVANTS) GAVE THEIR KIDS GUT ISSUES LEADING TO AUTISM SYMPTOMS THEY ARE NOW RECOVERING FROM"--they merely believe it to be the case.
And no degree of faith, however sincere or deeply held, is sufficient to establish what one believes to be true acutally is true: establishing fact requires evidence. So--got any?
I suggest you start by citing the evidence you beleive proves "TOO MANY VACCINES BURDEN THE METHYLATION CYCLE OF SOME KIDS TOO MUCH AND CAUSE GUT ISSUES".
Go ahead--we're waiting.
OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT AUTISM DOES TO A CHILD, NOR ANY INTEREST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM AUTISM.
YOU'D RATHER PROTECT YOURSELF FROM CHILD DISEASES AND RUIN THE LIFE OF 1 IN 88 BABIES, 1 IN 49 BOYS.
WITH ALL HIS FALTS, WAKEFIELD CARED TO INVESTIGATE A POSSIBLE CAUSE OF AUTISM. HIS PARTNER AT THOUGHTFUL HOUSE CONCURRED AFTER 2000+ COLONOSCOPIES: AUTISTIC KIDS HAVE A SPECIFIC ENTEROCOLITIS AND YES, MEASLES CAN BE FOUND IN MOST OF THEM. THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING ABOUT THE MMR. JUST THAT IT'S PROBABLY PART OF THE PROBLEM.
YOU ALL SHOULD GET BEHIND A SOLUTION OR YOUR GRAND KIDS WILL ALL BE AUTISTIC AT THE CURRENT RATE.
PERHAPS YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR GRAND CHILDREN...
"THE UNITED STATES HAS THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF MANDATED VACCINES FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5 IN THE WORLD (36, DOUBLE THE WESTERN WORLD AVERAGE OF 18) AND PLACES 34TH IN THE WORLD FOR ITS CHILDREN UNDER 5 MORTALITY RATE. "
ALAIN CAN YOU THINK UP ANY POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THIS BESIDES EVIL DEMONIC DRUG COMPANIES ARE MURDERING CHILDREN WITH VACCINES?
?
?
How euphemistic of you ALAIN. The term you're searching for is FRAUD.
This is obvious to everyone else here, Mr. Gourrier, but our rejection of Wakefield's garbage does not automatically indicate that we don't care about current or future autistic people. We sometimes find that analogies fail to help our resident trolls understand things, but I'll try one with you: I have a magical postage stamp that prevents tiger attacks. Do you want to buy it? If not, clearly you don't have any idea of what a tiger can do to someone, nor any interest in protecting people from tiger attacks.
Yes, Wakefield has faults. Why is it that no independent researchers (without those faults) could ever replicate his results? Why did he feel it necessary to manipulate his results?
There is certainly a lot of underlying anger here, but I don't think it is coming from the regular commenters here....
@ ALAIN: OH YES I DO KNOW HOW AUTISM CAN AFFECT A CHILD. MY SON WAS BORN WITH A RARE GENETIC DISORDER THAT CAUSED AUTISTIC-LIKE BEHAVIORS.
MANY OF THE POSTERS HERE HAVE CHILDREN DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM AND SOME OF THE POSTERS ARE ON THE "SPECTRUM".
"HIS PARTNER AT THOUGHTFUL HOUSE CONCURRED AFTER 2000+ COLONOSCOPIES: AUTISTIC KIDS HAVE A SPECIFIC ENTEROCOLITIS AND YES, MEASLES CAN BE FOUND IN MOST OF THEM. THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING ABOUT THE MMR. JUST THAT IT'S PROBABLY PART OF THE PROBLEM."
DO YOU MEAN THIS GUY, ALAIN?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Krigsman
KRIGSMAN PRACTICES QUACKERY. HE HAS RUN AFOUL OF LICENSING BOARDS IN 2 COUNTRIES AND IN TWO STATES. I WOULDN'T ENTRUST MY CHILD TO HIS CARE.
Alain, may I ask whether you are low-sighted? As a radio hobbyist, this is what I tend to think of when I encounter sustained full caps.
@alain gourrier
Do keep on entertaining us with your spittle-filled idiocy. It is quite amusing to see.
Also, [citation needed].
AUTISM IS NOT A RELIGION TO BELIEVE IN. IT WILL ENGULF YOUR FUTURE GENERATIONS WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN IT OR NOT.
YOU ARE RIGHT. LUCKY IS THE IGNORANT... AND THE BULLY.
THE BULLY FEARS THE TIGER AND BELIEVES IN THE STAMP, AND EXPECTS ALL TO BELIEVE IN THE STAMP, EVEN THE ERUDITE OTHERWISE INFORMED.
WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT MURDOCK COULD BE DECLARED UNFIT TO RUN AN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY BY BRITISH LAWMAKERS?
HE WAS TODAY.
AUTISTIC KIDS WON'T BENEFIT FROM MURDOCK'S FALL, DEER BEING INVESTIGATED, AND WAKEFIELD BEING EXONERATED. IT'S ALL USELESS TO THEM.
VACCINATING AUTISM PRONE BABIES AFTER 6 MONTHS OR LATER WOULD HELP AVOID THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRIGGERS CONTAINED IN VACCINES FROM PARTICIPATING TO THE PROBLEM. SCREENING THE BABIES AT RISK LIKE IT IS DONE FOR OTHER DISEASES MIGHT PREVENT BOYS FROM NEVER SPEAKING, OR ENJOYING FRIENDSHIP. IT'S A HUMAN RIGHTS MATTER.
@alain - the belief that vaccines cause autism is the next best thing to a religion, since there is no scientific proof that it happens. Now, please hit the shift key to deactivate the caps lock, because that's just damn annoying.
So he didn't get it. Or maybe he just called himself a bully on purpose.
@alain gourrier
Honestly, is there any point to your all caps blathering and conspiracy theory mongering?
Or do you just like to type in all caps because it makes you feel all "important"?
Either way, your idiocy is amusing, and you have provided me with a few good laughs.
So keep on amusing me, I need a few good laughs.
So I don't really want to get into a p*ssing match with M. Gourrier, but how do you explain the autists who existed/lived before the advent of supposedly 36 shots? My own daughter on the spectrum received no infant vaccines as the Hep B was not routinely given at that time. Oh and by the way she would like you to know that she was BORN THIS WAY and vaccines had nothing to do with it and she is very content to stay the way she is and is not interested AT ALL in your so-called recovery therapies.......
Wow. We've had some dumb trolls here over the seven years I've been blogging, but Alain is giving the dumbest of them a run for their money. The all caps is the touch that put him over the "top," I think.
"The bully believes in the stamp"? What does Alain have against philately?
If I didn't believe in the stamp, I wouldn't be able to mail my mom a mother's day card :(
The kindest supposition would be that the all caps are a Poe hint, but as usual with most of the antivaxx ranters I see here,(especially those from the Wakefield fan base), I can't distinguish the difference.
Alain Gourrier: Thank you for informing people of the truth about Brian Deer; our company (and yours too, I'm sure) has suffered much from his so-called expose'. Once Deer has been taken down, our fortunes will again be assured, and rest assured, the efforts you have made on our behalf will be rewarded generously.
Thanks David. Just wanted to confirm you and all your alter egos were just an silly one man show at the expense of handicapped people. One has to laugh somehow to forget about one's burden, right?
BTW why breast surgery? Hmmm...
I love how the ALL CAPS troll and friends still persevere on Brian Deer. It was pretty well settled before 2004 that Wakefield's study was worthless, and completely wrong. All Deer do was find out why Wakefield was wrong: the fraud.
Mr. Gourrier, please ask the voices in your head to show you how to use your keyboard's "shift" key. Also, can you tell us which MMR vaccine Wakefield was supposed to be studying in his 1998 paper?
OMG Alain...is this you?
http://onibasu.com/archives/am/295761.html
Please don't tell me that you IV chelated your child who has autism.
Mr. Gourrier:
More than one person on this thread is autistic, and/or the parent of a disabled child. At least one disabled by a now vaccine preventable disease (the vaccine did not exist when my son suffered seizures from the disease). Stop making assumptions, especially with the old and tired Pharma Shill Gambit.
Now, answer my questions honestly. Here is another one: the Royal Free Hospital offered Wakefield the chance to do a larger study, which he declined. They were done by someone else:
Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9.
Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.
BMJ. 2002 Feb 16;324(7334):393-6.
Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study.
Are those dated before or after Brian Deer's articles?
Well, wouldn't you know, I leave to fulfill my commitments and I miss the floor show!
And I'm probably the only person here who actually owns both GSK and Newscorp.
Sometimes laughter is the most effective means to fight absurdity.
Of course, Alain, if you bothered paying attention to the anti-vaxxers, you'd realize they're actively dehumanizing autistic people by treating them as damaged goods, justifying reckless anecdotal "experiments" on them by treating them like property, and generally making life harder by wasting money on their wild conspiracy mongering instead of doing legitimate research to truly understand the condition. Bigotry against autism is entrenched in the anti-vax culture.
an silly one man show at the expense of handicapped people.
We are left wondering about the nature of the handicap to which Alain refers. The ALL-CAPS compulsion? A broken keyboard?
Why is it all the Wakefield fans are such slime? I mean, really: rampant projection, dishonesty, intellectual bankruptcy, authoritarian submission (to Wakefield & like-minded movement leaders).
Most telling IMO is the magical thinking revealed in the attempts to smear Brian Deer, Orac, and others, as if character assassination of those who disagree with you was a suitable substitute for evidence.
Alain: Why is Orac providing you with a forum for you to make comments, in spite of your insults? Do you think that he doesn't know how to delete useless comments, or that he might be an evil pharma shill, but not so evil as to delete comments that COMPLETELY EXPOSE HIM FOR THE FRAUD he is? Neither possibility seems very likely. Maybe you're really being paid by Orac to make antivaxxers look stupid - in which case - good job!
Is Alain Gourrier seriously contending that Orac not only writes these long posts in his spare time, but also supplies all the comments? I am awed at Orac's typing abilities. And patience. Just reading all the comments is more than I can manage after a full time job.
First four posts from "Alain Gourrier": ALL-CAPS, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Fifth post from "Alain Gourrier": No errors or even abnormalities in capitalization.
Two most plausible scenarios:
One, the Alain Gourrier(5) is not the same person as Alain Gourrier(1-4) but simply saw stealing Alain Gourrier(1-4)'s identity as a cheap way to make trouble.
Two, Alain Gourrier(5) was deliberately making his opinions as Alain Gourrier(1-4) hard to read BY THE EXPEDIENT OF ALL CAPS. There was no legitimate purpose for doing so, of course; he simply wanted to make it look as though Orac's readers were picking on a poor, helpless person for something that wasn't under his control. Even though he was not poor and helpless and the Caps Lock was, as he proved, under his control after all.
Either way, Alain Gourrier(5)'s bid for the moral high ground fails spectacularly.
Citations desparately needed here.
By what reliable method can we distinguish 'autism prone babies' from all other babies?
Which components, exactly, contained in vaccines represent environmental triggers of autism and what evidence demonstrates they do in fact trigger autism in these 'autism prone babies' but somehow not in anyone else?
What evidence demonstrates there's only a limited window during infancy during which these triggers may result in autism, such that delaying immunization until that window has closed will eliminate any risk of having one's autism triggered?
You do have some robust body of evidence from which your claims derive, right?
Or do you simply feel that typing somethng in all-caps is sufficient to magically make it so?
Hey Blogman "Old Orac" (sound like an acronym for Dracula) you obviously have eaten a lot of fish and failed to expel the mercury and are suffering from the onset of Alzheimer's. CoMeD scientists have linked mercury to autism and ADHD and Alzheimer's over 2 years ago. The average autism rate for America is 1 in 91 but in Utah it is 1 in 39 (Utah has a lot of mercury in environment and has increased their vaccination rate from 85% to 98%. The federal government just paid out $2.4 BILLION in vaccine injuries last year. The Amish refuse vaccinations and their autism rate is 1 in 15,000. After America and CDC forced S Korea to vaccinate their entire population with MMR vaccine in 2007 their autism rate skyrocked to 1 in 38 in 2009. They now pronounce CDC as OH S___ and they may start shooting CDC reps soon. Watch Andrew Wakefield present the MMR case for meningitis to the "Autism One" convention in Chicago, Illinois on channel 98713 of www.tvunetworks.com. This 52 minute video plays 6 times a day and is followed by LaJuan with her original christian song "Put Your Hands In The Hands Of The Man"
Billy, Billy, Billy. If for nothing else you should put in jail for making anyone listen to that horrible song. My ears are still in pain. Oh, BTW, the rest of your screed is crap. The Amish vaccinate. I won't even bother with the rest of the word salad as I already ate lunch.
Billy: Thank you for expressing your confidence in Orac's willingness to allow opposing views to be aired on his blog (even when those views are ridiculous). Why is it that Andy Wakefield's supporters censor opposing views on their blogs? Is it like "The Emperor's New Clothes"?
Billy @270
Do you understand what an acronym is? Iâm only asking because âDraculaâ doesnât have any letters âOâ in it.
After that introduction, why would I pay any attention to the rest of your comment?
Ah, that's not exactly "her original" song. It was written by Gene MacLellan and popularized by the band Ocean. Forty years ago.
Here's LaJuan's blog:
http://projectexcell.blogspot.com/2011_12_01_archive.html
I guess TSU is hard up for PhD candidates. Reminds me of another student who attends GW University...who hopes to eventually been employed as an epidemiologist. Just as crazy and just as paranoid.
One does have to wonder what the stethoscope is for, given the resume. And, Jesus, lose the Casio and spring for some real cymbals.
Anyone who would use the Geiers (CoMed) as a source for anything other than an example of egregious medical abuse doesn't seem to have a promising career ahead of them. And if Billy Hewitt is LaJuan, then I would also worry about logic and grammar too.
There is plentyof evidence out there that there's a link between vaccines and autism, but I think most of you prefer to enjoy being offensive to one another than bother to really search for the information. It's all out there, and obviously it's being suppressed wherever possible by the FDA and the vaccine makers. They are in each others' pockets, and you should know that billions of dollars and high-powered jobs are constantly being transferred between big pharma and the FDA. One study showing that autism in Sweden was reduced when thimerosal was eliminated is mentioned here: http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2803%2900113-2/abstract
There plenty more information but you have to want to find out!
Danny, please tell us exactly how it is more cost effective to stop vaccinating and just treat the diseases.
Do tell us how not giving each child two doses of MMR and treating one of out four or so with measles in the hospital? Last year there were over two hundred cases of measles in the USA, and a third ended up in the hospital.
By the way, the MMR never contained thimerosal since its introduction in 1971 in the USA. Which brings up another question: what evidence did Wakefield use to determine that autism may be affected by the MMR? It would seem to be the large upswing in autism when it started to be used twenty year before, but I can't find the papers showing autism rising in the 1970s. Could you please find them for us?
You do have the right idea for data, but try not to use cherry picking. That paper has been superseded by more recent data:
Vaccine. 2012 Jan 5;30(2):247-53. Epub 2011 Nov 12
Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.
Pediatrics. 2010 Oct;126(4):656-64. Epub 2010 Sep 13.
Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism
Neurotox Res. 2010 Jul;18(1):59-68. Epub 2009 Sep 16.
Are neuropathological conditions relevant to ethylmercury exposure?
Pediatrics Vol. 126 No. 2 August 1, 2010 (doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-1496)
Lack of Association Between Acellular Pertussis Vaccine and Seizures in Early Childhood
Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400.
Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.
Pediatrics, February 2009, Vol. 123(2):475-82
Neuropsychological Performance 10 years after Immunization in Infancy with Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
Danny,
Do you understand how to read a scientific study? Did you ignore this conclusion?
Like every other study done has shown, there is no connection between vaccines and autism.
@ Danny:
Now exactly where is the information that links autism and vaccines?
Oh, let's see...hmmm. Could it have something to do with the work of Andrew Wakefield? Or is it from a book that Blaylock wrote? Can it be the revelations about the Simpsonwood conference unearthed by Mr Kennedy? Or is it about Hewitson's autistic simians?
Perhaps you've read books by Mssrs Blaxill and Olmsted or encountered their scientifc frolickings amongst their colleagues at Age of Autism? Maybe you've read NVIC, SafeMinds, ThinkTwice or CoMeD's websites? Can it be that you've read what the Canary Party or the Thinking Moms have to offer? You might even follow Natural News, Dr Mercola or the Progressive Radio Network. There are many other sources that would fit right in amongst these sterling examples.
Think a bit about where you've acquired your information...
I'll be right back.
Denice,
Don't forget the highest authority of them all on all matters of science, human health and biology, Jenny McCarthy.
Of course that would include other credible sources like Generation Rescue and by extension, Dr. ButtarBrain.
Danny, if you truly believe that the FDA is suppressing information why do you also assume that those who tell you this are being perfectly honest? Is it not possible that they ALSO may have compromised opinions and conflicts of interest? Perhaps *they* might be suppressing information like the studies that show them WRONG.
All of the individuals and groups I mentioned have ulterior motives that fall broadly into two classes:
parents of children with autism who wish to believe that autism is caused by external sources- not genetics or accidental *de novo* variation- as an emotional mechanism to preserve self-esteem and cast out blame.
those who market goods and services to families with autism ( doctors, alt med therapists, supplement manufacturers, legal professionals, authors of books) who stand to profit from the vaccines-autism hypothesis. Their egos also benefit because they buck the medical consensus and are thus admired as mavericks and lauded by those who agree with their ideas. Some members of the first group ( above) may join the ranks of the second when they publish a book, write on a blog or become famous as a parent spokesperson.
Other interesting relationships occur between the two groups: a parents' group and legal firm may have spurred the talented Mr Wakefield on to his scientific "glories".
I could go on for hours ( e.g. a blog owner/supplement seller who courts anti-vax customers to his enterprise- lots of these guys. Also see speakers' list at AustismOne 2012 re goods and services) but I won't.
Danny, the paper you cited has even a shorter conclusion quote than the one above..........
"The body of existing data, including the ecologic data presented herein, is *not consistent* with the hypothesis that increased exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccines is responsible for the apparent increase in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide."
I would call that an "own goal" for you
I think most of you prefer to enjoy being offensive to one another than bother to really search for the information.
This is NOT TRUE. I do, however, prefer -- and enjoy -- being offensive to abject agrammatical morons.
It's all out there, and obviously it's being suppressed wherever possible by the FDA and the vaccine makers.
Fortunately Danny is here! He has found the suppressed information and can pass it on to us!
Danny: Thank you for citing this evidence for the safety of vaccines.
Oh and, by the way, would you not suspect that the pharmaceutical companies and FDA officials are influenced by the massive amounts of money which are involved in the vaccine programmes. And what benefit do you think the doctors and scientists who realise that there is a link between vaccines and neurolical damage are trying to obtain by sticking their necks out and saying something? It's obvious that they're risking being struck off, ridiculed and branded as quacks by the likes of you. They have nothing to gain, and if you search, you'll find that there are a number of scientists and doctors who are very experienced in vaccine research who have realised that the benefits do not justify the risks, they are just too great. There is a book by Dr Natasha Campbell McBride who has cured her autistic son by healing his damaged gut lining (damage caused by a combination of factors compounded through at least 2 generations of antibiotics, vaccines, the pill, less breastfeeding, western diet, increase in sugar consumption and environmental toxins) with pro-biotics. It's all explained and is very logical and sound, nothing "crazy" about it.
@danny
[citation needed], because why should we believe you?
You made the assertion, you post the evidence
So if the informaton was incorrect why did the Swedes act on it? The conclusion wasn't theirs, that was your so-called protection agencies who are concerned with preserving the health and safety of you guys in America. I wouldn't say their track record was exactly outstanding: not labelling Genetically Engineered foods, not allowing people to buy raw milk, allowing your environment to be poisoned with massive amounts of weedkillers and other environmental toxins - see youtube "contrails" but don't beat me over the head if I haven't given you the exact reference, or if there's a spelling error here somewhere - it's usually caused by speed and over-enthusiasm, my grammar is usually (to those of you that think you can define me so easily) OK.
@danny
Like I said before, [citation needed], because why should we believe you?
I tend to think of this as the most salient endorsement of probiotics I've come across to date (1:49).
So if it's not thimerosal, you can still take your pick from aluminium (English spelling), formaldehyde, mercury... you don't seriously think that dose after dose of these substances given to tiny bodies is harmless, do you? And I'm sure you're already aware that the symptoms for mercury poisoning and autism are exactly the same?
Another thing which to me doesn't seem logical is how, considering that maybe 1 in 100,000 children were autistic around 20 years ago, and now the CDC figures quote 1 child in 88 (translating to 1 in 48 boys!) you can believe that it was just misdiagnosis or some such explanation. Surely you must see that something is going seriously wrong, and massive damage is being done? Vaccines have never had a clean track record. They are cultured on live animal tissue and we don't know what is going to come out of this - brain tumours have been linked (by famous neurologists, not quacks) to simian virus SV40 in vaccines; the HIV virus, thoroughly researched by Edmund Hooper came about through a massive vaccination campaign in the 50s in just that part of Africa where the virus appeared most concentrated - presumably you believe what you were supposed to, that a hunter cut himself when skinning a monkey and suddenly we had AIDS. Is it likely that the pharmaceutical companies and the DCD are going to say: "Oh and by the way, we've been responsible for the massive increase in autism through our aggressive vaccine campaigns, and for AIDS in the world, so sorry but too bad folks..."
@ Danny...We've already discussed Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/08/gaps_in_a_doctors_reasoning_a…
Narad...And here I was thinking Joe Cocker didn't "do" probiotics.
We've already discussed Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, here:
In which it emerged that she's a lying fraud.
Oh my. Dr Campbell-McBride apparently is appreciated by Dr Mercola. 'Nuff said.
Her own blog sells books, videos, CDs, probiotics ( her own especial formula, Bio-Kult), various other supplements and kitchen equipment. Her educated opinion may be compromised by her business interests, just like AJW's was and is.
Danny, please don't tell me that you believe that AIDS was also a side-effect of vaccines.
Danny, how do we know that you're not part of the conspiracy to suppress the proof? You could be lying to us. The reverse vampires are tricky like that.
If HIV was somehow *created* because of mass vaccination in Africa, why are other mammals like apes and cats also subject to similar species-specific, immunity-ravaging virii? Who went around vaccinating them in the wild? Or is it more likely that the simian and human virii may be related? And independent of vaccination efforts.
"So if it's not thimerosal, you can still take your pick from aluminium (English spelling), formaldehyde, mercury..."
Yes, just because you were wrong about thimerosal, doesn't mean that you're wrong about the next ingredient. But how about showing yourself to be right first about any one of them. I know that's going to be harder for you, but if you expect people to listen to you, you really need to step up your game to "barely competent"
Danny, I have been mostly gardening today, so I missed your answers to my questions.
Prior to the 1960s almost every child had measles before their fifteenth birthday. As you can see from the link I gave about one third of the over two hundred cases of measles in the USA last year required hospital care. I can tell you from personal experience that a day in the hospital is very expensive.
Now please explain to me exactly how it would be better to stop giving each child two doses of the MMR vaccine (which has been used the USA for over forty years), and just treat a large percentage of children in the hospital with several becoming permanently disabled and some not surviving.
Here are some samples of data I am going on:
The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review
West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.
Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.
West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.
Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S210-5.
Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45
An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93. Epub 2005 Oct 12.
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.
Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
Obviously there is a lot of information out there so it's difficult to find specific links at this moment, but here's a site which has a lot of history and is full of links if you want to read on... of course if you are in denial, or just don't want to think about it, don't go into it, but then don't protest so loudly when you hear or read something you don't want to know..
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/vaccine_autism_proven.html
Obviously there is a lot of information out there so it's difficult to find specific links at this moment
There is SO MUCH information that Danny cannot locate ANY of it.
I find this excuse also works when fobbing off requests from charities. "Obviously I have a great deal of money so it's difficult to donate specific amounts at this moment."
Danny just DIDN'T quote whale.to as a reliable source, did he? You have got to be KIDDING me! I hereby invoke Scopie's Law and pronounce Danny as the total loser in any discussion, since he has no idea what credible citations are.
Scopie's Law:
So, Danny, if you think whale.to is a reliable source that we should believe, do you also believe in flying dolphins? Do you believe that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is an authentic document rather than a vicious plagiarised hoax, because it appears on whale.to?
If not, please tell us why you think whale.to should be believed about vaccines but not about flying dolphins.
@ Danny-
I say this in all sincerity because I think that you truly believe in what you're writing-
some of these sources are not worth your time or effort: they are created by people who are contrarians and seek fame by going against consensus information that has been accumulated through painstaking effort by dedicated scientists from all over the world. Rather than DOING THE HARD WORK themselves ( getting an education, doing research, seeking grants, publishing results) they tear down others' lifework.
Altho' I must go, I'll beg your indulgence to consider this: how are the contarians ( those I listed above at my first comment today) able to criticise the entire panorama of medicine and health when they often are: business professionals, nutritionists, editors, motherss? Why are the few doctors in this area a vanishingly small minority in their fields?
-btw- I'm not a doctor, nurse or health professional but I see how they butcher my own field, psychology. And before you say I'm beholden to pharma- WRONG- I don't work with SMI or LD people who might need meds- different area, you see but I did have to study general and clinical psych to fulfill requirements.
Danny must be new to this, and must not be aware of how Scudamore and his website are considered. Since Scopie's Law came out, we just have not seen whale.to that much.
At least a decade ago when I was hanging around UseNet I tangled with Scudamore a few times (I do have a whale.to page with my former 'nym). Then my sister-in-law sent me a "helpful" email about vaccines that was just a link to whale.to. I did not pull punches in my reply to her. She stopped sending me "helpful" emails.
Danny,
First of all, it's Edward Hooper, not Edmund Hooper.
Secondly, he's been long discredited and his "theories" have been disproven scientifically. Beyond any doubt.
Wow, you're batting 1000% with your references here today! Papers, books, whale.to, Hooper...All worthless so far.
@Marc -Hooper finds new evidence- http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n07/edward-hooper/aids-and-the-polio-vaccine
How did you all miss this gem from danny
Danny - are you aware of what causes contrails? The combustion of hydrocarbons such as jet fuel results in the production of CO2 and Water Vapour. Under certain conditions of temperature and humidity, the water vapour forms ice crystals which are visible. This is much more plausible explanation than a vast conspiracy involving thousands of airline pilots, aircraft mechanics and other airline employees.
Contrails = chemtrails....that's the new, latest, greatest conspiracy nut meme over at The Hive. It's fresh, new, and shiny!!!
MA,
I suspect he meant chemtrails, since he hangs around whale.to and was talking about weed killers and vaporized toxins.
Of course chemtrails are real: how else are "they" giving us Morgollon's diseases?
Marc Stevens is Insane @311
I assumed that was what he was talking about. I was hoping t was a way to reach him since the scientific explanation of the phenomenon is so simple and the alleged conspiracy is so unwieldy.
Kelly M Bray @310
Which Hive - AoA or HuffPoe?
If it is the latter, it is a good thing if the ativaxxers are letting their freak flag fly.
Danny - You should be aware that people post all manner of made up nonsense on YouTube. YouTube does not prevent Seriously Mentally Ill people (like the woman who thought seeing a rainbow in the spray from her lawn sprinkler was evidence that "they" were putting "chemicals" in the water supply) from posting videos.
At HuffPo.... They are doing *chemtrails* at AoA yet.....
Don't tell me...chemtrails cause autism? I hadn't heard that one but I don't spend as much time in the wretched hive as others here do (can't help it, I have a weak stomach).
@ Shay:
While I agree with you- I loathe HP- altho' I know a great person who writes there ( non-woo), I avoid it like the plague.
I have a suggestion for you:
perhaps your digestive tract can tolerate interspersed doses of equally repugnant idiocy. If so, why not sample Thinking Moms' Revolution? They have it all: ideas obviously not screened by neo-cortical activity, bad writing, grandiosity, bad 'nyms, promotion of woo, WAY too much personal information and (unfortunately) it's predominantly women shrieking "Girl Power" at 110 decibels.
Equally unfortunately they count amongst their staff a social worker ( Ms MacNeil) and a (school) psychologist, Ms "Saint". Awful. Now, herr doktor bimler and I need to get out the proverbial paper bag ( *a la* Orac when he discusses a woo-bent surgeon). No one is immune.
Denice: I tried, I really tried. Unfortunately, I cannot get past the multiplicity of unnecessary.punctuation.marks.on.the.TMR.home.page.
Mr D commented here @ RI around the holidays remarking that if sued he might have to reveal an e-mail from a parent of one of the children in the research project. He does just that.
'The Fraudster Wakefield' has a nice ring to it. Even more so as it is true. I do hope this gets settled quickly for the main reason as it gives hope to the foolish and offers them unlimited opportunity to ensnare the credulous. Once it is settled, they can only push the poor doctor crap with even less support.
*Rhetorical hyperbole* is protected speech: I'll have to remember that one- for obvious reasons.
I believe the legal team is able to keep the jurisdictional option open while pursuing anti-SLAPP.
-btw- It looks like Greece is de-faulting: take notice, AJW!
I'm going to make a prediction: in the unlikely event that the anti-SLAPP motion does not prevail, at some point before the case actually makes it to court, Wakefield will drop the charges, claiming that he either had been advised to do so by his counsel or that he actually can't afford the keep the case going. His supporters will cry, "Oh, poor Andy!" and continue bleating conspiracy theories and villifying any of St. Andy's critics.
Jenny McCarthy's son never even had autism. He apparently has Landau Kleffner Syndrome, which has nothing to do with vaccines, so what is her problem? And it's obvious she doesn't write her own material. She's just a puppet for the rest of the dipsters who follow her and use her as a mouthpiece. It's also telling that Dan Olmstead, over at Age of Autism, worked for a new age personality cult owned newspaper (washington times). These people are out to lunch and God knows what they're eating.
I was willing to give the parents of the children in the study some sympathy by assuming that they were incredible ignorant about Wakefield's scheme and, incredible ignorant about the medical indications for the invasive, painful procedures that their children were subjected to.
Brian Deer's statement in support of the Motion to Dismiss has provided information about some of the parents' complicity with Wakefield in falsifying the data on the charts:
-Some of the children never had a diagnosis of autism prior to their becoming Wakefield's patient...they all had "autism" according to Wakefield's charts.
-Some of the children were referred to Wakefield because of their parents involvement in an anti-vax group in the U.K. composed of parents of "vaccine-injured" children.
-Some of the children were referred/seen consecutively (three in one afternoon) by Wakefield.
-Wakefield's charts changed the information on the children's existing charts to reflect a temporal onset of "symptoms" AFTER the MMR jab; deliberately omitting the onset of "symptoms" that were noted in the existing charts as having occurred weeks or months, PRIOR to the MMR jab.
