A "professor" who isn't talks science about vaccines that isn't

One of the great things about having achieved some notoriety as a blogger is that readers send me links to articles that the believe will be interesting to me. They usually come in waves. For instance, after anything having to do with Stanislaw Burzynski, “right to try,” particularly egregious antivaccine idiocy, and the like hits the news, I can be sure that well-meaning readers will send me or Tweet at me about the same article several times. (So don’t take it personally if I don’t respond; I get hundreds of e-mails a day.) Sometimes they’re wrong and its something that I have no interest in, but that’s just the price to be paid for being such an amazingly popular blogger. I know, I know. I’m basically a microcelebrity, if not a nanocelebrity. But to me, even eleven years on, that’s amazingly popular because I never expected when I started this whole crazy thing that I’d ever get more than a few hundred readers, if that.

In any case, when a reader sends me a link to something entitled Scientific Proof: Vaccines DO Cause Autism, it is, as I told that reader, not unlike waving a cape in front of a bull. Actually, it’s not, at least not most of the time, because so many antivaccine blogs post articles with similar titles. I could probably write about nothing but articles claiming to have the “scientific proof” that vaccines cause autism and still be able to produce at least three posts a week. However, when an article entitled Scientific Proof: Vaccines DO Cause Autism is posted on the Drinking Thinking Moms’ Revolution (TMR) and is as hilariously off base as this one is, well, it really is like waving the proverbial cape in front of the proverbial bull. At the very least, I know I’m in for potential fun and frustration deconstructing one of the Drinking Thinking Mom’s attempts to fancy herself an expert immunologist and neuroscientist. Basically, TMR is a wine loving, vaccine hating, coffee klatch of mommy warriors for whom the terms Dunning-Kruger effect and arrogance of ignorance were coined, and, believe me, the Dunning-Kruger is very strong here.

This time around, it’s Drinking Thinking Mom in whom the Dunning-Kruger is arguably the strongest, the one who calls herself “The Professor” or “Professor TMR” and uses as her avatar a photo of a teacher writing on the blackboard wearing a very short dress that shows off her black stockings and garters. I must confess that I never understood the choices, but, then, every regular at TMR likes to choose a ‘nym like Professor TMR, Dragon Slayer, Sugah, Blaze, Goddess, or Killah. You get the idea. Maybe it’s just because I’m a clueless middle-aged white male, and maybe I shouldn’t care, but it’s still odd to me. Oh, well. I chose as my ‘nym and avatar an all-knowing computer from an obscure late 1970s British science fiction television show. So I guess I can hardly talk.

Be that as it may, we’ve met the Professor before, and she is magnificent at laying down the Dunning-Kruger. Of course, that’s not a good thing, and unfortunately she’s just as magnificent here. First off, she seems very unhappy about a famous Tweet Hillary Clinton made trolling antivaccine activists:

The Professor’s reaction:

This is it: The Changepoint.

Can you feel it? The last 30 years have led inexorably to this moment when, for the first time in history, all the candidates remaining in the race for the presidency of the United States feel the need to clarify their stance on the use of vaccines – repeatedly and conflictingly. How did we get to the point where vaccines have become such a highly charged, controversial issue? After all, if vaccines are truly as safe as “they” say they are, wouldn’t anyone want a “get out of sickness free” card?

The truth? Of course they would. If vaccines were a truly “free” way to avoid illness, there would be no controversy, plain and simple. Everyone would be on board. That’s why vaccines have generally enjoyed the largely unquestioned popularity they have for as long as they have. Everyone wants to believe in magic. The problem is that, as the number of recommended vaccines and vaccine doses has climbed in the last 30 years along with their concomitant serious adverse events, it has become glaringly obvious that such avoidance of illness through the help of a hypodermic needle is anything but “free” for a large and growing segment of the population who are now living with chronic, often debilitating, illness.

I do so love how antivaccinationists conflate two different things, as the Professor is doing here. Vaccines are not “controversial.” At least, they aren’t controversial in the way antivaccinationists think they are. Hillary Clinton was correct about this. Despite many attempts over two decades to find a link involving hundreds of thousands of patients, no link between vaccines and autism has been found. To a high degree of precision and to the best of science’s ability to determine, vaccines do not cause autism, which is exactly the opposite of what the Professor is trying to argue. So where does the controversy come in? Simple. It involves questions of how far society should go to mandate vaccinations for children; i.e., how to balance the public good against individual rights to refuse. Society has clearly struck a balance in which it requires that children be vaccinated in order to be allowed to attend school and day care. It’s a reasonable compromise. Now, the controversy is over whether nonmedical exemptions (a.k.a. religious or personal belief exemptions) should be permitted. That controversy only exists because antivaccine views have led to an increase in nonmedical exemptions in many states, leading to pockets of low vaccine uptake, leading to degradation of herd immunity, and leading to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.

I’m not sure if this is an intentional or unintentional strategy in the Professor’s case, but antivaccine activists often try to conflate the political controversy over vaccine mandates with a scientific controversy. They then go on to argue that the reason there is a political controversy is because there is a scientific controversy over the safety and efficacy of vaccines. However, that “scientific controversy” is nothing more than a manufactroversy. Antivaccine “scientists” do their damnedest to generate “science” implicating vaccines in everything from autism to autoimmune diseases to sudden infant death syndrome to just about any chronic disease or condition that you can imagine.

This leads Professor TMR to do what antivaccinationists do so well, play the victim:

You all know in your heart of hearts it’s true. The mocking of CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen, her “journalistic” colleagues, and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Special Masters notwithstanding, there can be no other explanation for why the “myth” has persisted. The mainstream media would have you believe that everyone who believes that vaccines cause autism (at least one-third of American parents of children under 18 at last count) is a superstitious, anti-science nutcase. But if you actually dig deeper and investigate this claim, you will find that often the “all vaccines are magic” crowd is actively discouraging the sharing of science and factual information while at the same time disseminating a great deal of – what shall we call it? Misinformation? – justifying themselves with “you can’t handle the truth.” Those of us who think that vaccines come with some very serious risks that mean that everyone should be thinking long and deeply before taking any vaccine, on the other hand, actively share as much scientific and factual information as possible, while at the same time encouraging you to do further independent study on the subject. We want you to understand that large, epidemiological studies are easy to manipulate. (There’s a reason for Disraeili’s saying, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”) We want you to look at who is funding the science, and ask yourself what questions didn’t they ask or answer? We want you to be aware of what the editors of the most prestigious medical journals and the Cochrane Collaboration (the least biased international repository for medical science) have to say about corporate corruption of science and the failure of peer review.

One can’t help but note that the Cochrane Collaboration houses within its organization at least one high-placed scientist who is profoundly skeptical of the influenza vaccine and has said things about it that border on antivaccine. Yes, I’m referring to Tom Jefferson. Heck, he’s even appeared on the Gary Null Show. I also see a lot of projection here. Professor TMR calls us the “all vaccine is magic” crowd, but that is more true of antivaccine loons like her. The difference is that she thinks all vaccines are black magic that causes autism and all manner of health problems. As for manipulating epidemiological studies, Professor TMR’s claim shows that she’s clearly never been involved in an epidemiological study. They are not nearly as easy to manipulate as she thinks. Protocols have to be approved by scientific review boards (SRBs) and then institutional review boards (IRBs), the purpose of the latter of which is to protect human subjects. Has Professor TMR ever served on an IRB? Clearly not, or she would know that SRBs and IRBs pore over the plans for study design, data collection, and statistical analysis. They look for any issues that might compromise the study. Truly, the ignorance of our “Professor” is breathtaking.

But our good “Professor” is only getting started. Here’s the part where she fancies herself an immunologist. Hilariously, she references a post on TMR by Twilight (here we go with the ‘nyms again) that is notable for throwing around a bunch of immunology terms, cites a bunch of studies relating neuroinflammation and autism, and concludes that just because there’s evidence that neuroinflammation is seen in autism that vaccines must be a cause. Seriously, it’s that simple. Or should I say, that simplistic? It might be fun to deconstruct the issues with that post in more detail, but not here. For purposes of this post, I just find it quite amusing that Professor TMR would cite such a source. Even more hilariously, Professor TMR invokes Vaccine Papers. Regular readers know that whoever is behind that execrable site has on occasion shown up in the comments here. I might just finally have to do a post about that website.

Professor TMR concludes with an analogy that shows just how little she understands science:

After our blog on Autism and the Immune System, Lisa Stephenson of Autism Revolution for Medical Intervention requested that we stop pursuing the link between vaccines and autism and suggested that by doing so we were sacrificing “all our children for the sake of the ones who have vaccine-induced autism.” I heartily disagree and will illustrate it with an analogy. Say that you have read the research linking smoking and lung cancer. You know it implicates smoking in a big way, but the tobacco companies are running successful interference, and you see people all around you who don’t know about the link and are subsequently developing lung cancer. Do you keep quiet about it because there are some people who develop lung cancer, like my own father, who have never smoked a day in their lives and you might be “sacrificing” those people “for the sake of the ones who have smoking-induced lung cancer”? Of course not! You speak up and inform people what their choices and actions may lead to and in the process help benefit the individuals, their families, society at large by enabling them to avoid the physical, social, and economic costs of serious illness. Then, if they still choose to smoke, at least they’re doing it with their eyes open.

Comparing vaccine manufacturers to tobacco companies is a favorite trope of antivaccinationists. Never mind that the real analogy would place antivaccine propagandists in the place of tobacco companies. They are the ones using the same techniques of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (a.k.a. FUD) about vaccines in the same way that tobacco companies spread FUD about the science showing that cigarettes cause cancer. Now here’s why Professor TMR’s analogy is so brain dead. Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by as much as ten-fold, and the epidemiological evidence that it does so is bulletproof. In contrast, there is no solid evidence that vaccines cause autism and mountains of evidence that it doesn’t. The analogy is ridiculous on so many levels.

In the end, Dunning-Kruger triumphs.

Categories

More like this

I've frequently written about the "arrogance of ignorance," a phenomenon that anyone who's paid attention to what quacks, cranks, or antivaccine activists (but I repeat myself) write and say beyond a certain period of time will have encountered. Basically, it's the belief found in such people—and…
After a digression yesterday, it's time to get back to business. Don't get me wrong. Yesterday's post was business. It was definitely something important (to me) that needed to be said, in my not-so-humble pseudonymous opinion. It just wasn't the usual business I engage in on this blog. I've often…
I've discussed on many occasions over the years how antivaccine activists really, really don't want to be known as "antivaccine." Indeed, when they are called "antivaccine" (usually quite correctly, given their words and deeds), many of them will clutch their pearls in indignation, rear up in self-…
Having recently discovered a veritable Library with Doctor Moon of antivaccine misinformation and quackery known as Modern Alternative Mama's blog, Facebook page, Twitter feed, and YouTube channel, I couldn't resist taking one more drought from the same well. It is, after all, almost Christmas,…

This article is pure comedic Gold.

"...but antivaccine activists often try to conflate the political controversy over vaccine mandates with a scientific controversy."

Would you care to give any examples?
Practical, referenced examples?

"Protocols have to be approved by scientific review boards (SRBs) and then institutional review boards (IRBs), the purpose of the latter of which is to protect human subjects."

Oh really?
That's why people have been screaming about the pro-vaccination industry, and why there's never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines.

And the most hilarious part was the end, quoting the Dunning-Kruger affect.
And who "triumphs"?? Ha ha ha.

Clearly the author of this disingenuous drivel, is the dumb (getting overconfident), while the intelligent Mr Burzynski is the one who's doubtful and pessimistic.

But hey, keep it coming, this pro-vaccination maim and disfigure our children rubbish is just laughable.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 30 Aug 2016 #permalink

That’s why people have been screaming about the pro-vaccination industry, and why there’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines.

Perfect example of the logic of the anti-vax crowd... ...they whine about protective measures.

And for your latter assertion, I'll just leave this here (pdf)...

" The first, a pentavalent human-bovine reassortant, was christened RotaTeq®. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (RDBPCT) involving 68,000 infants, a threedose series of this vaccine was found to be 98% efficacious against ‘severe’ rotavirus disease—that measured by emergency department visits or hospitalizations. It was approved by FDA in 2006.”1

“Rotarix®, featuring a live, attenuated human strain, was approved by FDA in 2008; its two-dose series was tested in a RDBPCT involving 63,225 infants and found to be 85% efficacious against severe rotavirus disease."

PS, you do realize this article didn't have anything to do with Mr. Burzynski?

I think and hope a different "changepoint" is soon coming--one that will finally result in the real physicians and medical groups actively coming unambiguously together against these dangerous ant-vaxxers. Point in case: Yesterday, the AAP (1) finally joined the AMA and AAFP in calling for all states to end non-medical vaccine exemptions, and, (2) they changed AAP policy to agree with physician dismissal of vaccine-refusing families (though probably because a lot of us were doing it out of necessity for our patients and didn't care what the AAP thought). These actions should notch up the blood pressure of these AVers and hopefully make them act even more like the hooligans they are. Now if state medical boards will start taking action against publicly anti-vaccine doctors, and if the AAP will finally toss out their anti-vaccine doctors (as well as directly call out groups like the NVIC and frauds like Andrew Wakefield and his whole Vaxxed clown show)--then there is a large "changepoint" to drive right through the center of anti-vaccinationism.

By Chris Hickie (not verified) on 30 Aug 2016 #permalink

@gaist "they whine about protective measures."

Have you never heard of the the Hippocratic oath??
Do no harm??
But of course, doctors enjoy killing, maiming and generally destroying people's lives, with corrupted medicine.
As long as we can drive European cars, and have all those capital letters next to our name.

"PS, you do realize this article didn’t have anything to do with Mr. Burzynski?"

Are you sure?
Take one of those Nootropics you've got in your pocket, and have a read again.
To subtle for you?

"Rotarix®, featuring a live, attenuated human strain, was approved by FDA in 2008;"
let me be clear, I was referring to the vaccines in question; MMR.
Do you have any RDBPCT on MMR??

Oh and don't give him more BS from the FDA
Everybody in the world, including some Americans know that the Flunky Drug Administrator, is one of the most corrupt organisations in history of the human race.
Infested with pharmaceutical industry apologists, and rubberstampeders.

@Peter Dugdale

"I didn’t think we were going to see you again.
You still haven’t responded to the questions that were put to you in this thread:"

Well I thought your response, along with the other immature enablers, was so poor that I thought what was the point. I mean, the replies were full of ad hominem, and non sequiturs.
Someone even complained that I used the word customer, and not patient.
Do you know what the derivation of the word patient means?
It's Latin for to suffer.
So it's appropriate that doctors call them patients, because that's what patients do when they visit doctors, they suffer.

@Chris Hickie

Doesn't forcing somebody to have the vaccination, contravene the American Constitution, and your civil liberties??

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

To all the ugly misanthropes here.
Just yet another example of "do no harm"

"26,159 vaccine-associated adverse events were reported."

"The group aged 0-5 years reported the highest rate of vaccine-associated adverse events (82/100,000 doses). The DTwP vaccine exhibited the highest rate of adverse events. Common minor events were: fever (17,538), reactions at injection site (4470) and systemic side effects (2422). Rare events (by WHO definition) reported were: persistent crying (2666), hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes (3), encephalopathy (2) and febrile seizures (112). Severe events included: anaphylaxis (2), respiratory distress (1), multiple organ failure (1), sudden death (1), vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (2), toxic shock syndrome (3), and sepsis (1). The 10 deaths and 3 cases of disability were investigated by an expert commission, which concluded that 8 of the 13 severe events were vaccination-related. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22334111

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

According to the link Peter thoughtfully provided, the 8 severe events thought to be vaccine related occurred after over 45 million doses of vaccine were given. That works out to a severe complication rate of 0.0000001768443071.

By contrast, measles infection causes pneumonia in about 5% of children, 0.1% get encephalitis and 0.1-0.2% die.

That's ugly math.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

@Dangerous Bacon

Rubbery maths.

26,159 vaccine-associated adverse events were reported, is
26, 159 to many!

DO NO HARM. . . Drop kick.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

let me be clear, I was referring to the vaccines in question; MMR.

Let's see..

You at #1: "There’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines.

Vaccines in question; MMR? A vaccine not once mentioned in this article, nor in the original article at Thinking Moms, or even by you in your comment...

Couldn't you have been clear right from the start? Would have saved you backpedalling and shifting goal posts...

Although I must admit that was impressively fast goal post shifting even for you...

Either that or your meaning felt too out of place and fragile, got scared and hid unceremoniously behind those two anys.

But of course, doctors enjoy killing, maiming and generally destroying people’s lives, with corrupted medicine.
As long as we can drive European cars, and have all those capital letters next to our name.

Nice Freudian slip, "doc".

Well, well, Peter Harris. Since we're all such nasty pharma shills anyway, how can you dirty your lily-white hands being around us? Don't you have some marks patients to perform a walletectomy on?

Nice article, by the way. I'm glad you've learned to link citations. You notice that it was in Cuban children, and that most of the adverse events were fever? 13 severe events out of over 45,000,000 doses of vaccines? Not that any death or disability is good, but the risks of getting hit by lightning are greater than an severe event from a vaccine.

Actually, considering that the MMR started out as individual vaccines of measles, mumps, and rubella, there may not have been RDBPCT on the combination. But then, most doctors in the 1960s had seen all 3 diseases and knew what horrible effects they could have. All the doctors I knew were so happy to prevent those diseases, they gave the vaccines as soon as they were available. And, I'm sure most parents would prefer their kids get *1* shot instead of 3. As a kid, I would have preferred it - I found out recently (from my mother) that I got the individual vaccines when they first came out. My vaccine record only showed the MMR I got as a 16 year old.

My grandfather, a GP, was VERY pro-vaccine, having had patients die from the disease vaccines prevented. Yes, he lost money on giving vaccines instead of having patients get sick - one office visit and vaccine was less money than house calls daily for 1-2 weeks (or more if an illness spread through the whole family) and dealing with the health department to set up quarantines (he got paid for those, too). But then, my grandfather cared for his patients. Their health was more important to him than his pocketbook.

There are thousands of choking deaths each year among children and infants. By Peter Harris's standards, that means its safer not to feed your children at all.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris: 26,159 vaccine-associated adverse events were reported, is
26, 159 to many!

DO NO HARM. . . Drop kick

Gee....and fever is 100% an adverse effect when you get the illness the vaccines prevented.

Fever, a sore arm, febrile seizures..those are adverse effects. Transient. But still listed. And the largest amount of those adverse affects you have your pants in a twist about.

Which of the illnesses the vaccines prevent have fewer effects than the vaccine?

Doesn’t forcing somebody to have the vaccination, contravene the American Constitution, and your civil liberties??

No one is being forced precious.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

@gaist

August 31, 2016
let me be clear, I was referring to the vaccines in question; MMR.

Let’s see..

You at #1: “There’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines.

Vaccines in question; MMR? A vaccine not once mentioned in this article, nor in the original article at Thinking Moms, or even by you in your comment…

Couldn’t you have been clear right from the start? Would have saved you backpedalling and shifting goal posts…

Although I must admit that was impressively fast goal post shifting even for you…

Either that or your meaning felt too out of place and fragile, got scared and hid unceremoniously behind those two anys.

A rather pathetic attempt at avoiding scrutiny.
RDBPCT on MMR???

"As long as we can drive European cars, and have all those capital letters next to our name."

Nice Freudian slip, “doc”.

I was talking in the 3rd person, on your behalf.
Where did you get your education on English literature?

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

A rather pathetic attempt at avoiding scrutiny

That was my point. Was me accusing you of shifting goal posts too subtle?

You claimed there has been no RDBPCT on any vaccine. I spent less than 10 seconds googling to prove you wrong.

I was talking in the 3rd person, on your behalf.
Where did you get your education on English literature?

School. Same place I was taught that "we", "us" and "our" aren't 3rd person.

@MI Dawn

"Which of the illnesses the vaccines prevent have fewer effects than the vaccine?""

I have successfully treated all my clients, WITHOUT any adverse events.
Again, do any of you imbecilic avoiders remember your Hippocratic oath????

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris #5

"Have you never heard of the the Hippocratic oath?? Do no harm??"

Just to point out the fact the Hippocratic oath contains no such sentiment. Most doctors today make the "Declaration of Geneva", anyhow. I did.

"let me be clear, I was referring to the vaccines in question; MMR. Do you have any RDBPCT on MMR??"

But that isn't what you said at all. You seem to suffer from memory problems, so I will remind you that you did say this: "..there’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines.
So that wasn't about MMR; in fact MMR had never been mentioned by Orac, nor even you. You just have brought it up now to deflect from the fact that you have been caught out in a blatant lie (when you claimed categorically there were no RDBPC trials on vaccines and were proved to be wrong).

You seem to be rather sensitive to criticism, complaining that the reason you never answered questions on the other thread was because someone was nasty to you.
I suppose your saying that "doctors enjoy killing, maiming and generally destroying people’s lives" is just a bit of lighht-hearted banter then? No insults or adhominems there then, quite clearly.

You suggest Cuba's experience of vaccination adverse event monitoring shows evidence of doctors' desire to kill and maim people....
Here is what your cited study abstract says:

"RESULTS A total of 45,237,532 vaccine doses were administered, and 26,159 vaccine-associated adverse events were reported (overall rate: 57.8 per 100,000 doses). The group aged 0-5 years reported the highest rate of vaccine-associated adverse events (82/100,000 doses). The DTwP vaccine exhibited the highest rate of adverse events. Common minor events were: fever (17,538), reactions at injection site (4470) and systemic side effects (2422). Rare events (by WHO definition) reported were: persistent crying (2666), hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes (3), encephalopathy (2) and febrile seizures (112). Severe events included: anaphylaxis (2), respiratory distress (1), multiple organ failure (1), sudden death (1), vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (2), toxic shock syndrome (3), and sepsis (1). The 10 deaths and 3 cases of disability were investigated by an expert commission, which concluded that 8 of the 13 severe events were vaccination-related. CONCLUSIONS Low rates of severe vaccine-associated adverse events observed in this study underline the low risk of vaccination relative to its demonstrated benefits in Cuba."

Considering this was the result of administering over 45 million vaccinations, I would think it truly remarkable that the doctors had only managed to kill or maim 8 children (0.000017%) of the vaccinated population.
Clearly they weren't trying hard enough.

Damn this no preview mode...

Vaccine-adverse event basically means that by the time it was discovered, the parents or doctor couldn't prove what caused it. So the parents may blame the vaccine. My mom still asks me if I get sick how it happened, as if I can tell when a virus gets inside my body.

Vaccines are safe, and the fact that no evidence is ever presented otherwise that does not involve some kind of conspiracy lets me safely say that.

@gaist

"August 31, 2016
A rather pathetic attempt at avoiding scrutiny

That was my point. Was me accusing you of shifting goal posts too subtle?"

From my experience, after spending some time in the States, and witnessing the violence and gun culture, I found Americans to be cowards at heart.
Ok then, I'll wait until this propaganda website specifically writes an article about MMR, and then i'll put my question to you.
But my God, it must be too hard to answer that now huh.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

@Zach

Quite clearly, you cannot read Zach. . .or have no prefrontal cortex. . . or both.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

I'll answer your question about MMR when you admit you made an unfounded claim and we corrected you.

I'm also not American. Nor a doctor. Nor do I drive an European car or put any capital letters next to my name.

@dingo199

"Just to point out the fact the Hippocratic oath contains no such sentiment. Most doctors today make the “Declaration of Geneva”, anyhow. I did."

Sorry, continuing maiming and killing then.

"Considering this was the result of administering over 45 million vaccinations"

Thats an appalling attempt at conflating.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

@gaist

"Nor a doctor. Nor do I drive an European car or put any capital letters next to my name."

Then what are you doing here??

#turdinaswimmingpool

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

I have successfully treated all my clients, WITHOUT any adverse events.
Again...

Lucky for you being scammed isn't considered an adverse event.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

@Science Mom

Its spelt mum, not mom

And your science background is??

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Then what are you doing here??

Here here? Pointing out your errors, it seems. Here here, watching my irony meter slowly melting.

"I have successfully treated all my clients, WITHOUT any adverse events."

Only God is perfect, Mr. Harris.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

@Gray Falcon
"Only God is perfect, Mr. Harris."

Jesus was a Naturopath, did you know that??

Ok ladies, sorry cowards, it's bedtime down here in the greatest country in the world.

You girls/guys just prove the old maxim; ignorance really is bliss.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Its spelt mum, not mom

Depends upon where one is. Don't get out much do you?

