FreedomFest

Chris Christie and Rand Paul's pandering to antivaccinationists: Is the Republican Party becoming the antivaccine party?

oracknows — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:58 +0000

Chris Christie and Rand Paul's pandering to antivaccinationists: Is the Republican Party becoming the antivaccine party?

"I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice as well. So that’s a balance the government has to decide.”

-- NJ Governor Chris Christie, February 2, 2015

"The state doesn't own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom."

-- Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), February 2, 2015

Longtime readers know that I lived in central New Jersey for eight and a half years before taking an opportunity to return to my hometown just under seven years ago. Having spent the better part of a decade there, I think I understand New Jersey, at last the northern and central parts of the state. It's a strange state with a lot of corruption and mismanagement. (For instance, I was there when Jim McGreevey was governor, and I even met him before he became governor, back when he was still mayor of the Woodbridge Township and then later when he was governor.) Indeed, while I lived there I had a hard time deciding if Chicago politics was more corrupt than New Jersey politics or vice-versa. I ended up deciding that it was pretty much a wash.

Be that as it may, I can sort of understand why New Jersey elected Governor Chris Christie. He's big—literally. He's boisterous. He's blunt and plain-talking (for a politician), and he gives the impression of not taking any guff from anyone while being relatively moderate politically. All of these are very much part of how Jersey natives appeared to view themselves. (Personally, I don't like him much because I view him as a loudmouthed bully, but I don't live in New Jersey anymore.) As of yesterday Gov. Christie's also a poster child for the political peril of pandering to the antivaccine movement. In fact, I view him as Exhibit A supporting a growing belief that I've been developing that the Republican Party has become the antivaccine party. Wait, maybe that's a little too strong, but certainly it has become the party supporting antivaccine viewpoints more strongly than the Democrats.

Behold how this controversy began. There Christie was, in England on a trade visit, doing the things politicians do to try to bolster their foreign policy credentials in preparation for running for President, and he had to go and put his foot in it with respect to vaccines during a visit to a medical research facility. First, as background, you should know that the night before, Sunday night, President Obama had issued an unequivocal call to parents to have their children vaccinated:

"I understand that there are families that in some cases are concerned about the effect of vaccinations. The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We've looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not," the president explained.

And:

"You should get your kids vaccinated. It's good for them, but we should be able to get back to the point where measles effectively is not existing in this country."

So far, so good. You can't expect a much more unequivocal statement of support for vaccination than that from a politician.

So Monday morning it just so happened that Governor Christie was touring MedImmune's research facility in Cambridge. MedImmune just so happens to manufacture a nasal influenza vaccine, FluMist. It's not clear what moved the subject to vaccines, but during the visit, Christie basically took the opportunity that presented itself to pander to antivaccinationists. It was so bad that even the far-right (oh, heck, let's just call it what it is, namely wingnut) website Breitbart.com described it thusly:

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s outreach to the anti-vaccination crowd is one of the strangest things anyone has done during the 2016 shadow primary season. In the midst of a significant outbreak of preventable, communicable diseases among children, Christie decided to throw anti-vaxxers a bone, making President Obama look enormously sensible by comparison.

So what did Christie say that annoyed even Breitbart.com's correspondent? This:

“All I can say is that we vaccinate ours. I think it’s much more important as a parent than as a public official, and that’s what we do,” he told reporters during his trip through London on Monday. He went on to say that’s “part of making sure we protect their health and public health.”

“I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice as well. So that’s a balance the government has to decide,” Christie added.

Asked whether he was advocating leaving parents the option to not vaccinate their kids, Christie said “I didn’t say I’m leaving people the option,” but that “it depends what the vaccine is, what the disease type is and all the rest.”

Oh, dear. Whether Christie realized it or not when he said these words, which must have seemed to him at the time to be an eminently reasonable attempt to describe balancing personal freedom versus public health, he was, as Breitbart.com put it, "throwing antivaxxers a bone." Of course, he was also doing this at the worst possible time. Think about it. Here we are in the middle of a measles outbreak that's cracked 100 cases, an outbreak in which the majority of cases were not vaccinated, indeed an outbreak that almost certainly wouldn't have happened if there weren't pockets of unvaccinated children in southern California near Disneyland, and Gov. Christie's blathering about vaccine "choice." His sense of timing is impeccable in its wrongness.