-Wakefield wrote synopses in the charts that "reflected" what parents told him during the first consultations.
Parents of the children in the study continue to support Wakefield...why?
It kinda makes me wonder, why some of the parents whose children were poked and prodded, whose children were subjected to painful, risky, invasive not-medically-indicated procedures, continue to support Wakefield.
This is more of a DW question but something I have given some thought too. They continue to support Wakefield because they have formed such an unshakeable belief system that the alternative would be too devastating to consider. It is a power and influence that alternative practitioners are aware of and exploit to hold sway over their marks. It's a psychological and grotesque pyramid scheme of sorts.
They continue to support Wakefield because they have formed such an unshakeable belief system that the alternative would be too devastating to consider.
Yes! This is why anti-vaxxers get so angry and mean when you challenge their dearly held beliefs. If you are right and they are wrong, then they've done a horrible thing - they've put their children in danger of sickness and possible death. What parent would want to admit that, even to himself? Those parents still loyal to Andy can't bear to think that they were used and their children were harmed. It takes a big person to admit they were wrong, especially about something like that.
Fortunately ( or perhaps not) "DW" is around : I often wonder why so few victims of charlatans sue ( esp those who die of AIDS after following denialists' advice or of cancer after spurious cancer treatment). You see, they are heavily invested in the beliefs that they follow: it's like buying a stock and standing your ground although the price continues to diminish, wiping out most of your initial investment.
I venture that adamant believers' identity may become entangled with that of their leader: we all assimilate aspects of people who influence us or those we admire- people may live vicariously through their heroes' exploits. Obviously this might be relatively innocuous if their idol is merely a sports or music star but disastrous if s/he is an alt med prevaricator who offers bad advice which they assiduoulsy follow. Perhaps identification enhances flagging self-esteem and allows them to envision themselves as being leaders in a ground-breaking new movement, an enlightenment *de nouveau* or a very exclusive club.
Woo proselytisers make use of any and all possibilities to encourage their followers' loyalty and allegiance. It's about attachment, devotion and- dare I say it?- *love*.
@ Science Mom:
I have a comment - currently in moderation- for you.
I am waiting for the explosion of articles at AoA about the Motion to Dismiss and Deer's supporting document...as yet there is only an "Editor's Note" with ~ 20 posts.
Where is Lawrence? I "triple dog dare him", to get past AoA's moderation to post an *innocuous* remark.
Hmmmm..........very tempting.
@Candy - I think you have a point. Have recently been informed someone I know who has a severely autistic son subscribes to anti-vax beliefs. She's a lovely lady, very intelligent and devoted to her son. On some level, she already thinks she harmed him by allowing him to be vaccinated. So to address that, and realise no, she's actually put him in more danger, would be psychologically very difficult.
The predictable thing is, that regardless of how this plays out, they will turn it to their advantage.
The case is dismissed at this stage - oh, see, Corruption! Bias! Cover-up!
It passes this, and goes to trial - see, we're right!
Goes to trial and Wakers loses - Corruption! Bias! Cover-up! - Proves we're right.
Lawrence...in the immortal words of and Schwartz and Ralphie from "A Christmas Story"...
Schwartz: Well I double-DOG-dare ya!
Ralphie as Adult: [narrating] NOW it was serious. A double-dog-dare. What else was there but a "triple dare you"? And then, the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare.
Schwartz: I TRIPLE-dog-dare ya!
Ralphie as Adult: [narrating] Schwartz created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat!
You are correct however they did paint themselves into a corner by insisting that Wakefield could only get a fair trial in the U.S. Well, he's got his U.S. court petition and I, for one, won't let them forget what they have insisted upon. Although I shouldn't be so cocky as there has been no ruling as of yet.
I suppose it's difficult to sue someone when you're dead. So it's up to their partners and I suppose a part of them just think their loved one also would have died if they had other help. But some partners search publicity to warn others, like a Dutch politician whose wive died, thanks to several quacks pretending to help her with her cancer.
I still (halfheartedly) want Andy's case to go forward...at least to the discovery phase, when he is sworn in during an Examination Before Trial and plaitiffs' attorneys question him:
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/37.02.00.html
@Candy #9
"Those parents still loyal to Andy can't bear to think that they were used and their children were harmed. It takes a big person to admit they were wrong, especially about something like that."
Yes, and further to that is extricating themselves from support groups, and explaining the change of heart to a partner and family (or admitting they were wrong, afterall). It would just be easier to ignore the cognitive dissonance and not think too deeply about their beliefs.
I imagine those who do realise they are in the wrong, and decide to act on it, would keep it pretty quiet. Better to slip out quietly than be on the receiving end of abuse, threats and scaremongering from former 'friends'.
I just want to point out a quote from the Popehat post that Orac linked to:
"Mr. Wakefield, you might recall, is a widely discredited advocate for the position that vaccines cause autism, a position cherished by people who believe that the scientific method involves believing things very fervently."
Beauty.
Lawrence...you are my hero!!!
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/12/from-the-editor.html#comments
#8
"It's a psychological and grotesque pyramid scheme of sorts."
@science mom, that's it in a nutshell.
The mental contortions over there are painful to read. They can't even decide on which conspiracy theory to propagate; they're all over the place with Murdoch, GSK, The GMC, BMJ, Mr. Deer and Dr. Godlee. Quite the pit of despair.
Nice post Lawrence. Most of the comments there seem to be of the form: Godlee & Deer lie, lie, lie. Don't believe anything they say. Imagine this with the speaker's fingers in their ears.
A lot of emotional spit but no legal polish. They are not going to be happy with any legal outcome other than St Andy's resurrection and that isn't going to happen.
@lilady - you're welcome. I actually have a second post to go with the first, looking at the process from strictly a legal point of view. I'll post it up here, if it doesn't make it through.
Addressing their mental conspriracy contortions over there - it has to be a world-wide cover-up, by the media, the corporations and governments - it is the only thing that makes sense to them.....rather than a single doctor & maybe some of his colleagues that were out to make a few bucks by creating a vaccine scare.
I suppose it's difficult to sue someone when you're dead. So it's up to their partners and I suppose a part of them just think their loved one also would have died if they had other help.
A lot of quacks also push the line that its the patient's fault if the treament doesn't work. They didn't do it right or think the right thoughts or they waited too long. It's never the practitioners fault.
As I often do, I have made a roundup of posts about both the UK high court's ruling on Professor Walker-Smith and Brian Deer's anti-SLAPP suit. I've included this post in the list, both at Thinking Person's Guide to Autism (where the list will be static) "What the UK High Court's Ruling on John Walker-Smith Means and Doesn't Mean",
http://thinkingautismguide.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-uk-high-courts-ruling-on-john.html
and at my own blog, I Speak of Dreams "UK High Court Quashed Rulings Against John Walker-Smith; Means NOTHING about Andrew Wakefield"
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2012/03/walker-smith-ruling-means-nothing-about-wakefield.html
I'll continue to update the latter post daily.
@lilady - my second post made it through. We'll see what kind of response it gets. And that's all I can take of AoA for today.....
Is my gag..mmm..oooo off yet...
Lawrence, I am amazed that #2 got through.
They'll be hell to pay for the editor assigned to "moderation". Who put the moderation function on automatic pilot?
"You live by the SLAPP, you die by the SLAPP."
That's a keeper Lawrence and I nominate you for today's internet award.
Particularly hilarious is Ottschnaut's response to Lawrence:
Hilarious stuff, particularly the last paragraph. There's definitely a sense of hubris here that's delicious, but it's not Brian Deer's hubris.
The mind boggles. As much as I despise Andrew Wakefield as a bad scientist, a bad doctor, and a fraudulent researcher, I never thought he was stupid. Filing a lawsuit like this in a state that had just passed one of the toughest anti-SLAPP laws in the country that's looking for its first test case was just plain stupid. If Wakefield's lawyer told him he could prevail, I'd say he committed legal malpractice.
Orac...I'm sure Wakefield's attorney filed the motion pro bono; which unfortunately does not prevent Wakefield from making a complaint against his attorney, at the Texas Bar Association.
How about this later comment...
"...Dr Wakefield is the 'little man' here. He cannot die by the SLAPP. It's his only hope of resurrection!!"
lilady - the hyperbole used there is rather OTT, especially the one commenter equating vaccine refusal with "parents who refuse to let their children be burned at the stake."
I guess my daughter is flame-retardant.
Great comments, Lawrence!
I thought that a post from Quill at Science Based Medicine was interesting:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/an-antivaccine-tale-of-tw…
I'll put my money on Wakefield's lawyers.
How much money?
Asking for a friend.
It seems liely that Wakefield's lawyer, William Parrish, has acted pro-bono. No doubt he got all the usual Wakefield bullshit. The trouble is, he now has a couple of hundred pages of dense fact and argument to deal with, and a clock ticking against which Wakefield must respond. He also knows he is facing litigators who are experts in a field he knows he does not fully understand.
You can be sure that Mr Parrish is not now a happy man, and neither are his partners. The idea of preparing a $50,000 response for a man they now know has, to say the least, not told them the full story, for free is not going to wash. Particularly when they know that they cannot win.
I doubt whether Mr Parrish had any idea of Wakefield's form in using lawyers to vexatiously threaten people. He might even have believed that the BMJ simply made it all up, just pulled it all out of their ass.
But he knows now, and I bet you he will bill every cent for having been made a fool of.
Looking at page 15 of Wakefield's complaint, section V, paragraph two, Wakefield accuses Deer and the BMJ of "actual malice", the standard which must be met in a defamation case regarding a public figure, so Wakefield is implicitly admitting that he is a public figure.
Given what I've observed about the mentality of the Wakefield supporters, it's not a negative outcome if something bad happens to Wakefield--that's more evidence of how the conspiracy (of Big Pharma, the GMC, etc.) is acting against them. The harder Wakefield gets knocked down, the more noble is their cause because they are fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Or something like that.
Like many others, I also wonder why this suit was filed in Texas, not in the UK where libel suits are famously harder to defend against.
Could it be that this suit is merely being used as a fundraising gimmick to get funds from his supporters? Or is that being a bit too cynical and conspiratorial on my part?
Lawrence...the paranoia is running rampant at AoA. It has been decided that you are Brian Deer:
"Yes I think we can assume that 'Lawrence', whose name recalls Deer's 'middle name' and blagging personna, and whose writing style and terminology, echoes that of the BMJ/Godlee/Deer SLAPP deposition, has come out of his own cyber *territoy* to do his 'Lord Haw Haw' bit here."
What's a "territoy"?
Okay, Matthew Cline...you got past the censors. I nominate you for today's Second Internet Award.
@lilady - I just saw that. Actually, I'm flattered that they would think so highly (or lowly) of my posts. I think they would be sorely disappointed if they knew who I really was.
It just goes back to their mentality that everyone who has a contrary opinion to their own has some hidden agenda or axe to grind (projection if I ever witnessed it).
So, when are we going to hold the RI Happy Hour in DC? I'm totally game!
"So, when are we going to hold the RI Happy Hour in DC? I'm totally game!"
I'm waiting for the 'official' invitation to be extended to me and the other RI ladies.
I doubt anyone got my joke: the dead don't frequently sue those who gave them bad advice -while the *partners* may have been similarly enthralled by the woo, be distraught, feel ashamed of the deceased's poor choices or most importantly, be un-able to prove that someone had such an overwhelming influence over the victim- was it hypnosis? Or a powerful spell? If the victim was an adult and of sound mind, what can you say? And if consequences are not so dire, would anyone sue? How would you "trace" this?
Over the years, I've listened to "scholarly" advice given over the internet/ radio which has given me insight into the guru/ acolyte relationship- there is a disturbing amount of worshipul adulation, mimicry and desire to please by the follower. While most involves medical issues, sometimes queries are about relationships, psychological issues, career paths, locations for moving domiciles and investment strategies: political grandstanding has recently become more apparent, drumming up support for the guru's pet issues and financial interests thinly disguised as * health freedom*.
I've come to view anti-vaxx as a sub-set of alt med woo - there is interchange between the groups: alt med/ health freedom advocates often support the anti-vaxx cause and the latter in turn, may support the natural methods alt med espouses. Thus, AJW is a *cause celebre* beyond anti-vaxx.
@ brian, Interesting observation. I wonder if this being a higher profile case, although not as high as say one of Lindsay Lohan's drug-fueled sprees, would create an environment of cautiousness. Having a case go to the Appellate doesn't strike me as being a feather in a judge's cap.
"Snooki from Jersey Shore", Lawrence...
"Public figures come in all shapes & sizes - for example, Snooki from Jersey Shore would be considered a public figure for not doing all that much - much the same applies to our crop of "reality TV Stars" in general. All it takes is a bit of publicity (helps if you have a publicist - as Wakefield has had for years) and be recognized in the public space."
Now you've gone too far Lawrence...
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/television/snooki-bun-oven-tv-…
Lawrence? Don't you mean Brian, Lilady?
"Am I the only one wondering if this Lawrence may be otherwise addressed as Brian?"
As for public figure, how many non-public figures employ publicists for over a decade? Yes, I'm referring to Wakers.
IANAL, but dear hubby is a litigation attorney. His advice to you Lawrence/Brian or Brian/Lawrence is to "watch yourself" (CYA), because Snooki's lawyer will be instituting a defamation suit against you, for comparing Snooki to Wakefield.
Govern yourself accordingly.
@ Autismum: Take a look at this; everyone is Bonnie Offit:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/i_am_bonnie_offit.php
I've never liked the name Brian, with the exception of the "Life of Brian" because I always look on the bright side of life....
Too funny that I would be compared to a award-winning English journalist. Again, I guess I should be flattered.
And as for the Happy Hour - we can certainly make it a "RI Ladies Night" with all assorted sundry persons invited as well.
Perhaps we can use Lord Draconis to coordinate the event - I'm serious - would love to share a beer or three with my cohorts here.
Thanks for reminding me of the Bonnie Offit thing, Lilady. Revisiting that was good for a giggle. I was a 18 year old Northern Irish Lad according to some stem cell shills. I rather enjoyed that - makes a nice change from being a pharma whore.
Gotta go, dear hubby is hungry as a bear. Would love to meet you and the other RI regular guys and ladies. How could we arrange the meet-up?
I only mention Lord Draconis because he may be able to provide the "social" forum for coordinating such an activity.....
I think ScienceMom meant this brian, who was pointing on a comment elsewhere about the particular judge in that court.
Well, I can emphasize to some extent. In fact, I rather like the name "Bonnie" better, so I was distressed that JB Handley and the AoA crowd decided that LBRB Sullivan is really Bonnie Offit (wife of their nemesis) and I am not.
Nevertheless, it's doubtful that anyone at AoA could accurately determine the identity of a poster, or, for that matter, put two and two together and find that it equaled anything but a conspiracy.
If I weren't one of the 'frozen chosen' (Canadian to those in the south) I would desperately love to have drink with Lilady, DW, autismum, etc. Perhaps a virtual jinnantonic (If I can paraphrase Douglas Adams)(meh, maybe I can't)
Wish I could join the party but I'm located in the great white north (aka canucksland), any chance of a meetup up here?
A.L.
Agashem,
do you live close to Sherbrooke, QC?
A.L.
I'm in a land far, far away...Wales.
Hmm, seems to me that there are a lot of us in great, not-so-frozen North. Anyone in Ontario up for a pint?
I was particularly impressed by the density of the poster who said that Wakefield had not been a public figure until Deer's alleged libel against him.