And your science background is??

Biomedical with real degrees and lots of capital letters after my name.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Mr. Harris, where in the Bible did Jesus use narutopathy? He had miracles attributed to him, that's not medicine of any sort. Now tell me, what gives you the right to claim “I have successfully treated all my clients, WITHOUT any adverse events.” Surely as a mortal, there had to be someone your medicine failed for.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

In the last few days we've had quackturopaths referring to having "clients" and "customers", which is revealing of the in-it-for-the-money mindset (although calling them "marks" and "victims" would be more accurate).

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

If vaccines were a truly “free” way to avoid illness, there would be no controversy, plain and simple.

There is something ironic about the "Professor" making this comment in response to remarks by Hillary Clinton, who is probably more acquainted than anybody else in the world with the concept of manufactured controversy--she has been the target of so many herself (partial listing: Vince Foster, Whitewater, Benghazi, e-mails), and the worst her enemies have come up with is that her husband had consensual sex with an intern and subsequently lied about it. Hillary knows how to deal with ridiculous-looking enemies. The "Professor" is just one more.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

GF@32: Perhaps Mr. Harris has walked on water at some point in his life. It's not that hard to do; I've done it myself. Step one: wait for the pond to freeze over.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Chris @ #4

Further, I'd be totally fine with a Wakefield arrest & prosecution for profiting from his manufactroversy that threatens our health and safety against infectious disease.

If vaccines were a truly “free” way to avoid illness, there would be no controversy, plain and simple.

That's a bit like saying: "If the defendant hadn't committed murder, then why is he being tried for it?"

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

These actions should notch up the blood pressure of these AVers

The Dachelbot certainly began raving promptly:

This incredibly one-sided reporting is a foretaste of coming events. It sets the stage for a national law that eliminates any parental rights when it comes to vaccinations. . . .

. . . .

With the AAP now actively calling for the end of vaccine choice, Washington can respond by saying we should made it into a federal law. And this will only be the beginning. Once the exemptions are gone, full vaccine compliance can be made a prerequisite for welfare, Social Security, veterans’ benefits, unemployment — just about anything we sign up for.

Sorry. I see @gaist already referred to it.

By Dorit Reiss (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

"Where in the Bible did Jesus use narutopathy?"

In the gospels of 'Nintendo', 'Manga', and 'Anime', which were excised from The Bible in the 5th Century, along with other New Testament Apocrypha. This censorship of the True Word was, of course, skullduggery by the same Illuminati conspiracy controlling the CDC today. Like the Gnostic Gospels, the Naruto gospels "blend teachings attributed to Christ with teachings found in Eastern traditions" – in this case, revealing that Jesus was, in fact, a ninja (which explains the walking on water thing). The idea, then as now, was to keep the Secret of mystical Truth out of the hands of the people, allowing the overlords of 'science' to be the sole gatekeepers of what counts as 'knowledge', which is thus filtered to serve the interests of 'yetzer hara' ('Final Boss').

Do your research, Falscon!

"It sets the stage for a national law that eliminates any parental rights when it comes to vaccinations"

Needs a rewrite:

"It sets the stage for a national law that places childrens' rights over parental privilege when parental action is harmful to their children."

I like the Vaccine Papers website. The author doesn't shilly shally or try to obfuscate. They make their reasoning clear and concise.

This means all the numerous errors in said reasoning are easy to spot.

By VaccineTruth.c… (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Peter, you would consider a fever, reaction at injection site or crying to be more harm than rotavirus?

Peter Harris:

“…but antivaccine activists often try to conflate the political controversy over vaccine mandates with a scientific controversy.”

Would you care to give any examples?
Practical, referenced examples?

I take it you did not actually read the article, as it is responding directly to a specific example of that?

26,159 vaccine-associated adverse events were reported, is
26, 159 to many!

DO NO HARM. . . Drop kick.

But to allow greater harm by inaction is fine by you, eh?

“As long as we can drive European cars, and have all those capital letters next to our name.”

Nice Freudian slip, “doc”.

I was talking in the 3rd person, on your behalf.
Where did you get your education on English literature?

My BA in English literature says that's first person. What you mean is that you were being sarcastic. We actually did know that, but a common response to badly-executed sarcasm is to intentionally take it as written.

While we are on the topic of grammar, shall we look at this next gem?

Its spelt mum, not mom

I normally abhor a grammar flame; it's the whoopie cushion of debating. But even forgiving that you are objecting to a matter of dialect, it is quite impressive to see two grammatical errors in one grammar flame, especially one of just five words.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Regular readers know that whoever is behind that execrable site

FTFY. Is he still inconsistently trotting out the royal 'we'?

Maybe it’s just because I’m a clueless middle-aged white male, and maybe I shouldn’t care, but it’s still odd to me.

Given Zoey O'Toole's actual achievements, "The Professor" – versus, say, "The Former IT Flunky" – is quite the choice.

Mr. Harris, where in the Bible did Jesus use narutopathy?

We are all indebted to John Sladek for the observation that His last words were "Ailing, ailing, lemme see botany".

By Herr Doktor Bimler (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

it is quite impressive to see two grammatical errors in one grammar flame, especially one of just five words

You really only get one out of this. Partridge opines as follows:

"Purists prefer spelled for the preterite, spelt for the past participle; usage accepts either form in the preterite but prefers the shorter form in the participle."

I have dealt with Petey before. He is a naturopath "Doctor". He lives in this fantasy world. Science is meaningless and irrelevant. Hey Petey, do you not get that of the 26,000 adverse events 99.999999% were minor short term events like fever or soreness. Using the do no harm line is a joke. Surgery causes pain and the long term side effect of a scar. So should surgery be abolished because docs should not do any harm. It is a thoroughly stupid and illogical argument that is rooted in a Dunning Kruger dementia that you aren't able to escape. You spend all this time going after the science that proves vaccines are safe but ignore the fact that you can't present any real science they aren't and the fact that you profit as long as people think your hocus pocus quackery works.

Once the exemptions are gone, full vaccine compliance can be made a prerequisite for welfare, Social Security, veterans’ benefits, unemployment — just about anything we sign up for.

Someone needs to tell the Dachelbot that full vaccine compliance is required for veteran's benefits, given that the military is the only US demographic where vaccines are mandatory.

By shay simmons (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

"Jesus was a Naturopath, did you know that??"

Good gawd, is this guy for real? He sounds completely unhinged and thoroughly ignorant. I'm gobsmacked.

By SelenaWolf (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Eric Lund: Considering their relative positions, the jury's still out on whether it was consensual or not.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

I checked. Vaccines are not mandatory for US military vets. That was debunked last year.
See metabunk.org Nov 2015

By Johnnybee (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Mr Harris may assert that there were no adverse events among his customers.
.
We, in turn, can be confident that there were no cures among his patients.

"InfoWars" - well, I guess that explains a lot.

Given Mr. Harris' statement @17, perhaps he is a pathologist? (Or coroner, or medical examiner, or undertaker.)

That's the only way I can see to avoid having adverse events.

By JustaTech (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Gilbert @55: Didn't you hear that the InfoWars website got hacked and all the customer data is for sale on the dark web?
(It might only be the people who subscribe to the website and not the people who purchase items through the website, but are you prepared to take that risk?)

By JustaTech (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Well damn, JustaTech. I guess they know that I bought a vile of potassium iodine back in 2011 before the DEA cracked down on it.

The news comes on the same day that the FBI released information that election databases were also hacked in Arizona and Illinois.

“We have cross referenced the current dump versus our current db and it is data from an old breach that happened in 2012 and was dealt with at that time,” Buckley Hamman from Infowars told Motherboard in a statement.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/alex-jones-infowars-site-hacked-50000-…

So, I take it you won't be buying the shirt??

Gilbert: I wasn't talking to you, dimbulb. Lewinsky's never called it rape, but he was her boss, so the whole relationship is very questionable. Also, potassium salts aren't drugs, ergo they don't fall under the DEA's authority. (Really, how dumb do you have to be to buy *anything* off their site? I'm really not surprised that computer security is another thing the admins fail at.)

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

This rulemaking changes the regulation of the listed chemical iodine under the chemical regulatory provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) believes that this action is necessary to remove deficiencies in the existing regulatory controls, which have been exploited by drug traffickers who divert iodine (in the form of iodine crystals and iodine tincture) for the illicit production of methamphetamine in clandestine drug laboratories.

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2007/fr0702.htm

That’s the only way I can see to avoid having adverse events.

He's a naturoquack.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Okay, Peter Harris, here's my take on your words.

"“Protocols have to be approved by scientific review boards (SRBs) and then institutional review boards (IRBs), the purpose of the latter of which is to protect human subjects.”
Oh really?
That’s why people have been screaming about the pro-vaccination industry, and why there’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines."
I've sat in on IRB meetings and your claim is 180 degrees from your imputation. When I worked on drug studies, I carried around a little book that contained relevant portions of the Nuremberg Codes, among other important documents relating to human experimentation. Why don't you read it ????

"...pro-vaccination maim and disfigure our children rubbish..."
A well-chosen turn of phrase, that is if you are referring to the claims of antivaxers.

"Have you never heard of the the (sic) Hippocratic oath??
Do no harm??"
I've heard of it, and I follow it, except for the Apollo part. I've ever given anyone a poison (Shall we stipulate the obvious, trite, and mindless rejoinder??). I've never attempted to remove kidney stones but let urologists do it. Most important, I've never had sex with any of my patient's slaves.

"But of course, doctors enjoy killing, maiming and generally destroying people’s lives, with corrupted medicine."
As we said when we were kids, "Oh yeah, name two."
" As long as we can drive European cars, and have all those capital letters next to our name."
You must have a different kind of doctor in Australia. Like you, maybe. Otherwise your comment is specious, fallacious, and defamatory,vnot to mention ridiculously simpleminded.

"Doesn’t forcing somebody to have the vaccination, contravene the American Constitution, and your civil liberties??"
Outside of the military, first responders, and certain health professionals, no one is required to receive any vaccine. In a state of emergency there is what our laws call "compelling public interest", which would allow the authorities to mandate vaccinations. This to my recall has never been invoked in the US, not even during the smallpox outbreak in New York City in the 1940s

"26,159 vaccine-associated adverse events were reported, is 26, 159 to many!
DO NO HARM..."
So you insist that every medication, treatment, and procedure be 100% safe?? Maybe they can achieve this level of perfection on Planet Harris, but here on Earth very little can be guaranteed to an absolute certainty.

"From my experience, after spending some time in the States, and witnessing the violence and gun culture, I found Americans to be cowards at heart."
Trying to win us over with your innate charm, are you? If you've given up on trying to bring us around to your point of view, you must be taking charm lessons from Donald Trump.

"Jesus was a Naturopath, did you know that??"
Jesus, if he even ever existed, was reputed to be a deity. Deities work by different rules than mere humans. I sincerely doubt that any sort of god would lower itself by practicing naturopathy, unless we are discussing a deceitful god, like Loki or Laverna.

Now here comes the kicker:
"I have successfully treated all my clients, WITHOUT any adverse events."
By which I deduce that you are either a liar or a pathologist.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Dimbulb: That doesn't make it illegal, just harder-to -get. Same thing as with sudafed; you have to show ID, and you can't buy more than a set amount at any one time. Also, since when do you care about rape, you horrible person? Why don't you shoo off to reddit with the rest of the 12-year-olds going on 40?

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

"potassium salts aren’t drugs"
Sorry, PGP, but potassium iodide is a drug. Marketed as SSKI, it has a long history of use as an expectorant. It is also used to protect the thyroid by iodine saturation in nuclear events.
I have used it as patient and prescriber, and at the time of the Chernobyl accident I obtained my hospital's last bottle and dosed my wife and myself with it.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

""That doesn’t make it illegal, just harder-to -get.

I'll say. four dollars for a pint (sourced locally) went to ten dollars for an ounce around here.

Same thing as with sudafed; you have to show ID, and you can’t buy more than a set amount at any one time.

Really? Wow. I guess you know what a 'smurf' is then.

@ Narad @ Calli Arcale

Its spelt mum, not mom

I agree with Narad, only one error, but not for the same reason. I'd say “mum” is an acceptable alternative spelling for “mom”.

I'd never use “spelled” as the simple past tense of “spell” unless we were discussing the Wizard of Oz. I think “spelled” as the past tense of “spell” is one of those abominable Americanisms. I know it certainly grates on the ear.

By jrkrideau (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Narad:

You really only get one out of this. Partridge opines as follows:

“Purists prefer spelled for the preterite, spelt for the past participle; usage accepts either form in the preterite but prefers the shorter form in the participle.”

I'm actually fine with "spelt". As with "mum", usage varies regionally. It was the homophone error ("its" versus "it's") and the lack of closing punctuation that I noticed -- those are wrong everywhere.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Bob @ 64 -- yeah, that prosecutor is being called a "game changer" to vaccination policy. Texas essentially has this guy as a medical poster boy blowing the dogwhistle on mainstream media, notably the NBC affiliate.

I just had to post this here for those who adore "citizen scientist" ciaparker. This is what she just said:

My uncle fell asleep in the sun and woke up with schizophrenia. Heat pulls stored vaccine mercury from the bones and looses it to cause symptoms. All schizophrenia patients tested to date have been sky-high in mercury. I got the first symptoms of MS after a high fever. My daughter got the first symptoms of bowel disease after a summer flu with a high fever when she was seven. My Asperger's nephew got bowel disease after a high fever from bronchitis. We all have an inability to excrete vaccine mercury, which was stored in our brains and bones. Environmental heat or fever pulled the mercury out and we got the first symptoms of our MS, bowel disease or schizophrenia within days after the exposure. The symptoms of MS and autism are identical to those of mercury poisoning.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/hpv-vaccine-effe…

I’d say “mum” is an acceptable alternative spelling for “mom”.

Absolutely and funnily enough oft used in my household. But Peter Harris said that was the only way to spell it.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

...given that the military is the only US demographic where vaccines are mandatory.

Not really. In addition to medical exemptions (of course), the military also allows for religious exemptions. They are a bit harder to get than in the civilian world.

From this rather long pdf -
https://www.vaccines.mil/documents/1682_Joint_Instruction_Immunization_…

(3) Religious exemptions.
(a) Servicemembers. Immunization exemptions for religious reasons may be granted according to Service-specific policies to accommodate religious beliefs of a Service member. This is a command decision made with medical, judge advocate, and chaplain input.
1. Requests for religious exemption must comply with the provisions of the applicable policy and/or regulation for the Servicemember requesting religious accommodation. For the Army, religious accommodation policy is provided in AR 600–20. For the Navy and Marine Corps, waivers are granted on a case-by-case basis by the Chief, Bureau of Medicine, and Surgery. For the Air Force, permanent exemptions for religious reasons are not granted; the MAJCOM commander is the designated approval and revocation authority for temporary immunization exemptions. For the Coast Guard, CG–122 is the designated approval and revocation authority for religious immunization exemptions. USCG requests must be forwarded through the appropriate chain to Commandant CG–122 via CG–112.
2. A military physician must counsel the applicant. The physician should ensure that the Servicemember is making an informed decision and should address, at a minimum, specific information about the diseases concerned; specific vaccine information including product constituents, benefits, and risks; and potential risks of infection incurred by unimmunized individuals.
3. The commander must counsel the individual that noncompliance with immunization requirements may adversely impact deployability, assignment, or international travel.
4. Per DODI 1300.17 and applicable service regulations will be provided whether Servicemembers with pending active requests for religious exemption are temporarily deferred from immunizations, pending outcome of their request.
5. Religious exemptions may be revoked, in accordance with Service-specific policies and procedures, if the
individual and/or unit are at imminent risk of exposure to a disease for which an immunization is available.

After reading this, I would say that they're a lot harder to get than in the civilian world.

How interesting that the Air Force does not grant permanent waivers.

By shay simmons (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

ORD: Oh, I didn't know that. I just figured Gilly was lying again.

Dimness: Nah, I just know because there was a *huge* kerfluffle when the new regulations went into effect. My state takes cold medicines very seriously.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Hi everybody, I'm afraid that I'm responsible for Peter Harris's Cuba papers. He challenged me on vaccine adverse effects and I cited that paper because Cuba is famous for it's resistance to USA big business and its' mix of home grown and commercial vaccines, they would tell the TRUTH! He claimed he knew Epistemology, I just couldn't conceive that he would view an 8 in 45,000,000 chance as deliberate malice. Hopefully he's busy digging up evidence that Morbidity of VPD declined BEFORE vaccine introduction, then again he thinks I'm nobility lol, please check eeeaten's comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxH7MoHjafM&google_comment_id=z133htmbu…

By James O'Neill (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Heat pulls stored vaccine mercury from the bones ...

Is that because mercury is solid at normal body temperature and liquid at a few degrees hotter? Or liquid at 37°C and a gas when a bit warmer? Or because it is just generally temperature sensitive as attested to by its use in thermometers? Or because sweating is such an important mode of detoxing and the mercury, knowing it is bad, is making its way to sweat glands to be voluntarily evicted, but gets sidetracked? Mechanism. I want to know the mechanism. What about mercury from eating tuna fish (as opposed to tuna mammal)?

CiaP is certainly related to a lot of people with serious problems.

@Calli:

and the lack of closing punctuation that I noticed — those are wrong everywhere

Ah I didnt even notice that but I'm genuinely unsure about the status of punctuation rules as properly within the realm of grammar rather than including a lot of pause markers denoting internal speech, if you get my drift

@jrkrideau:

I think “spelled” as the past tense of “spell” is one of those abominable Americanisms.

It is an Americanism (I'm guessing a little-known victory for prescriptivism but not going to check), but bear in mind that English itself has more than one "past tense," so objecting to 'spelled' per se may still backfire in situations that are not dominated by American usage.

Heat pulls stored vaccine mercury from the bones and looses it to cause symptoms.

Clearly when it's cold all the mercury in your body drops too your feet, and when it's warm it rises towards your head. This is also the case with low and high air pressure, respectively.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

"Spelt" is a form of wheat, even when it was spelt correctly.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

I just had to post this here for those who adore “citizen scientist” ciaparker.

Oh, dear, I was able to identify the author just from M'OB's excerpt.

Mechanism. I want to know the mechanism.

Have you seen Sixteen Candles? "Automobile"?

Oh, dear, I was able to identify the author just from M’OB’s excerpt.

I just knew you could see her "uniqueness" a mile away. I can only hope she's as delusional about the medical advice she dispenses to people.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

I can only hope she’s as delusional about the medical advice she dispenses to people.

Cia (with the same basic script, of course) actually manages to draw flak for attempting to play the role of Voice of Reason over at AoA. I don't know that she even has any option to withdraw from particular Protectorates of the Crankosphere without wholesale personal capitulation, which isn't going to be anytime soon, if it ever happens at all.

Who the hell cares if SSKI is hard to find? Capsules of KI are abundant and cheap, and reagent grade KI is available from Amazon. This is one of the silliest thing to bitch about here.

I just came here to show my support for vaccinepapers.org. The arguments there are intelligently presented and backed-up by published studies. I challenge anyone here to find fault with that site.

By Robert Hayes (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Hey Peter Harris,If you're treating people who haven't had any adverse effects, effects like fever, then what exactly are you treating? Perfectly healthy people who don't need treatment?

“Jesus was a Naturopath, did you know that??”
Jesus, if he even ever existed, was reputed to be a deity. Deities work by different rules than mere humans. I sincerely doubt that any sort of god would lower itself by practicing naturopathy, unless we are discussing a deceitful god, like Loki or Laverna.

Now here comes the kicker:
“I have successfully treated all my clients, WITHOUT any adverse events.”
By which I deduce that you are either a liar or a pathologist.

Boom goes the plutonium.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

It is just hilarious.
I've never met such a bunch of dribblers and bedwetters, and general imbeciles, that I have encountered on this forum.

Jesus was naturopath, was not meant to be taken literally.

As you can see, I'm comparing the safety and efficacy of natural holistic medicine, with conventional pharmaceutical medicine, and none of the fools and idiots here could address that question directly, in a mature way.

Just providing a lot of flimflam around the edges, peppered with liberal amounts of non sequiturs and ad hominem.

I wonder if the "Doctor" who runs this site, endorses all the drivel and specious BS.
You can only assume that it does.

I was going to respond to most, but it would be like banging my head against the wall, because it would be arguing with the inane and gormless.

To prove my point just look at the last comment;

"Boom goes the plutonium."

Oh yes, that just nails the whole argument between natural medicine and conventional medicine.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris #87:

As you can see, I’m comparing the safety and efficacy of natural holistic medicine...

The efficacy of natrual holistic medicine has been checked. It has little to no efficacy.

with conventional pharmaceutical medicine, and none of the fools and idiots here could address that question directly, in a mature way

Pot kettle, black.

But of course, doctors enjoy killing, maiming and generally destroying people’s lives, with corrupted medicine.

I also spotted something from your comment #6.

26,159 vaccine-associated adverse events were reported.

Reported. Not confirmed as having been caused by vaccination. REPORTED.
You claimed that "there’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines" and then shifted the goalposts when gaist proved you wrong. At #22 you threw personal insults at zach.
The only one flim-flamming here is you.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

In the interests of international relations, that Peter Harris cunt is in no way representative of the views of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Also, he criticises Doctors for earning money from their treatments - does he do all his work pro bono?

By Aussie Paramedic (not verified) on 31 Aug 2016 #permalink

Aussie Paramedic = Wannabe Doctor..

"does he do all his work pro bono?"

Sometimes, yes.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

Aussie Paramedic = Wannabe Doctor..

Project much naturoquack?

By Science Mom (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

I challenge anyone here to find fault with that site.

Ha. Haha. Hahahahahaha.

Already done.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

Peter Harris = Wannabe Doctor

was not meant to be taken literally.

Not much you type is, Nor can be.

But I suppose the archetypal shackle dragger bogan had to exist somewhere.

Peter Harris, as a mortal human, why do you believe you can make the claim “I have successfully treated all my clients, WITHOUT any adverse events.”? All that suggests is that you are either a liar or keep very poor records.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

As a side note, does anyone know what happened to Krebiozen? His last comment here was just over six months ago. He also mentioned having hypotension. Is he ok? Or is this lilady round 2?

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

"Aussie Paramedic = Wannabe Doctor.."
Three-card monte dealer = wannabe naturopath.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

"I think “spelled” as the past tense of “spell” is one of those abominable Americanisms."
I think spelt is the grain used to make the breakfast cereal I ate this morning.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

I sometimes wonder why the ( cough!) PROFESSOR gets herself so riled up about vaccines/ autism as, IIRC, her own children haven't ASDs ( they have other problems) and weren't vaccinated because she had the fears about the evilz very early on **

OBVIOULSY this makes her case curiouser and curiouser because she seems to quite be the showrunner at TMR. Editor, essayist ( Yiiiii!) and upfront face of the organisation
especially after MacNeil bailed. She spends a lot of time on this project.

** Now, I'm not exactly sure where I picked up these notions about Zoey O'Toole ( the Prof) but I have been reading TMR since its inception and I listened to all of their joint appearance panels at the past two years Autism Ones I recall *hearing* ( not reading) her say this.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

@ ORD:

'spelled' looks and sounds awful.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

Alright,
I looked at TMR's 'About TMR/ etting Personal" section and it says that her kids have other conditions- not ASDs- because she learned what to avoid ( without explicitly saaaaying it) - i.e. vaccines.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

GETTING Personal

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

"All that suggests is that you are either a liar or keep very poor records."

Why do you assume these are mutually exclusive possibilities?

In other news, I found a terrific online stem cell therapy training program, and plan to make enough money by the end of 2016 to afford my very own avocado ranch.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

"Jesus was naturopath, was not meant to be taken literally."
No sh*t. Really?
How exactly did you mean it to be taken? Satire? Irony? Hyperbole? Sarcasm? An appeal to religious sentiment?
What was the point you were trying to make?
And what was the purpose of capitalizing "Naturopath"? In fact, what is the purpose of naturopathy at all, aside from making crazy money selling placebos?

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

So none of you obligate pro-vax propaganda shills think that they can debunk vaccinepapers.org?

Didn't think so.

The science is clear. Vaccines cause neurological problems through a multitude of overlapping mechanisms.

By Robert Hayes (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

So none of you obligate pro-vax propaganda shills think that they can debunk vaccinepapers.org?

On the rare occasions that the numpty behind vaccinepapers.org can actually be persuaded to offer a cite, here and elsewhere, he gets his fanny handed to him on a platter.

This is why he not longer offers cites here.