He also revealed himself to have an uncanny ability to demonstrate in a couple of sentences that he doesn't understand issues of public health with respect to vaccines. After all, parents already do have "vaccine choice." There is no such thing as "forced vaccination" in this country, no matter how much the antivaccine movement likes to try to characterize it this way. Rather, what we have in this country are school vaccine mandates. It's very simple, so simple that even Gov. Christie should be able to understand it. No parent is forced to vaccinate her child for anything, but if the parent makes that choice the child will not be allowed to enroll in school or day care. It's an eminently reasonable compact: You don't have to vaccinate, but you don't have the right to let your child endanger others. It's a system that has served us well for many years. It's less coercive than actual forced vaccination, which inevitably produces a really nasty backlash, but it still functions well to maintain high levels of vaccination in most cases.

That is, until the rise of various non-medical exemptions.

If you've studied vaccination policies, you know that every state allows medical exemptions. That is how it should be. However, there are non-medical exemptions as well. For instance, every state other than West Virginia and Mississippi allows religious exemptions to school vaccine mandates. Yes, I know it's odd that West Virginia and Mississippi would be leading the nation in rational vaccine policy, but there you have it. Of course, few religions have a problem with vaccination; certainly with only rare exceptions is vaccination against a religion. So religious exemptions tend to be uncommon (although antivaccinationists are not above teaching parents how to lie about their religion in order to obtain religious exemptions).

That's why antivaccinationists are becoming increasingly fond of personal belief exemptions or, as they are also sometimes called, philosophical exemptions. Currently 20 states permit these exemptions. Basically, these exemptions are granted based on parents' personal beliefs against vaccines, be they personal, moral or other beliefs. In essence, all a parent has to do is to say she doesn't believe in vaccinating, and the exemption is granted. True, different states have different requirements, but in all too many states such exemptions are far too easy to obtain. Indeed, that's why California recently passed a bill to make it harder to obtain personal belief exemptions by requiring parents requesting them to have a health care professional sign the form certifying that he's counseled them about the risks of skipping vaccination, although Governor Jerry Brown basically neutered the law through a signing statement. In any case, in at least 20 states, parents can obtain exemptions to vaccine mandates, with varying degrees of difficulty in doing so, simply by saying that they "don't believe" in vaccinating or have some sort of moral or personal objection to vaccination. It is these personal belief objections that have led to pockets of low vaccine uptake and subsequent outbreaks, such as the ones in California and, alas, my own home state.

So right in one interview, Gov. Christie showed that he doesn't have a clue about vaccine mandates, but worse, that he's willing to pander to those holding antivaccine beliefs.

Of course, if you've been following the story, you know that Gov. Christie started feeling the heat over his ill-advised remarks almost instantly. Twitter erupted in righteous fury mocking Christie's remarks. In particular, his willingness to quarantine a nurse who might have been exposed to Ebola without medical justification was contrasted unfavorably with his love of "choice" and "freedom" with respect to vaccines. So great was the backlash that Christie's office scrambled to "clarify":

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie walked back comments he made here Monday morning calling for "balance" on the measles vaccine debate to allow for parental choice, asserting that "there is no question kids should be vaccinated."

"The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated," Christie's office said in a statement. "At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate."

And:

Christie, however, said, “There has to be a balance and it depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is, and all the rest.” He added, “Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others.”

This is, of course, a clarification that doesn't clarify, empty words that say almost nothing, other than that kids should be vaccinated against measles. "Balance"? What does that mean? Does Christie think himself more capable of balancing risks and benefits in determining what vaccines should be recommended than the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics? Does he think himself more qualified to determine which diseases are a sufficient public health threat to warrant a mass vaccination campaign than medical authorities? How would he judge which diseases are sufficiently threatening? What criteria would he use? Based on what science?

Unfortunately, Gov. Christie wasn't the only one laying down the antivaccine pandering. In fact, compared to Rand Paul, Christie is virtually the voice of reason. See what I mean:

Paul, in comments on conservative talk-radio show host Laura Ingraham's show Monday, said he's "not anti-vaccine at all."