Yeah, 'cause Andrew Wakefield was a complete nobody when Hugh Bonneville played him in the TV movie...
Two questions:
First, is there recourse on the part of the GMC with respect to the high court's decision to reverse them? That is can they appeal that decision?
Second, if so would they not argue that regardless of whether or not Walker-Smith was "duped" by Wakefield to perform procedures for research that was not ethically permissable, that the procedures were not clinically indicated either?
That is my understanding from what I have read posted here.
Ontario is such a huge province. Could you narrow it down?
The GMC could, in theory, appeal but are unlikely to do do. JWS is retired and not going to get his hands on more patients so it wouldn't be a good use of GMC resources,
@ Lawrence: And here I was thinking that you were TE Lawrence. D-mn! Unfortunately, distance precludes my attendance @ your soiree: I need to descend from the tower, drive along the winding road down the great cliffs, cross the wide water etc. ( I no longer reveal exactly *where* the great cliffs are located, you may notice)- But count me in for any virtuals.
@ Autismum: Ha! Interestingly, I have been mistaken for a gay man both here and at another blog - although I have NO idea why. However- in RL, people usually believe me to be Irish- I suspect it's either my preternatural whiteness or the sarcasm: the Irish seem to like those qualities for some reason.
@ Agashem: Certainly I'd love to but - it's a long, long way ( see above) So it'll have to be virtual- altho' there's always actual gin around here.
So a virtual toast to all of us!!
Perhaps it's your use of your first and middle name in your signature.
And the fact that even more experienced litigators -- in the field of libel, even -- took on the defense indicates ...
"And the fact that even more experienced litigators -- in the field of libel, even -- took on the defense indicates ..."
That there will be a "Motion to Substitute Counsel" submitted by Wakefield and his pro bono "intellectual property" specialist.
I predict that there will be weekly Wakefield Justice Fundraisers to pay his legal fees...and, to pay the defendants' legal fees...as well as the anti-SLAPP fines.
Agashem,
I am in Ottawa. I would be curious if there are many other readers from here as well. Apparently there are a few people living in Ontario, but as you say, it is a big place.
Most of my in-laws are Canadian (the others are Dutch). Yes, even the province they live in is very big. Though most of everyone who watches most series on the Syfy channel are familiar with it (a game we play is to try to identify the filming locations).
But, alas! We live in between the two Vancouvers.
By the way, it is amusing enough that the name of our state is confused with our nation's capitol*. Imagine the confusion if it had the original name after breaking off from Oregon: Columbia.
* An actual phone call to a call center of a bank we have since abandoned: "No, Seattle, Washington is not the City of Washington!" (say both of them out-loud, the irony is that we started to bank there when it was called "Seattle First"). Which is just as much fun as calling a hotel company asking for directions to one of its facilities in Vancouver, WA: "No, Vancouver Island is in Canada, the city we want is just north of Portland, Oregon."
Autismum - I was thinking more in terms of the high court's decision blurring the distinction between research medicine and theraputic medicine leaving research subjects at the mercy of the researchers. I would think it would be part of the mandate of the GMC to sustain the oversight they have and therefore that it would be obligatory for them to appeal the decision since it seems to fail in understanding the importance of that distinction.
Been to Ottawa and it is a great town. Did a long road trip, up from Las Vegas to the Canadian Rockies, northwest to B.C., then southbound through Lillooet, back to Seattle and flew home. You really cannot say you've seen the Rockies, until you visit the Canadian Rockies.
I love Vancouver Island and took the hydrofoil from Seattle and flew back (scariest flight ever), in a tiny seaplane. Burtchart Gardens and high tea at the Empress Hotel are the fond memories I have.
On a whim, and on short notice, we drove up to Canada from our NYC suburban home to explore the Gaspe Peninsula and stayed in a delightful hotel on the gulf of St Lawrence, facing Perce Rock. Whale watching is terrific there.
Our friends from Germany accompanied us on a road trip to Campobello Island...which was an experience. The tour of the grounds and summer home of FDR are "free" and the historical site is maintained by the U.S. and Canada.
Chris, there's also the woman who shut down the border crossing for most of a day some years back. As I recall, the story was she followed highway signs for the wrong Vancouver, and turned up at the Peace Arch with a live grenade in her car. (I'm mostly a lurker here who lives in Vancouver, BC and enjoys playing spot the location/friends who may have been extras on locally-filmed productions)
Damn, I lost my reply and have to retype it, stupid browser.
lilady,
Wow, you traveled a fair bit during that trip. I have never taken one of these very long road trips before. Someday I suppose I will have to but I do not drive making it pretty difficult.
I used to live in Vancouver and one of my big regrets is never taking the seaplane to Victoria. But for me a scary plane ride is a good thing. I quite enjoy such things.
Finally, I thought it was pretty awesome that you went to Campobello Island. I have never been there myself but I am originally from NB and I do not see many people discussing visits they made there. Sadly NB often seems to be ignored compared to PEI and Nova Scotia. I have been to Grand Manan, an island very near Campobello and it was very nice. I would love to go back again.
Hubby and I are history buffs. We have seen many of the Presidential libraries, even Truman's in Missouri and Eisenhower's in Kansas in one long weekend. Did the Reagan and Nixon libraries in California and plan to do a road trip in Texas to cover the LBJ and Bush I libraries. Carter and Clinton libraries would be another road trip we want to take.
On Campobello, we stayed in a cottage on a cliff overlooking the St. Lawrence, bonfires every night, watching the fog and the tides.
The only cruise we have ever taken is the southbound cruise from Bellingham Alaska to Vancouver. It is a magnificent trip with a naturalist aboard on the upper deck to help us spot the whales and eagles.
Travis, I am a bit south of you, in Kingston. You actually have a pretty active skeptic group in Ottawa, in Kingston, nada :(
Love Canada and have lived in six provinces (I am an army brat, was in the army and am now an army wife). Have also lived in the UK! Lucky me.....
Hey Agashem, I'm in Prince Edward County! Looks like a little nexus in mid-Ontario.
I see from skepticNorth that there aren't any groups in Toronto, weird eh?
@ Mephistopheles O'Brien:
Actually, I use my first and third names ( W is a surname). My second surname is also a masculine personal name- I thought about being "Walter 'Howard'" ( or whatever it is).
- on 'nyms: so you're royalty? Both sides yet, oh Prince of Darkness.
Here's an update about Wakefield's libel case. The lawyer who is the attorney of record, William Parrish, claims the he is unaware of the Wakefield Justice Fund. Hmmm, what else has Wakefield held back from his lawyer?:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/medical-journal-reporter-challenge-…
Back at AoA, they are still talking about Brian's alter ego Lawrence:
"...And I am absolutely sure that any court will see through Brian Lawrence Deer.
The greater problem may be that of jurisdiction, and from what I understand it will be too late to bring the case in London if it is turned down in Texas so it may prove to be a mistake to have put all the eggs in the one basket.
Of course Dr. Wakefield doesn't stand to lose much more than he already has, when I lived in Texas a lawyer told me that there were quite substantial limits as to how much the law will take from a private citizen, so the BMJ are unlikely to recoup their costs no matter what the decision."
Brian Lawrence/Lawrence Brian, one poster is quite concerned about your motives...
"AoA ought to be very careful about 'Lawrence' sprinkling misinformation about the Wakefield case in its columns.
Posted by: *Sleaze the Day* March 13, 2012 at 09:44 AM"
*Love that 'nym
lilady:
One of my daughter's friends attends Univ. of Victoria. To visit her parents she just takes to bus to the harbor and takes the Clipper to Seattle, and a bus to her parent's house.
@lilady - I have another couple of comments in moderation. It will be interesting to see if they are let through - since I feel that they are well-reasoned & measured in tone.
If Wakefield's lawyer is unaware of the fundraising, and if he took the case pro-bono to begin with, he may be just a little upset. We'll see how it goes.
And while again I have to laugh that AoA would assume I am Brian "Lawrence" Deer (and I had no idea Lawrence was his middle name), I certainly wouldn't mind being an award winning journalist - but I think I'll stick to my current career (more exciting).
My speculation would be that this might be meant to shield said funds from being claimed as SLAPP sanctions.
#79
I got an "employee of the month" kind of thing from my editors for my patriot nurse doings. That makes me an award winning journalist. I also won an art competition when I was 12 too.
Hmm, you're right Lawrence it's not exciting. I still want to be a highway robber type woman robber when I grow up
This is from the same link lilady just posted. What a load of bollocks. Filing an anti-SLAPP suit isn't preventing Wakefield from "having his day in court", on the contrary, Wakefield will be compelled to present his evidence first in order for the case to go forward or an anti-SLAPP ruling. Not only that but it is Deer's and Godlee's right to file an anti-SLAPP. Considering his attorney just said what he did, I'd be worried if I was Wakers and his disciples. Or perhaps this is just where the spin is beginning.
This is pertinent to the blog topic. What a dunderhead; Walker-Smith's successful appeal has nothing to do with Wakers defamation suit. In fact, Deer and Godlee's attorneys are arguing that the GMC FTP hearing cannot be re-litigated in Texas with precedent to back it up. Blimey, this was Walker-Smith's appeal, not Wakefield's. What a circus.
one of the things that the anti-SLAPP motion brings forward is that Wakefield's suit was filed too late (since it came more than a year after Brian Deer disclosed his series on his own website). The anti-SLAPP could be successful just because of that :)
Those comments @ AoA are f--king hilarious! Does anyone else notice how their speculative thought about L's identity/ their investigations into pharma-sculduggery resembles their forays into theories of causation of autism? It includes free association- Freud would be proud! Also extremely loose associations. I could go on.
Even more ridiculous is the notion that an opponent wouldn't take pains to adequately disguise his/ her identity less transparently. Hint: people are able to create dialogue that sounds nothing like their usual style. If I didn't mind revealing the e-mail I use here, I could probably drive them crazy!
@ Lawrence/Brian or Brian Lawrence:
"Legal Eagle" wants to know how much money you are making...
"Sleaze the Day
Yes, a devious character - affecting disinterest while trashing Andy at the same. Ultimately all about making out a legal position and not remotely about truth or justice. My best guess is that he is being paid substantial sums for the job. I wonder who would do that?
Posted by: Legal Eagle | March 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM"
@Denice Walter
Hmm...perhaps there should be another "I am X" campaign. First Sullivan was claimed to be Bonnie Offit. Now Lawrence is claimed to be Brian Deer. So glad that none of these crack detectives are actually in law enforcement or investigation.
I have been wondering for years *who would pay me for that* - unsuccessfully, alas.
I've been slammed today - work is a pain, I'll check back there at some point & see if it is even worth a response.
Funny thing is, if I claim not to be Brian Deer, they won't believe me.
What do you mean, "beginning"?
@ Lawrence; their accusation of you being Brian Deer is just another example of their extraordinary paranoia and self-aggrandisement. They can't fathom that they are just not important enough for the real Mr. Deer to come over there, toy with them and risk his lawsuit and reputation. And they are projecting their own incestuous groups' activities such as scurrying about the interwebz dropping brain turds onto everyone else.
@ stuv, okay fair enough. :D
@ Lawrence:
I suspect another reason they believe you to be Deer is that they think of all disagreement with them as part of a conspiracy. By concluding that you're Deer, they don't have to confront the fact that you've looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion - you're neck-deep in the conspiracy, instead.
it will be too late to bring the case in London if it is turned down in Texas so it may prove to be a mistake to have put all the eggs in the one basket.
Another person proves to be unclear on the distinction between "bug" and "feature".
"All he wants is his day in court, and they are going to extremes to prevent him from having that," Parrish said of Deer and Godlee.
Oh noes, the people we brought a law-suit against are defending themselves! Even worse, they're using LAWS!
The 'Far Side' cartoon comes (predictably) to mind. âHey, they're lighting their arrows⦠Can they DO that?â
@HDB - well, they also just pulled out the Pharma-Shill / Hired Legal Thug gambit. No reason for me to respond (heck, at least two more comments of mine seem to have disappeared into the ether over there).
Did my bit for "king & country" as they say. I'll just sit back for a bit & enjoy the show.
"Legal Eagle" at AoA opines:
"Hi Zed
Despite the coincidence of names I doubt whether the Lawrence who commented here is Brian Lawrence Deer, more likely a hired legal troll.
Posted by: Legal Eagle | March 13, 2012 at 03:27 PM"
Has anyone ever seen Lawrence, Doctor Offit, Snooki and Brian Deer together?
I am Brian Deer.
I just use a different name now and then and speak with an American accent on occasion to throw people off the scent.
"Legal Eagle" my arse. Frustrated ferret is probably closer
I am Brian (lilady/Lawrence) Deer. It has been difficult to post as a woman, will be very difficult to explain to dear hubby. Daughter and Snooki...will be devastated.
Beamup: independent thinking is not exactly their strong suit thus they don't understand that it does *indeed* exist.
I want to thank everyone for the recent entertainment: I am in the midst of a mind-shatteringly detailed project which will enrich me *considerably*- or so I'm told. I'm able to leave that periodically and come here and laugh- I guess I probably should eat something or rest my eyes- I keep seeing these afterimages- I don't like them at all....but I'll be OK...
I was Brian Deer in my last regeneration. ;-)
SNOOKI WANT SMUSH-SMUSH!
I thought I was Brian Deer, but then it was pointed out to me that I sing with an all female chorus, so that can't be right.
@sheepmilker: I love Prince Edward County and if the Americans ever discover it, it will be ruined!!! Spent a great day with hubby last year sampling wine. Plan to do it again this year and buy much much more wine......
I can have my routing numbers to you within minutes. Where do I sign up?
I am Brian Deer.
How else can you explain the fact my initals when said aloud rhyme with "bd"?
Also, I once read a copy of the Times.
Cast iron proof if you ask me.
Shouldn't that be "Snooki want Snoo-Snoo!"
(apologies to Futurama)
It took me 3 tries to read this sentence properly. I was sure you were doing a really, really weird recursive D&D exhortation the first two times.
@ stuv.myopenid.com:
No, no, no: it's nothing like that- it's entirely legal. I'm selling successful investments I've had for a while- that's done- and seeking out new ones- *that's* the detail nonsense. I am so f--king pleased with myself!
- I may be a pharma shill but otherwise I'm honest!
lilady@#8
Parents of the children in the study continue to support Wakefield...why?
It kinda makes me wonder, why some of the parents whose children were poked and prodded, whose children were subjected to painful, risky, invasive not-medically-indicated procedures, continue to support Wakefield.
lilady,I greatly admire your posts.I know you were the parent of a now deceased disabled child.I don't know what your experiences were,any more than I do those of the families in Wakefield's studies.But when you,or your child has a severe,and disabling disease,that causes not only great pain and suffering,but,in the case of childhood GI disease,can effect bone,and muscle,growth,and development,you will often stick with any explanation,even an outright lie,if mainstream doctors you see will not investigate it.
I have posted here,that I am an autistic adult,with a lot of lifelong medical issues.One of these is very severe,lifelong GI disease,something that my mother has as well.I had rickets most of my life,and my bones are about one third smaller than they should be.I have no adult skeletal muscles...all from malabsorption.
This was eventually diagnosed as a particularly severe type of childhood-onset celiac.There is a lot that is only being learned about the autoimmune disease in autism,and GI disease is a big part of it.But the way to find out aout it is through blood tests,and family histories.At least at the time Wakers fraudulent,poorly done study was done,there were few doctors who saw a connection between autism,and GI/autoimmune disease,and even now,too few doctors know about it,too few doctors kep up with current literature.