Vaccines cause neurological problems through a multitude of overlapping mechanisms.

I notice that you don't, either.

By shay simmons (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

#111

Would you, by any chance, be the same Robert Hayes who used to hang around the University of Utah hurling offensive gibberish at the biology department in support of your EVOLUTION IS A LIE BECAUSE G-D TOLD ME!!!!! crusade?

If so, your letter to the Comical on the subject of "a stupid biology student thought he had invented a perpetual motion machine, so I had to explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids perpetual motion as well as evolution from ever happening" was a classic of the genre.

If not, odd how Robert Hayes is such a memorably rare name yet so many of you turn out to be raving cuckooberries.

By Robert L Bell (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

So none of you obligate pro-vax propaganda shills think that they can debunk vaccinepapers.org?

If I didn't have more pressing concerns, I could have some DMCA takedowns sent its way, but after seeing Dan "Vapor Genie" Steinberg declare that a sample sample size of ~300 would be enough for the magikall "vaxed vs. unvaxed study," I kind of lost interest.

Jesus turned water into wine. I'd say that makes him a homeopath.

If I didn’t have more pressing concerns, I could have some DMCA takedowns sent its way, but after seeing Dan “Vapor Genie” Steinberg declare that a sample sample size of ~300 would be enough for the magikall “vaxed vs. unvaxed study,” I kind of lost interest.

300? In each arm? Really?

By Science Mom (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

"“does he do all his work pro bono?”
Sometimes, yes."
I'm sure. How much does it cost to hand out water?

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Robert Hayes

Hello Robert.

It's good to know that I'm not the only one here, shinning light into this cave is bigotry and stupidity.
Thanks for the link to the anti-vaccine website, I've never heard of it before.

I think you're asking too much of the dribblers and knuckle grinders here.
Isn't it fascinating that, none of the wankers here, can actually criticise your assertions about the truth of how dangerous vaccines are, but instead, attack you personally, instead of your argument.
Of course they are defeated by the points raised in that website.
They have got nothing left, accept immature nonsense and avoidance directed at you for posting that website.

I find it amusing that the chief propagandist of this website is a surgeon.
He states; "...of scurrilous lies (e.g., linking Orac and his cancer center to Dr. Farid Fata and his criminal activity), misinformation, and selective presentation of information."

And yet, he allows all these rat bags and halfwits to say anything about everyone here on the comments page.

As Americans like to say; "You can't make this shit up!"

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

"I’m sure. How much does it cost to hand out water?"

Hey, Old Rockin' dropkick, I think they've put too much fluoride in the water at the caravan park.
Have you got any other thing to say about natural medicine, apart from an inane one-liner???

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

"he allows all these rat bags and halfwits to say anything about everyone"

Mirror, mirror.

Narad: "Dan “Vapor Genie” Steinberg "

Is that the actual name behind VaccinePapers? So the dude who cherry picks papers on how bad vaccines are because of aluminum, something, something sells a pipe to facilitate sucking hot toxins directly into the lungs? Whoa!

Why am I not surprised at the hypocrisy?

Peter Harris, your level of invective and insult is about what I'd expect from the nation that gave us Paul Hogan, Foster's Lager, and "Waltzing Matilda."
In fact, I have a lot to say about "natural medicine" but most of resolves down to the placebo effect; bizarre ideas of how the human body works; outdated and irrational beliefs; fraud; and self-deception. The rest is commentary. Go now and study.
Here in the US we have motor vehicles, railroads, and aircraft. We no longer need to travel in camel caravans.
Go French kiss a Tasmanian Devil.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Science Mom:

RLY. I think it was at SBM; I don't think Ddanimal fully understood what "98%" meant when wanking around with sample-size calculators. This was his proffered go/no-go causation threshold.

... travel in camel caravans ...

Isn't a caravan some sort of motor vehicle you drive on the caraway?

I'm afraid that copying seems to work with this phone browser, but not pasting.

@Chris: Yes. I've mostly let him be, but he can thank his idiot groupies for my losing my patience in a more direct manner. Nonetheless, "vaping," e.g., grass is has to be more lung-friendly than actually smoking.

@Old Rockin' Dave

"In fact, I have a lot to say about “natural medicine” but most of resolves down to the placebo effect"
You mean "revolves"?

Ok, i look forward to you posting the many RDBPC into Natural Med.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

"the wankers here...attack you personally, instead of your argument....
(Orac) allows all these rat bags and halfwits to say anything about everyone here on the comments page."

There must be a homeopathic preparation you can take to enhance self-awareness and sense of irony. Here are some dedicated American healers who no doubt would be excited to help you access your inner state.

http://www.allthingshealing.com/Homeopathy/10-Ways-Homeopathic-Treatmen…

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

something, something sells a pipe to facilitate sucking hot toxins directly into the lungs? Whoa!

Huh? I'm going to guess that "vapor genie" has something to do with this but I'm missing a step somewhere.

RLY. I think it was at SBM; I don’t think Ddanimal fully understood what “98%” meant when wanking around with sample-size calculators. This was his proffered go/no-go causation threshold.

I remember the conversation but I guess I lost interest before you nailed the jello down to an actual number. Would love to see him sell that to his groupies.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

Just as I had thought. No cogent arguments, just name-calling and mockery.

The implication is obvious. Some anti-vaccine arguments, when laid out legibly with scientific citations, simply cannot be intelligently refuted.

By Robert Hayes (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

The implication is obvious. Some anti-vaccine arguments, when laid out legibly with scientific citations, simply cannot be intelligently refuted.

Because they (the arguments) are so stupid?

Hey Robert, they are so eloquently proving you correct.

"OP

September 2, 2016

Because they (the arguments) are so stupid?"

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris
How's this:

The implication is obvious. Some anti-vaccine arguments, when laid out legibly with scientific citations, simply cannot be intelligently refuted.

Where are these arguments?

"Where are these arguments?"

Well show some courage, and ask him.
But I doubt that will happen.
It appears you, and others here are running on their limbic system, and cannot mount a rational, detailed and mature rebuttal to the anti-vaccine argument.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

With Peter Harris' permission:
@Robert Hayes

The implication is obvious. Some anti-vaccine arguments, when laid out legibly with scientific citations, simply cannot be intelligently refuted.

Where are these arguments?

"Dribblers and knuckle grinders"

You really know when someone's arguments are utterly without merit when they resort to such inane taunts. Bravo, Peter, I must say, you are a shining example of anti-vaxers everywhere. (Not to anti-vaxers, mind you, just of them.)

By Dan Welch (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

See.
As i was saying.
You are just behaving like a dick.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 01 Sep 2016 #permalink

It appears you, and others here are running on their limbic system, and cannot mount a rational, detailed and mature rebuttal to the anti-vaccine argument.

What does it say about you when you can't event mount a rational anti-vaccine argument? Let alone detailed or mature...

@Peter Harris

As i was saying.
You are just behaving like a [****]

Chastising perceived insults with insults. Genius!

What about Usain Bolt using homeopathic medicine and recovering remarkably, only to win more olympic golds?
Thanks.

By Rick Nelson (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Rick Nelson #141: I'd like to see supporting evidence for your claim that Bolt used homeopathic medicine.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

What about Usain Bolt using homeopathic medicine and recovering remarkably, only to win more olympic golds?

Doesn't he also wear clothes? They must have contributed too, right?

@Dan Welch
@OP, and other headwobblers here.

Really?
You have to be joking.
Now you are complaining because you are thin skinned, and you cannot mount an argument to defend your poison peddling philosophy??

Someone called me a c#@t.
No one admonished the poster for that insult.
Insulting vax kiddy killers = Bad.
Insulting naturopaths = Good.

So you are not only monosyllabic lock-jawed dribblers, but you can add hypocrite to your resume.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Harris, stump up the evidence that vaccines kill. Stump up the evidence that vaccines are bigger killers than the diseases they prevent.
If you can, that is.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Mr. Harris, you still haven't justified this statement: “I have successfully treated all my clients, WITHOUT any adverse events.”

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

The reason I keep bringing that statement of Harris' up is because it is approximately 1800 millipants in terms of implausibility, with 1000 millipants = "I swear to God, officer, these aren't my pants!"

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Julian Frost.

My God, the evidence is everywhere.
It's hiding in plain sight, but everyone here has the blinkers on.
10 years ago it was a trickle of information, now its becoming a flood.
1. The medical industry has a history of covering up serious malpractice.
Just take the thalidomide scandal as one example.
2. The FDA in the United States is one of the most corrupt, and dysfunctional government departments in the history of bureaucracy.
It's run by, and for, the medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex.
And 3. With the correct environment, both external and internal, our own immune systems can deal with far more than me medical industry would like to acknowledge, because simply there is no money or copyrights in boosting natural human immunity.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

On bald assertion is Peter Harris avowed,
studied ignorance makes him proud,
..Invective is his trade,
..of insignificance is he afraid
Caterwauling devoid of truth, just loud.

@Gray Falcon

"September 2, 2016
Mr. Harris, you still haven’t justified this statement: “I have successfully treated all my clients, WITHOUT any adverse events.”

What would you like me to do??
Upload a PDF, of all my clients files, of the last 16 years??
Are you completely stupid?
You'll just have to take my word for it.
If you knew naturopathy, it's not that surprising, and I'm claiming no revelations.

And your medical background is????

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris
Evidence not assertion. You know links and such from reputable sources.

@Peter Harris: Not-a-Doctors get no respect here because they don't deserve any, as far as their practices go. As human beings, they should, provided they show they deserve respect. So far, you've failed there, too. You have to GIVE respect to GET respect.

I would condemn the person who called you a name, except that you came in here calling all of us names, and we honestly get tired of the jerks who do that.

You have given NO proof that you "cure" anyone, except your word. Where are your Double-blinded tests showing your treatments cure everyone? Every study that's been done so far, even by providers who are believers, haven't shown alt med works.

So, I am UTD with all my vaccines (barring flu, which I will get in a few months as I am in the US and it's not being offered just yet in my area). I have always had fluoridated water. I actually have very few fillings, but the one or two I do have probably are amalgam, as I'm of that age.

Go ahead and call me all the names you want. That just shows you have nothing else to work with.

Mr. Harris, I don't need any medical background to know that nobody is perfect, and anyone who claims otherwise is lying through their teeth.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

@MI Dawn

"I would condemn the person who called you a name, except that you came in here calling all of us names, and we honestly get tired of the jerks who do that."

Nonsense.
The 1st time I posted a comment here on another topic, I got a truckload of invective.
So don't come complaining to me, because you're experiencing a little blow-back.
Thin-skinned sulking hypocrites all of you.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Yes, I know about your first comment on August 28, 2016 on another post:

Wow.
Never before I have come across such a shill fest as this website, which is clearly full of industry flunkies, apparatchiks and enablers.
This is just one great wank for all the medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex hacks.
I read a Dr bollocks (Really, thats his name?. . . That’s funny, but appropriate) disparage Naturopathy, when he and his fellow doctors, are the ones that supply me with customers.
As a practising Naturopath, most of my customers come to me for 2 reasons.
1st, the conventional doctor has not cured them of their disease, and only exacerbated the problems by treating the symptoms.
And 2nd, I have to repair the body, because their doctors have given them far too many pharmaceutical drugs, which have created chronic and debilitating side-effects.
And they call me a quack??
At least I don’t intentionally harm people, by giving them dangerous, and deadly remedies.
So much for the Hippocratic oath in the medical profession.

As I said, you started out with calling us names. Perhaps not as rude, but you certainly didn't come here with the idea of starting a civil discussion.

@MI Dawn

"As I said, you started out with calling us names. Perhaps not as rude, but you certainly didn’t come here with the idea of starting a civil discussion."

More disingenuous and short-term nonsense.
I have been reading a lot more of the regulars here, and how they abuse people with alternative views, long before I decided to make my own post.
I know the history of the head wobbles here, and how they attack people with monosyllabic, limbic system driven insults.

So don't give me the BS, that you are all shrinking violets now, when you have a history of abusing people.

Again I ask the question, what are all your medical histories/backgrounds???
You can leave your message if you will, because it's bedtime.

I'm not expecting to get any surprises in the morning, with any clearheaded honesty.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

My background? Not that it's any of your business but: US educated Registered Nurse with a Master's degree in Science, Certified Nurse-Midwife (no longer practicing). I grew up in a medical family. My grandfather was a GP who'd seen enough infectious diseases that he made sure that as children we got any new vaccines that became available, so we didn't have to suffer from the disease and possibly risk the adverse effects.

And, you poor thing, I'm so sorry you can't take the rough and tumble of this blog. If you've been reading "a lot more of the regulars" then you'll know that we get tired of answering the same stuff OVER and OVER and OVER again because of the woosters. So yes, our tempers get a bit short.

Now, be a good soul when you wake up; give us some citations to your wonderful treatments so you can prove to us what you are claiming is true.

Dialect lesson for today:

By "caravan", Peter Harris means what we call a "recreational vehicle", although outside the Americas the term is used more broadly than RV is used here. They also apply it to camper trailers and single-wide mobile homes. So by referring to the caravan park, he thinks he is cleverly insulting you by implying you live in such a place. This actually reveals far more about his own character than he thinks, of course.

Peter Harris @ 148:

1. The medical industry has a history of covering up serious malpractice.
Just take the thalidomide scandal as one example.
2. The FDA in the United States is one of the most corrupt, and dysfunctional government departments in the history of bureaucracy.

That's an interesting pairing, given that it was the FDA that first blew the whistle on thalidomide, barring it from sale in America. This would rather contradict your assertion in #2, as corresponding organizations in other nations had cheerfully authorized thalidomide for the treatment of morning sickness.

So, in addition to revealing your character, Mr Harris, you are also revealing your ignorance.

ANd @150:

Mr. Harris, you still haven’t justified this statement: “I have successfully treated all my clients, WITHOUT any adverse events.”

What would you like me to do??
Upload a PDF, of all my clients files, of the last 16 years??
Are you completely stupid?
You’ll just have to take my word for it.

I rather thought as much. An extraordinary claim, with absolutely no intention of backing it up. Is that all you give your patients as well? Your word?

@156:

More disingenuous and short-term nonsense.
I have been reading a lot more of the regulars here, and how they abuse people with alternative views, long before I decided to make my own post.

Ah, so you've now backpedaled from claiming you were attacked unprovoked, and admitted you attacked preemptively because you were convinced you'd be attacked? And only becuase your first post got quoted back to you to prove your first claim was a bald-faced lie.

Well, I don't think I need much more to convince me that you make your conclusions first and then find information to justify them, as you have just described doing precisely that. This does not encourage me to take your word at anything at all.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

I'm rather perplexed as to why people are giving so much time and attention to Mr. Harris. It's readily apparent he's not here to learn anything, nor to engage in any sort of meaningful conversation. He'd rather insult people (from the very beginning) and make unfounded assertions. He might have been surprised if he'd actually engaged people honestly and respectfully from the start. It would have been a more productive conversation.

But, no, Mr. Harris is simply trolling.

Another day, another pile of aimless, substance-free whining from Peter Harris.

But given his recent myopic obsession, what's your medical background, Peter. Your medical history you can keep.

"You can leave your message if you will, because it’s bedtime."

I hope they remembered to fasten the restraints because, you know, sundowning.

By Dangerou Bacon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

I have no issue believing that Mr Harris has successfully treated patients with no side effects. There are plenty of conditions for which the standard of care is some combination of weight change, change of diet, rest, exercise, fluids, immobilization, or some form of physical therapy. If he wisely limits his practice to people with those conditions, as well as the worried well, he could makema nice living and perhaps do some good.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

simply there is no money or copyrights in boosting natural human immunity

Copyrights? Anyway, this might have to do with the fact that the phrase doesn't mean anything.

Peter Harris, #127:
"In fact, I have a lot to say about “natural medicine” but most of resolves down to the placebo effect”
You mean “revolves”?"
No, I mean "resolves". Have you never resolved anything down to its simplest elements? It's often used in mathematics. I know you have to know some math, or you wouldn't be able to count out your ill-gotten gains.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

#127:
"OK, i look forward to you posting the many RDBPC into Natural Med."
We all do. They will show you up for the fakes you and it are.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Gray Falcon, #147:
"The reason I keep bringing that statement of Harris’ up is because it is approximately 1800 millipants in terms of implausibility, with 1000 millipants = “I swear to God, officer, these aren’t my pants!”"
Wrong unit of measurements in regard to his pants. The correct measurement is "5-alarm pants fire."

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

#148, Peter Harris:
It was the FDA that prevented the licensing of thalidomide in the US.
Your trickle is not information, it's the result of guzzling too much Foster's Lager.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Peter Harris, #150:
'You’ll just have to take my word for it.' Yes, I'm sure your word is worth its weight in gold.
Rye rust must have gotten into your Vegemite.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Peter Harris, #153:
"And whats your medical background???"
And what's yours????? Your "profession" requires less actual knowledge than any candy-striper.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Calli Arcale, #159:
I knew what he was getting at with his mention of caravans. Also, I believe that, at least until recently, camels have been used for transportation in some parts of Australia.
I just can't resist having a good straight line handed to me.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris #148:

My God, the evidence is everywhere.
It’s hiding in plain sight, but everyone here has the blinkers on.
10 years ago it was a trickle of information, now its becoming a flood.

That is not evidence. It is simple argument by assertion. And as Calli Arcale and Old Rockin' Dave here have shown, you were wrong about thalidomide and the FDA.
To repeat OP:
"Evidence not assertion. You know links and such from reputable sources."

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

@ORD #167: Actually, I'm using SI metric pants, measured using a prototype based off of one of the most commonly used excuses on the plant.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

GF & Dave -- Possibly because I haven't yet had my second cup of coffee, but when I read "millipants" I immediately got this Hanna-Barbera image of a millipede in trousers flashing before my eyes.

By shay simmons (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Truth be told, I only wanted a more granular system of measurement than the current one based on trouser ignition. Also, nobody has ever used the phrase "SI metric pants" before according to Google, so bonus points there, I suppose.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Narad: "Nonetheless, “vaping,” e.g., grass is has to be more lung-friendly than actually smoking."

And much less lung friendly than skipping the DTaP because it has an adjuvant in it! I looked at the website, it still burning materials that is filter --- so no matter what foliage is put into the pipe it is still burned material.

Science Mom: "Huh? I’m going to guess that “vapor genie” has something to do with this but I’m missing a step somewhere."

It is a pipe: http://vaporgenie.com/

This one is a fancy one where you put in ground up plants (there are a few herb mixtures for sale), light them up with fire and then suck it into the lungs.

Maybe it is because I am sensitive to smoke of any form, even the smoke from the barbecue wood chips, is why I find it ridiculous that someone would want to do that on purpose.... and yet be so fired up about the teeny tiny amounts of adjuvants in vaccines.

(By the way, I cannot walk into a candle shop, nor a makeup store like Sephora because I am that sensitive.)

Ugh, I hate this word: "And much less lung friendly than skipping the DTaP because it has an adjuvant in it! I looked at the website, it still burning materials that is filter — so no matter what foliage is put into the pipe it is still burned material. "

Let us just say that at least sucking in smoke of any form is slightly less dangerous than sucking in pertussis and diphtheria without being vaccinated.

"a millipede in trousers flashing before my eyes"

It would very difficult for a millipede wearing trousers to flash.

ORD @169: Nice! It's not every day I see rye ergot in an insult.

By JustaTech (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

@MI Dawn #158 My background...Master’s degree in Science...

I have a hard time believing that you would not specify which science in particular, unless of course, you mean political science.

By Robert Hayes (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

no matter what foliage is put into the pipe it is still burned material.

Not necessarily, Chris #176. The idea is to prevent combustion thus conserving the bud by causing a more efficient extraction of the good oils and stuff.

Here is the old school way: Set a jar on the table with part of the lip hanging off. Heat two butter knifes then squeeze a piece of bud between them up inside the glass.

What happens is the ejecting steam/oils prevents oxygen from getting to the bud, spoiling most of the volitiles. It is much more potent for much less herb; Why burn your herb as the heat source to 'burn' (drive the volitiles out) your herb?

Without having ever tried one of those vaporgenies, the concept is sound in holding the heated air below the temperatures that would initiate combustion. " the 'sweet-spot' vaporization temperatures of 225-375 degrees" -- that's less than the required farenhiet 459 to drive off and combust methanol from the celluloid plant matter.

RH @181: And in what way is that at all relevant to the discussion at hand?
Since you have nothing constructive to add, why don't you go get a head start on the holiday weekend and get some fresh air and sunshine?

By JustaTech (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

@JustaTech

Just curious. If you haven't noticed, 90% of this entire thread is irrelevant mudslinging.

By Robert Hayes (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

@185 Robert Hayes

Just curious. If you haven’t noticed, 90% of this entire thread is irrelevant mudslinging.

While you and Mr. Harris have certainly been prolific, you certainly don't represent 90% of the thread.

This one is a fancy one where you put in ground up plants (there are a few herb mixtures for sale), light them up with fire and then suck it into the lungs.

"Vaping" by definition involves no combustion of the payload. Whether Steinberg's product fulfulls* this in the real world, I don't know. One of his own pages cites "vaporization temperatures of about 225-375 degrees."

Whether this range is a matter of quality control, user variability, or different versions is unclear to me, but it's also irrelevant to my point, which is simply that not inhaling combustion particulate is a better choice if one is going to be inhaling cannabis volatiles one way or the other.

I really don't understand what you're objecting to about this.

* Erowid description here.

Are you the same Gaist that can be found here

I haven't really been following this one (although Harris's suddenly having a friend appear was pretty much enough), but for completeness, I will note that "Richard Hayes" is just another entry in the list of Wisconsin boy's compulsively Fendling himself.

Why does everyone call me that?

By Robert Hayes (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

I have been called Fendlesworth everywhere I go. Is this some kind of inside joke?

By Robert Hayes (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

purpose…. and yet be so fired up about the teeny tiny amounts of adjuvants in vaccines.

The amount of aluminum on vaccines given to a 60 day infant is higher than the MRI. The same amount has been shown to cause behavioral and histological anomalies in mice.

Is this the definition of "teeny tiny"? The amount of aluminum that causes rats to learn a maze 3X slower?

Let me consult my dictionary......Nope. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/teeny

By Robert Hayes (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Hello Dr Gorski:

We invite your criticism of our content on the subject of vaccine safety, and especially the issues we focus on: 1) immune activation-brain development interactions, 2) aluminum adjuvant toxicity and kinetics, and 3) healthy user bias.

VaccinePapers.org is not Natural News. We operate with higher ethical and evidence standards. We denounce the actions by some in the vaccine debate to engage in personal attacks, insults and harassment. We will not do this and we will tell our followers to not do this. We ask that you do the same, and encourage your followers to be similarly respectful.

Both sides do this, including Natural News. The "link to cancer fraudster" smear was preposterous.

We do not demonize. I assume we share the same goal: a medical system that maximizes the health of children and all people. We also share a goal you described in a 2014 column:

“My goal is instead to put science-based information out there, so that the fence sitters and undecided can encounter it. If the occasional true believer listens, then I’ve done far better than I would ever expect.” Dr David Gorski, 2014

The vaccine debate has been in the gutter for far too long. There are important issues raised by recent scientific findings that deserve consideration. People will benefit the most from a rational, polite debate about them.

Respectfully

Vaccine Papers

By vaccine papers (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

I have been called Fendlesworth everywhere I go. Is this some kind of inside joke?

Why bother to make a new sockie if you're just going to fling your signature poo in your comments genius?

By Science Mom (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

"Robert Hayes

September 2, 2016
@JustaTech

Just curious. If you haven’t noticed, 90% of this entire thread is irrelevant mudslinging."

It's just extraordinary, that a website that purports to be a serious discussion place of medicine, attracts so many imbeciles, that clearly have no understanding of medicine whatsoever.
Their default system is to abuse, confuse and insult, in the total absence of any critical thinking.
They carry on like pork chops, when a little abuse comes back at them, when they get a dose of their and medicine. (Pun intended).

I think those who don't have an opinion, are all former patients of Dr.Walter Freeman.
And the Neo-James Graham that runs this website, is condemned by the fools and galahs that he allows to populate this website.
If he had any integrity whatsoever, he wouldn't allow the PWT to make a mockery of his website.
But then again, maybe he's ethics and integrity, match those who comment here.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Apologies to you ingrates who decided on a war of Insurrection in the 18th Century.
At the same time we were transporting our criminals and low lifes to the Antipodes: It would would seem some bred rather too successfully.
Mr Harris seems to like demanding everyone's qualifications but seems rather reticent about providing his own.
Over to you 'Digger'!oo

@ Todd W. #160

Thanks for trying. I'm afraid trolls are the crystal meth of the minions: smoking them is highly addictive, mentally damaging, and leads to dubious obsessive behavior.