"But particularly, most of them ought to be voluntary," he added. Paul cited incidents where you have "somebody not wanting to take the smallpox vaccine, and it ruins it for everybody else."

"I think there are times in which there can be some rules, but for the most part it ought to be voluntary," Paul went on. "While I think it's a good idea to take the vaccine, I think that's a personal decision for individuals to take."

He also said he was "annoyed" that his kids were supposed to receive the Hepatitis B vaccine as newborns, and that he had doctors space out the 10 vaccines they wanted to give his infant children over time.

And in a later interview with CNBC, Paul suggested he had seen the negative effects of vaccines that those in the anti-vax movement cite in their opposition. None, however, are widely supported by the scientific community, and Paul's office did not respond to a request for comment for details.

"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Paul said. "I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input."

Rand Paul is another sad excuse for a physician. Remember how I described antivaccine "dog whistle" terminology that "Dr. Bob" Sears was so adept at using? Rand Paul is doing exactly the same thing here. He's using the same appeal to "freedom" as Dr. Bob, and that "annoyance" he expressed at the neonatal dose of hepatitis B vaccine reveals an ignorance that he could easily have remedied with a little reading; you know, that thing we doctors do when we encounter a medical issue with which we are not familiar. Dr. Paul is, after all, an ophthalmologist, and ophthalmologists do not routinely administer vaccinations, much less childhood vaccinations. Indeed, he has even less reason to be familiar with childhood vaccines than the ever-vile Dr. Jack Wolfson who, being a cardiologist, would be expected to offer at least the pneumococcal vaccine to his heart failure patients. As I mentioned before, administering the hepatitis B vaccine at birth is a very reasonable strategy for preventing hepatitis B, and that moralistic trope about its being a sexually transmitted disease is not a reason not to vaccinate newborns.

And Rand Paul also seems unaware that we do not have forced vaccination and that parents do have in put. If they didn't have the choice, with easy personal belief exemptions allowing parents in 20 states not even to have to choose between public school and vaccines, it's unlikely that outbreaks would be a problem.

I once described how antivaccinationism is very much at home with libertarianism, to the point where many libertarians express a view recently espoused by Dr. Jack Wolfson that it is not their responsibility to vaccinate, that they have no obligation to society, so much so that they reacted rather violently when one of their own, Ron Bailey of Reason.com, advocated coercive vaccine mandates. Rand Paul is simply dog whistling from that very playbook. Indeed, check out this interview given later in the day:

You don't have to watch all nine minutes; that is, unless you want to. Just watch the first 2:20 minutes of the video, which is all about vaccines. Notice how he starts out clearly sarcastic, replying early on, ""I guess being for freedom would be really unusual." No, Dr. Paul, being "for freedom" is not unusual, but spouting antivaccine nonsense about vaccines causing permanent neurological injury is unconscionable. Personally, I think Paul's most telling remark comes near the end of the vaccine segment, when, clearly irritated by the reporter's insistence on pursuing questions about vaccine choice, Rand Paul replies with petulant annoyance, "The state doesn't own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom." Yes, it's the antivaccine dog whistle about "freedom," but it's more than that. See what Rand Paul let slip? It's an attitude that is all too common, namely that the parents own the children and that parental "rights" trump any rights children might have as autonomous beings. The right of the child and any public health considerations are subsumed to parental "freedom to choose" and "parental rights," with children viewed, in essence, as their parents' property, to do with as they will.

As for the rest of the interview, it's the same old antivaccine dog whistles on steroids. There's the antivaccine trope against the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine as being not indicated because it's a sexually transmitted disease, even though hepatitis B is transmitted by more than just sex. The trope is an obvious ploy to outrage parents by telling them that they're being "forced" to have a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease as though they were immoral. We also learn that Paul delayed vaccines for his children, thus leaving them vulnerable to childhood diseases longer than they needed to be, just like many vaccine averse. Indeed, I'd be very interested in knowing what vaccine the Pauls gave their children and at what ages. He even repeats his claim that vaccines cause neurologic injury, even though, as a physician, he should know damned well that this question has been studied time and time and time again, with the overwhelming scientific consensus being that vaccines do not cause autism, neurodevelopmental disorders, or "profound mental disorders." And through it all, to Paul vaccine "choice" is all about "freedom."