The Austin Statesman article reports, according to Deer and Godlee, that Wakefield is "seeking contributions of up to $50,000 for membership in the 'The Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund.'"
But then:
His lawyer "Parrish said he was not familiar with the fundraising."
Then for what purpose is the "Wakefield Justice Fund?"
Simple to nail Deer and Godlee
The Austin Statesman article reports, according to Deer and Godlee, that Wakefield is "seeking contributions of up to $50,000 for membership in the 'The Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund.'"
But then:
His lawyer "Parrish said he was not familiar with the fundraising."
Then for what purpose is the "Wakefield Justice Fund?"
Posted by: Tom Herling | March 13, 2012 7:32 PM
smell the fresh air they are nearly gone...
Roger:
Have you read the transcripts from the GMC hearing?
Have you read the diagnoses of the children who were referred to Wakefield consecutively? Some of the children never had a diagnosis of autism, before they were referred to Wakefield, by another parent...but had the diagnosis of "autism" written into their charts by Wakefield.
Why did the childrens' charts reflect a history of developmental delays before the MMR jab was given and, why after the first consultations with Wakefield, were the charts changed to reflect the dramatic onset of symptoms of autism within 14 days of the MMR jab?
Where are the tissue specimens fixed in paraffin blocks from the childrens' colonoscopies and the actual histopathology reports?
Why did Wakefield have in his possession, the "scoring sheets" (and not the histopathology reports), for the missing bowel specimens, that were sent to Brian Deer by Wakefield's "expert witness"? Why were these "scoring sheets" analyzed by a group of pathologists and found to be normal...or slightly abnormal due to bowel cleansing and trauma associated with the colonoscopy...and not indicative of enterocolitis...regressive autistic enterocolitis, or simple enterocolitis?
Why did the children undergo lumbar punctures? Have you located any reason for a child to undergo a spinal tap, aside from these?:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/80773-overview
Roger, you do know don't you, that people who have been diagnosed on the "spectrum", could also have celiac disease...or lactose intolerance...or diverticulitis, which is not associated with their autism?
Where are the studies and the citations from peer-reviewed journals that state that Wakefield's and Walker-Smith's "theory" of "regressive autistic enterocolitis" have, in fact, been proven?
During the work-up for your celiac diagnosis Roger, did you undergo a lumbar puncture? Have you got a copy of the pathology report, that confirms the unique histopathology and have you got the copies of the HLA phenotype blood tests?
http://consensus.nih.gov/2004/2004CeliacDisease118html.htm
My deceased child underwent a number of medically-indicated lumbar punctures, because he had a grand mal seizure disorder, was congenitally immune-compromise and had pancytopenia with a bleeding disorder...to rule out bacteremia and bacterial meningitis. He was wheelchair-bound with spastic quadriplegia and it was impossible to test for meningeal signs.
My son also had a number of GI bleeds, associated with high fevers, viral and bacterial illnesses and he never underwent upper or lower GI testing. He was IV hydrated and we "pushed" fluids, until the medical crises resolved.
Sorry Roger, some of the parents in Wakefield's study, did knowingly agree to invasive, non-medically indicated, painful procedures for their children. They also were complicit in the changing of their kids' diagnoses, the changing of the onset of their kids' symptoms...all for the purpose of being compensated for "vaccine injuries".
The thread that Lawrence/Brian/Snooki/Offit was posting on, has gone "missing".
Dan Olmsted is now ranting at AoA:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/what-letter.html#more
@ lilady:
Lovely piece of work, isn't Dan!
Just an errant little thought- Is AoA a cult? Charismatic leader, quasi-religious tone, enemies list, persuasive and coercive thought, unique explanations for common occurences, linguistic idiosyncracies, rigidly defined beliefs ...if not, it's on its way.
Okay, I made the mistake of checking out Olmsted's latest screed. Perhaps someone can explain: *why* do they think that the Walker-Smith appeal somehow established that the patient selection process for the Lancet paper was on the up-and-up? I know the answer is going to rival Thingy's brain-droppings for jarring twistings of logic, but I'm morbidly curious...
Hmmm. Good question.
I think Wakefield's sad rump of supporters is capable of believing pretty much anything; for example:
Walker-Smith was thought to have allowed inappropriate and potentially dangerous procedures to be performed on vulnerable young children for research purposes when such procedures were not clinically indicated. However, according to the GMC transcript from 28 September 2007 Wakefield ordered tests and signed his name in the chart of Child 12, who, surprisingly, received both MRI and a lumbar puncture after Professor Walker-Smith had specifically indicated in the chart: âNot to have MRI or LP.â
Somehow that exonerates Wakefield.
@ Antaeus Feldspar:
"Perhaps someone can explain: *why* do they think that the Walker-Smith appeal somehow established that the patient selection process for the Lancet paper was on the up-and-up?"
Because Antaeus...they would rather believe that the selection process was *random* and that the parent of two of the children who was affiliated with JABS (a group for parents of "vaccine-injured" children), did NOT refer parents and their children, to be part of the study. Deer's interviews with parents and perusal of the charts are clearly indicative of fixing the case to sue vaccine manufacturers:
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
Sadly NB often seems to be ignored compared to PEI and Nova Scotia.
Not enough gravel.
Oh, and I am also Brian Deer, except that the accuser switched the first two vowels and put them in all caps.
@ Denice Walter:
Olmsted is incredibly jealous of Brian Deer who is a real investigative journalist. He is also a cult leader of a band of wacky parents who are angry at all of society.
I cannot fathom how they regard their disabled kids as "test subjects"...no diet is too restrictive and any and all procedures are *acceptable*...if it will *cure* their child. Dreadful, dreadful people.
Re-reading Deer's declaration this morning, it finally clicked in what was bugging me last night about Olmsted's bizarre whine at AoA. Olmsted is harping once again on Child 11 and once again asking everybody to believe that he and Wakefield have been telling exactly what happened to Child 11, while Deer relied on "a faulty discharge summary" and then refused to correct his mistaken reporting and even denied that the father tried to correct him.
To prove his version of events, Olmsted reproduces the first six or so lines from the father's letter - and then fails to even summarize the rest of the content. Surely if what the father had to say in the letter was "Wakefield and Olmsted have been accurately reporting my memories of events," Olmstead could have said that. It's rather telling that Olmsted instead triumphantly presents the existence of the letter from Father 11 but avoids revealing the content.
Antaeus: Months back, people were posting at AoA asking what the letter said. One posted an extract from Mr Deer's website, which now seems to be in his declaration.
When Olmsted found these questions, he did not answer them, but instead took down the whole thread of posts, claiming there had been a 'glitch'.
There's no doubt in my mind, Olmsted tried to fit Mr Deer up, and now when he saw the declaration outing Olmsted as a former employee of Sung Myung Moon (who has in fact been convicted of fraud), he lost all composure and lied again.
Makes you wonder who that troll was a while back that was trying to get Deer to admit he had made mistakes regarding some of the information regarding the Lancet children.....
dt, no, I meant this.
Olmsted just doesn't get it, does he? He must be severely kicking himself for having provided yet more evidence of Wakefield's alleged timeline alteration.
Dan had been cock-a-hoop when he first discovered that errors in dicharge documentation showed Child 11's behavioral symptoms started AFTER the MMR vaccine, rather than before (as stated by Deer). Dan went to town explaining how the father pointed this fact to him (though he skipped over the bit where the father said he understood why Deer made an error, since everything in the documentation was wrong). But then, in his haste to expose Deer as an idiot, he merely exposed Wakefield's cock-up of giagantic and (dare I say it?)"fraudulent" proportions in the Lancet paper.
You see, Wakefield stated that behavioral symptoms of autism in Child 11 began "one week" after MMR. But we now know, thanks to Dan, that the father said it was 3 months after MMR, taking this child outside the crucial time interval Wakefield was reliant upon to demonstrate plausible causality for vaccine damage as he was required to do by his paymasters.
With friends like Dan, who needs enemies?
Obviously Dan was just too to eager to seize a perceived opportunity to re-wash all the brains.
@DT
'Dan had been cock-a-hoop when he first discovered that errors in dicharge documentation showed Child 11's behavioral symptoms started AFTER the MMR vaccine, rather than before (as stated by Deer).'
What evidence do you have that the discharge documentation had errors? Were you there? Is any person capable of establishing that? Just because the father thinks the documentation was wrong does not mean it was wrong. Almost all vaccine cases in court involve parents saying the documentation was wrong, and those parents never win their cases.
What we do know is that the letter has now been published, and it shows the father entirely supporting Deer, and condemning Wakefield
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/
Well I am assuming the father of child 11 is correct with his story, but I take your point. However, if we accept it is accurate, it puts Wakefield into an invidious position, but only minimally inconveniences Deer.
And Deer even admits that regardless of whether the hospital discharge records are correct or Father 11's recollection is correct, Wakers reported it wrong. And Olmsted? Well anything he writes is wrong so at least he's consistent.
Ooo hey, that should be his tagline. Dan Olmsted; writing wrongs for AoA since 200?
@ Science Mom:
I have an alternate explanation of Mr O's reportage: when he re-read the entire e-mail, its implications were immediately so traumatic to his psyche that he just *repressed* most of its contents- just like Freud maintained; thus, what he quotes @ AoA, cutting off Mr 11 in mid-sentence, is what his mind allowed while it censored the rest. The remainder of the paragraph in question was too much for him to bear.
Only joking: I think he lies like a rug.
@ BMJ.com: BMJ invokes new Texan freedom of speech law to fight Wakefield libel case.
You need access to read the entire article.
And on cue, the antivax brigade have piled in to make the rankings of the BMJ comments favour their side.
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2051/rr/573638
Uh,oh...AoA has brought out its heavy hitter (*Boy Wonder Ace Reporter*), for today's screed:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/brian-deers-bmj-series-not-peer-revi…
I will be away from my computer for a while today (sigh), so I'll be missing some of the fun.
* Isn't anyone concerned about Jake's fixation with Andy?
Poor Jake, maybe Dr. Wakefield should ask him to assist with his case. He's trying it in every other venue, may as well help out where it counts.
It's clear this person you link to does not know what peer review is. This is a common mistake, with lay people imagining that peer review is a fact checking process.
The gentleman says he is a student. I fear he will find it difficult to gain employment with his level of understanding.
I saw Jake's post this morning and almost fired off a quick snarky post about Jake's level of ignorance before leaving for work. Unfortunately, I didn't have time and had to hit the road or be late for work. In any case, it's hard to believe that someone who's gotten into graduate school knows so little about how the peer review process works. I mean, really. What an embarrassment to his department.
@Peer Reviewer - Jake is a piece of work. He is more stalker than actual "journalist" and has no problem playing the "six-degrees" game to try to find COI of anyone that has every said anything in disagreement with the AoA screed.
I doubt he will have any luck with employment outside of the AoA sphere.
I was just wondering who will arrange for Jake to have his brain MRI scanned and his spine lumbar punctured?
(WS is no longer delicensed, but he has retired, and AJW is not a clinician, so Jake will have to get someone to do these tests in the States.)
He has to have them of course. Justice Mitting from the High Court ruled that for anyone with Aspergers syndrome, invasive testing of this type is essential and in their best clinical interests.
No, he didn't. He just ruled that for the particular children in question, the GMC hadn't adequately explained why they credited the testimony that it was not clinically indicated over the testimony that it was, when there was a pretty high burden of proof to be met on that point.
Someone called "Three strikes" has posted in the thread:
Nah, Jake's diagnosis (Asperger Syndrome), is not a medical indication to perform a lumbar puncture.
And, from what I have read about Wakefield's study subjects, none of the children, who were being worked up for a diagnosis of enterocolitis, presented with symptoms/indications to justify that painful, invasive procedure:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/80773-overview
Isn't anyone concerned about Jake's fixation with Andy?
@ lilady:
Yes, I am indeed worried about his general mode of functioning in the world: as a matter of fact, I issued a plea for a concerned RI regular to have a nice sit-down with him and discuss why many of us believe that he is indeed traipsing down the garden path to destruction( @ the 'Camel's Milk' thread).
Not only does he fixate upon his hero but I fear that soon he'll begin emulating him and then, it's only a matter of time before the data fixing and acts of barratry begin. Mark my words.
@ Denice Walter: I think it would be too late to reason with Jake. You need to know his background and his upbringing.
Mommy Nicole is heavily into the woo and I suspect that Daddy Giff goes along with "the program".
He has replied to "Zed" on AoA, that he intends to attend the proceedings in Austin, Texas.
Note to Brian Deer and Dr. Godlee; make certain to bring copies of the many scurrilous articles that Jake has written about you both. It may be necessary to get a "personal order of protection" issued against Jake, if he harasses you during the proceedings in Texas.
@141:
Actually, I watched Crosby speak during a public comment session at the recent IOM meeting in DC.
To imply that anyone would need a "personal order of protection" against him seems to me to be ridiculous. Crosby is not a large person; he appeared polite; he did not in any way seem physically threatening, or threatening in any manner. 141 characterization of Crosby is puzzling as it is completely at odds with my personal observation. More puzzling is why mature, seasoned, experienced health care providers and scientists would exhibit such fear of a "23 year old graduate student."
Why do quacks in the field of autism treatment have so much traction? This forum seems very concerned about AoA however there are many, many more similar forums. May I suggest that by commenting on, and singling out, any particular forum, as is done with AoA,simply gives that forum more credibility and free advertising. What do you suppose is the readership of this blog versus AoA? Ignore them and they will go away. What is the downside in ignoring the "anti vax quack" blogs? What is the upside? By paying such attention to them, you are validating them.
My view is that the quacks are filling a vacuum. Evidence based medicine keeps does not offer an etiology, prognosis, or treatment for the ailments associated with ASD. Certainly evidence based medicine is now coming around to the understanding that some ASD kids may have gut problems, maybe in greater proportion than other sick or healthy kids, maybe not.
The question that I would like to have an answer for is why do the parents generally tell the same story of regression after vaccination associated with gut problems in some kids? Is it mass hysteria, an artifact of unconscious reiteration of mass media reports, or are they perhaps all experiencing some element of a common phenomena?
BTW- the most useful post I have read in a long, long while was the link from this thread to LBRB where the full text of CA Dad's letter to Deer and Olmstead is reproduced in full. The full letter in context is more helpful and provides context missing from just the snippets put out by AoA. So thanks for that.
Proscientificia:
Actually, the real question is do all parents tell this story? And does that story change after a period of time?
There is one blogger who was starting to tell that story, and then it was pointed out to her that it was different from what she had described on her blog a couple of years before. She then went and revised the older blog posts.
Another example that I can point to where the documentation has not changed are the Cedillo Autism Omnibus court transcripts. There is the story given by the parents versus the evidence in their home video. Articles and links to the court documents can be found at:
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/189/
@143
I did not question why *all* parents report a similar phenomena. I said "generally." There is a large group of parents who tell a similar story. Is it a given that all parents who report this phenomena are incorrect? Vaccination, regression, gut ailments. A parent who has witnessed this phenomena first hand will feel hostility and suspicion towards those who ignore their concerns.In effect, these parents are being told you didn't see what you claim to have seen, and even if you did, correlation does not equal causation and temporal proximity don't prove shit.
Dr. Insell says more autism, definitely. Grinker says not true. Not even a consensus among the mainstream medical community over simple basic questions about this disorder.
Of course the fringe elements will rush in to fill the void. The Wakefield deal is almost irrelevant at this point, why is so much ink spilled over it? The guy is a fraud or a really misunderstood guy, move on.
Until evidence based medicine provides answers, the outliers will. Correctly or otherwise.