@Todd W.
#160
http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com
September 2, 2016

Hello Todd.

I thought I would check out your website, seeing as though you are advertising it.
After I some searching around, I realised where you got the name from;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpo_Marx

It's so obvious that this website, is a classic Black Ops/propaganda arm, run by the pharmaceutical industry.
And you also claim that you're not a doctor, and just provide some nebulous and vague qualification.

What chance do children have in the so-called, "land of the free and the home of the brave."
If you don't get murdered in your primary school by some gun-toting nutter, aided and abetted by the NRA, then along comes a "Doctor" with his vaccination needle, to do unspeakable damage.
God help the children of America.

Nice try "Todd". . . No actually pathetic attempt "Todd."

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Peebs

The Mother Country.
September 2, 2016

Is that Peebs, or Plebs??

Anyway, it's a hilarious to think that you're trying to get under my skin by talking about our convict history.
We don't mind at all, in fact we are proud of our convict heritage.
You can say what you like, try every insult in the book, but it's like water off a duck's back. We are impervious to insults. Something to do with our stand alone and survival attitude, when the British dumped us in Australia. We, as Clint Eastwood said; improvised adapted and overcame.

And like all the bumblers here, I stated many times I'm a Naturopath, which requires degrees in chemistry and biology. My thesis was in Evolution Biology.

And what is your qualification to be here??
It's funny how people demand my qualifications, but no one is willing to tell me theirs,

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

Narad: "I really don’t understand what you’re objecting to about this."

I have an extreme sensitivity to smells, especially in smoke form. I have been around those who vape, and it the smell is still quite offensive.

I am a supertaster and can also smell the offensive odor of cilantro from at least a meter away. While a quarter of humans are supertaster, a much smaller portion of us are captured on the cilantro sensitive part of a Venn Diagram.

I did try to explain that. This is why I cannot enter stores that sell candles or cosmetics. I am not joking about this. I refused to go into stores that burned incense in the 1970s, I could not enter a store on vacation that was burning candles, and I actually had to hold my breath in a Sephora store to pay for something my youngest, then in middle school, was buying (I waited outside until she asked me to pay).

I have encountered those who vape, and the smell is very offensive. I just listened to the latest "Oh No Ross and Carrie" where they did an aromatherapy vape. In one point it was described how the smoke hung around a car. While they generally enjoyed it, they did mentioned it was not to be inhaled in lungs!

But sometimes it is. I do not see why that is less dangerous than a DTaP vaccine.

So forgive me if I think someone who cherry picks so much on vaccine adjuvants sells a device for people to inhale flame heated substances in their lungs is a hypocrite.

Blame it on the fact I am a supertaster (which related to smell). I don't care. Hey, I get lots of flak because I think cilantro tastes like soap (which is not related to being a superstaster), so I am used to it.

The point is that I know what tiny amount of substances can do... and the amount of aluminum in the DTaP is not near enough to affect someone like me. Who, as I said. is both supertaster and has the cilantro alkaloid sensing ability. Why is the air carried capacity of those noxious smelling things less than that of a vaccine?

The smell of vape smoke makes me feel ill. The Tdap I got a few years ago was nothing. While both were a whole lot less than the coughing I had during a pertussis epidemic (never diagnosed, it could have just been a virus), the vape was noxious smelling (similar to Axe products!).

Sorry, I still think anyone who sells pipes to inhale stuff and then claims vaccines are bad is a hypocrite. If you wish to change my mind, you know how to do it. Just produce the citations.

I have an extreme sensitivity to smells, especially in smoke form. I have been around those who vape, and it the smell is still quite offensive.

No, I mean, I can detect odor from "E-cigs," but tobacco "vaping" is different from cannabis vaping, and I've never been around the latter – I imagine the grass itself would have more of an aroma in the first place – but I have no interest in the "hypocrisy" angle; Ddanimal fails on the instant topic well enough as it is.

Peter Harris, #198:
''I’m a Naturopath, which requires degrees in chemistry and biology. My thesis was in Evolution Biology."
According to the website of the Southern School of Natural Therapies,"Our four year Bachelor of Health Science (Naturopathy) degree is...The highest level of naturopathic training available in Australia...".
Please explain just what kind of baccalaureate program has prerequisites of two other degrees. Also please explain how a baccalaureate program can be "[T]he highest level of naturopathic training available in Australia" if two degrees are necessary, and why none of the Australian naturopathic college websites mention such a requirement.
On the website of the Naturopaths and Herbalists of Australia it is stated: "The current situation is such that any person, with or without training, can practice as either an herbalist or naturopath." It doesn't look like there is a very high threshold to be met to hang out your shingle. Just as well. Water and potpourri are easy to come by and not likely to do much harm.
As for your thesis, if it's a Ph.D. thesis, where can it be found so we can evaluate it ourselves??(?????)
"You can say what you like, try every insult in the book, but it’s like water off a duck’s back." We know the name for the sound a duck makes and it's in every word you post, including "a", "and", and "the".

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 02 Sep 2016 #permalink

So forgive me if I think someone who cherry picks so much on vaccine adjuvants sells a device for people to inhale flame heated substances in their lungs is a hypocrite.

I think the whole point is that the substances aren't flame-heated; there's no actual combustion going on.

Here's a study showing decreased respiratory symptoms in those who vape vs. those who smoke marijuana, for what it's worth.

I have an extreme sensitivity to smells, especially in smoke form.

It wouldn't be smoke, but vapor, which might smell annoying, at least in the "e-cig" variety with strawberry flavor or whatever.

I’ve never been around the latter

It still smells like grass, yeah. I've tried it, but I smoke grass so rarely I couldn't tell you the difference in effect or anything.

As far as e-cigs go, they've similarly got to be a better alternative to smoking tobacco, even if they have health risks of their own. And anecdotally, I know of several people who have used them to quit smoking successfully.

I did note today that the signs in Oregon business spaces now say no smoking or vaping within 10 ft. of this establishment.

which requires degrees in chemistry and biology. My thesis was in Evolution Biology.

For someone claiming there’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines, "we" is in the third person, cilting insults rather than studies... ...It really doesn't show.

And what is your qualification to be here??

Obviously every shill here is sufficiently qualified, an have Shii grade α-III or above. Otherwise the jackbooted tachyon troopers would have black-bagged us and put us against the wall long ago.

What makes you feel there is are prerequisite qualifications to comment here?

And like all the bumblers here, I stated many times I’m a Naturopath,

As the only self-admitted Naturopath here, wouldn't that therefore make you the only bumbler, too?

Hi Vaccinepapers.org

I've had a look around, I'm up for a civil conversation, there are some questions to be answered:

1) On the Khan paper "Cerebral translocation was not observed after direct intravenous injection, but significantly increased in mice with chronically altered blood-brain-barrier." But you are using this paper to state it does move into the brain.

2) You state "AANs from vaccines may remain “dormant” at the injection site for years," Based on research into people with MMF. A very rare disease involving people who might have an issue with AAN transport.

3) "AAN-containing MFs in the brain slowly leak aluminum into surrounding tissue. This is because the AANs do slowly dissolve, and because cell membranes are leaky to metal ions. MFs leaking aluminum into the brain will cause inflammation of brain tissue nearby. Thus there may be a “halo” of inflamed brain tissue surrounding each aluminum-containing MF in the brain. "

I don't see any citations for this mechanism, especially the "halo" effect.

4) I have more concerns, will need to see how you answer the above to what's next, I'm also off out for the next day or two.

Based on research into people with MMF. A very rare disease involving people who might have an issue with AAN transport.

Using "rare" in the sense that N-rays and phlogiston are "rare". Reported only by Gherardi and his band of grifters.

By Herr Doktor Bimler (not verified) on 03 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Robert Hayes: apologies for taking so long to answer your question; I have a busy weekend but trying to catch up on things I made comments on. No, my Master's of Science is in Nursing. Maybe you could have guessed that from my saying I was a RN.

Hi everyone, I'm back!! Ready to read all the responses! Oh wait :/

Herr Dokter, I didn't know Mr Gherardi was known on here, he looked legit from where I was sitting/ looking. Though I missed the Dwoskin Foundation connection.

Hi everyone, I’m back!! Ready to read all the responses! Oh wait :/

Steinberg was never here to start with; when he does pop up outside of VP, it's mainly to drive traffic there.

I thought he was on page 1 of the comments. Peter Harris also seems to have disappeared since the two degrees for naturopathy nonsense.

"Peter Harris also seems to have disappeared since the two degrees for naturopathy nonsense."

Not only the quack that runs a site is corrupt and dishonest, but he's also a sulk.
It appears he cannot tolerate criticism, so he closed down all my comments.

And like your total lack of knowledge in medicine and biology, you have a total lack of knowledge on the higher education system within Australia.

I'm tired of asking the gormless and a feckless here of their qualifications, because I never get an answer, most likely due to the PWT here having absolutely no qualifications whatsoever.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 05 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Jay (not verified)

Mr Harris, in what way have your comments been "closed down"? Is it merely the fact that you are unable to properly respond to any of the criticism you've been presented with? That would explain why you've retreated to a demand for credentials -- you are unable to respond on substance.

I have a Bachelor of Arts in computer science and English literature. I believe that makes me every bit as medically qualified as you are. Now that we have that out of the way, are you interested in responding to substantive criticism? Or are you going to hide before a pointless request for every person to provide their qualifications?

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 05 Sep 2016 #permalink

"I have a Bachelor of Arts in computer science and English literature"

Then why are you here?
You have no medical knowledge.

And of course, there is no such thing as Bachelor of Arts in English, in America.

There was an urban myth at the time, back in 1980s, when I was at university, that Americans got their university degrees, out of a cereal box.
But it seems over time, that it was no myth that all, and it appears to be true.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 05 Sep 2016 #permalink

I thought he was on page 1 of the comments.

Ah, you're right. I'm surprised that I missed "their" appearance, even with the disjointedness caused by yet another Fendlesworth killfile entry.

@ Narad, will you hate me if I tell you that Fendelsworth is still banging on that thiomersal is metabolised to methyl mercury? Which post here did he say that? Can't find it for some reason he has so many socks.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 05 Sep 2016 #permalink

What gave you the idea, Peter Harris, that there were prerequisites for commenting here? In what field is your doctorate?

Rather than whining about peoples rights to be here, yourself without a medical degree, maybe it would be more pertinent to evaluate the content they put up.

Like "there’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines," (demonstraby false) or “we” is in the third person, (blatantly erroneous).

So maybe work on adding introducing content into your posts, rather than ephemeral excuses and insults? Sound reasonable?

@ Narad, will you hate me if I tell you that Fendelsworth is still banging on that thiomersal is metabolised to methyl mercury? Which post here did he say that? Can’t find it for some reason he has so many socks

He really is a persistent troll.

Though usualy it is best to respond no more than occasionally to trolls - pointing out the most egregious errors and watch them twist and turn.

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 05 Sep 2016 #permalink

I didn’t know Mr Gherardi was known on here, he looked legit from where I was sitting/ looking.

To be scrupulously fair, Shoenfeld's band of loons have also chimed in with claims to have observed MMF, while attempting to subsume it within their own fictitious syndrome 'ASIA'.

By Herr Doktor Bimler (not verified) on 06 Sep 2016 #permalink

To be scrupulously fair, Shoenfeld’s band of loons have also chimed in with claims to have observed MMF, while attempting to subsume it within their own fictitious syndrome ‘ASIA’.

Isn't there considerable overlap between Shoenfeld, Gherardi, Exley and Shaw? All of who amazingly have their own pet illnesses caused by aluminum but are yet in total agreement with each other.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 06 Sep 2016 #permalink

Though usualy it is best to respond no more than occasionally to trolls – pointing out the most egregious errors and watch them twist and turn.

Yes and that was a doozy; I enjoyed inflicting humiliation on that troglodyte slob.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 06 Sep 2016 #permalink

Peter Harris, #198:
”I’m a Naturopath, which requires degrees in chemistry and biology.

Old Rockin' Dave, #201
why none of the Australian naturopathic college websites mention such a requirement?

Peter Harris, Page 2 #10
"you have a total lack of knowledge on the higher education system within Australia"

So do you apparently, also the burden of proof lies with you. So a link to an Australian naturopath course requiring degrees in Chemistry and Biology, or we call BS on you even being a naturopath.

Mr Harris:

Then why are you here?
You have no medical knowledge.

I could ask the same of you, as you too have no medical degree, and indeed have made no real attempt to convince us that you do, other than intimating that you have patients. But I do have half of a chemistry degree (before shifting my second major to computer science), which probably puts me ahead of a naturopath. At any rate, Orac permits everyone to post here as long as they aren't abusive, in spite of your deranged claims of censorship. Ironically, this means you want to exert more control over the commentariat than Orac does.

And of course, there is no such thing as Bachelor of Arts in English, in America.

Ah, sarcasm again. You're really not very good at it.

In any case, this was your response to my question "Now that we have that out of the way, are you interested in responding to substantive criticism?" Shall I put you down for "no", then?

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 06 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Calli: I notice he slammed on you because your degree is not medical, while totally ignoring my MSN (which probably outranks his "not-a-doctor" degree regarding science requirements.

Mr. Harris, you are priceless (not to be confused with valueless and clueless, which you also appear to be).
Tell me. with all your degrees, what the chemical and physical properties of water that make homeopathy work. Which edition of the bible works best in striking the vessel with the magic water works best, and is it worth a randomized double blinded trial? Why does a leather strap work just as well? What energy is being harnessed by a reiki master? Tell us, in all your naturopathic glory, how do you know when reiki energy or homeopathic dilutions are strong enough to constitute an overdose? How do you choose one homeopathic substance if several produce the same effect? Other than patient self-reporting, how do you know your remedies are actually remediating something? How do you monitor patients for side effects?
I would like to know what the underlying scientific bases for your practices are and how have they been verified.
You have at least one person here who would be open to your facts in preference to your insults.

By Od Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 06 Sep 2016 #permalink

"I’m a Naturopath, which requires degrees in chemistry and biology."

Well, *that* is an out and out fantasy.

"It’s funny how people demand my qualifications, but no one is willing to tell me theirs,"

I guess that's because you are in the business of conning gullible people into thinking you can treat them with your nonscience.

I will happily tell you my relevant qualification: scepticism. Naturopathy contains a mish-mash of absolute drivel and bulldust and is generally practiced by loons with virtually no training in science.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 06 Sep 2016 #permalink

I'm increasingly surprised, by the level of hypocrisy, and double standards.
gaist, Science Mom and Od Rockin' Dave, just to name a few, would have to be the most ignorant fools one would ever come across on a science Forum.
Their only skill they seem to possess, is some high school level social media dribble/trolling, while at the same time, they don't even come close to making an argument for conventional medicine. Most likely because they are clueless and feckless high school dropouts that have absolutely no understanding of medicine.
It's just hilarious and amusing.
And I see some self-flagellator, denies the existence of autoimmune diseases.
Are you joking??? What staggering ignorance.

And now the hyenas here, are doing their best to try and discover my education.
Who said I did all my training and education in Australia?
The arrogance is breathtaking. All the bumblers here, are doing their best to undermine my qualifications, when they themselves don't have any!
As if I had no right to pass opinion, but they do. As I keep saying, it's just hilarious.

"I will happily tell you my relevant qualification: scepticism."
You forgot to add your qualification of being a shill Craig Thomas.

Just last week, I had a client who I have treated 4 times now, in tears.
Not tears of pain, but tears of joy.
For almost 2 decades, this woman in her late 40s had a back complaint.
The conventional doctors pumped her full of pharmaceutical drugs, and after 14 or 15 years of no results, a back specialist suggested surgery.
A friend of a friend passed her on to me, and after 4 treatments, which included some acupressure, her chronic back problem was cured. And of course, there were no side-effects.
That is one of the major differences between natural medicine and the pharmaceutical industry.
Natural medicine will treat the cause, whereas doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, will only treat the symptoms.
The reason of course is that the pharmaceutical industry wants to make profit, and there are no profits in curing someone's disease, however, there are billions of dollars each year made by treating someone symptoms. Why cure a customers disease, when you can treat their disease for 10/20/30 years. Anyone in marketing will know that, long-term sustainable profits, are only gained when you can have a customer that keeps coming back to you for the remainder of their life, and that's how the pharmaceutical industry approaches their marketing model.

Some wanker is confusing homoeopathy and Reikei with Naturopathy.
For a start, Reiki is not part of naturopathy, and I very rarely use homoeopathy.
But I know what you're going to say, all the ignoramuses here will say, hey! Homoeopathy is no better than a placebo, which is not true. But let's say it is only a placebo.
It's no better or worse than many of the pharmaceutical drugs, which have been proven to be no better than placebos, but of course homoeopathy doesn't have any detrimental and chronic side-effects.

The inane drivel here reminds me of my primary school days, when some petulant child would sulk, and not get their own way, we would say; Sooky sooky Lala.
That's the best way to describe all the head wobblers here.
You can dish it out, but you sulk when it comes back at you.

Oh, and before I go, we have another saying in Australia; "piss and wind," which is what I read from the commentators here.

But hey, you continue with your ad hominem, such as my level of English, when it compares to yours, and avoid the elephant in the room, and that is, natural medicine is safer and more effective than the current disastrous, and monumentally expensive system that we have today.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 06 Sep 2016 #permalink
By Peter Harris (not verified) on 06 Sep 2016 #permalink

such as my level of English, when it compares to yours

I've been ignoring your rants, but this is an opportunity to point out that 'compare to' implies the likening of two things. I suspect that you meant 'compared with'.

HTH. HAND.

@Narad

Hey, i see you are no expert on adjectives, pronouns and adverbs.

But hey, you can criticise my English as much as you like, because while you are doing that, and when there's nothing left to criticise me about, you're accepting my arguments about the dangers of conventional medicine, and the benefits of natural medicine.
So challenge me all you like about my English, because you don't have the balls or the brains, to challenge me over medicine and science.

You remind me of the bull in the old Bugs Bunny cartoon.

https://youtu.be/SGD69Q9rz3M

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 06 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris,

I think the onus is on each of us to try to raise the level of of discourse to that we'd like to converse at.

But I do have a question for someone who is knowledgeable in these matters.

A few years ago, someone gave a friend who was sick several homeopathic remedies. One of these had the same ingredient at 3 different potentiations.

What is the purpose of that?

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 06 Sep 2016 #permalink

Lots of words to say nothing, sulky Pete. Methinks Peter Harris has some projection issues.

What you seem to not have understood, even now, is that factual claims are preferred here - assertions you can back up with quality sources, preferably scientific studies, and logic. Assertions you can't, or that are demonstrated false before and between you repeating them get here the respect they deserve. If you spew insults while repeating them, you get the respect you deserve.

This is a near anonymous comment board - if it really helps you can pretend I said I have a gazillions doctorates in every specialty. Would that make us demonstrating your assertion that there has never ever been any RDBPC trial of any vaccines false easier to bear?

Except, even under the guise of anonymity, I don't want to pretend to be a doctor of anything. But you can call me Master if you want.

Natural medicine will treat the cause, whereas doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, will only treat the symptoms.

Again, false claims.

I very rarely use homoeopathy.

Goo for you. But it is part of naturopathy, no? Surely in Naturopathy school they explained to you how it works?

Good for you, that is.

Peter Harris:
"And now the hyenas here, are doing their best to try and discover my education.
Who said I did all my training and education in Australia?"

Who says we care?

This is pure deflection, your assertion was "”I’m a Naturopath, which requires degrees in chemistry and biology".

We said prove it or prove you know nothing about degrees. It's obvious from your response you know nothing about degrees...

Liar.

Woo Hoo...Mr Harris! Over here! You keep complaining that people don't have qualifications to talk about medicine, and somehow you keep missing me. Sorry that I spoil all your fun iin stomping your feet and saying no one who posts here meets your requirements for education.

So challenge me all you like about my English, because you don’t have the balls or the brains, to challenge me over medicine and science.

You haven't raised any coherent point to "challenge".

By Science Mom (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

As I get notifications on this thread, it looks like Mr Harris's last comment is stuck in moderation.

Here is some friendly advice Mr Harris, any comment containing more than one link is placed in automatic moderation, happens all the time. Many of these comments never see light of day, this effect is bipartisan.

But cheer up, you only need to post a link to one naturopath course in the world, with a requirement of a degree in both Chemistry and Biology. I suggest looking the UK, as we have really high academic standards. ;)

Mr. Harris, if your claims about medicine were true, why did we develop antibiotics? We had to shut down numerous tuberculosis treatment centers as a result of it. Likewise, the polio vaccine, which dropped the demand for iron lungs significantly.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

Also, Mr. Harris, I did challenge you on medicine. I asked you for proof of your seemingly perfect record. You refused to answer.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris #26, I had a quick look through the links you posted. None of them are about vaccines. How are they relevant to this blog post?

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

Mr. Harris, if you didn't do all your training in Australia, then where did you do it?
Also, since you say all these degrees are required to practice as a naturopathic (pseudo-)physician, please reconcile that with the fact that in Australia, where you practice, naturopath is not a protected title, meaning that anyone can hang out a shingle and practice as a self-declared naturopath.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

I think its outrageous arrogance for everyone here demanding to know my professional life, when they will not reveal their professional background. Unbelievable!

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

#40

Reduced to posting links to slander, Mr. Harris?

If it is indeed slander, I'm sure Mr Orac will defend himself vigorously.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Meg (not verified)

Weak, Harris... very weak.

Sticks and stones, sticks and stones.

I have noticed that you have not denied any of the accusations.
Instead attacking me as weak.
Ooops.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Chris (not verified)

Actually, it's libel.
Peter, you are a fraud, a charlatan and a liar.
Over to you.

I would have thought that you would defend Orac, rather than attacking me, so what does it say about those accusations??

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

@ Narad, will you hate me if I tell you that Fendelsworth is still banging on that thiomersal is metabolised to methyl mercury?

You didn't know? There are two studies showing this.

The ethylmercury component of thimerosal was rapidly taken up in the organs of the mice (kidney, liver, and mesenterial lymph nodes), and concentrations of C2H5Hg+ as well as Hg2+ increased over the 14 days of thimerosal treatment. This shows that C2H5Hg+ in mice to a large degree is degraded to Hg2+. Increased concentrations of CH3Hg+ were also observed

Determination of methylmercury, ethylmercury, and inorganic mercury in mouse tissues, following administration of thimerosal, by species-specific isotope dilution GC-inductively coupled plasma-MS.

Of the total mercury found in the brain after TM exposure, 63% was in the form of Ino-Hg, with 13.5% as Et-Hg and 23.7% as Met-Hg.

Identification and distribution of mercury species in rat tissues following administration of thimerosal or methylmercury.

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

The fact you cite NN as a source destroys any credibility you think you had. And Orac is quite capable of defending himself.
I try not to lower myself but this morning, I will.
You are truly an odious, offensive prick of a sub human.
Over to you again. If you think that's libel, sue me.

There are two studies showing [that thiomersal is metabolised to methyl mercury].

Increased concentrations of CH3Hg+ were also observed

You accidentally truncated the final sentence in that Abstract. It finishes by explaining that
Increased concentrations of CH3Hg+ were also observed, which was found to be due to impurities in the thimerosal.

By Herr Doktor Bimler (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

You can wail and whine all you want Peter, but you're the only one believing any of it.

But if it helps to get it all out sometimes, be my guest.

what does it say about those accusations??

That they're insignificant, meaningless drivel?

"That they’re insignificant, meaningless drivel?"

If so, point them out.
Put up, or shut up.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

"You are truly an odious, offensive prick of a sub human.
Over to you again. If you think that’s libel, sue me."

Having an American PWT trying to undermine me, is like being flogged with a limp stick of celery.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

@squirrelelite

"A few years ago, someone gave a friend who was sick several homeopathic remedies. One of these had the same ingredient at 3 different potentiations.

What is the purpose of that?"

If it's a serious question, I will be happy to answer it.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

Either way Doktor Bimler, methylmercury has been shown to be a metabolite and/or a contaminant of Thimerosal. These are just things that I like to point out to the "ethylmercury is inert" crowd.

Why cannot we all admit that it is an insidious poison and ban it like Sweden¹ and Japan have?