Oh, and his selective reading of the history of smallpox vaccination as being "voluntary" throughout most of our history is telling as well. He neglects to note that, as History of Vaccines notes, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the state has the power to make vaccines mandatory.

Is it any surprise that Rand Paul is a prominent member of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), the organization of "brave maverick physicians" that has a history of promoting the lie that shaken baby syndrome is a misdiagnosis for "vaccine injury" and extreme libertarian views, such as the view that Medicare is unconstitutional?

In any case, as a result of Christie's and Paul's statements, this story has even hit the national news. For example:

Antivaccinationism is often presented and criticized as a belief that arises primarily among crunchy, affluent liberals. Even The Daily Show makes that mistake. In fact, existing evidence suggests that the prevalence of antivaccine views are very similar on the left and the right, or, as I like to say, antivaccine views transcend politics.

However, the roughly equal prevalence of antivaccine views on the left and right do not mean that both parties are equally good (or bad) when it comes to vaccines. Over the last several years, I've noticed that antivaccine views, supported under the rubric of "freedom," have grown in prominence more in Tea Party and conservative circles. Antivaccine views are very much intertwined with the "health freedom" movement, which tends to be primarily (but certainly not exclusively) a product of right wing circles, given its emphasis on freedom from government regulation and mandates with respect to health. Indeed, it is no coincidence that my one experience watching Steve Novella debate antivaccine physician Julian Whitaker occurred at FreedomFest in 2012, a yearly conservative/libertarian confab that happened to be going on in Las Vegas as TAM that year. Also that same year, the Texas Republican Party had strong "health freedom" and "vaccine choice" planks in its party platform, planks that were still there in 2014.

I don't think that Gov. Christie is antivaccine (although I'm not so sure about Rand Paul). What I do know is that the conflation of "choice" with vaccination has led to a powerful incentive for politicians, particularly Republican politicians, to pander to antivaccine views. Nor is pandering to the antivaccine movement a new thing for Christie. In 2009 he met with Louise Kuo Habakus (whom we've met before) and the NJ Coalition for Vaccine Choice, a very much antivaccine coalition whose member organization list reads like a who's who of the national antivaccine movement and includes Life Health Choices, an antivaccine organization founded by Habakus. Indeed, Habakus herself is coauthor with antivaccine lawyer Mary Holland of a book entitled Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children. Indeed, so prominent an antivaccine loon is Habakus (at least in New Jersey, if not nationally), that she has her very own entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. To these people, Christie followed up his visit with a letter, quoted thusly:

“I have met with families affected by autism from across the state and have been struck by their incredible grace and courage,” Christie wrote in the letter. “Many of these families have expressed their concern over New Jersey’s highest-in-the nation vaccine mandates. I stand with them now, and will stand with them as their governor in their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect their children.”

Indeed, Republicans and Independents are more prone to oppose vaccine mandates:

Republicans and independents are more likely than Democrats to advocate against required vaccinations.

Thirty-four percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents told pollsters that parents should be able to decide about vaccinations, versus just 22 percent of Democrats who said the same.

And, within the past five years or so, Republicans have become LESS likely to say vaccinations should be required, while Democrats are now MORE likely to advocate for the mandatory shots.

In 2009, 71 percent of both Democrats and Republicans said vaccinations should be required. By last August, that number decreased to 65 percent for Republicans, but it's increased to 76 percent for Democrats.

Not only do antivaccine views fit in nicely with libertarian and Tea Party political beliefs, but such views have become so conflated with "freedom of choice" that it's become worth it to Republican politicians to espouse these views, or at least to give a nod to them in order to curry favor. It's not universal, of course. Another Republican physician running for office who is known for saying stupid things about other issues actually has come out strongly supporting vaccine mandates. Yes, believe it or not, Ben Carson did just that. Still, he seems to voicing a less common view within the base of the Republican Party.