@ Proscientifica:
I agree with you on a few points: Jake may not be a physical threat and I doubt that the principals will ever need to be present at proceedings- he's more of a pain-in-the-@ss and grand-stander trying to make a name for himself in that community, riding AJW's coat-tails to an imagined career in medical iconoclasm. I think lilady was being hyperbolic in the service of mockery.
Orac- and others here- expose the machinations of quackery and pseudo-science to public viewing ( LBRB did a good job as you note): I view anti-vax - and HIV/AIDS denialism- as merely the pointiest prods in an otherwise lumpy mattress - they stick out the most. Does writing about them give them press? I don't know but I would think it only *validates* them to those who are already deeply entrenched: a minority. Those less committed will learn about how they operate and perhaps question them more.
An important issue is how many people believe in extreme views like AoA (or that of any woo-meister): according to NPR- Reuters, Sept 2011, about 30% of all parents with children under 18 have 'concerns' about vaccination. I imagine that AoA speaks directly to only a sub-group of these: anti-vax and autism woo sites are really 'out there'- so it's a small portion of parents- but let's be honest: the population of the English-speaking world is awfully large and even a third of that 30% of all parents would be significant. Even if a mere 5-10% of parents of kids on the spectrum bought into woo that could involve *many* kids being subjected to useless treatments and parents wasting time, effort and money.
I agree that there is a vaccum: people seek out information about issues that affect their lives like health, child-rearing and relationships, and alt med prevaricators take advantage of that need. We represent a counter to the mis-information: I try to show the methods woo-meisters use to sell folks on bank-rupt ideas and worthless products.
@ Proscientifica: My remark at #141 about Jake Crsoby's behavior was stated (only partially), in jest.
So do you think it is "normal" behavior to stalk people and disrupt public Q&A sessions...all because Dr. Godlee, Brian Deer and Seth Mnookin, have written about his hero Wakefield?
Do you think it is "normal" behavior to show up dressed like a bum in a grungy T-Shirt and "infer" you represent the G.W. School of Public Health?
Do you think it is "normal" behavior to slander Dr. Godlee, Brian Deer, Dr. Paul Offit and others, which he has done repeatedly in his articles that appear of the AoA website?
Do you think it is "normal" behavior to accuse Orac of a COI with a drug manufacturer and to lodge a complaint with the hospital where Orac is a cancer surgeon?
I see him going further down that rabbit hole, because he gets positive reinforcement from his parents and from his colleagues and the posters at AoA...every time he stalks one of his "enemies" and every time he writes an article.
I suppose you also think Jake's stalking behaviors and slanderous articles are due to his diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome, eh?
Let's cut to the chase, Jake may (or may not) have a diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome, but his atrocious behaviors have nothing to do with that "diagnosis".
Even worse, by filing this lawsuit, Wakefield might very well have unwittingly set himself up to be the first major test case for the new law.
Don't know what you'd consider "major," but there have already been several anti-SLAPP cases that have gone to judgment in Texas and at least a couple where the plaintiff (the person in Deer's position in the anti-SLAPP suit) has been awarded attorney's fees.
It is not a give they are incorrect about what they saw. The problem is that assuming they really observed what they think they observed, the research currently indicates that this is not causal. One might just have easily picked any two other common occurrences in a young child's life before the typical age of autism symptoms.
The same question has been asked about flying saucers - if alien abductions don't really happen, then why are abductee stories so similar (the bright light, paralysis, the anal probe, etc.)?
In addition:
research *does* indicate that there are earlier indicators of autism ( patterns of gaze) as well as brain wave/ structural differences ( Courchesne's PFC, white matter), physiognomic differences ( head size, facial proportion) that suggest pre-natal and peri-natal rather than emergence post-vaccination.
Autism involves social and communication deficits that are not apparent earlier because babies don't engage much in these activities altho' *antecedents* exist less obviously ( gaze, smile etc). The findings above fit in with recent genetic studies and pre-/ peri-natal causation more than the alternate view.
Alison MacNeil ( @ Thinking Moms' Revolution/ quoted @ AoA) poignantly describes her discovery of her child's "transformation" post-vaccination: I don't think she's entirely fabricating but I totally disagree with her attribution of causation ( vaccines) and realise that memory ( like people) is highly influenced by suggestion as well as by events that transpire afterward.
"The question that I would like to have an answer for is why do the parents generally tell the same story of regression after vaccination associated with gut problems in some kids? Is it mass hysteria, an artifact of unconscious reiteration of mass media reports, or are they perhaps all experiencing some element of a common phenomena?"
@148- Mephistopheles- funny, I was thinking about alien abduction stories when I wrote the "mass hysteria" part.I saw on TV that only after pictures of the "aliens" were widely disseminated did reports of similar looking creatures begin to come in from around the country. Perhaps as you point out a similar story with parental reporting.
@146- no, those behaviors do not seem "normal"- but what is for a 23 year old? It's been a long time for me. If Crosby is stalking people, he should be in jail. Young kids like him are still finding their interests and I dare say very concerned with peer approval. What is normal for a 23 year old- smoking dope and hanging out with OWS? I really don't know. I think the amount of attention paid to him is out of proportion to his influence.
@145- 30% non compliance is a striking number, I would be amazed if blog sites like AoA or Whale or whatever others could have that kind of influence. A hot topic now is the "danger" of statins- but I am not hearing about people abandoning statins in droves. When Today Show covers vaccine non compliance, I believe that exposure does more harm than good. Ignore it and it will wither. Feed it and it will grow. Just as was posted about Crosby- by covering him on this blog, you increase his sense of credibility on other blogs. Ignore him and his influence I believe is diminished.
Last thought, thank you everyone for your thoughts- Wakefield is irrelevant to the issue of vaccine non compliance. No matter what, there will always be those who ignore what they want to ignore. ie- Holocaust deniers, Climate Change skeptics, Jim Jones is the messiah, tax cuts increase revenue, whatever. You can never change their minds. So why bother? Life is too short....
No matter what, there will always be those who ignore what they want to ignore. ie- Holocaust deniers, Climate Change skeptics, Jim Jones is the messiah, tax cuts increase revenue, whatever.
Beg pardon? Jones, an atheist and admirer of Stalin, never held himself out as "the Messiah," and there's no particular reason to think any of the Temple members thought of him that way that I'm aware of. [/nitpick]
Let's go back over "Proscientifica's history of posting at RI, which I covered fairly well:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/tactics_and_tropes_of_the_ant…
"@ Proscientifica: You first came to RI when Wakefield instituted suit against the BMJ, Fiona Godlee and Brian Deer...all the while stating that you have no expertise in the law, in science, in medicine and minimal or no knowledge of the GMC's administrative hearing, the GMC's decision and the investigation/articles written by Brian Deer.
You then proposed a wager, based on your lack of "expertise" of the law that the BMJ, Godlee and Deer would "settle" with Wakefield. Posters here provided you with links to internet sites, so that you could begin to understand the case against Wakefield. Brian Deer also posted here about the "Nature" article in question and how he and Fiona Godlee were misquoted.
So, you come back here and proclaim you are not anti-vax and boldly make this statement...after listening to crank radio, "The evidence is simply overwhelming that Deer has no credible sources for his allegations. Wakefield described the actions of BMJ in publishing Deer's allegations as "reckless." Perhaps that is true."
And,"...I wonder if the resident psychologist Denice could opine as to possible personality triaits, defects even, that may be evidenced in Deer's writings and radio and TV interviews. In particular, I notice that Deer assigns nefarious motives to virtually everyone who challenges or disagrees with him. Does this signal some discernible pathology?"
Where, aside from AoA and the Null Radio "special", has Brian Deer's credibility and honesty ever been questioned?
Where, aside from AoA and the Null Radio "special" has Deer ever been viciously slandered, libeled and defamed with accusations that question his "personality traits, defects and pathology"?
Now that Proscientifica has been informed about his "parroting" of slurs directed at Brian Deer...why doesn't he admit his mistake and apologize to Mr. Deer?
I'll be waiting for that apology. In the meantime Proscientifica is still full of it.
Posted by: lilady | January 26, 2012 5:14 PM"
Still claiming you are not anti-vax and still claiming you are a disinterested party, Proscientifica?
Did I miss the post where your apologized for smearing Brian Deer, Proscientifica?
@ Proscientifica:
While I cannot do the entire *screenplay* right now -
- it's not 30% *non-compliance* but 30% CONCERN. Two different breeds of cat- ( -btw- those over over 65: only 18% had concerns about vaccine safety). Compliance is much higher than 70 %.
"Increasing credibilty" by exposure? Maybe to those who have already *signed on* but I can't imagine increasing information and correcting misinformation will harm anyone.
I has meeting to prepare.
There is a large group of parents who tell a similar story. Is it a given that all parents who report this phenomena are incorrect? Vaccination, regression, gut ailments. A parent who has witnessed this phenomena first hand will feel hostility and suspicion towards those who ignore their concerns.In effect, these parents are being told you didn't see what you claim to have seen
Now I am imagining the medieval version of this. "There is a large group of parents who tell a similar story. Is it a given that all parents who report this phenomena are incorrect? First words, fairy abduction, cold unresponsive Changeling."
Perhaps Proscientifica will tabulate the number of that "large group of parents", and compare them to the rest of the parents of children with disabilities. Then get it published so that that data can be discussed intelligently. Until then, it is just a bunch of anecdotes.
@153- I regret my error- thank you for catching my incorrect statement regarding compliance versus concern.
"Where, aside from AoA and the Null Radio "special" has Deer ever been viciously slandered, libeled and defamed with accusations that question his "personality traits, defects and pathology"?
I believe that I pointed out that the Null radio show was clearly slanted against Deer- given that over the six hours of air time, Deer's views were given one hour. I acknowledge that Deer has done yeoman work in the area of pharma safety. I am not automatically opposed to pharma funding medical research. Nor do I believe that scientists who accept pharma funding are tainted or evil. Obviously many of the major advancements in medicine would not have happened without pharma companies taking a risk with their own money. This does not blind me to situations like Vioxx (which I have read that Deer helped to uncover) which resulted in a $3 billion criminal fine against Merck.
My query to arm chair pyscho analyze Deer, from a distance, was prompted by reading the same type of informed musings about Wakefield. A true skeptic would want to hear the same analysis applied to both the protagonist as well as the antagonist, though which is which I am no longer sure. Need a scorecard at this point.
Madam Lilady- I really wish we had had an opportunity to meet back in my marrying days. Who knows, maybe we did. I guess you didn't like me back then either. I admire your deep seated distrust of human nature. Your seething hostility makes me growl with desire. At the same time, I do not believe you are a true skeptic. You only question the things with which you disagree. Since you asked, not very politely, whether I am in the pro Insell anti-Grinker camp, or in the pro Grinker anti Insell camp, for your satisfaction I declare that I am more inclined to agree with Insell. You omitted that query during your reiteration of my posting history. I assure you I am not worth the effort, now 15 years ago that is a different story....
From the Bete Noire:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/brian-deers-bmj-series-not-peer-revi…
@ Proscientifica:
Jake's *journalism* is not regarded too fondly around here. To be truthful, I tried to reason with him ( @ RI, last summer) and get him to question the conspiracy- mongering @ AoA- I got called names and accused of vague malfeasance. He is not exactly a fan of yours truly. Oh well, comes with the territory.
While I applaud your tenacity in listening to the entire 7 hour broadcast, let me give you my summary: you have one smart person and a bin of loonies. AJW's supporters, emulating their hero, believe that you can just say anything if you don't like the data- their interests are not firmly grounded in what psychologists customarily refer to as *reality*. For my own part, while I've gone over BD's investigations, I was stopped in my tracks by the fact that prior to any data-manipulation, AJW had business plans based on a certain outcome ( a new vax, tests etc) and ties to a legal firm. THAT right there was *enough* for me. I also believe he fixed data.
"Actually, I watched Crosby speak during a public comment session at the recent IOM meeting in DC.
To imply that anyone would need a "personal order of protection" against him seems to me to be ridiculous. Crosby is not a large person; he appeared polite; he did not in any way seem physically threatening, or threatening in any manner. 141 characterization of Crosby is puzzling as it is completely at odds with my personal observation. More puzzling is why mature, seasoned, experienced health care providers and scientists would exhibit such fear of a "23 year old graduate student."
Proscientifica, which recent IOM meeting did you attend?
Was it this one, where Jake Crosby used the Q&A period to release a torrent of verbiage at Paul Offit?
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/12/paul-offit-lies-about-jake-crosby-ta…
Perhaps you are mistaken, and you attended the recent NIH meeting where Jake Crosby again did his verbal shtick, during the Q&A period, after Dr. Godlee's presentation:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/09/jake-crosby-challenges-bmj-editor-in…
While you claim to be a disinterested party, and both meetings were open to the public...it makes me wonder why you attended one (or both) of these meetings. Would you care to explain?
"Madam Lilady- I really wish we had had an opportunity to meet back in my marrying days....."
Don't delude yourself Pro...even in my youth I could spot a bullshitter and a con artist at a distance.
Oh? And how do you figure that? Are you saying that in your world, good behavior is so strange and bizarre and inexplicable that we need to "arm chair psycho analyze" people who actually do good things, to figure out what bizarre twisted pathology could have motivated them to respect the truth, not to mention human life? What crap.
When people do something far outside social or moral norms, there's a reason to try and figure out what could have motivated such behavior. A scientific fraud is one who has gone outside those social and moral norms; whether it's Wakefield or Reuben, it's natural to ask why. By contrast, Brian Deer is an investigative reporter who did exactly what investigative reporters are supposed to do: they dig up the truth and expose wrong-doing. Looking for some "pathology" to explain why Deer would behave like a decent human being with moral integrity, on the false premise that you can't ask why Wakefield told lies that would endanger human lives without seeking the false balance of poking at Deer, is just idiocy.
I realize that emitting "$3 billion" is practically a reflex in anyone tossing out similar numbers, but the Merck Vioxx marketing settlement was $950 million, of which $321 million was a criminal fine. But, hey, what's an order of magnitude here or there?
@ Antaeus:
Lawrence Kohlberg studied kids' and adults' levels of moral judgment in relation to cognition( but not 1-to-1 correspondence, obviously):
-in general, conventional levels accept standard norms for what is right and wrong- as they stand
-pre-conventional- what is right or wrong reflects what benefits or hurts the self ( ego-centrism)
-Post-conventional- goes beyond what society says is correct perhaps leading to re-examination of mores and laws which may be unfair.
Does the person act solely to benefit him/herself ( pre), look beyond to what's best for others ( conventional) or try to find what's fair for others despite the standard viewpoint (post)?
Self-interest is *supposed* to progress to concern about others' welfare and fairness in *normal* development.
I rest my case.
Keep hearing how Wakefraud fanbois will wager any money on him winning his joke lawsuit.
$100 says Wakefield doesn't win a cent.
Anyone?
For any newbie here...and for "Pro", in addition to the two articles written by Jake Crosby that I linked, there are a *few* more that he has written for AoA:
http://www.ageofautism.com/jake-crosby/
The polite grad student first started spilling his venom on September 8, 2008, when he was an undergrad student.
Hey Pro, why did you attend that meeting of the IOM, where you happened to see and hear the Boy Wonder Ace Reporter?
@ Mark: I haven't heard any offers to wager...lately.
Why do you think fanboi went to the IOM meeting to catch the Jake Crosby Show?
Antaeus Feldspar @160
I think it says a lot about Pro's ethics that xe needs to do this.