¹(where nice people live)

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

"Either way Doktor Bimler, methylmercury has been shown to be a metabolite and/or a contaminant of Thimerosal. These are just things that I like to point out to the “ethylmercury is inert” crowd."

Do people forget, or ignore, why the hatters back in the 19 century died from breathing in the fumes of chemicals containing Mercury preservative?

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

Of the total mercury found in the brain after TM exposure, 63% was in the form of Ino-Hg, with 13.5% as Et-Hg and 23.7% as Met-Hg.

A fairly selective quote from the paper in question. In fact it turns out that the total amount of MeHg found was less than 2% of the total mercury compounds detected 5 days after treatment with thimerosal. This is so close to the 1.5% MeHG impurity in thimerosal that its origin is obvious and provides no evidence of metabolism of thimerosal by demethylation. It is instead metabolised by dealkylation straight to inorganic Hg.

So much for that fantasy again.

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

"So much for that fantasy again"

The only fantasy is that you think that less than 2 percent in the brain is acceptable

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

Do people forget, or ignore, why the hatters back in the 19 century died from breathing in the fumes of chemicals containing Mercury preservative?

Has no one ever explained to you that not all mercury compounds are identical?

The compound used for felting was mercuric nitrate. This compound has the interesting property of forming Hg2+ ions in solution, which can then turn into mercury vapour.

Also, someone needs to explain to you that the dose makes the poison. The level of exposure of hatters to mercuric nitrate and mercury vapour was orders of magnitude greater than the amount that is in vaccines.

I thought you said that your education included degrees in chemistry and biology?

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

@ Chris Preston.

Oh I see, another person questioning my scientific ability, when they themselves are totally anonymous and provide no integrity themselves.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

Even an avogadro amount of mercury in any form, or even a derivative, is way too much.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

In fact it turns out that the total amount of MeHg found was less than 2% of the total mercury compounds detected 5 days after treatment with thimerosal. This is so close to the 1.5% MeHG [sic] impurity in thimerosal that its origin is obvious and provides no evidence of metabolism of thimerosal by demethylation. It is instead metabolised by dealkylation straight to inorganic Hg.

Your idiotic statement implies that 82% of the ethylmercury that reaches the brain is de-ethylated, but every single methylmercury molecule that is injected not only reaches the brain, but none is demethylated.

This is so close to the 1.5% MeHG impurity in thimerosal...

Just another made-up figure. He will not be able to cite a source, and will eventually fage-away just like Doug

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

In fact it turns out that the total amount of MeHg found was less than 2% of the total mercury compounds detected 5 days after treatment with thimerosal. This is so close to the 1.5% MeHG [sic] impurity in thimerosal that its origin is obvious and provides no evidence of metabolism of thimerosal by demethylation. It is instead metabolised by dealkylation straight to inorganic Hg.

Your idiotic statement implies that 82% of the ethylmercury that reaches the brain is de-ethylated, but every single methylmercury molecule that is injected not only reaches the brain, but none is demethylated.

This is so close to the 1.5% MeHG impurity in thimerosal...

Just another made-up figure. He will not be able to cite a source, and will eventually fag-away just like Doug.

Your idiotic statement implies that 82% of the ethylmercury that reaches the brain is de-ethylated, but every single methylmercury molecule that is injected not only reaches the brain, but none is demethylated.

This is so close to the 1.5% MeHG impurity in thimerosal…

Just another made-up figure. He will not be able to cite a source, and will eventually fage-away just like Doug

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

The only fantasy is that you think that less than 2 percent in the brain is acceptable

Actually, it was only 0.1% of total Hg left in the body that was found as MeHG in the brain. So from a vaccination, that would be 0.1% of 50% of 25 micrograms of Hg equivalent. Yes I think that would be acceptable.

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris #52

If so, point them out.
Put up, or shut up.

This is nothing new and has been talked about for example here : https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/behold-my-power-quacks-and-despair/
It is also difficult to take seriously someone opening with "Exposing Dr. David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. who believes he can use a cloak of anonymity", as if discovering Orac's identity was somehow difficult. He himself calls it "the worst kept secret in the blogosphere".

@Peter Harris #52

If so, point them out.
Put up, or shut up.

This is nothing new and has been talked about for example here : https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/behold-my-power-quacks-and-despair/
It is also difficult to take seriously someone opening with “who believes he can use a cloak of anonymity”, as if discovering Orac’s identity was somehow difficult. He himself calls it “the worst kept secret in the blogosphere”.

@Peter Harris:

Even an avogadro amount of mercury in any form, or even a derivative, is way too much.

Oh my word! I had fish last night! I guess the minute amount of mercury in it is harmful no matter what!
Oh wait. The dose makes the poison. In fact, it is impossible to not ingest mercury.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Chris Preston
The Rodriquez study found MeHg levels in the kidney (95.9 ng/g), liver (71.9 ng/g), heart (89.7 ng/g) and the brain (61.3 ng/g). This exceeds your alleged 1.5% impurity level.

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

The Rodriquez study found MeHg levels in the kidney (95.9 ng/g), liver (71.9 ng/g), heart (89.7 ng/g) and the brain (61.3 ng/g). This exceeds your alleged 1.5% impurity level.

No it doesn't. In fact that is a completely asinine statement.

It is a worthwhile exercise to go to the paper and do the calculations of how much Hg in its various forms is in all the organs. For this the average organ weights will do for an estimate. Rat brains are small. Less than 2% of the body weight. Rat livers are quite a lot larger.

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

Oh I see, another person questioning my scientific ability, when they themselves are totally anonymous and provide no integrity themselves.

Peter Harris, it was you who made an issue of this. You claimed to have some sort of expertise that it is quite clear from your posts that you don't possess.

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

This is so close to the 1.5% MeHG impurity in thimerosal…

Just another made-up figure. He will not be able to cite a source, and will eventually fage-away just like Doug

I don't have to cite the source. You have already provided a link to it. Are you telling me you haven't read the paper?

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

"You claimed to have some sort of expertise that it is quite clear from your posts that you don’t possess."

Pot, kettle.
And your "expertise" is???
Apart from playing the "paizein."

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 07 Sep 2016 #permalink

Peter Harris:
"Even an avogadro amount of mercury in any form, or even a derivative, is way too much."

Well yes, I think most people would find 200.59g of Mercury excessive.

Hey, if anybody needed any evidence to show that Mr Harris doesn't read the links he posts, check this one:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26011

Autism Drug Secretin Found Ineffective

"The largest clinical trial of secretin to date has shown that the drug is no better than a placebo ("sugar pill") in improving the social interaction of young children with autism. The study was done by Repligen, the company licensed to produce secretin"

Fair play to Repligen, people say mean things about Big Pharma, but lookie here Big pHarma tests it's product, finds that it doesn't work and publishes it's results. If only the Alt Med mob were so honest!

Either way Doktor Bimler, methylmercury has been shown to be a metabolite and/or a contaminant of Thimerosal. These are just things that I like to point out to the “ethylmercury is inert” crowd.

No it isn't a metabolite. And you left out the part that the Burbacher et al. study demonstrated your little fantasy. Surely you can point out in the study where and show the chemical reaction.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

This should destroy your nonsense, and the arguments of the other “experts.”

"Mercury from most fish sold in Australia is not a health risk, when fish is consumed as part of a normal diet. "

So it would seem that the dose does indeed matter.

You truly are ignorant Peter Harris.

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Chris Preston.

And the cherry picking award for the week goes to. . .

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Mr. Harris, did you actually read the page, or did you just look up "Mercury" and "Fish" on Google?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

You are so bad at this that I am starting to get board. This post is for lurkers.

The argument Peter Harris has put forward is that even a small amount of mercury in the body is far too much. An Avagadro amount was the term he used, presumably to mean one molecule, rather than 1 mole.

He then links to recommendations for fush consumption. These recommendations specifically state that methylmercury is the most hazardous form of mercury and is in fish. Therefore pregnant women and children should limit their fish intake - not exclude fish, but limit it. However,for everyone else in Australia, fish containing methylmercury in small amounts is not a hazard as consumed in a normal diet.

At this point it is worth noting that vaccines contain ethylmercury, which is not metabolized in the body to methylmercury. Making the relevance of the Australian guidelines for fish consumption irrelevant to the safety of vaccines.

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

I think its it's outrageous arrogance for everyone Peter Harris here demanding to know my everyone's professional life, when they he will not reveal their his professional background. Unbelievable!

FTFY.

Todd W: I think Mr. Harris assumes that simply his word that he cured people other doctors couldn't should be sufficient. Never mind that I could just as easily write a comment saying that I managed to cure someone's paralysis by simply ordering him to stand up and walk.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Gray Falcon

Oh, I know. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of getting so worked up about other people's credentials, but then vigorously dodging any requests for his own, with a haughty, "How dare you!", as if everyone else here were mere plebes that he, a member of some vaunted (yet fictitious) aristocracy, is deigning to address. He's the overbearing father straight out of an Oscar Wilde comedy, but with none of the wit or humour. I can almost see his face turning red in apoplectic rage whenever he comments.

An Avagadro amount was the term he used, presumably to mean one molecule, rather than 1 mole.