I noted back in 2008 that both Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain had, to one degree or another, pandered to the antivaccine movement. Now, in 2015, what we see here appears to be a rising tide of support for "vaccine choice" among Republicans, with a concomitant decrease in support for vaccine mandates, while among Democrats, it would seem that the opposite is happening. Yes, the Democrats have Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, and he is indeed an antivaccine loon, but you don't see major Democratic candidates pandering to antivaccine views the way Rand Paul did and Chris Christie recently did, nor do you see major liberal confabs staging debates with antivaxers, as happened at FreedomFest.

Maybe the Republican Party really is becoming the party of the antivaccine movement. If that's true, it is very bad news indeed.

ADDENDUM: This morning the New York Times published a story entitled Measles Proves Delicate Issue to G.O.P. Field. While noting that it isn't a clean left-right break and that there are pro-vaccine Republicans (such as Scott Walker), the NYT also notes:

But for Republicans like Mr. Paul who appeal to the kind of libertarian conservatives who are influential in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which hold the first two contests in the battle for the nomination, there is an appeal in framing the issue as one of individual liberty.

Asked about immunizations again later on Monday, Mr. Paul was even more insistent, saying it was a question of “freedom.” He grew irritated with a CNBC host who pressed him and snapped: “The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children.”

oracknows Mon, 02/02/2015 - 19:00

Categories

Policy

Methinks it will play out much as it did on the very small scale in Connecticut in the mid-terms.

briandeer.com/solved/tara-cook-littman.htm

There aren't many family issues over which the electorate has so clearly spoken through their actions.

What is it about Presidentian wannabes traveling to Brittian and saying stupid stuff (see Bobby Jindal and "no go zones").

Pandering for votes transcends party affiliation but Republicans, in particular, have a large anti-science constituency. I see incremental improvement on that front but the pace of change can be painfully slow.

What's with Chris Christie? He knows his every move and his statements are being monitored by the mainstream media, especially since his missteps about the nurse's "quarantine" who had returned from Africa after caring for Ebola virus patients. IMO, he's just killed his chances to mount a serious campaign to be nominated as the Republican Party Presidential candidate.

Rand Paul? He just might have positioned himself in a better spot, if, in fact, the far-to-the-right fringe groups/Tea Party are the strong voting bloc in the Republican Party Presidential primaries.

There's that common thread of "heath freedom" and "right to chose which vaccines (or no vaccines), are given to their children. They own their children and "so sorry if your kid is unable to receive MMR vaccine". Ethically challenged, lacking in empathy and self-centered parents...all of them.

Haven't they learned from Michele Bachmann's statement about an adolescent who received an HPV vaccine "and became mentally retarded, thereafter"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cru2KsV5UxA

I found this great site for people, regardless of their political affiliation, to educate themselves about the link between autism and vaccines.

www.howdovaccinescauseautism.com/

Orac, I was reading your comments on Dr Burzynski last night, could not comment 'cos at the end of every page I got : "The site is currently under maintenance. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon". Well, comments on this page are not disabled and since you have been very actively critisising Dr B for THE LAST FEW YEARS, I hope, you and some of your fans might want to read this. I enclose my mail and I write under my full name unlike the rest of you. This is my cell number +48 505 505 600 just to make sure, that I will not be accused of being another of Dr B's employee or even Dr B himself.

I'm 52, 3 kids, Gist since 2010, 3 surgeries, tumor 20cm x 10cm fully removed after 18 months on Glivec, complications after op, without Glivec tumor has grown back to the size of 7cm x 4, back on Glivec and stable since 2012.

Am I Dr B patient ? - no, never seen this guy and I will not get paid for what I am writing here
Do I intend to be his patient ? - maybe, when Glivec stops working, but before i will try to gather as much info about Dr B as possible. Luckily I will not have to rely on your comments alone.

Let's start with facts:

1. it took me few minutes on Google to find a Polish girl, Kalusia Dzieniak with a head tumor, who runs a blog since 2012 describing her fight against cancer. http://kalusia82.blogspot.com/
At the end of her treatment and given no hope in local hospitals, she raised a great amount of money and for the last 2 years she is Dr B's patient - alive, stable and happy with the treatment she recieves. There are numerous tv shows about her case and over 1600 people on Facebook, rising funds every year to allow her to carry on with the treatment at Dr B clinic. You guys could not find few cases like this in all those years of your "interest" in Dr Darth Vader's evil manipulations? You spend hours writing about Dr B, how many hours did you spend verifing the "success stories" on his site ? Have you contacted any former patients ? Did you enclose any prove, that the treatment they recieved at Dr B's clinic was wrong - caused death or injury?