Pro's smug ignorant certainty regarding the legal case reminds of those idiots who show up in the comments on blogs like Pharyngula talking about how it is time put the "tottering" theory of evolution to rest. Not only are they "assuming facts not in evidence", but they are ignoring the facts that are in evidence.
@Narad - why let little things like facts get in the way of a good anti-Pharma screed, right?
@Antaeus Feldspar:
To play devil's advocate, I think the claim is that an ordinary investigative reporter would have grown bored of Wakefield by now, so the fact that he's still reporting on Wakefield means that he's obsessed.
#148- You say that one may pick out any other two incidents that happen around the age of autism detection. I agree with you. With 30% of parents doubting vaccine safety it seems that the events some parents are zeroing in on are the shots.
#161- you are correct. I got the number wrong. it is a criminal and civil settlement.
The meeting I attended Crosby spoke at the end of a long day during the public comment time slot. I honestly do not remember a word he said. The forum moderator announced his name. He walked to the lectern, began speaking is a low voice. After he spoke for about 3 or four minutes, the moderator told him time's up. He quietly left the lectern.The audience received him with polite disinterest at best.
My perception of Crosby is that he harps on 1) Wakefield is innocent! and 2) Dr. Offit has conflicts of interest. The GMC disagrees with Crosby on number 1. The US Congress, at least in 2000, provides some cover for number 2:
"Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000
âb. Dr. Paul Offit (Exhibits 38-41)
Dr. Offit shares the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine in development by Merck and lists a $350,000 grant from Merck for Rotavirus vaccine development. Also, he lists that he is a consultant to Merck.
Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIPâs rotavirus statement he voted âyesâ three times, including, voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program.â
Crosby seems to believe that accepting pharma funds for medical research is a guilt by association. I strongly disagree with that concept.
Had my annual physical last week in DC. The flu shot I received did not hurt a bit. Nor, for the moment, did it kill or incapacitate me. My daughter at age 5 had an adverse reaction to her DPT- there was slight redness and swelling at the injection site. If vaccine concerns are not overcome, public health is compromised. Invective and group think will not change the public perception of vaccine safety- understanding and addressing the cause of the doubts will. Labeling Mitting ignorant and pompous because you disagree with his decision is petty. Vilifying Crosby is absurd.
I commend AoA for publishing the CA Dad letter in it's entirety. Getting things like that done (I credit this blog for that) will help (snort) quash the more outlandish distortions.
Oh yeah- Madame Lilady- you are a hellcat! Do you ever purr, or is it always just hissing and spitting? Yeah, I'm a bullshit artist, so what? How the hell else am I ever gonna get laid? I watched three episodes of Scrubs last night back to back on Netflix with my 13 year old (fully vaccinated) son. Love that show!
"The meeting I attended Crosby spoke at the end of a long day during the public comment time slot. I honestly do not remember a word he said. The forum moderator announced his name. He walked to the lectern, began speaking is a low voice. After he spoke for about 3 or four minutes, the moderator told him time's up."
Really, Pro. The meeting took place between noon and 1 PM:
http://twitter.com/#!/IRPatNIH/statuses/146977864443625472
And,
"He quietly left the lectern.The audience received him with polite disinterest at best."
The NIH Record, reports Jake Crosby's behavior as being somewhat different than what you "observed" and what Jake reported:
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2012/01202012_Record.pdf
"After fielding the young manâs questions in increasingly measured tones, Offit explained, âOne of the consequences of what I do is that sometimes you get hate mail, sometimes you get sued, and now I have a stalker.â This particular student, he said, âoften makes disparaging comments about me at national meetings as well as on the Internet.â
Publicly identified as a nuisance, the man stormed out of Lipsett Amphitheater and slammed the door."
"Yeah, I'm a bullshit artist, so what? How the hell else am I ever gonna get laid?"
You are an unsuccessful "bullshit" artist here, Pro. Please confine your bullshitting skill to "other" activities.
Actually, you're kind of a creep.
Props to you, lilady. That is a great article on Offit at the NIH Record.
Speaking of Offit getting payment for a rotavirus vaccine, it said:
I don't see why people get upset that when they sold it to Merck, his share was $6 million. Do they expect him to work for decades for nothing?
Proscientifica:
Really? Which rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield or RotaTeq? If it was RotaShield, why would he vote for a competing vaccine?
As it turns out, RotaTeq was approved several years later when Offit was no longer part of ACIP, as noted by ACIP minutes of February 2005 meetings.
If one is going to make misleading statements about a public person, be sure that the lie cannot be quickly demolished. Young Master Crosby has not quite figured that out.
I think "Pro" who *claims* to have no expertise and *claims* to be a disinterested party, is still full of it.
Pro... just "happened* to attend the NIH meeting that took place between noon and 1 PM and just *happened* to catch the "Jake Crosby Stalking Paul Offit & Making An Ass Out Of Himself Show".
Pro...is overly impressed with Boy Wonder Ace Reporter...so much, in fact, that he lies about everything associated with the meeting.
Actually Pro...You really are a creep.
Don't overlook the possibility that "Proscientifica" is a sock-puppet for the Boy Wonder (Jake Crosby) or one of his handlers at AoA. That would explain his/her assessment of Jake Crosby's behaviors.
Prometheus
"Don't overlook the possibility that "Proscientifica" is a sock-puppet for the Boy Wonder (Jake Crosby) or one of his handlers at AoA. That would explain his/her assessment of Jake Crosby's behaviors."
Hmmmm, yuh think?
My best guess is that it is "Jen/Sick Sauce". Boy Wonder Ace Reporter Jake is just a tool of J.B. and Andy...passed around like a lap dog by his handlers at AofA.
@169
I didn't see that when I visited AoA a few moments ago, and searches of that web site for three different phrases in the complete text of that letter produced no link to the "letter in its entirety" but only to creatively edited and intentionally and extremely misleading snippets. Perhaps you are thinking of this:
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/03/what-letter-mr-olmsted-why-thi…
It seems to me that AoA's weasel-in-chief is simply continuing to distort and fabricate, and even when Olmsted is caught out he just whistles while his lapdogs continue to drool. But I could be wrong; could you please point me to the post where Olmsted admits quote-mining and thoroughly distorting the sense of the letter to completely misrepresent the author's position? Of course if Olmsted has already apologized, I'll apologize, too, but I don't think that I'll have to do that.
Damn weasels.
@ brian:
Oh come on, now! I know they're not as cute as otters but what did weasels ever do to you? They're just animals.
We need to come up with an appropriate label that succinctly articulates their under-handed style of manipulating information. How about *Wakefielders*?
@ Denice Walters
I didn't intend to denigrate mustelids by associating them with Dan Olmsted's nefarious behavior, but I take your point.
I suppose that "Wakefielders" might accurately describe the cohort of confused members of the Canary Party, but "Fools" might work better than that or even, say, "Asshats," given the dishonesty demonstrated by the owner and editor of the Age of Autism web site.
Call 'em muskrats. Nasty, vicious, hissing, ugly, wet and muddy creatures with no redeeming value whatsoever.
I'm sorry, but a muskrat too closely resembles whatever it is on top of Donald Trump's head, so I unfortunately associate that term with the GOP rather than with the Canary/Weasel/Skunk party.
Given Wakefield's proven dishonesty and Olmsted's demonstrated behavior, there must be a more appropriate term: perhaps the Lying Ignoranamus Party?
Hmmm... This is a bit difficult, since animals usually don't lie all that much. How about the Squirmers' Party, since they do squirm a lot when trying to ignore facts?
Brian@180 -- you are really quite wrong, you know. There is no known life form that resembles the Donald's hairpiece.
Shay @182
It is true that "there is no known form that resembles the Donald's hairpiece." I should have specified that I was referring to a dead muskrat. That might indeed be a fitting symbol for anti-vaxx wacko's like Olmsted and his AoA followers.
++++++NEWSFLASH+++++++
Pegasus and Emily do indeed share an IP address.
*facepalm*
LMFAO.
oops, wrong thread...!
So difficult to keep track of which idiot is which.
The CA Dad letter appears in comments for article Deer's BMJ Articles not Peer Reviewed comment number 40. You're welcome. Regret you were not able to find, I suggest you try again. It is there.
Dr. Offit is mentioned exactly as I redacted in the 2000 Congressional Report. You have a problem with that, bitch at Congress, not me.
The conference I attended was under the auspices of IOM not NIH. I said that from my first post.
Do the posters here have an opinion whether Grinker is correct or Insell? What is the proper medical course of action to take with a child who regresses and gets sick in temporal proximity to well baby visit including vaccinations? What medical workups should be standard procedure?
The NIH video posted by Lilady do not demonstrate Crosby by is a stalker. It struck me that NIH and Dr. Offit are not willing for whatever reason to allow Crosby to speak in a public forum. The worst he can do is embarrass himself. He might actually have a useful comment. Censoring him because his views are not appreciated makes NIH and Dr. Offit look scared and weak.
Creepy, eh? Yeah, maybe a little. What else you got?
Anyone here think the ice is melting under Deer? He would be the most convenient to throw under the proverbial bus so UCL and BMJ can kiss and make up. Oh, I forgot- that kind of speculation is a grand insult to the group think mentality. Regret considering a concept contrary to the party line.
The purpose of this blog is to reinforce the decided opinion and ridicule any fact set or individual who challenges the expected orthodoxy? Only views in accord with the company line need apply? Well good for you for not moderating me into oblivion. The personal attacks against me started with Lilady. Since her fact sets are wrong on three or four of her diatribes, maybe she is wrong in her rigidly held dogmas, mabye about me as well. Who really knows?
proscientifica:
You are making no sense. Again, the question was which rotavirus vaccine was that vote on: Rotashield or RotaTeq? Are you having trouble comprehending the difference?
Interesting, proscientifica, you mentioned a "Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000"
I did a search on that, and only found a bunch of suspicious sites, except one:
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000615a.html
And with a bit of work I found another bit of testimony:
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000615b.html
Neither of which contain the word "Offit" nor "rotavirus."
Would you please provide the actual link to the original congressional report that ends with ".gov"? Because I am not quite sure what you quoted from it actually exists. I will assume that someone made it up until there is a link to an official House of Representatives archive site.
And, I am still waiting for you to answer which rotavirus vaccine was being approved in the late 1990s.
@186
"The CA Dad letter appears in comments for article Deer's BMJ Articles not Peer Reviewed comment number 40. You're welcome. Regret you were not able to find, I suggest you try again."
I still wasn't able to find it with Google searches of that site for phrases from the father's letter such as "the main reason I am contacting you now is to reiterate to Mr. Olmstead that we wish for our family to stay out of the public eye" (of course Olmsted recently published details of Child 11's medical history, details about the child's father, and the child's first name), but I did find the text of the letter in the comments related to a different post, as you suggested. Since Olmsted did not acknowledge his blatent dishonesty or retract his clearly false statements, I don't really think that I owe him an apology so much as an admission that either he or one of his minions--contrary to AoA practice--allowed a rare, potentially dissenting comment to stand.
But, speaking of dishonesty, can you explain your behavior on this site?
Chris- keep assuming. Right. I faked a Congressional Report. And Dan Burton did not have hearings, either.
Does the phrase "asleep at the switch" mean anything to you?
Do you feel that Dr. Thomas Insell, Chair of the IACC, is wrong?
Is Roy Grinker from GW wrong?
What inferences should be drawn from the fact that evidence based medicine offers nothing to families who take their child to well baby visits and experience serious health issues in temporal proximity?
What is the most likely explanation for this phenomena? Does it occur? How often does it occur? What tests should a pediatrician order on 14 month old male who spikes a fever, has seizures, and develops ear infections and or diarrhea in temporoal proximity to well baby visit? Assume the child suffers from yellow, fouls smelling stools for a period of not less than six months starting at age 14 months. What would you do? Right. Nothing.
No, you cited something. I attempted to find it, but could not. Since you think it is a legitimate citation, then it is up to you to find the actual original source. You made a claim, therefor you must provide the evidence. That source should be a URL that ends in ".gov". Until you provide that original cite, then it cannot be taken as real.
About what? Provide the citation and original source URL.
About what? Provide the citation and original source URL.
Again, I cannot take your word for anything, especially since the only URL (other than the ones I provided, which did not mention Offit) were from those who have a less than truthful reputation. If you wish to be taken seriously, then you will have to learn to provide proper verifiable sources of documentation.
Do you understand what that means?
Now, before you go off on other nonsensical tangents, actually answer my question: please tell us which rotavirus vaccine was voted on in the late 1990s: RotaShield or RotaTeq?
@Chris- Google
"Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000" .
Wow Pro...you are really looking bad here.
We all *thought* you were a disinterested party, claiming no affiliation with any of the plaintiffs or their organizations, claiming no legal knowledge, nor any medical knowledge.
Many months later you are defending the Boy Wonder Ace Reporter's scurrilous attacks on Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, the BMJ and Paul Offit...among others. You have questioned Deer's honesty and have made some libelous statements about
him.
Now you bring up Dan Burton's hearings...Dan Burton is a buffoon, a tool of the anti-vax movement and he tried to influence the autism omnibus hearings:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/representative_dan_burton_try…
Just another bullshitting troll, our Pro.
"b. Dr. Paul Offit (Exhibits 38-41)
Dr. Offit shares the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine in development by Merck and lists a $350,000 grant from Merck for Rotavirus vaccine development. Also, he lists that he is a consultant to Merck.
Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP's rotavirus statement he voted "yes" three times, including, voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program."
lurker, I did use Google. Only two URLs had .gov on the end, and neither mentioned Offit.
The same question to you: Which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s: RotaShield or RotaTeq? Why is that important.
By the way, Pro, you said "Dr. Offit is mentioned exactly as I redacted in the 2000 Congressional Report. You have a problem with that, bitch at Congress, not me."
I cannot confront Congress unless I have the actual report, which does not seem to exist. If you can find it with a .gov URL, then I will read it. Thank you.
@Chris- It's a PDF you are lazy
Chris- keep assuming. Right. I faked a Congressional Report. And Dan Burton did not have hearings, either.
Does the phrase "asleep at the switch" mean anything to you? It probably doesn't. It was in the conclusion of the Burton/Waxman hearings.
Do you feel that Dr. Thomas Insell, Chair of the IACC, is wrong? Or, is Roy Grinker at GW wrong? What inferences can be drawn by the diametrically differing opinions of two key public health officials? I infer that this freaks parents out, especially the families that observe their children become ill in temporal proximity to well baby visits.
What tests should a pediatrician order on 14 month old male who s spikes a fever, has seizures which abate over time, and develops ear infections and or diarrhea in temporal proximity to well baby visit? Assume the child suffers from yellow, fouls smelling stools for a period of not less than six months starting at age 14 months. What would you do? Right. Nothing. Except question the credibility of the reporting witnesses. The inability to even acknowledge, let alone treat, this set of symptoms by the posters on this page is precisely why the Wakefield saga exists.
The policy makers here on the board are experienced bureaucrats with sharp knives and long memories. On your board, Orac, Crosby is being smeared as a stalker. That line of attack is nothing less than medical McCarthyism, just as is so much of this nonsense. Eject Crosby from a public meeting at NIH? For what? For asking a questions? For making Dr. Offit uncomfortable? The players here are couching this in deliberately loaded terms to attempt Crosby's professional destruction. It is shameful, it is disgusting, it obvious, and it's on your watch, Mr. Orac.
To all you- whichever ones of you are still capable of human decency- figure it out. Why are the kids getting sick? You are responsible for all the quackery you decry until you determine is it Grinker or Insell? If it is Insell, than what have you been doing just sitting on your ass for the past 20 years?