I do find it odd that someone who has degrees in chemistry and biology would use "avagadro amount", since it has no explicit meaning. It certainly doesn't mean infinitesimal, which the context seems to suggest. I suspect it comes from misunderstanding criticisms of homeopathy. Maybe it's more Australian slang, possibly related to small beer.
~~~
I am reminded of Dr. J.A. Zoidberg: "It so happens I have mail order degrees in Murderology and Murderonomy."

@ Gray Falcon.

"I think Mr. Harris assumes that simply his word that he cured people other doctors couldn’t should be sufficient"

Clearly, your feckless attempt at trolling is affecting your grammar, so I suggest a Bex and a good lie down.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Mr Harris: Let me rephrase, then. Why should we trust what you say? I could just as easily claim to have healed people by sheer force of will.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@ Todd W.

"I can almost see his face turning red in apoplectic rage whenever he comments."

Ha ha.
Nice Try Todd.
I suggest you keep both hands on the keyboard when you write.
Oh, and what does the W stand for?

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Gray Falcon.

"I could just as easily claim to have healed people by sheer force of will."

Oh, but you do Mr Falcon, you "doctors" call it placebo.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Why should we trust you, Mr. Harris?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Gray Falcon.
"Why should we trust you, Mr. Harris?"

Because I'm one of the few genuine contributors here, and not a pharmaceutical shill.

And why should we trust you Mr Falcon???

Oops, my bad, rhetorical question.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris (54)

Yes, it was a serious question.

I prefer to make statements supported by evidence or at least that I can provide supporting evidence for if asked, rather than just asking questions.

The product was Viscum Compositum Medium by Heel.

It contained Viscum Album in D10, D28, and D198 potentiations.

By chemical measurements, the D10 would provide 1 part in 10 billion in the little 10 ml vial. It would be extremely unlikely for there to be any molecules of the D28 and D198 parts. In fact, I don't know how you could measure the D10 part to 19 significant digits to even tell if the D28 part was there or not in a commercial manufacturing facility.

But, by homeopathy, the effect of the D198 part is so vastly more powerful that it would dwarf the effects of the other two.

So why add the second? And, especially why add the in-between part?

http://www.homotoxicology.net/matmed/combo/ll.6qq.htm

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Mr. Harris, calling people "shills" is nothing more than libel. What's more, companies stand to make more money from diseases than prevention. Why should we trust you?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

... made-up figure ...

Of course it was made up - very conspicuously so. I do give you credit for the uncertainty versus digits catch, but you apparently totally missed the fact that the specified uncertainty would result in greater than 100% at the upper end.

Hint: calculate the sum of all of the specified ingredients in a vaccine and subtract that from the dose amount. The remainder is water. Most vaccines will be more than 99% water, and in many cases sodium chloride, used to adjust osmotic concentration, will be the biggest non-water component. Phenoxyethanol, to the extent of 1-2%, is used in some vaccines.

"What’s more, companies stand to make more money from diseases than prevention."

Did you accidentally admit that, or are you just out of Bex?

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

And the cherry picking award for the week goes to. . .

And the Straw Man and ad hominem awards for the week go to...

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

"And the Straw Man and ad hominem awards for the week go to…"

It's called blow-back.
Goodnight piss-ants.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Mr. Harris, I didn't "accidentally" admit anything. A reduction in vaccine intake would result in more cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and such side-effects as encephalitis and birth defects, which pharma companies would most certainly make more money on than any number of vaccines. How do we know that isn't your goal?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

"I do find it odd that someone who has degrees in chemistry and biology would use “avagadro amount”, since it has no explicit meaning. "

I don't, it was a trap, if he had "won", he would have claimed at being the only one who knows Chemistry.

Look guys I know this is fun and all, but we are training up a troll here, IMHO we should focus on his initial b*llsh*t of a two degree requirement for naturopathy and just generally poke fun at naturopathy. That way we still get our kicks and Mr Harris gets no wiser.

“That they’re insignificant, meaningless drivel?”

If so, point them out.
Put up, or shut up.

The "point" of insignificant meaningless drivel, Peter, is that there is nothing to point out.

Having said that, it is painfully obvious that the point of that whole whine was you - having talked yourself into an indefensible position - trying to change the subject to draw attention away from your confused drivel and then wailing when others did not readily jump at the opportunity.

Look guys I know this is fun and all, but we are training up a troll here

BTW, is there any evidence of Peter Harris's online existence prior to a few similar, recent Y—be comments?

@Peter Harris
Would you be so kind as to point me to a source for your assertion that becoming a naturopath requires degrees in chemistry and biology? Just to remind you, here is your quote from #198 (page 1):

I stated many times I’m a Naturopath, which requires degrees in chemistry and biology.

It is pertinent, in this context, to point out another of your comments (#90, page 2):

“Why should we trust you, Mr. Harris?”

Because I’m one of the few genuine contributors here...

By DrBollocks (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Narad

Doesn't seem like it.

Jay, I'm not sure he has what is required to set a trap. Maybe.

Is anyone aware of a legitimate medical school that requires separate degrees in chem & bio for entry? Around here, someone with dual majors for one degree (pretty rare) might have improved chances of acceptance, as would someone with a master's, but I know of no med school that has stated requirements beyond a baccalaureate, and then not necessarily in science.

Hi Jay

Answers to your questions are below.
YOUR QUESTIONS:

I’ve had a look around, I’m up for a civil conversation, there are some questions to be answered:

1) On the Khan paper “Cerebral translocation was not observed after direct intravenous injection, but significantly increased in mice with chronically altered blood-brain-barrier.” But you are using this paper to state it does move into the brain.

2) You state “AANs from vaccines may remain “dormant” at the injection site for years,” Based on research into people with MMF. A very rare disease involving people who might have an issue with AAN transport.

3) “AAN-containing MFs in the brain slowly leak aluminum into surrounding tissue. This is because the AANs do slowly dissolve, and because cell membranes are leaky to metal ions. MFs leaking aluminum into the brain will cause inflammation of brain tissue nearby. Thus there may be a “halo” of inflamed brain tissue surrounding each aluminum-containing MF in the brain. ”

I don’t see any citations for this mechanism, especially the “halo” effect.

********************

ANSWERS:
1) Its important to read the whole paper, and not just the abstract. Movement of particles depends on where they are injected. IM and IV particles travel around the body differently. IM particles move to the brain and other organs, and Khan showed this (see page 5, fig 1, also available on VP website). IV particles don’t wind up in the brain, possibly because they are captured by the liver and are not phagocytosed by macrophages. Movement of particles is more complicated than kinetics of soluble substances, because the movement depends on movement of macrophages, which is influenced by chemotaxis (CCL2 production). So, the kinetics of nanoparticles is strongly dependent on the activity of the immune system.

From Khan:

“Both latex particles and aluminum hydroxide agglomerates promote inflammation [40,41] and non-specific immune stimulation can increase monocyte transendothelial migration by up to 20-fold in in vitro models of the BBB [42]. Consistently, i.m. injec- tion of rCCL2 strongly increased particle incorporation into intact brain while CCL2-deficient mice had decreased neurodelivery. Cerebral infusion of low doses of rCCL2, mimicking pathological states attracting inflammatory monocytes, also increased particle neurodelivery.”

AND

“Neurodelivery of nanomaterials significantly increased in mice with either a weak BBB or high tissue levels of CCL2, as previously suspected for pathogens in humans [48]. On the one hand, such a cerebral in- corporation of nanomaterials injected into tissues should be regarded as an interesting characteristic in the setting of therapeutic strategies targeting the CNS. On the other hand, alum has high neurotoxic potential [49], and plan- ning administration of continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population should be carefully evaluated by regulatory agencies since the compound may be insidiously unsafe. It is likely that good tolerance to alum may be challenged by a variety of factors including overimmunization, BBB immaturity, in- dividual susceptibility factors, and aging that may be associated with both subtle BBB alterations and a progressive increase of CCL2 production [50].”

Note that autistics have abnormally high levels of CCL2, and that CCL2 is stimulated by some vaccines (e.g. MMR and measles). its a chemokine that is produced by some types of immune activation.

2) True. But what i wrote is also supported by Flarend 1997. Flarend contradicts the idea that Al adjuvant is rapidly eliminated, or eliminated in a few months.. Flarend showed that Al adjuvant is eliminated very slowly. AlOH had 94% retention after 28 days. Flarend is the best study we have on the kinetics of Al adjuvant. It also shows transport to the kidneys, spleen, liver, lymph nodes and brain, after intramuscular injection, though Flarend is not capable to showing these are nanoparticles. Flarends measurement of Al in organs do not distinguish between Al3+ and nanoparticles.

Dissolution into Al3+ is the only way al adjuvant particles can be excreted. And they take years to dissolve.

Persistent Al adjuvant retention at injection site has been observed in animals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26384437

Itchy nodules can result from Al adjuvanted vaccines and persist for years. This demonstrates that the adjuvant does not completely dissolve on this time scale.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23052615

3) Which aspect of the "halo effect" do you have a problem with? BTW, the "halo effect" is my own proposal/conjecture.

Its well known that movement of ions in/out of a cell is largely driven by diffusion, unless there is active transport (molecular biology textbooks discuss this). And there is no active transport of aluminum to retain it in the cell. Macrophages containing adjuvant will have a higher concentration of Al3+ than surrounding fluid. Cell membranes are leaky and therefore Al3+ will leak from the macrophages that contain Al adjuvant. Al adjuvant does slowly dissolve. Hence, macrophages loaded with al adjuvant will constantly be releasing Al ions into the surrounding environment. Not much in this line of reasoning should be controversial.

Also, keep in mind that this simple analysis ignores the toxicity of the AlOH nanoparticles per se. AlOH cannot be assumed to have zero toxicity apart from released Al3+ ions. Research shows that nanoparticles can be toxic due to surface chemistry effect. Toxicity also depends on shape and size of nanoparticles.

If you would like to discuss these or other issues further, please comment at the vaccinepapers.org website. This forum is not good for discussion because of the single-thread organization. Also, it would be appropriate to discuss VP content on the VP website.

Thank you

VP

By vaccine papers (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Itchy nodules can result from Al adjuvanted vaccines and persist for years. This demonstrates that the adjuvant does not completely dissolve on this time scale.

Indurations are now "itchy nodules"?

If you would like to discuss these or other issues further, please comment at the vaccinepapers.org website. This forum is not good for discussion because of the single-thread organization. Also, it would be appropriate to discuss VP content on the VP website.

No, this is fine to discuss here and no one has had a problem before. I've seen the way you operate Steinberg and you just want to control the narrative so when you devolve into one of your petulant rants you can just shut down your critics.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Science Mom -- not to mention drive traffic to his worthless site.

By shay simmons (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

No, this is fine to discuss here and no one has had a problem before.

It's not as though that bit couldn't have been seen coming.

Disqustink is just so much more convenient in certain contexts.

not to mention drive traffic to his worthless site

But they don't accept advertising!

So, VP Steinberg, which is really more dangerous the itsy bitsy bit of aluminum in the DTaP vaccine or pertussis? How about tetanus and diphtheria?

You can cry all you want about the dangers of the most common metal element on this planet's crust, but unless you come up with a viable way to prevent those three diseases adequately --- you are just making a bunch of useless smoke and noise.

@ Shay, Dan Steinberg (the royal "we" behind vaccine papers) claims he doesn't make any money from his site so that's not the incentive to drive the traffic there. It's what I stated along with ego, he's got a rather petulant disposition and will block/delete comments that are too critical of his "interesting" interpretations of studies in violation of copyright by the way so another reason to stay away from his site.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

The pathetic level of discourse here is apparent. I will not participate in this stream of insults and nonsense. You can see all the evidence for the danger of aluminum in vaccines at vaccinepapers.org.

Bye

By vaccine papers (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@vaccine papers: So, you'll be back in an hour, I guess.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Steinberg is just a noisy little irritant who cannot read/understand a scientific paper. I think he posted a paper elsewhere about when pregnant mice are infected with a virus (not a vaccine) that the baby mice are affected.

Yep, he tried to prove vaccines were bad with a paper showing that infections in pregnancy should be avoided (it took a bit, but I found it... he seems care deeply about the health of rodents).

Awww, but I'd love to discuss the Petrik and Shaw et al. papers.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

I do find it odd that someone who has degrees in chemistry and biology would use “avagadro amount”, since it has no explicit meaning.

Perhaps Harris meant "avocado number".

By Herr Doktor Bimler (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Science Mom -- actually, I was thinking of ego rather than advertising.

The only time I ever got him to actually post a cite (on the Skeptical Raptor's blog), it was an animal study that mostly said "this could be significant and should be studied further." This after asking him for his best shot.

You're correct -- he hates it when he can't control the discussion.

By shay simmons (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

VP @104: You say " non-specific immune stimulation can increase monocyte transendothelial migration" as evidence that Al and latex go into the brain. Two points:
1) Vaccination is very specific immune stimulation, not non-specific. That is the point of vaccination, the stimulation of a very specific immune response.

2) How does the migration of monocytes show a mechanism for particles to move into the brain? Is this paper saying that monocytes somehow get covered with the aluminum particles at the injection site and then migrate all the way to the brain while trailing alum? That seems awfully convoluted.

By JustaTech (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

[@JustaTech ] You may have to pose that question at vaccinepapers.org. I don't think that the author wishes to tolerate the kind of childish abuse that is found here.

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Too bad Fendelsworth; he isn't controlling the discussion. And you're sure one to talk about "childish abuse" calling people retards just for starters.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Lars @ 120: Nothing about my question was either childish or abusive.
Do you speak for Vaccine Papers now?

By JustaTech (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Fendlesworth...Steinberg...Fendlesworth...Steinberg...

Hmm.

Fendlesworth…Steinberg…Fendlesworth…Steinberg…

Hmm.

Very unlikely, IMNSHO.* Somebody probably mentioned it in his control-space.

* For more than linguistic reasons.

I thought this thread was beginning to Peter out, but here it is showing that it still has lots of "life force" left.

Mr. Harris:
"Science Mom and Od Rockin’ Dave, just to name a few, would have to be the most ignorant fools one would ever come across on a science Forum.
Their only skill they seem to possess, is some high school level social media dribble/trolling, while at the same time, they don’t even come close to making an argument for conventional medicine. Most likely because they are clueless and feckless high school dropouts that have absolutely no understanding of medicine."
My qualification is a baccalaureate cum laude as a physician assistant from the Sophie Davis School of Medicine of the City College of New York which included hands-on instruction from Columbia University at Harlem Hospital and other locations, followed by twenty years' clinical practice, much of it alongside a number of world-renowned researchers. To be licensed, I had to take a national certifying exam that required a level of knowledge nearly equivalent to a resident in family medicine, 140 hours of CME every two years, and a recertifying exam not much less rigorous and extensive than the original every six years, a set of requirements more stringent than most other health professions. On Day One I knew and understood more actual medicine than you do now. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

"Natural medicine will treat the cause, whereas doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, will only treat the symptoms."
What a load of bollocks! For one, medicine treats infections by killing off the infecting organisms. Quackery treats them with some hand waving, or some flower-sniffing, and claims to have overcome conditions that were likely never present to begin with. How would you use "natural medicine" to treat gallstones? Klebsiella pneumonia? Byssinosis? Hepatitis B?

"The reason of course is that the pharmaceutical industry wants to make profit, and there are no profits in curing someone’s disease, however, there are billions of dollars each year made by treating someone symptoms. Why cure a customers disease, when you can treat their disease for 10/20/30 years. Anyone in marketing will know that, long-term sustainable profits, are only gained when you can have a customer that keeps coming back to you for the remainder of their life, and that’s how the pharmaceutical industry approaches their marketing model."
This is so far removed by reality that I don't even need to rebut it. Everyone who has worked in actual science-based medicine knows that screed for the blather that it is.

"I very rarely use homoeopathy."
But you do use it. Just the fact that you had to qualify that statement shows that you are on the defensive discussing it, and rightly so. You still haven't answered the questions about your understanding of how it works.

" But I know what you’re going to say, all the ignoramuses here will say, hey! Homoeopathy is no better than a placebo, which is not true. But let’s say it is only a placebo.
It’s no better or worse than many of the pharmaceutical drugs, which have been proven to be no better than placebos, but of course homoeopathy doesn’t have any detrimental and chronic side-effects."
The difference being that when pharmaceuticals are proven to be placebos, they are taken off the market. Peddlers of mystic nostrums just keep on selling the same crap with the same con artistry that they have been peddled with for generations. Homeopathy doesn't have side effects because a clean glass of water doesn't have any. That's not even considering the side effect of diverting a patient from actual medicine that has scientific knowledge behind it.

"[T]hey don’t even come close to making an argument for conventional medicine." We don't have to. We have a vast amount of research, knowledge, and experience collectively. You don't.
As I'm sure you've read, extraordinary claims demand an extraordinary level of proof. We've got a daunting amount of data of many kinds backing us up. You don't, so you're the one making the extraordinary claims.
There is a Yiddish expression: "Tuchus afn tish" - put your ass on the table. Pony up some facts.

And to bring the discussion down to your level, I offer this quote from Elaine Benes: "I hope a dingo eats your baby."

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

ORD: Indeed, how about Mr Harris get some skin in the game and go down to his local ambulance service and sign a statement that he will never accept any "conventional" medical treatment for any condition or injury.
He can then check back in with us when he is 100 and we will be duly impressed.

By JustaTech (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

"How would you use “natural medicine” to treat ..."
or tuberculosis, or retinal detachment, or cataract, or plague, or filariasis, or rabies, or giant cell arteritis, or acites due to cirrhosis, or deep vein thrombosis, or aneurysm, or patent ductus arteriosus, or Grave's disease, or ...

@Doug

Hint: calculate the sum of all of the specified ingredients in a vaccine and subtract that from the dose amount. The remainder is water. Most vaccines will be more than 99% water, and in many cases sodium chloride, used to adjust osmotic concentration, will be the biggest non-water component. Phenoxyethanol, to the extent of 1-2%, is used in some vaccines.

A simple-minded approach that does not take into account the change in water's density as a function of solute concentration. Calculating the mass of the water based solely on the mass of the solutes is bound to give an incorrect figure.
[Fig 1]
[Fig 2]

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Chris Preston

In fact it turns out that the total amount of MeHg found was less than 2% of the total mercury compounds detected 5 days after treatment with thimerosal. This is so close to the 1.5% MeHG impurity in thimerosal that its origin is obvious

After I pointed out how all of the alleged MeHg impurites in Thimerosal would have to diffuse into the brain, and nowhere else for this to be true, he continues with:

Actually, it was only 0.1% of total Hg left in the body that was found as MeHG in the brain.

So what is it Chris Preston? Are you ready to show your math?

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

So, Fendelsworth, when are you going to tell us which vaccine in the present American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal?

Cheers VP, interesting stuff. There seems to be bad blood between you and some of the old timers, but we can still chat. Thanks for the invite, but would like to continue here, I'm kind of wary of which sites I comment on.

Onto business:

1) I did read a fair chunk, to be fair I slightly confused it with another paper. About it moving to the brain, it still was "This occurs at an extremely low rate in normal mice". For everything else he's using mutant mice to get the alarming results. And the dosage "The dose of alum-containing vaccine administered to mice was calibrated to mimic the mean number of doses received by MMF patients. ".
That's between 4-6 doses, at the same time, all on the same site. The action of that osmotic micropump is to me a bit strong too, "rCCL2 was infused for 14 days".

But at the end of the day I do not discount the idea of Macrophages bearing encapsulated AAN moving round the body... whether they cause damage or not, totally moot.

Socky: "A simple-minded approach ..."

Sure, and entirely adequate for purpose.

If your objective is to prove that you can find stuff on the web that is beyond your ability to understand, you are succeeding famously. What was it I said? "Most vaccines will be more than 99% water ...". "More than" rather implies an approximation, nicht wahr?

The total content of solutes, suspended solids or mixed liquids in the majority of vaccines is under 1% - and that statement holds regardless of the temperature (within the allowable range of use or storage for vaccines) or whether the preparation is w/w or w/v or v/v. Vaccines don't contain a bunch of ethanol, so your figure 1 is completely irrelevant. 2- phenoxyethanol isn't ethanol. The very bottom end of figure 2 is applicable. Do you know what concentration of sodium chloride in water is approximately isotonic for mammals, off the top of your head? The standard way to spec it is w/v. No, you say? Do run off and find it on the web, then calculate what the error in water content would be if the density were taken as 1.000. Remember, we're talking about the error in the water content, not the error in the solute content. Then have a look around the web and see if you can find a clip from Meatballs where Bill Murray's character is dancing around repeating a phrase to Chris Makepeace's character. It is a useful phrase (sentence, actually).

Saying 99% water ain't good enough if our requirement is high precision. It ain't. I can say it is 99% water and be within an uncertainty of ±1% for the majority of vaccines. But you can't work the other way round and say the solute content is 1% with any confidence.

This reminds me of a partner I had for a biochem lab. The objective was to do something (I've long forgotten what) with an extract of calf thymus. There was a stock bottle of solvent mixture for the extraction. We were supposed to use, iirc, 30 ml of solvent. I took a 50 ml beaker, eyeballed the volume and took it back to our bench. No, no, no, my partner, who didn't understand the concept of bucket chemistry, insisted. "We have to measure it accurately." He dumped the contents of my beaker into a grad cylinder (which he didn't have to wash), only to find it was within about a millilitre of the specified volume. It is important to understand when it just doesn't matter.

Anyone know how to summon the sock eater that lives in the cellars of The Unseen University - the one that ate a sock belonging to, appropriately enough for this occasion, the Chair of Indefinite Studies? Merely mentioning it out loud doesn't seem to work, perhaps because it isn't Hogswatch.
Or maybe I should start a ComeGimmeMoney thing to fund a dozen new banhammers for our host.

Another day, and more deflections and hypocrisy.
My God, I cannot even go to sleep, without being accused of, "running away."
Commentators here are wasting their time, if they think I'm going to bite, by trying to out me, question my medical knowledge, or the language I use.
You only make yourselves look more foolish, if that's possible.

I think I was right in the 1st place, to describe some here as bedwetters and dribblers, headed by none other than the chief head wobbler, Grey Falcon.
He breathlessly demands answers, while hiding behind a wall of anonymity himself.
If I don't stick to the topic, I'm admonished for being off topic, but it's ok for the head wobbler to continue, what will be a wasted attempt, by trying to out my professional career.
A troll is an apt description for Grey Falcon, when you look at all the other disingenuous, hypocritical BS he spews on other forums, and questioning other commentators, at the same time showing complete cowardice himself.

But hey, this is not surprising when you view this blog is a cult.
We have a crazy Guru (Orac), and his minions/disciples, who slavishly regurgitate more nonsense in defence of their master, while they are completely oblivious to the hypocrisy and nonsense they spew.

But this is typical of a cult leader/disciple relationship.
Disciples/minions lead meaningless and prosaic lives, and in order to put some purpose and colour into their lives, they gravitate around a false prophet.
In this case a quack, with a dubious medical record, and an even more dubious persona.

So I'm making the "The Harris rule."
If you want to ask a question of me, about anything whatsoever, you need to state your professional background (if there is one).

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/11/dr-david-gorski-admits-thimerosal-mi…

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@squirrelelite

September 8, 2016
@Peter Harris (54)

"Yes, it was a serious question"

I still have my doubts.
You have been prolific over the years discussing this topic on other forums, so I'm sure you've got your answers before.
But if you persist, scroll down to Potentisation, (Which is the right description, potentiations means something else).

http://www.marlev.com/HowItWorks.htm

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Doug
The point is Doug, is that you sad you knew how much water was in a vaccine and I called you out on it.

And after a bunch of hand-waving, you finally admitted to it:

I can say it is 99% water and be within an uncertainty of ±1% for the majority of vaccines.

Certainly you cannot be talking about Merck's ProQuad®, which includes: 21 mg of sucrose, 11 mg of hydrolyzed gelatin, 2.4mg of sodium chloride, 1.8 mg of sorbitol, and a few more milligrams of salt and protein per 0.5mL.
Using your own simple and inaccurate calculation would put this vaccine at around 91% water.

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

So what is it Chris Preston? Are you ready to show your math?

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. The first value was the % of MeHg found of all Hg compounds. The second value is the % of MeHg found in the brain compared to all Hg compounds.

But if you really want the math, Hg compounds come from this paper http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-010-0538-4

Average organ weights from this paper http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/32/4/448.full.pdf+html

Following thimerosal treatment, Inorganic Hg was found at 163 ng/g in the brain, 2999.7 in the liver, 844.7 in the heart and 9581.9 in the kidneys. MeHg at 61.3, 71.9, 89.7 and 95.9 ng/g in the same organs and EtHg at 35, 105.3, 0 and 382.2 ng/g in the same organs.

Multiplying these values by the weight of each organ, gives 122.6 ng MeHg in the brain and a total of 1696 ng MeHg in all 4 organs. Total Hg in all forms found in the 4 organs was 90,664 ng. Therefore, MeHg compared to all Hg forms was 1.87% of the total. The 122.6 ng MeHg in the brain was 0.14% of all the Hg forms in all the organs. So if you want a rough estimate of the percentage of MeHg that will end up in the brain after 5 days from a single application of thimerosal, it will be less than 0.14% of the total Hg remaining. Hg from thimerosal has a half-life of less than 7 days in the body, so cut these values roughly in half to account for that.

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Again, Peter Harris graces us with his yet more of his no substance deflection and hypocrisy he probably doesn't even realize is there. Irony meters are overheating worldwide.

Given how he's avoided answering practically any questions addressed to him so far, I see little point in asking anything more, but being steadfastly optimistic I shall persevere.

Peter Harris, do you agree that your claim that there’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines was false?
If yes, glad I could be of use.
If no, well, there is very little to discuss after that.

As for your cute "Harris rule" tangent - it must make you fun at parties. I'll indulge you this once, out of pity. My professional background (A Masters and a separate Bachelors degree) is directly relevant to my current profession not in the field of medicine. The professional background of the people I quoted to disprove your claim is varied, but is directly related to medicine and the vaccines they wrote about.

Also, Pete, if you actually were interested in actual discussion (and helping people), you could for example recall the patient whose back you seemingly treated in four sessions. Simply link to the best study you know of, of the treatment(s) you used, and the discussion would flow from there.

But it's of course easier to just call people bed-wetters and then whine how they don't agree with the vast evidence you haven't offered, doncha think? (ough em gee, a question.). Makes it easier to maintain your self-selected indignation.

I will start out by saying that I did misread one of your sentences:

.. amount of MeHg found was less than 2% of the total mercury compounds detected 5..

But I misread this as 2% of the total mercury injected. In light of your previous facetious attempt to pass off a confabulated number, I had assumed that you were at it again.

Here are the numbers from the Rodrigues study:
Brn=0162.9[I-Hg]_ 61.3 [MeHg]_035.0[EtHg]__259.2[Hg]
Lvr=2999.7[I-Hg]_ 71.9 [MeHg]_503.1[EtHg]__3574.7[Hg]
Hrt=0844.7[I-Hg] _89.7 [MeHg]_000.0[EtHg]__934.4[Hg]
Kdy=9581.9[I-Hg]_ 95.9 [MeHg]_382.2[EtHg]_10060.0[Hg]
Tot=13589.2I-Hg]_318.8 [MeHg]_920.3[EtHg]_14828.3[Hg]

From these figures, the total MeHg concentration is 2.15%. When you converted the concentrations into masses, though necessary for your other calculation, you introduced noise into this calculation. Rodrigues did not include the mass of the rats, so that was an approximation.

So if the 2.15% of MeHg recovered from these rats were due to an impurity in the Thimerosal, and that 2.15% of the total Hg recovered from the rats was MeHg, you are forced to conclude that MeHg metabolizes at the exact same rate as the EtHg from Thimerosal.

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

https://youtu.be/3tyIxVkqiyU

Truly, commenter 135, you cut me to the quick with your sharp wit. (NOT)

Still I took the bait and did a quick Google search, which turned up 10 hits going back to 2009. A couple of those were only because my recent comment notifications happened to get caught in the search. One I had 3 comments, another just 1.

Yup, truly prolific.

It reminded me of a little game my son used to play where the idea was to get you to look at something and if you looked, you lost.

I guess my skills at teasing even the most willful commenter into at least conversing must be slipping. I think I'll watch the very first Star Trek episode from 50 years ago instead. I told my high school chemistry teacher about it the next day and he became a fan. I probably would have benefited from spending more time on Thursday nights studying my honors chemistry course, but I joined practically the whole dorm floor in the lounge each week to watch Star Trek.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@ gaist.

. . .there’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines was false?
If yes, glad I could be of use.
If no, well, there is very little to discuss after that."

I mention dribblers and bed wetters, and look who turns up.
You keep banging on about this issue, like a child with ADHD. You keep saying im wrong, but you never provide any scientific evidence to prove otherwise.
Give me at least 10 links to studies that prove me wrong, that shouldn't be too hard, should it?
Put up or just shut up, before you turn polysialia into a contagious disease. (but I'm sure they'll have a vaccine for that).

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Peter Harris:

You keep saying im wrong, but you never provide any scientific evidence to prove otherwise.

You are a liar. I went back to gaist's very first comment on this post. Included was a link to proof that a vaccine had undergone a RDBPC. Your claim that gaist has provided no proof is a lie. Here is the link.
https://public.health.oregon.gov/PreventionWellness/VaccinesImmunizatio…

Give me at least 10 links to studies that prove me wrong, that shouldn’t be too hard, should it?

All that is needed to prove you wrong (and a liar) is one study. And I have provided gaist's link again.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

I see you keep evading the issue. What makes you dismiss with the study I linked to (as did Dorit Reiss)?

Why demand ten when one will suffice?

In case you forgot, You claimed "there’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines".