Well, you did not show or proved any of this - exept for long, medical / scientific explanations, that are just your point of view.

I believe, that Dr B runs his clinic for over 20 years - your Dr Mengele must have had thousends of patients and not one, who successfully charged him with malpractise - show that person, let's read about this case or else shut up and stop defaming others. I showed a positive, documented example of Dr B ongoing treatment, what have you got to show ?

2. Cost of treatment - 10,000 USD per month for a treatment at Dr B's clinic proves to you that he is a fraud ?? Well, I got a bill for 15000 USD for starters from "politically correct" MD Anderson - they would not accept my molecular tests done in Poland, they have offered to open me up again just to repeat this test.
The needle is not prefered option, as it might cause the cancer to spread.
MD Anderson, after being informed about my medical history and ongoing treatment with Glivec, offered me genetically designed doses of ...Glivec.
Well, Glivec depending on the type of gist, IS treated with various douses and that is just the normall procedure - 1 x 400mg, 2 x 300mg or 2 x 400mg daily.
Would you consider this offer for me from MD Anderson as "fraud" by your standards? And if so, shall we start a blog ? You may enclose my story as a first comment.

There are hundreds, if not thousends of semi-doctors and scientists "providing" cancer cures all over the world. Diets, roots, vitamins and mental healing cures everything - according to people that make money in this business.
It is absolutly right to pin point fraud and warn people in need, but one must stay tolerant, unbiased and open minded. Do not kill hope when you are not 110% sure, because often it is the only thing that some of us have left. Check your story, Check your story and again Check your story.

Regards,

Bad News for Sharyl Attkisson?

Real fans of all this stuff may be interested to know that my new laptop suddenly acted identically to that videod by Sharyl Attkisson as evidence that the government was bugging her.

Out of the blue (although possibly triggered by some unknown sequence of keystrokes) the copy on my screen began deleting itself.

I don't know if anyone checked whether Ms Attkisson was using a Lenovo, or whether she had the new rent-a-software version of Word, as I have. But if the government was deleting her priceless investigative work, I wonder why it would be deleting my novel.

I understand that she has some multi-million lawsuit going, so maybe my novel will do better than I expected.

I wished I'd videod the phenomenon (on a month-old machine), but I was so alarmed at seeing my writing vanishing that, after helplessly tapping various keys, and mousing around, I shut the lid.

Readers may recall that McGreevey was forced to resign the governorship when it was revealed that he was a closeted gay man who had appointed his boyfriend to a state job despite lack of qualifications. Which prompted the greatest Onion headline, ever:

Gay Man Tearfully Admits to Being Governor of New Jersey

Also, Charlie Pierce (Esquire.com, politics) has a "five-minute rule" regarding Ron and Rand Paul: They may make sense for five minutes, but at 5:01 they'll say something completely off the wall and you'll realize that they're basically a lunatic.

Christie has been influenced by Louise Kuo Habakus (American Loon #163 http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/03/163-louise-kuo-habakus.html). She is a hater of science and modern technology as part of her woo group Fearless Parents. Bonus to any reader who can find something they don't fear.

Here, for example of Christie with this American Loon and friends from perhaps 2009.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/chris-christie-expressed-concern-about-vacci…

I think you read far too much into President Obama's statement. While it certainly encourages parents to immunize their children, it says nothing about what government policy should be towards vaccines. Did he speak out against the personal belief exemption or religious exemptions? Did he discuss the pediatric vaccine schedule and whether it should be followed or whether he believed in a certain latitude in timing?

Sorry democrats, 2 people do not a political party make. You're confusing the fact that republicans have a wide range of values within their party with dissidence. It's only because of the strictly enforced "my way or the highway" dogma of the democrat party that you see it this way.

Hmmm, have there recently been prominent Democrats advocating for "vaccine choice" for parents and saying vaccines cause brain damage, as Rand Paul strongly implies when he repeats his story about having seen children suffer neurologic injury after vaccines? BTW, that's not a new story for Paul. He's been saying it for years.