I'm a little confused lurker...
Which rotavirus vaccine was licensed in 1998, and which pharmaceutical company developed that vaccine?
Which other rotavirus vaccines have been licensed since 1998 and which pharmaceutical companies developed those vaccines?
@189 For Christ Saks, here it is:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/brian-deers-bmj-series-not-peer-revi…
"Dan Burton is a buffoon, a tool of the anti-vax movement "-- yeah, yeah, get it, he disagrees with you, therefore you feel entitled to savage him with name calling or, in the case of Crosby, make a calculated effort to destroy him professionally at age 23. You are a real sweetie. Yu're not helping any sick kids.
I forgot- Lewis is a tool of antivaxxers' Mitting is ignorant and pompous; I am a bullshitter. Being slimwd by you is like a rite of passage, right?
"What tests should a pediatrician order on 14 month old male who s spikes a fever, has seizures which abate over time, and develops ear infections and or diarrhea in temporal proximity to well baby visit?"
Here you go, Pro...tell us, using your expertise, how many of the children in the study had "medical indications" to justify lumbar punctures:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/80773-overview
"On your board, Orac, Crosby is being smeared as a stalker. That line of attack is nothing less than medical McCarthyism, just as is so much of this nonsense. Eject Crosby from a public meeting at NIH? For what? For asking a questions? For making Dr. Offit uncomfortable? The players here are couching this in deliberately loaded terms to attempt Crosby's professional destruction. It is shameful, it is disgusting, it obvious, and it's on your watch, Mr. Orac."
Crosby has no "profession" and he will never have a "profession". All a prospective employer need do is 'Google' "Jake Crosby Age of Autism" to locate his 73 yellow journalism, libelous, scurrilous posts:
http://www.ageofautism.com/jake-crosby/
His lack of employment in any profession in the future is his own doing...it's always been an "inside job".
lurker:
So, what is the URL of that pdf? Do you know what I mean by "URL"? It is the actual website address, which usually starts with "http", sometimes includes "www", and the one I want must include ".gov" (an example: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/rubella.pdf ... see, has a ".gov" and is a PDF, notice how the letters are a different color). Quoting parts of it is not sufficient. So give me the URL that you are quoting.
Proscientifica, I was asking for the House of Representatives report of June 15, 2000 that you claim to be quoting. It has to have a .gov URL (that means it is actually from a US government website). So why are you giving me a silly AoA link? Is English your second language?
You made a claim about a report on Offit and a rotavirus vaccine, so you must support that claim.
By the way (again), which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s: RotaShield or RotaTeq? What is the difference between them? It is a simple question, surely you can answer it.
"No safety or efficacy data are available from clinical trials regarding the administration of RotaTeq to infants who are potentially immunocompromised.
No safety or efficacy data are available for administration of RotaTeq to infants with a history of gastrointestinal disorders.
Vaccine virus transmission from vaccine recipient to non-vaccinated contacts has been reported. Caution is advised when considering whether to administer RotaTeq to individuals with immunodeficient contacts.
In post-marketing experience, intussusception (including death) and Kawasaki disease have been reported in infants who have received RotaTeq.
RotaTeq may not protect all vaccine recipients against rotavirus. "
Proscientifica @197
Re Seizures: EEG.
As for the rest, I can think of any number of causes of ear infections and diarrhea. Most of them are not at all related to vaccines (but depending on the waiting room, could be related to a well baby visit). Was the 14 month old recently introduced to milk? That can cause bowel issues for some â which will continue until you cut out the dairy products. And 14 month olds walk around, encounter other humans who may or may not be healthy, and they still stick a lot of random stuff in their mouths.
Does it really make a difference if the child is male or female? What would we do a for female child having seizures? Oh, right, EEG.
And what do you mean by âtemporal proximity?â Wakefieldâs two weeks?
I think your bias is showing.
Youâre losing credibility by the post, proscientifica.
By the way, when you start misspelling your own screen name, itâs time to call it a night. Did you intend to link an email address at #200?
lurker...I posed questions to you (post 198):
Which rotavirus vaccine was licensed in 1998, and which pharmaceutical company developed that vaccine?
Which other rotavirus vaccines have been licensed since 1998 and which pharmaceutical companies developed those vaccines?
I'm still waiting, lurker.
@Lurker:
Citation Needed.
Again, Citation Needed.
Citation Needed, specifically that the vaccine caused the deaths. Oh, and Age of Autism is not a reliable source.
lurker, you need to learn how to post website references. You cannot just pull quotes from the Internets and expect anyone to verify them without the actual URL address.
Learn how to cut and paste the URL. You do not need to imbed them into HTML (like The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review), all you have to do is show use what is the web address. Something like (same link):
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.long
We know that sometimes there is a learning curve. It took a bit of time for lilady to post links, but she learned and has been doing a phenomenal job of finding links to very pertinent documents. You can do the same thing if you set your mind to it.
@Julian - it's from Merck
https://www.merckvaccines.com/Products/Rotateq/Pages/rotateq.aspx?WT.mc…
@Chris- Sorry it took so long I lost the URL see @Julian@208
lurker, how is that the US Government URL for the "Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000"? Seriously? I am still waiting for someone to post the actual URL to that report, and definitely not something from AoA or whale.to.
Now, again... which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s: RotaShield or RotaTeq? Why is that significant?
Come on, lurker and proscientifica, answer those questions!
Trolls made the allegation that Paul Offit voted on a rotavirus vaccine during his tenure on the ACIP. Neither Troll has answered the questions posed to them by Chris and by me,specifically...
Which rotavirus vaccine was licensed in 1998 and which pharmaceutical company developed that specific vaccine?
Which rotavirus vaccines were licensed since then...and which pharmaceutical companies developed each of these vaccines?
The "lurker" troll then cherry-picks some quotes from a rotavirus manufacturer's prescribing information about "reports" "In post-marketing experience, intussusception (including death) and Kawasaki disease have been reported in infants who have received RotaTeq". (lurker still does not get "it" that any reports, including unverified reports from parents on the VAERS system, are required by the FDA to be included in the Drug Manufacturer's Prescribing Information Sheet).
Here is a website that describes the three rotavirus vaccines that were licensed since 1998 in the United States, and the many studies that have been conducted. Note there "may be" increased incidence of intussusception, above baseline incidence of intussusception (in an unimmunized child). Note also that these reports represent more that 60 million doses of the two newer rotavirus vaccines...not the vaccine that was in 1998 licensed, and removed within 14 months of licensure in 1999.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/intussusception-studies-a…
Try again to answer my questions and the questions posed by Chris about which rotavirus vaccine was licensed in 1998...by which pharmaceutical company and, which other rotavirus vaccines have been licensed since then, by which pharmaceutical companies?
I think your attempts to smear Dr. Offit are just as reprehensible as Crosby's pathetic smear campaign.
Lurker, thank you for the link, even though it's not a Government Report. Having said that, and given that it came from Merck, I'd say that the comments you posted were typical CYA that all reports have. Secondly, where is your proof that the vaccine CAUSED the deaths? Correlation != Causation.
lurker and Proscientifica, please tell us which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s: RotaShield or RotaTeq? Why is that difference significant in regards to Dr. Offit?
After reading through Proscientifica's comments, especially those in relation to Brian Deer, I get the feeling that if he was around in the mid-70's, he'd be calling Woodward & Bernstein mentally unstable for their fixation on Watergate & Nixon......
A good investigative journalist follows actual evidence - what our boy Jake Crosby does is invent evidence (his "six-degrees" rants) out of whole cloth. He shows up at speaking events & throws out the same questions over and over again, which have all been answered, in detail, in the past.
Given that Deer & the BMJ hired Vincent & Elkins to defend against Wakefield's suit in Texas (they are an AMLAW 50 law firm & the attorneys representing them as experts in this field of caselaw), it looks like they are prepared to fight this one to the end - not exactly looking like the "ice is melting under Deer."
Just my early morning thoughts - Pro, your true colors are showing.....
Its presence in the comments does not make Olmsted's dishonesty in posting the edited portion and lying about the contents of the rest any better.
Your use of the word "redacted" is highly funny in this context. I don't think it means what you think it means.
In any case, there is good reason, as Olmsted (and Pegasus/Emily in another thread) have recently proven, to be on one's guard when an anti-vaxer waves some bit of text and says "see? see? these words were said! that supports my views! No, I won't tell you what the context was! You don't need to know, because the meaning of a sentence is never changed drastically by the context in which it appears!" That last sentence is of course completely false, because context - such as which of at least two rotavirus vaccines was being referred to - quite often changes import drastically.
This argument loses any force it has once you remove the anti-vaxer myopia and realize that there are other people in the world besides Jake Crosby and those other people are far more likely to have useful comments. Crosby has been given far more than his share of chances to actually contribute something useful to the discussion and has failed, quite consistently. The only people who think the best use of Q&A time is to let Jake Crosby harass the speaker are the same kind of people who defend Alan Yurko.
Unlike AoA, the SBM community doesn't censor people for deviating from a party line. However, we do put social pressure on people to engage in realistic thinking based on facts. Your idea that "the ice is melting under Deer," which you have been pushing since you first came in lying and pretending you were without a dog in the fight, is not based on facts or on realistic thinking.
Here are some facts about AJW that are disturbing to me: perhaps his supporters can ease my mind and enlighten me.
He applied for patents and set up companies based upon his postulated link between vaccines, GI issues and autism.
He was associated with a firm seeking a class action.
He accepted public legal funds.
He did not replicate his research.
He was let go by the Royal Free.
He used legal manoeuvering in an attempt to silence critical press and television coverage.
He was struck-off by the GMC and did not appeal.
He again resorts to censoring criticism by legal means.
You may notice that I deliberately left out his infamous study. Let's pretend that I have no problem with that- however, what I do list above is enough for me to doubt his honesty.
Short answer? Exactly the same tests he'd order if these symptoms developed in the absence of temporal proximity to the well baby visit,
Chris
This is a typical creationist tactic and was used to great effect by the AGW denialists with the stolen emails. Interesting that "Proscientifica" is operating out of the same playbook as the other anti-science movements.
Yes, I was suspicious of that "gotcha" quote from a congressional report when most of the websites I found using a Google search were whale.to, AoA, NVIC and other anti-vax site. The only two US Government websites with the words "Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000" did not even have the words "Offit" or "rotavirus."
Their honestly is quite telling when they refuse to give the original link to congressional report, and even refuse to tell us where they cut and pasted the quote from.
Of course what was hilarious is that after explaining I could not find the official US government website, including explaining that that extension must be ".gov", lurker replies with: "@Chris- It's a PDF you are lazy".
I will note that neither Proscientifica nor lurker have told us which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s and why that information in regards to Offit is significant. It is yet another question that the anti-science anti-vax refuse to answer.
Proscientifica:
Right. I faked a Congressional Report.
If the passage you quoted cannot be found on any of the government websites that exist to host reports of congressional hearings, then we are left with the conclusion that *someone* faked it. Obviously it is a *popular* passage -- favoured by commenters pasting it to make their point in comment threads elsewhere (e.g. at LBRB) -- but when the only primary source is a fraud-friendly website like whale.to, its popularity merely strengthens the suspicion of fakery.
Lurker's offer of an anonymous PDF encapsulation of the bare text -- devoid of governmental watermarks or letterhead -- does not help the case.
Chris' request seems reasonable, proscientifica. You quoted the passage so you must know where you cut-&-pasted it from. If it was a governmental source, pass on the details and everyone's curiosity will be satisfied. If not, you were pwned.
lurker found it: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106hhrg73042/html/CHRG-106hhrg73042.h…
The quote is from Dan Burton, who is not exactly unbiased. There is definitely context that is missing.
Well, lurker found *the official* transcript of the June 15 congressional hearing, which does mention Dr Offit but does not contain any of the quotes provided by lurker and proscientifica.
Those juicy quotes are present only in the "Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform", as hosted at Whale.to and the "National Vaccine Information Center Archives". This document is unsigned. Who prepared it is anyone's guess. Whether it has any official standing is anyone's guess. Perhaps it was prepared by Dan Burton's staff, on his behest, in which case it deserves the usual credence you would give to a statement from a politician.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106hhrg73042/html/CHRG-106hhrg73042.h…
Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making
Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000
The other .gov can't be found at the moment. It is in the NVIC archives which is denigrated by Chris, lilady etc.
Here's the link anyway
http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/conflicts-of-interest.aspx
They deny this is a valid document.
Why are you copying and pasting the exact same shit over again when an actual version of what you've tried and failed to copetently refer to has already been provided? Are you not even reading?
@proscientifica- The "conflict of interest" debate is on the previous http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/the_promotion_of_an_antivacci…
I am no longer commenting as I am trashed as a troll for supporting Dr. Sears
and Dr. Gordon.
Proscientifica, have you *read* that document you cited at #224? It does not contain the passages you quoted in your comment #169.
That passage comes from the "Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform", a document prepared by Dan Burton's legislative aide Toni Lightle as a statement of Burton's position... a list of the points he intended to make from the congressional hearing. What you have been quoting from is a political platform, one politician's electioneering, which is possibly why it is hosted at NVIC rather than on any government website.
Proscientifica, which rotavirus vaccine was approved in the late 1990s: RotaShield or RotaTeq?
@ Pro...I can only reiterate what other posters' opinions are about the link you provided at # 244. I've read that link and it is documentation of the testimony that took place at the hearing between Burton and Waxman.
Here...scrolling ~35 % down on your link is Burton's statement, regarding his grandson's onset of autism following vaccination:
"...Mr. Burton. Well, I guess the point I'm trying to make, and
the question I'm trying to make is that, I have a grandchild, I
have two grandchildren. One of them almost died from a vaccine,
the other one is now autistic, we believe, from vaccines. And I
think that I, like most people who have children or
grandchildren that are having these things put into these
bodies, need to be assured that they've been thoroughly tested
and that the people who are making the decisions on whether or
not those should be mandated, mandated by law, don't have a
conflict of interest."
And further down, Burton states...
"...Now, there's a lot of parents who have had that kind of
problem with other drugs and other vaccinations. My grandson
got nine shots in 1 day. He was a perfectly normal child. And
within about 3 or 4 or 5 days, a week, he became autistic. Now,
it may be a coincidence. A lot of people say that's
coincidental.
But the one thing I want to make sure of as a grandparent
or as a parent is that the guys making these decisions or the
ladies making these decisions, these doctors, these experts,
don't have some kind of a conflict of interest that skews their
judgment in one direction or the other. And the American
people, well, you can say, we shouldn't be making this stuff
public. Let me tell you something. Everybody in American who
has a child who's had this kind of a problem wants this stuff
made public, because they want to know if the people making
these decisions do have a conflict of interest.
We go to the doctors and we get these shots for our kids,
and we do it believing that the health agencies are above
reproach, that there's no danger to our children, or at least
it's minimal. And we put great confidence in CDC and FDA and
all of our health agencies. And if we find out after the fact
that our child has had a terrible, serious problem, and then we
find out after the fact that people on that advisory committee
that made those decisions did have a conflict of interest, it
will weigh on us very heavily, because we'll wonder, always
wonder, if that conflict of interest led to the problem that we
have in our family."
(Shades of Michele Bachmann...who claims that a parent told her that her child was vaccine-damaged. "She had the HPV vaccine and 'thereafter' became mentally retarded")
Why aren't you and Rep. Burton concerned about the COIs and the cozy relationship that certain legislators have with supplement manufacturers and quack doctors?:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/goodbye_and_good_riddance_to_…