"Why demand ten when one will suffice?"

Because if I had submitted one study, into some specific aspect of natural medicine, of which there was no review by a respected institution, you would totally dismiss it as an aberration.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by gaist (not verified)

Here are the numbers from the Rodrigues study:
Brn=0162.9[I-Hg]_ 61.3 [MeHg]_035.0[EtHg]__259.2[Hg]
Lvr=2999.7[I-Hg]_ 71.9 [MeHg]_503.1[EtHg]__3574.7[Hg]
Hrt=0844.7[I-Hg] _89.7 [MeHg]_000.0[EtHg]__934.4[Hg]
Kdy=9581.9[I-Hg]_ 95.9 [MeHg]_382.2[EtHg]_10060.0[Hg]
Tot=13589.2I-Hg]_318.8 [MeHg]_920.3[EtHg]_14828.3[Hg]

From these figures, the total MeHg concentration is 2.15%.

Seriously?

You truly are an idiot.

Those numbers are in ng/g of organ weight. You cannot add them together without taking account of the different weights of the organs. I mean this is basic stuff.

From this complete basic failure all of your arguments fall into irrelevance.

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Just to pre-empt repetitive whining and continued reading failure from Pete...

Here's the link Dorit Reiss offered before, as did I in the very post (£138) you quote to snivel how I didn't offer any evidence...
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa052664

Here's more:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=double+blind+placebo+controll…

There's your "at least ten", even if there are few keyword mis-hits.

Now, back to my question.

Was your statement false or not?

Too late to pre-empt, but whatever.

“Why demand ten when one will suffice?”

Because if I had submitted one study, into some specific aspect of natural medicine, of which there was no review by a respected institution, you would totally dismiss it as an aberration.

No. To prove efficacy, you can't just look at one study, but to prove something has happened at least once, proof of a single instance will suffice. This. Isn't. That. Complicated.

@JF.

Do you actually read the links you send?

“The FDA is recommending that healthcare providers temporarily stop using this
vaccine in children until further studies are done."

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Chris Preston
No Chris, you are an idiot.

Therefore, MeHg compared to all Hg forms was 1.87% of the total.

The number is 2.15%, and not 1.87%. You got 1.87% because you converted the concentrations into mass based on average organ weights, and then calculated the ratio of MeHg to total Hg: A pointless step that introduces uncertainty.

The units don't matter here because you are just taking a ratio, you would get the same result if you took the mean concentration.

Tot=13589.2[I-Hg]_318.8 [MeHg]_920.3[EtHg]_14828.3[Hg]
Mean=3397.3[I-Hg]_79.7[MeHg]_230.1[EtHg]_3707.1[Hg]

So here we have the mean concentrations of the various organs in ηg/g, and the ratio of MeHg to total Hg is identical.

79.7 ÷ 3737.1 = .0215 = 2.15%

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

@gaist

"No. To prove efficacy, you can’t just look at one study, but to prove something has happened at least once, proof of a single instance will suffice. "

Huh??

You are a scientific fraud.
And what's more, clearly an FDA flunky.

I have heard some scientific doublespeak, but that's one of the best.

As you Americans like to say, "one Swallow doesn't make a summer."

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Nice goalpost shifting there Peter. You claimed that nobody had provided proof that any vaccine had undergone a Randomised Double Blind Placebo Controlled Trial. I copied and pasted a link gaist provided in the very second comment on this post to show you were lying.
That you had to trawl through the post to find a recommendation "until further studies are done" neither invalidates what I posted, nor makes your lie the truth.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Nice goalpost shifting there Peter. You claimed that nobody had provided proof that any vaccine had undergone a Randomised Double Blind Placebo "Controlled Trial. I copied and pasted a link gaist provided in the very second comment on this post to show you were lying.
That you had to trawl through the post to find a recommendation “until further studies are done” neither invalidates what I posted, nor makes your lie the truth."

Of course it invalidates, are you totally clueless and deluded?
Unfortunately there's no vaccine for that.

Are you the real Gary Johnson??

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

Evasion duly noted. Evidence is there that randomized double blind placebo-controlled trials have been done. Despite your claims.

You can gish gallop and wring your hands all you want, doesn't change the facts.

But it's nice of you to keep demonstrating just how pitiably dishonest your tactics antics are.

No. To prove efficacy, you can’t just look at one study, but to prove something has happened at least once, proof of a single instance will suffice.

Not to mention that this is comparing apples and oranges anyway (study results vs study design).
You also seem to think that any word of caution or criticism about vaccines will make our heads explode, or something. Your quote is not even about a RDBPCT ; it was quality control that found PCV1.

[Edit]
79.7 ÷ 3707.1 = .0215 = 2.15%

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

So any study of naturopathic treatents that contains the words "more studies are needed" or words to that effect are invalid?

Peter Harris: "Huh??"

What's the confusion two degrees boy? In fact, let's throw it up to the lurkers, anybody out there confused by Gaist's statement?

Was it:

A) The idea of needing more than one study to judge if something works?

B) The idea of when someone says something doesn't exist and you show him even one proof that it does, that means that something exists and makes that person wrong?

In 1971, rats monkeys were injected with radioactive ethylmercury and autoradiographs were taken of sagittal sections. You can view these disturbing autoradiographs here:

By Lars Ørnsted (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

I'll help you out, Peter Harris. Your confusion has moved me to pity.

I'll hereby claim that there is no accredited Naturopathic school that requires degrees in chemistry and biology for enrollment.

Now you only have to link to one that does, and my claim to the contrary is demonstrably false.

I'll be reasonable and not demand ten or more studies demonstrating the existence of such an institution.

@ Jay,gaist.

To the no Degrees people here such as yourselves, I don't have time for this argument on semantics, because it's the weekend here, so I got better things to do.
You, and your fellow Sorrusians can have the last word, because I know you want to, because you don't have much else in life, other than to behave like Supreme flunkys on a "scientific" blog.

Until next time.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 08 Sep 2016 #permalink

He's flouncing. :)

He’s flouncing.

Hopefully it sticks.

After expelling reams of copy over many days, it's always amusing that they suddenly find better things to do.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 09 Sep 2016 #permalink

Mr. Harris is a frog living in a well who just got a good look at the ocean.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 09 Sep 2016 #permalink

To clarify: Mr. Harris spent all his life in circles where people were impressed by his slick talk. He could substitute confidence for procedure and evidence. He could talk up credentials that didn't exist. He could use words without bothering to learn what they mean.

Then he came here, where people actually present evidence and ask questions of him.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 09 Sep 2016 #permalink

went back to gaist’s very first comment on this post. Included was a link to proof that a vaccine had undergone a RDBPC.

Y'know, simply pointing out the Salk field trials is usually simplest in such cases.

Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned from the Professor on Gilligan's Island:

-Don't be concerned with appearances. Wear the same thing every day if you want, as long as it's comfortable.

-Sometimes, Gilligan's ideas aren't as crazy as they sound.

-Take an interest in the arts. Be the MC for a talent show, or direct a musical (but leave the singing for those who can)

-Sometimes, it helps to know a little about obscure things, like bat anatomy.

-Don't dwell with what you don't have, but deal with the supplies that you DO have. If a coconut radio is what you can make, then a coconut radio is what you get.

-"Kissing on the mouth is far from sanitary. It can lead to all sorts of bacterial transfer."

-Voodoo is nothing but native superstition, and the sharp pain in your back and your burning feet are merely coincidence.

-Always be aware of your surroundings, but be cautious. You never know if the island is really sinking, or if someone is just moving your measuring stick.

-Two words: Acetylsalicylic Acid

-Don't overstate your position. No one will believe you when you tell them there are no such things as zombies if you've just spent two weeks standing in a rainstorm while in a trance.

By Marry Me, Mindy (not verified) on 09 Sep 2016 #permalink

Sorry to interrupt this really great discussion (not), but I just wanted to put in a good word for The Professor from Gilligan's Island. One of my favorite guys of all time, and a large reason why I am a scientist, and an even bigger reason why I am a Professor (a real one, not just on TMR). In fact, I consider it an honor to be able to share that title with him.

Oh, and Russell Johnson was an awesome guy, too, and the perfect guy to play The Professor.

By Marry Me, Mindy (not verified) on 09 Sep 2016 #permalink

Mr. Harris starts off a post with: "Another day, and more deflections and hypocrisy."
Nobody here is interested in entries in your Day Runner.

"So I’m making the “The Harris rule.”
If you want to ask a question of me, about anything whatsoever, you need to state your professional background (if there is one).""
I did that, but you have not yet answered a single one of my questions.
So,once again I ask you, where did you get your biology and chemistry degrees you claim, and what did your naturopathy education and training consist of?
Did you go through any supervised hands-on training?
What do you believe the actual physical, chemical, and biological processes that make homeopathy (which you admit to sometimes using) effective are? What do you believe a bible or a leather strap adds to a homeopathic remedy? How do you determine the proper dose of a homeopathic or other naturopathic remedy and how do you know when you've exceeded it. and what do you do if you have? Do you keep resuscitation equipment in your office, and if so, what? Do you have any training at all in dealing with non-medical, i.e. surgical, or psychiatric, emergencies?
I could go on, but I'll wait for your replies. Meanwhile, I'm getting periodic weather reports from Hell.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 09 Sep 2016 #permalink

@ Jay.
OP.
Gray Sparrow.
Old Rockin' Dave.

I see that the misanthropes, and rock spiders, are still persisting with their delusion, and deflections away from the argument itself.
I guess when you have an epic fail, deflections, are all that you've got left.

I stated Friday night, my time;
"...can have the last word, because I know you want to, because you don’t have much else in life, other than to behave like Supreme flunkys on a “scientific” blog."

And what did you do?
You're not the sharpest tools in the shed are you.
I think it's time for Bugs again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGD69Q9rz3M

But let me introduce you to an Australian saying;

http://www.slang-dictionary.org/The-Phrase-Finder/Come_in,_spinner

As for Gray Sparrow, you seem to get your knickers in a knot, when you believe I've made a mispronunciation.
I've noted that you didn't admonish elitesquirrel, for mixing up Potentisation with potentiation.

@Dangerous Bacon

It's the footy finals here, and even though I don't barrack for either team, I never miss a match between Hawthorn and Geelong, who have a modern rivalry.
I'm guessing you don't understand AFL, but even you can tell from the final score, I was justified in leaving the forum that night for better things.

http://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2016/24/geel-v-haw

@gaist.

I'm a little confused.
I looked at the studies in the link you sent me, and I'm still none the wiser.
Are they true placebo controlled studies?
I mean, looking at both sides of the argument, the anti-Vaxxers, and the pro vaccination lobby, agree (at times) that it is unethical to conduct RDBPC studies into vaccines.
"The latest such “argument” is that the safety and efficacy of vaccines have never been proven because they have not been subjected to a controlled randomized double blind study against a placebo."
"...Unfortunately, they don’t know enough to realize that controlled randomized double blind studies are unethical in certain circumstances, including the testing of vaccines."

Those 2 quotes were taken from this website, which criticises the anti-vaxxers, and supports the argument that it is unethical to conduct such studies into vaccines.

http://www.skepticalob.com/2009/10/latest-argument-of-vaccine.html

I even have a page here from your guru, David Gorski.
"...there have been calls from the anti-vaccine movement for experimental studies, which, of course, would be highly unethical because they would leave large numbers of children completely unvaccinated and thus vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases."

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-perils-and-pitfalls-of-doing-a…

Now some of the anti-vaccine websites claim that;

"What the pharmaceutical company should have done is inject one group with the vaccine and the other group with a non-vaccine placebo (i.e., saline). What the pharmaceutical company did, instead, was inject one group with the hepatitis B vaccine, and the other group with a different vaccine."

https://vactruth.com/2013/09/26/how-pharmaceutical-hide-dangers/

So looking at this argument objectively about RDBPC, and vaccines, I'm still not convinced of the science, and studies, that you present as evidence to the question as to whether vaccines are subjected to RDBPC studies.

So I have two questions for you.

1. Do all the studies that you rely on, use a true placebo, such as a saline solution?

2. And is there a RDBPC study (safety and efficacy) into the vaccine in question, the MMR vaccine?? I am more concerned about the safety regarding my 2nd question.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 11 Sep 2016 #permalink

So no links to naturopath courses requiring two degrees then?

You know, I'm really feeling hurt and left out. Peter Harris keeps asking for credentials, I've listed mine, and he keeps ignoring my existence. I guess, like the links showing RDBPC, I don't exist to him or his "Harris Rule". Because trolls can't accept being wrong.

ORD: how did you get PH to notice you but ignore your credentials? I'm guessing because you are male? I sense a great deal of misogyny in our friend Peter, since he seems to respond to the male (or those he believes are male) commenters much more than the female.

But then, since women probably make more of his "marks" than men, I'm sure Peter doesn't want to deal with intelligent women who don't believe in his pseudomedicine.

I’m a little confused.
I looked at the studies in the link you sent me, and I’m still none the wiser.

Yes, yes you are. And no, no you aren't. Respectively.

So I have two questions for you.

I have more than two questions for you, but you have yet to answer any of them.

1. Do all the studies that you rely on, use a true placebo, such as a saline solution?

If you can't figure out what each study used as a placebo when you are reading the studies, I don't see how me copy-pasteing the choice bits would have any better results...

You have the links you asked for - you check them out.

2. And is there a RDBPC study (safety and efficacy) into the vaccine in question, the MMR vaccine?? I am more concerned about the safety regarding my 2nd question.

Suffering from memory problems, I see.

As for your confusion about the ethics of RDBPC trials, II'll let you read a couple and see if you can spot a pattern there.

If you can't figure it out - then I'll help explain it.

As for your confusion about the ethics of RDBPC trials

The underlying notion fails pragmatically without any need to bring ethics to bear.

@gaist.

"Yes, yes you are. And no, no you aren’t. Respectively."

Of course my confusion is brought about, in large part, by the flip-flopping, and contradictory comments by the pro-vaccination lobby, on this forum.

"If you can’t figure out what each study used as a placebo when you are reading the studies, I don’t see how me copy-pasteing the choice bits would have any better results…"

It's a legitimate question, seeing as though, in what I presented to you, from the pro-vaccination lobby, that it would be wrong and unethical to use a true placebo in vaccination studies.

"Suffering from memory problems, I see."

You can't accuse me of memory loss, when I do not take any notice of the hubris, and histrionic nonsense from yourself and other forum commentators, in the 1st place.

My previous questions were in good faith, and I expected a reply in kind.
So I will attempt to ask one more time.

1. Do all studies, into the safety and efficacy of vaccines, use a saline solution type placebo?

2. And are there any (RDBPC) safety and efficacy studies into the MRR vaccine?

Just a simple yes or no to those 2 questions, without any divergence, non sequiturs and other nonsense.
If the answers to my 2 questions are yes, then please provide the evidence.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 12 Sep 2016 #permalink

It's like the Australian Lowell Hubbs.

Having a degree in chemistry myself, I have to wonder:

How does someone with a chemistry degree manage to sit through several courses in homeopathy without getting kicked out for asking disruptive questions? The law of similars could be considered plausible by people who haven't thought about it too much, but the law of infinitessimals? Making a solution more dilute makes it stronger? How could someone with a chemistry degree reconcile that with everything one had already learned?

I mean, once one figures out what 12C meant in terms of number of molecules of active substance per liter of remedy, how does one take anything seriously?

And then there's succussion - how is that better than a stir bar? What does it do that plain old shaking doesn't?

What happened when they explained how the remedy worked better when (statistically) it contained no active substance? How about when they talk about remedies like Oscillococcinum, a 200Ck preparation of duck liver believed to cure the flu because it doesn't contain a microorganism which someone once thought it might which would generate flu-like symptoms?

This is, of course, a serious question.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 13 Sep 2016 #permalink

My previous questions were in good faith, and I expected a reply in kind.

I seriously doubt that, and for what it's worth, so were my previous questions too (at least the non-rhetorical ones) - none of which you've answered except with vague evasions, vapid accusations and unimaginative insults.

Given your conduct on this thread, there is no reason for me to expect you'd even acknowledge, let alone accept any answer I'd give.

Ever heard of Quid pro quo? Or you reap what you sow? What I type next is to help you.

1. Do all studies, into the safety and efficacy of vaccines, use a saline solution type placebo?

That is possibly, probably, the stupidest question I've seen any anti-vaxxer ask, and that's saying a lot. Your first try was almost as bad, but I hoped you would figure out why if you opened even one or two of those links I gave you. But no, your new version is even more imbecilic. Sorry, I'm being as polite as I can in the face of such idiocy. All I can tell you is to stop using the word all if you can't do it without revealing the extent of your ignorance - as you've done here, time and time again.

And I've given you links to over 1500 studies. To help you figure out the answer you've already been given, even answered it yourself, in the very first comment and numerous times since, I'll just point out how there are valid study designs able to provide quality scientific data without involving any placebos.

You've been handed more than 1500 studies. Even if a portion of those studies are keyword mis-hits, you still have far more than the "at least 10" you demanded. In fact, even if 99% of the studies were mis-hits, you'd still have more than you asked for. You asked, I delivered. Deal with it.

2. And are there any (RDBPC) safety and efficacy studies into the MRR vaccine?

Again, already answered on this thread, not to mention the answer being easily found online. Rather than see what kind of inane gotcha-moment you erroneously thought my answer would entitle you to, I'll let you demonstrate your in good faith.

"Again, already answered on this thread"

Really?
Hmm.
Ok, so where are those links to my 2 specific answers?

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 13 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by gaist (not verified)

And once again: Peter! I'm over here! Yoohoo! Person with the credentials you were looking for! Are you afraid of intelligent women, or what?

Meh, I guess I should give up. If he can't understand how to use google to search for RDBPC, and can't figure out how to read a study to see what was used for placebo, I'll just say I'm glad he's not in the USA. Our Not-a-Docs are bad enough with their ignorance and stupidity; he almost supersedes them all (though "Dr" Tenpenny is way up there. Yes, I know she's a DO. But I think she's shown that she does not deserve to be called doctor with the respect that title deserves, just like the NDs who claim they are doctors).

I asked my question in good faith too and you can see how much information that elicited.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 13 Sep 2016 #permalink

“Again, already answered on this thread”

Really?
Hmm.
Ok, so where are those links to my 2 specific answers?

You forgot the magic word.

“Suffering from memory problems, I see.”

You can’t accuse me of memory loss, when I do not take any notice of the hubris, and histrionic nonsense from yourself and other forum commentators, in the 1st place.

As evidenced by you replying to the comment in question?

One thing is clear, to all objective observers here, is that, there is very little serious discussion around the dangers of vaccines, but mountains of hypocritical drivel.

"none of which you’ve answered except with vague evasions, vapid accusations and unimaginative insults."
You have the gall to accuse me of that? That's your modus operandi in response to many here you disagree with over the time you've commented on this site.
You like to humiliate and belittle people with sanctimonious clap-trap, anyone who dare disagree with your subjective nonsense.
I didn't read anywhere, on this thread, where you admonished the other commentator for calling me a c@&t.

"That is possibly, probably, the stupidest question I’ve seen any anti-vaxxer ask, and that’s saying a lot."
As I thought, you would just ratchet up the rhetoric and insults, in order to avoid my 2 questions.

"I’ll just point out how there are valid study designs able to provide quality scientific data without involving any placebos."
Quite clearly, you have absolutely no understanding of protocols, in evaluating the veracity of medical studies.
I'm after the so-called "gold standard," of medical studies regarding vaccines, specifically the MMR.
But all I got was what I expected, a whole bunch of bile, purely designed to avoid answering my 2 questions.

Imagine if you had asked me about providing appropriate scientific proof into the safety and efficacy of complimentary/alternative medicines, and I said to you; "I’ll just point out how there are valid study designs able to provide quality scientific data without involving any placebos."
Undoubtedly, you'd be screaming at me, GOLD standard! And RDBPC!
Seeing as though you have trouble operating your corpus callosum, I'll be very clear this time.
I DO NOT consider any study, that does not include a saline/sugar placebo, as valid proof of a positive outcome in medical studies.
Just like running experiments in astrophysics, that doesn't include E=mc2.
But as i keep stating, mindless hypocrisy is the gold standard here.

"Rather than see what kind of inane gotcha-moment you erroneously thought my answer would entitle you to..."
Again, more hypocritical divergence. The other forums I've read when you make comments, is that's exactly how you try and trap people yourself.
Yes "quid pro quo."

But this is the best the all, which highlights the juvenile, and infantile intelligence of you and others here.
"You forgot the magic word."
It reminds me of my primary school days.
If you care to read what I said in my 1st question, I prefaced it with the word, please.

But hey, you'll continue to squirm and squeal, dip and dodge, and generally just spout off more, what we call in Australia, piss and wind, just to avoid answering my 2 questions.

So knock yourself out, and continued to make yourself look, "vapid".

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 13 Sep 2016 #permalink

I can't believe that I live on the same island as this guy!

By Jeff Bollyn (not verified) on 13 Sep 2016 #permalink

I for one would be happy to have a discussion of the risks of vaccination in relation to the risks of the actual diseases they prevent. Which vaccines cause more death, injury, deafness, paralysis and so on than the corresponding diseases would in the absence of those vaccines? What specific sequelae* are they? How do you know?

* New word for me, trying it out.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 14 Sep 2016 #permalink

I didn’t read anywhere, on this thread, where you admonished the other commentator for calling me a c@&t.

Just like I haven't admonished you or anybody else here for giving others affectionate pet names like bedwetter, dribbler and turd. Because I don't mind it, and assume those that do will object to it themselves. What I have complained to you is using insults in lieu of a honest answer.

But now I know the word bothers you. Next time someone calls you that I will protest and advice they use bedwetter, drippler, ugly, hypocrite, imbecile, American or turd instead.

In fact, if it helps ease the hurt and the indignity, you can call me a cu/i>nt, or whatever other term of endearment you wish, every time you give a serious answer to a question, or link to a study somebody asked you for. I've heard good things about Ozzie skills of vituperation. Looking forward to improving my vocabulary.

Happy?

That is possibly, probably, the stupidest question I’ve seen any anti-vaxxer ask, and that’s saying a lot.”
As I thought, you would just ratchet up the rhetoric and insults, in order to avoid my 2 questions.

I can't help if you insist on continuing your temper tantrum because I, among others, gave you more detailed answers than monosyllabic grunts you crave for. The questions have been answered, repeatedly, in all their iterations.

I”’ll just point out how there are valid study designs able to provide quality scientific data without involving any placebos.”

Quite clearly, you have absolutely no understanding of protocols, in evaluating the veracity of medical studies.
I DO NOT consider any study, that does not include a saline/sugar placebo, as valid proof of a positive outcome in medical studies.

So true. Couldn't have put it any better than that myself. Won't say anything more, trying to be polite and all.

...But you might want to check that one with your mates, mate. After all, many anti-vaxxers might be a smidge incensed if they realized their vaccine whistleplower-show, or Andy's “original dozen” were summarily dismissed by their own.

I’m after the so-called “gold standard,” of medical studies regarding vaccines,

That's obvious. What isn't obvious is why you didn't ask that?. Instead, you asked Do all studies, into the safety and efficacy of vaccines, use a saline solution type placebo? . That's the same thing you did at the beginning. You claimed there’s never ever been any RDBPC on any vaccines. . I answered in the very next comment. That you, not liking the answer, changed the question and begun whining when others didn't go along, is not my fault. It is also not my fault that you seem to have difficulty admitting this.

specifically the MMR.

Already answered, in more detail than you asked for. The fact that you can't muster the courage to face MI Dawn is not my fault.

Imagine if you had asked me about providing appropriate scientific proof into the safety and efficacy of complimentary/alternative medicines, and I said to you; “I’ll just point out how there are valid study designs able to provide quality scientific data without involving any placebos.”
Undoubtedly, you’d be screaming at me, GOLD standard! And RDBPC!

You must mistake me for someone like you - I've never, unlike you, dismissed a study based on just the study design. As you're tracing my online existence, you'll eventually find several threads where I discuss at length several studies of alternative medicine that did not involve placebos of any sort. I am not as dogmatic as you - I'm willing to look at other kinds of naturopathic studies, because I can recognise their value as individual pieces in the vast, collective body of evidence.
Now that you have my promise not to dismiss them in writing, there's no reason for you not to post the studies I already recommended you post – namely of the treatments you used to treat the patient with back pain you mentioned earlier. I'm not picky, you can even link some of your reject studies – you know, ones without saline/sugar placebos. But any study you relied for the treatments used will suffice. I'm sure you have many, you wouldn't peddle therapies without evidence. Why not share??

You forgot the magic word.”
If you care to read what I said in my 1st question, I prefaced it with the word, please.

Can you post the comment number, even searching the word please on the page seems to have trouble finding it (you did say If the answers to my 2 questions are yes, then please provide the evidence. , but that doesn't really fit, and it seems to be the only mention of the word please, by you, except for telling you prefaced your first question with it.
But yes, I should have chosen my words with more care. I expected it was obvious the line was reference to me requiring you to start answering, (you know, the quid pro quo bit?), rather than continue grumbling and whining because you wanted a shorter answer. I see now I shouldn't have expected as much from you.

I DO NOT consider any study, that does not include a saline/sugar placebo, as valid proof of a positive outcome in medical studies.
Just like running experiments in astrophysics, that doesn’t include E=mc2.

You really don't want to expand the range of things you don't understand but are willing to jabber incoherently (and ungrammatically) about.

@ gaist.

You are becoming part of my routine.
When I wake up in the morning, I grab my phone, and check what the financial markets did over overnight, and now I check to see the latest evasive flim-flam from yourself.

But I'm sorry to disappoint you.
You went to all that trouble, thinking of how many ways I can avoid answering the question again, but I didn't read it.
I just quickly scroll down to see if you had left any links, or answers to my 2 questions I keep putting to you.

This is becoming quite a masterful, and an enduring attempt at avoidance.
I have already bookmarked this thread, to use as a future reference, as to how far the grossly hypocritical allopathic dribblers, will go to avoid scrutiny, in regards to conventional medicine.
It's getting fantastic, don't you think??

And I see you've recruited one of the Nuff-nuffs, Narad, to help you out with your epic evasion.
But hey, I'm a patient man.
I'll check in again tomorrow morning, Melbourne time, to see how much time you're wasting, in avoiding 2 simple questions.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 14 Sep 2016 #permalink

Good morning, sunshine.

When you share the link, make sure you preface your expose with you "My name is Peter Harris and I DO NOT consider any study, that does not include a saline/sugar placebo, as valid proof of a positive outcome in medical studies." That'll learn us.

I think mr harris is trying to do the same as this trial:

Row over clinical trial as 254 Indian women die

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Row-over-clinical-trial-as-254…

As mr harris doesn't read links, I'll quote a few pertinent bits:

"Even Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) guidelines stipulate that a placebo can be used only if the disease is self-limiting or when no proven preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic method exists"

""...people should not be used to demonstrate exactly how much death results from lack of medical care," stated Dr Suba"

Oh, I see.
That's a new tactic.
Conflating different things I said, to try and form some statement, in order to justify more of your avoidance, and deflect away your epic failures.
Possibly, it might make sense, if not for your terrible grammar.

Anyway, no doubt you'll come up with some other inventive way to avoid 2 simple questions, which no doubt i'll read in the morning.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

I posted this to the wrong thread.

There are two good reasons why we don’t compare every new vaccine to saline placebos:
1) Consider watching an ad for an expensive new floor-cleaning product. Your response is likely to be “Why can’t I just use a mop?” When testing something for which an established tool exists, you want to see which one actually works better in comparison.
2) Consider the development of a newer, lighter but stronger parachute. Would you test it with someone falling out of a plane against a backpack weighted like a parachute?

I'm not expecting Mr. Harris to read and understand this. I'm not expecting Mr. Harris to read or understand anything more complicated than "I ate chicken for lunch!"

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

Why does Peter Harris keep accusing others of atrocious grammar? The grammar appears fine to me.
Harris, what specific rules of grammar are being broken?

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

So, you really don't know what tautology is huh.
Of course you don't.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Julian Frost (not verified)

Actually, Peter, I do.
An accusation can be an insult, but isn't always. Therefore, it was not a tautology for me to write "just more insults, and accusations of hypocrisy", despite what you think. So, comprehension fail on your part.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

So convenient isn't, not to republish your full quote.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Julian Frost (not verified)

Okay then, go through my comment and show me where the tautology is.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

Just because I'm tired of this charade:

1. Do all studies, into the safety and efficacy of vaccines, use a saline solution type placebo?

No.
Some studies compare different vaccine combinations, e.g. one group is injected with MMR, the other group with MMR and flu vaccines.

2. And are there any (RDBPC) safety and efficacy studies into the MRR vaccine?

Yes.
Here is one from 1975.
Here is another one from 1975 as well, full article available for free.

Took me 10 min on the NCBI Pubmed website, looking for "MMR vaccine placebo ". People can go looking for more by themselves.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

I’ll check in again tomorrow morning,

Days just fly by in Melbourne, don't they.

So convenient isn’t, not to republish your full quote.

Possibly, it might make sense, if not for your terrible grammar.

The highest risk of association with aseptic meningitis was observed within the third week after immunisation with Urabe-containing MMR (risk ratio (RR) 14.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) from 7.93 to 25.71) and within the third (RR 22.5; 95% CI 11.8 to 42.9) or fifth (RR 15.6; 95% CI 10.3 to 24.2) weeks after immunisation with the vaccine prepared with the Leningrad-Zagreb strain. A significant risk of association with febrile seizures and MMR exposure during the two previous weeks (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15) was assessed in one large person-time cohort study involving 537,171 children aged between three months and five year of age. Increased risk of febrile seizure has also been observed in children aged between 12 to 23 months (relative incidence (RI) 4.09; 95% CI 3.1 to 5.33) and children aged 12 to 35 months (RI 5.68; 95% CI 2.31 to 13.97) within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine. An increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR immunisation in children aged 12 to 23 months was assessed in one case-control study (RR 6.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 30.1) and in one small self controlled case series (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 5.38; 95% CI 2.72 to 10.62). Increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR exposure was also assessed in one other case-control study involving 2311 children and adolescents between one month and 18 years (odds ratio (OR) 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7).

Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children

By Rafaela Gonzalez (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Rafaela Gonzalez- Should we eliminate all cars because of the Pinto?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

Well, Rafaela, then there is no problem. Neither of those mumps vaccines strains have ever been used in an American MMR vaccine. The Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine strain has been used in the American MMR vaccine since 1971.

It is now the mumps vaccine strain used in the UK. Oh, and here is some relevant reading:
MEDICINES CONTROL AGENCY TO OBJECT TO IMPORTATION OF UNLICENSED SINGLE URABE STRAIN MUMPS VACCINE

Now, Ms. Gozalez, please post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the present American MMR vaccine causes more meningitis than actually getting mumps. Because it is all about relative risk, and since mumps is presently circulating in certain American communities there is a real danger someone will get permanently injured by the actual disease.

@Peter Harris
Ref comments 29, 91, 135

Please, pretty please, with a nice big sugar pill?

The formulation I referred to was liquid in a nodule, and didn't have the sugar pill.

My medical background consists of being raised by an RN who actually treated a diphtheria case and was glad it was the only one. How many have your treated? I also had a course in Health Physics (radiation effects) as part of earning a MS in Nuclear Effects. I also got the First Aid merit badge as a Boy Scout.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

No Mr. Falcon. Automotive engineers as well as vaccine engineers should be more concerned about safety.

Where is the Volvo is vaccine engineering? Why not produce safer vaccines?

By Rafaela Gonzalez (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

Ms. Gonzalez: Vaccine manufacturers are concerned with safety. The vaccines in the article you posted were taken off the market because of the risks involved. One cannot eliminate risk, only minimize it.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

"Why not produce safer vaccines?"

What level of safety would satisfy you? If it's "zero side effects", then we must discard vaccines and every other medical intervention.

On the other hand, if you have a reasonable, concrete proposal for making vaccines even safer than they already are, that would be worthy of discussion.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

And I shouldn't just type things up without looking up word definitions.

Potentization is

Potentization is the process by which homeopathic remedies are made. It is a series of dilutions and agitations. First, the substance from which the remedy derives is either dissolved into a tincture or ground into a powder from which a tincture is made. Then begins the process of potentization, which is what distinguishes homeopathic medicines from herbal tinctures, mineral suspensions, and other natural medicines made with whole substances.

while potentiation is an important medical effect where 2 medicine have a synergistic effect.

Interaction between two or more drugs or agents resulting in a pharmacologic response greater than the sum of individual responses to each drug or agent.

I'll offer Ben Goldacre's discussion since it also discussed randomized double blinded controlled trials.

I know I've seen a more amusing demonstration on YouTube, but couldn't find it today.

https://youtu.be/TZiLsFaEzog

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Dangerous Bacon

How about fully replacing thimerosal with phenoxyalcohol, and aluminum hydroxide with calcium phosphate.

Why not just eliminate the neurotoxins in vaccines?

By Rafaela Gonzalez (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

Rafaela: Thimerosal is only used in the multi-dose vials of the flu vaccines. Anyone can ask to get a flu shot without it. Most people are never offered a flu shot from a multi-dose vial.

What studies show that phenxyalcohol is equally effective as a preservative?

By JustaTech (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Justatech

What studies show the converse?

By Rafaela Gonzalez (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

A Prevnar 13™ formulation containing 2-Phenoxyethanol at a concentration of 5.0mg/dose was stable and met EP recommended criteria for antimicrobial effectiveness tests when the formulation was kept over a 30 month period. In contrast, a recommended dose of Thimerosal, as a comparator, or other preservatives did not meet EP antimicrobial effectiveness acceptance criteria.

Preservative of choice for Prev(e)nar 13™ in a multi-dose formulation.

By Rafaela Gonzalez (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

This is pretty pathetic, Travis.

OK then.

By JustaTech (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

Oh Hai Fendlesworth again. Pathetic indeed.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

Why not just eliminate the neurotoxins in vaccines?

Why not just adopt one nym and present arguments in good faith instead of popping up new sockpuppets all the time like a skeavy little sh1tweasel?

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

Why not just adopt one nym and present arguments in good faith instead of popping up new sockpuppets all the time like a skeavy little sh1tweasel?

"Like"? I actually skimmed the paper for which he provided a truncated abstract selection above (the final four words are "for this vaccine formulation," BTW); it's much more complicated than he'd like, and I didn't notice a cost–benefit analysis – but again, I skimmed.

This jizzrag, however, has not only patheticly decided to try to appropriate my pseudonym at AoA, but when greeted with indifference,* sank to trying this this.

It's as though he doesn't actually understand that yes, Virginia, there are killfiles. Any discussion of anything on the merits has long since been foreclosed.

* Hint, fuckwit: verification of the actual credential pair is trivial.

^ "pathetically," and the extra "this" I presume to be obvious.

What, no gaist this morning??
No mumbo-jumbo, designed to deflect away from answering 2 simple questions?
Well, apart from some feeble attempt at engaging in a discussion about grammar, after misappropriating something I said out of context,
I'll avoid that one of course, I don't want to give gaist another opportunity to circumvent the discussion, and avoiding answering my questions.

So I guess the answer to my 2 simple questions, is NO and NO.
It would have been easier to admit that those studies do not exist in the 1st place, but hey, pride in such a stubborn beast.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

This jizzrag, however, has not only patheticly decided to try to appropriate my pseudonym at AoA, but when greeted with indifference,* sank to trying this this.

If at first you don't succeed...

What, no gaist this morning??

You missed me?

If at first you don’t succeed…

Hah, I missed that one.

Note to Peter Harris: *plonk*

@ Peter Harris

So I guess the answer to my 2 simple questions, is NO and NO.

Read again. It's No and Yes.

A number of people, me included (#202 on the previous page), answered you, with multiple citations.
For someone who talks big about avoidance...

pride in such a stubborn beast.

You are one to tell.

Au revoir, Pierre.

-------------------------------------
Australia is such a weird place. So many venomous beasts. Spiders, snakes, lizards, mammals. Even naturopaths.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 15 Sep 2016 #permalink

I guess the answer to my one simple questions is DIIK.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 16 Sep 2016 #permalink

Setting the bar.

I thought it was worth engaging with RG, since 'she' asserted that there was a scientific controversy about vaccines causing autism.

There will probably always be controversy, but a true scientific controversy will need evidence comparable to this study, not just the sort of "yes, but I'm still worried about maybe this mechanism causing some unverified harm" studies that keep getting posted again and again.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-still-not-linked-to-autis…

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 16 Sep 2016 #permalink

@ gaist

"September 16, 2016
This jizzrag, however, has not only patheticly decided to try to appropriate my pseudonym at AoA, but when greeted with indifference,* sank to trying this this.

If at first you don’t succeed…"

Well that is a new tactic.
Incoherent rambling.
And that link?
I had no part in that discussion.
But no doubt, gaist will have some new inventive way, in which to avoid 2 simple questions, when she/he/it sees this post.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 18 Sep 2016 #permalink

And that link?
I had no part in that discussion.

Given that it had nothing to do with you in the first place, the question is why the fυck you're bitching about it.

Oh, wait: you can't fυcking read.

@Narad

"Given that it had nothing to do with you in the first place, the question is why the fυck you’re bitching about it."

Because gaist left it for me, in yet another diversionary tactic.

So who cannot read?

Don't worry Narad, they are working on a vaxx for Pathological Embitterment Disorder.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 18 Sep 2016 #permalink

That is just sad.

And this was for Peter Harris, unlike #18.

That is just sad.

G-ddamn my lack of short-term willpower. If I hadn't seen this, I just might have entertained the notion that the scale could tip ever so slightly toward brilliant, mamesh trolling, but confusion over the descriptions next to radio boxes has sent that ball out of the yard.

Peter Harris, I don't know how to say this politely ...

Man you are a dill.

By Chris Preston (not verified) on 18 Sep 2016 #permalink

<lilady>

Man you are a dill.

Don't mention dill!

</lilady>

I'm reminded of the nature of "a while."

This dude would make the Total Perspective Vortex explode.
Also, he is wearing Zaphod's Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 19 Sep 2016 #permalink

Firstly, claiming I must answer my own question, when it’s you who’s defending the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

No, I'm just saying you need to spot the answers you've been given.

Oh, so you found it. ha ha.
So now you need to find me some answers.
It can't be that hard, seeing as though you have demonstrated your Internet skills.

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 19 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by gaist (not verified)

Oh, so you found it. ha ha.

Didn't realise it was lost.

So now you need to find me some answers.

Didn't realise you can't read.

I see.
Now you claim you had sent me some answers, and I failed to read them?
Is that correct?
Well, I am afraid that, feigning alzheimer's doesn't work, and I can see through your endless attempts at avoiding answering 2 simple questions.
However, if you are developing alzheimer's, then don't despair, they are developing a vaccine for that too.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/dementia-vaccine-may-be-years-awa…

By Peter Harris (not verified) on 19 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by gaist (not verified)

I failed to read them?

You did.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 19 Sep 2016 #permalink

Now you claim you had sent me some answers, and I failed to read them?

For atypical definition of now (but I'm willing to accept you only now picking up on it) and for you plural, yes. Still.

Peter Harris, I summarized my credentials; you still have not shown yours. I asked you a number of specific questions that you still have not answered. Every time you are challenged you respond with Trumpery instead of taking the challenge.
Now, how would you treat any of the conditions you have been asked about? How would you use all your science degrees to explain how your remedies work down in the cells and tissues of your patients? What are your qualifications to attempt to treat live beings of any species? And just what does the bible or leather strap do to increase the potency of the homeopathic alleged remedies you confess to using?
Based on what you have shown us so far, I believe you to be a peddler of nostrums, a fraudster, a coward, and an obvious shill for Big Quackery. Prove me wrong, if you have the guts to do so, and show some actual proof.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 20 Sep 2016 #permalink

Old Rockin' Dave: "I asked you a number of specific questions that you still have not answered."
Peter Harris: [SFX: crickets]

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 23 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Old Rocking Dave,

Peter Harris seems to have gone quiet for a couple days.

Maybe it's the weekend or maybe he's in moderation and doesn't get the satisfaction of dropping non-replies on a dozen comments at once.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 23 Sep 2016 #permalink

Orac, I wonder if it's possible for you to cut out the various overt and veiled insults in your writing, or are we to believe that this style of writing is civil and scientific? Why spend so much of your time on what are essentially fallacious ad hominem arguments attacking the (supposed) character of the person rather than the actual arguments? This leads me to believe that you can't defend your arguments except by using ad hominem attacks to divert attention from your own failure to address the science accurately and honestly.

Don - I wonder if it's possible for you to be specific about which statements Orac made which you find to be objectionable? We would all benefit from that.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

Tone troll is trollin'

Yeah, I'd also like to know what "failure to address the science accurately and honestly" and "essentially fallacious ad hominem arguments" mean - other than Don being butthurt when antivax silliness gets shredded.

Orac: "This leads Professor TMR to do what antivaccinationists do so well, play the victim"

Don is apparently good at this too.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

Reply to #45:
Orac spends a great deal of time saying why we shouldn't trust TMR rather than tackling any of the arguments that are put forward by vaccinepapers via TMR. Perhaps Orac can explain how IL-6, a cytokine activated by immune response, does NOT cause autism. I don't suppose he can, or would, attempt to do this, so the next question is why should we NOT believe that an inflammatory response during infancy or pregnancy CANNOT cause a spike in IL-6 and hence damage to Purkinje cells, which damage is characteristic of autistics? It is reasonable to believe that this is a valid mechanism that leads to autism. Why, then if vaccines are designed to evoke an immune response, would vaccines not be implicated in initiating such a mechanism? Lastly, is it at all possible for Orac, or anyone, to respond to the actual argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks?

OK, I made a mistake. The correct wording of #48 is: "why should we NOT believe that an inflammatory response during infancy or pregnancy can cause a spike in IL-6 and ...."

Orac spends a great deal of time saying why we shouldn’t trust TMR

Merely looking at TMR is enough to reveal that most of the content doesn't even fall into a domain in which "trustworthiness" is an applicable concept.

rather than tackling any of the arguments that are put forward by vaccinepapers via TMR.

If you just want to wage war for Vaper Papers, why choose TMR as a proxy ground? Make your own damned case.

Orac can explain how IL-6, a cytokine activated by immune response, does NOT cause autism

So you've pulled some theory theory-shaped hairball out of your arse and you expect everyone to drop what they're doing and explain why you don't even reach the level of being wrong?
Allow me to suggest that you hold your breath while you wait.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

the next question is why should we NOT believe that an inflammatory response during infancy or pregnancy CANNOT cause a spike in IL-6 and hence damage to Purkinje cells, which damage is characteristic of autistics

I know it's Psychology Today, but does anyone have any idea why "The Athlete's Way®" has been babbling in this vein?

"Perhaps Orac can explain how IL-6, a cytokine activated by immune response, does NOT cause autism"

Could you explain which ingredient in vaccines you have an issue with here? Is it actual vaccines, then we would have seen huge spikes in Autism during the 1950's. Mercury and/ or Aluminium, again the data does not show this.

There is also no mention of genetics in your theory, a proven factor in Autism.

@Don:

Perhaps Orac can explain how IL-6, a cytokine activated by immune response, does NOT cause autism.

That's not how it works. You posit a hypothesis, YOU stump up the evidence. It is up to you to prove your hypothesis, not up to Orac to disprove it.

[T]he next question is why should we NOT believe that an inflammatory response during infancy or pregnancy CANNOT cause a spike in IL-6 and hence damage to Purkinje cells, which damage is characteristic of autistics?

Once again, you need to show that this is the case.

It is reasonable to believe that this is a valid mechanism that leads to autism.

Is it? Supporting evidence needed.

Why, then if vaccines are designed to evoke an immune response, would vaccines not be implicated in initiating such a mechanism?

Again, you are trying to get us to disprove a negative. You have to show evidence that this is happening.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

No: Orac has challenged the theory put forward by vaccinepapers. It is up to Orac to provide evidence that the theory is incorrect.
@ Jay: there is a proven mechanism in autism that is NOT genetic, and that is immune activation. The "ingredient," then, would be immune activation.
Logic is one of the foundations of science. Please refrain from insults, if you can, and stick to the arguments.

" n. The “ingredient,” then, would be immune activation"

Here endeth your argument, where was the Massive Autism spike during the Polio vaccination drive of the 50's?

By Jay (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Don (not verified)

Don, a few of the comentators here say they have posted reasonable arguments on vaccinepapers.org only to have their comments deleted, because they didn't suit the site owner.

The site owner has also left some unanswered questions behind on this thread.

That isn't honest behaviour and I can see why it is met with insolence.

By Jay (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Jay (not verified)

Vaccinepapers has provided compelling evidence that the cytokine IL-6 by itself, with no genetics involved, causes autism. Therefore, if you disagree with this, you must present scientific evidence why HIS SPECIFIC THEORY (and not something else you want to argue) is wrong.

Don:

What evidence is there that damage to Purkinje cells is the mechanism by which autism is produced?
What evidence supports the idea that immune stimulation causes such damage?
How do you know that IL-6 is the offending molecule?
What convinces you that vaccination elevates IL-6 concentrations to a pathologic level?
Is there something special about vaccines that would cause a deleterious increase in IL-6, while everyday infections (and vaccine-preventable diseases) do not?

Show me research that satisfactorily answers these questions (for starters) and we can have a reasonable discussion. It is up to you to providence evidence that your theory is correct.

This is how you get a theory accepted in the real world.

"Prove me wrong!" is not how science works.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

You have several choices. You can ignore me, you can insult me, you can argue against something else, but none of this is what I'm asking. You'll excuse me for thinking that "scienceblogs" means that this blog is about science. If so, then Orac, who implied that he could deconstruct vaccinepapers, should do that very thing and provide evidence to back up his claim that the theory of immune activation is wrong. I'm assuming that he already did this before he began his attack, so it should be easy unless he based his charges on assumptions and insults.

@ Dangerous Bacon all of your questions have been answered on the vaccinepapers website. Your job is to refute this. Your point is that vaccinepapers is full of it; it's up to YOU to prove it.

Don, you argue that immune activation causes a release of IL-6 which causes autism.

If this is true, how is it that everyone does not have autism? By your statement, any time the immune system is activated, IL-6 is released. IL-6 then, you claim) causes damage that causes autism.
But everyone experiences immune activation! Every pregnancy has some kind of event to which the immune system responds (like a cold). Every infant has an immune system response, because part of being born is being exposed to new bacteria, viruses and other pathogens to which the immune system responds.

Therefore IL-6 alone cannot be the only factor in causing autism.

By JustaTech (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

Sorry Don, but this is not "the vaccinepapers website", nor am I or anyone else obligated to refute what it claims. The following statement regarding the scientific method should clarify for you how the process works:

"Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. “Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science.""

http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

Once upon a time we had a regular poster here whose handle escapes me (it was something self-effacing like Trying To Overcome Ignorance), who was intent on convincing everyone that Inflammatory Cytokines something something Vaccines something something = Autism! (S)he posted lots of excerpts from arcane research (most of it involving cells in test tubes) which was supposed to prove her/his theories if we would only play connect-the-dots along with him/her. Unfortunately it didn't hang together and her/his facade of super-civility frayed when it became clear that her/his arguments were unconvincing.

At least give us some dots that you think should be connected. All-the-answers-are-on-my-favorite-website doesn't cut it.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

@JustaTech not everyone exposed to Bubonic Plague was symptomatic or died from it. Not everyone exposed to measles dies from it and nutritional level has a great deal to do with it.

IL-6 production depends on severity of inflammation (cytokine surge.) The effect on the child depends on many factors including age, stage of pregnancy, and undoubtedly factors we don't yet understand.

Mercury vapor produces tremor in humans and experimental animals..and demonstrated significant losses of Purkinje cells (12.7%, 2P = 0.005) and granule cells (15.6%, 2P = 0.016). All sizes of Purkinje cells were lost with an equal probability...metallic mercury vapor mainly affects the central nervous system...

Neuron loss in cerebellar cortex of rats exposed to mercury vapor: a stereological study.

In the cerebellar cortex, mercury was localized chiefly in the Purkinje Cells...

Protein-Metal Interactions [p477]

I like Vaccine Papers.The best argument against their autism theory is that the Thimerosal autism theory is even better!

@Dangerous Bacon excuse me but I'm not the one who said that TMR and vaccinepapers were junk: Orac did. This being a "science" blog I naturally presume that there is SCIENCE to back that premise up. I myself am making no claims but to ask for evidence. You can choose any number of specific scientific points to refute, as JustaTech was good enough to do.

@Szilard If mercury vapor damages Purkinje cells, then that says absolutely nothing about whether IL-6 also damages Purkinje cells-- unless of course the mechanism of mercury damage is through IL-6.

all of your questions have been answered on the vaccinepapers website. Your job is to refute this.

Ah, the "Let's you and him fight" school of trolling.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

Don: "Vaccinepapers has provided compelling evidence that the cytokine IL-6 by itself, with no genetics involved, causes autism."
Don: "I myself am making no claims but to ask for evidence."

Yup, no claims at all. Just asking questions. :)

What is this evidence that you find so compelling?

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

herr doktor, this is very, very simple. Orac said the theory of immune activation was junk. I said "prove it." That means, show me one shred of scientific evidence that refutes the theory as it's explained on vaccinepapers. Naturally, I'm making some assumptions: I'm assuming that you understand the theory, since you can't criticize something you don't understand.

If you don't have one shred of evidence to refute the theory of how immune activation could cause autism in children, and how that implicates vaccines, then please say so. I don't want to waste our time.

By the way, Orac has presented evidence to demonstrate why he thinks TMR is a mess. Just do a search using the handy search box at the top right of the page.

Don has indicated he thinks vaccinepapers is wonderful; isn't he obligated to provide actual scientific evidence as to why that's the case, instead of just attacking Orac and other posters?

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

@dangerous bacon, I don't have to prove anything: you do, that is, if you continue to assert that vaccinepapers is junk. Pick a piece of evidence and refute it.

That means, show me one shred of scientific evidence that refutes the theory as it’s explained on vaccinepapers.

I'm sure you're familiar with the difficulties of proving a negative, so what level and type of evidence would you find sufficient? What one shred would you accept? And what would it prove?

@dangerous bacon the evidence is contained in vaccinepapers' posts, and you need only refute one single argument regarding the theory of immune activation-- that is, if this really is a "science" blog.

@gaist you're not proving a negative; on the contrary, you're refuting a positive. Much, much easier. You can pick whatever piece of evidence that you feel is faulty, and show how it's faulty.

I don’t want to waste our time.

Oh how I laughed.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

Don @64: You didn't say that. You said it was IL-6, not that there were other factors involved.

Personally, I would like to know how a cytokine that drives T and B cells growth and differentiation causes autism. Is it through CD126 binding or CD130 binding?

By JustaTech (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

I'm very sorry, I thought this was a science blog based on science and logic, but I see that it's based on evasions and insults and few of you have much idea of what the theory of immune activation is-- at least not enough that you can bring up one reasonable argument against it. JustaTech was the only one to bring any sensible argument forward, and with civilly to boot. I am indeed wasting my time, and now as I sign off you'll be sure to insult me behind my back. JustaTech: come over to the dark side, my friend! Use your reason and logic: it will lead you true. Don't fall for these folks who depend on name-calling and insults and think that qualifies as "science."

JustaTech, I misjudged you?
How IL-6 works is through Purkinje cell damage. We may not know exactly how, but we do know, through experiments, that this is so. Are you perhaps trying to sidetrack and derail the discussion?

Don @78

JustaTech was the only one to bring any sensible argument forward, and with civilly to boot.

I note that you didn't answer his questions.

@JustaTech you can make the same argument for Bubonic Plague: you said it was Yersinia pestis but you lied! There are other factors involved! Of course. We're complex organisms.

SteveJ reread and you'll see that I did.
I have to sign off.

No Don, I'm looking up IL-6 here in Janeway's Immunobiology, 7th edition. The receptors of IL-6 are CD126 and CD130, and IL-6 is produced by T cells, macrophages and endothelial cells. Since you're taking about part of the brain, I'm guessing that the IL-6 you're thinking of is produced by endothelial cells, near the Purkinje cells?

And how is a discussion of specifics going to "derail the discussion"?

By JustaTech (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

Don, if you can't understand the relationship between pathogen and disease (necessary but not sufficient), then I'm really not sure that you are prepared to make points about much more complex conditions.

By JustaTech (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

Justatech I have time for a few more. You're right: I thought you were trying to derail the discussion but I was wrong. Cytokines such as IL-6 are carried by the blood and can originate anywhere and then be carried to the brain, or they can originate near the brain, but the point is that the "surge: is strong enough to damage Purkinje cells.

The pathogen and disease argument is close to the same as the IL-6 argument: Yestinia pestis is a necessary and sufficient condition for Bubonic Plague BUT the body may still be able to ward it off. "Necessary and sufficient" applies to logic but maybe not so much to biological systems.

To repeat my questions that Don has not yet been willing to address:

What evidence is there that damage to Purkinje cells is the mechanism by which autism is produced?
What evidence supports the idea that immune stimulation causes such damage?
How do you know that IL-6 is the offending molecule?
What convinces you that vaccination elevates IL-6 concentrations to a pathologic level?
Is there something special about vaccines that would cause a deleterious increase in IL-6, while everyday infections (and vaccine-preventable diseases) do not?

If Don has a good argument he should be able to furnish at least some evidence to address these questions, rather than just alleging that it exists and we should go running around to find it.

I suppose we should be grateful that Don has not directed us to an hour-long YouTube video that "has all the answers" (a typical woo-M.O.) ;)

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

Don @86: You are incorrect. Yersinis pestis is not sufficient to cause plague, bubonic or pnuemonic. To cause disease the immune system must not be able to eliminate the pathogen before the onset of symptoms.
If a person is infected with Yersinis pestis but also posses the delta-32 mutation in the CCR5 receptor, then they are much less likely to develop symptoms.

You don't seem to understand what "Necessary but not sufficient" means, since you contradict yourself in a single sentence.

By JustaTech (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

I thought this was a science blog based on science and logic, but I see that it’s based on evasions and insults... and now as I sign off you’ll be sure to insult me behind my back.

Don knows both kinds of trollery, passive AND aggressive.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

@Dangerous Bacon #87 [I'll try to answer for Don]

How do you know that IL-6 is the offending molecule?

I think that it is a biomarker produced in response to injury or inflammation of some kind.

What convinces you that vaccination elevates IL-6 concentrations to a pathologic level?

IL-6 production following vaccination in pigs--an additional immune response parameter for assessing FMD vaccine efficacy?

Is there something special about vaccines that would cause a deleterious increase in IL-6,

Yes. Aluminum is present in vaccines. Aluminum has been shown to drastically increase IL-6 levels. Here is a quote from Selective induction of IL-6 by aluminum-induced oxidative stress can be prevented by selenium:

The protective effect of IL-6 against oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction has been proved by the increased toxicity of reactive oxygen species in IL-6 deficient mice [24,25]. These studies demonstrated a specific induction of IL-6 as a response to
the disturbed redox status....The hepatic production and release of IL-6 could explain the fast response of the liver upon administration of Al....The acute effects by which Al ions can disturb cellular metabolism is the induction of oxidative stress and disturbance of intracellular redox system as was described previously [26–28]....
The mechanism by which Al causes tissue damage by an
oxidation-mediated process is probably caused by an increase in the iron content due to the competitive binding of Al to transferrin...

So these authors basically speculate that Aluminum displaces Iron in transferrin thereby leading to uncontrolled red-ox reactions induced by free Iron. This uncontolled oxidative damage increased IL-6. If you examine Table 1, you will see a dramatic increase of IL-6 in the Aluminum group. And I quote:

A 16 h exposure of mice to Al resulted in a substantial increase (30-fold) of inflammatory cytokine IL-6 concentration in serum from 8.8 to 191 pg/mL...

How IL-6 works is through Purkinje cell damage. We may not know exactly how, but we do know, through experiments, that this is so.

"We"? Anyway, if Dan Steinberg's site has educated you so well, why don't you cough up the citations rather than shilling for his site?

Dangerous Bacon:
What evidence is there that damage to Purkinje cells is the mechanism by which autism is produced?

The "loss of cerebellar Purkinje cells" theory was one possible aetiology for autism, out of many, about a decade ago. It has since fallen out of favour, on account of evidence... except among the mouse-model crowd (because is easy to report on depleting Purkinje-cell populations in mice, even if they can't actually experience autism),

When someone pops up spouting that "damage to Purkinje cells [...] is characteristic of autistics" as an incontrovertible fact, you know that they're not really here for the hunting intent on good-faith discussion.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink

Well it is hard to get brain slices of autistic humans, but it has been done in 2005¹. The authors were able to obtain brain samples of autistics who died from accidents, suicides, homicides, ect. What they found were decreased Purkinje cells as well as very high IL-6 levels:

Our analysis of the neuropathological changes in brain tissues of autistic patients showed extensive neuroglial responses characterized by microglial and astroglial activation.
In the brains of autistic patients, the most prominent histological changes were observed in the cerebellum, characterized by a patchy loss of neurons in the Purkinje cell layer (PCL) and GCL in 9 of 10 cerebella (Fig 1); one of these cerebella also showed an almost complete loss of Purkinje cells from the PCL as well as a marked loss of granular cells (Patient 3711, a 25-year-old male patient with epilepsy, see Fig 1B–D). Only one cerebellum showed no evidence of Purkinje cell loss...Previous neuropathological studies in autism showed abnormalities in cortical organization and neuronal packing and reduced cerebellar Purkinje cell numbers.

Mercury is know to cause a loss in Purkinje cells, and Aluminum has been shown to increase IL-6. In the Anterior Cingulate Gyrus part of the brain, a 31.6 fold increase of IL-6 [table 5]¹ was measured in the autistic brain. Compare this number with the 30 fold increase in IL-6 in the rat study mentioned earlier.

¹Neuroglial Activation and Neuroinflammation in the Brain of Patients with Autism

So Don's basic premise is that an inflammatory response, which can be caused by vaccination but also and more strongly by the actual diseases themselves, leads to an increase in IL-2 cells which damages the Purkinje cells (large neurons) leading to the reduced density which is associated in post-mortem studies with autism.

The supporting evidence is a whole bunch of studies on the body's biochemical mechanisms and a website which, good or bad, is not published scientific research.

But, he has cited no positive confirmation that this process actually happens.

And, it runs contrary to multiple large studies which show no correlation between vaccination and autism.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

So, it's a hypothetical explanation for an effect that has been shown not to exist.

And it also runs contrary to independent research showing that autism is evident in the first few months of infancy and is related to differences in the structure of the brain which develops during pregnancy.

So, Don, until you can present confirmed evidence of a correlation at a rate of at least 1 in 100,000 which we have seen in several confirmed vaccine adverse effects, you're only preaching to the anti-vaccine chorus.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 29 Sep 2016 #permalink