Hobbes,

I am reminded of when Will Rogers said

I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat.

I've seen no evidence that the Democrats have a strictly enforced “my way or the highway” dogma. If you've got evidence of that, please share.

@Yvette: Yes, I remember about Louise Kuo Habakus. Thanks for that link; I've added a blurb to the post mentioning Christie's having pandered to at least one explicitly antivaccine crank group in New Jersey during his original bid to run for governor.

"Yes, I know it’s odd that West Virginia and Mississippi would be leading the nation in rational vaccine policy, but there you have it."

I think you would appreciate the irony of this:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_aut_num_of_chi_wit_aut_percap-auti…

You know you've stepped off the deep end (however temporarily) when even a Breitbart.com writer is more sensible than you.

“The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children.”

A rather revealing statement. Sen. Paul views children as chattel. We've been hearing similar statements from autism woo pushers as well as anti-vax types. And it's still so far wrong that I don't know how Sen. Paul will find right even with a map.

For all these small government Republicans, I'd like to see the cost to each state, county, and city. It would also be interesting to determine the cost to businesses, including but not limited to Disneyland. (And this is for a small outbreak of around 100 people.)

And wouldn't you know, Rand Paul is featured in a large photo @ AoA today ( -btw- he's not named after Ayn) with a smaller photo below of that stealthy vaccinator, Barack.

More hilariously, it appears that AoA/ TMR/ et al now have additional television personalities and journalists to despise and abuse whilst championing Attkisson.**- it's not just Anderson anymore.

Some reactions I've heard are that the mainstream is bought and sold thus strengthening alt media ( in their downward spiral down the drainpipe of unreality). As I've said many times, these advocacies are 'group therapy gone wrong'.

Interestingly, anti-vaxxers have been trying to get themselves on mainstream media for the past several years through twitter campaigns, PR announcements, writing ( crappy, fantasist) books and now, they finally will be receiving the attention they deserve but not in a way they like.

** as I mentioned previously,when my own computer behaved bizarrely in November my first thought wasn't " North Korea!" but, "I need a new computer"

As we've seen over the years, anti-vax views are neither right nor left ( and woo-meisters tailor their anti-vax talking points accordingly- see PRN and NaturaL News esp) BUT I wonder if politicians like the aforementioned might be pushing the faithful towards one end of the spectrum.

re Habakus:
she has been making a splash on alt media running "fearless Parent Radio" and website since MacNeil dropped out.

Randal Paul is not pandering, he is actually that crazy. He panders when he pretends not to be a complete libertarian, ie, no one has any right to tell him to do anything.

As for herbal pills...

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/new-york-attorney-general-targ…

Yes, I am sure all the west side mommies causing this crisis are radical republicans. That's what white upper-middle class women are known for in CA.

In fairness to the President, this is the entire statement, made after a voter came up to talk to him about vaccines:

We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Nobody knows exactly why. There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers, but (pointing to his right) this person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. Part of the reason I think it’s very important to research it is those vaccines are also preventing huge numbers of deaths among children and preventing debilitating illnesses like Polio. And so we can’t afford to junk our vaccine system. We’ve got to figure out why is it that this is happening so that we are starting to see a more normal, what was a normal, rate of autism. Because if we keep on seeing increases at the rate we’re seeing we’re never going to have enough money to provide all the special needs, special education funding that’s going to be necessary.”

DATE: April 21, 2008
LOCATION: Blue Bell, PA

@ TK:

Great.
In fact, one of the idi... I mean *alternative medicine advocates* I survey characterises NY, NJ and CA as the most corrupt and simultaneously most anti-alt med states- they have too many laws that impinge upon his freedom.

Before I depart:
both of these fellows rhapsodise in unencumbered fashion about freedom and choice but IIRC, neither is a particularly strong advocate of *choice* involving abortion and issues concerning women's reproductive health.

Charlie Pierce just posted a great column on Rand Paul ("Senator Aqua Buddha") over on Esquire/politics, highlighting his antivax lunacy.

Pierce can be one of America's finest, and funniest, political writers. That's what a background in sportswriting gets you.

Looks like the anti-vaccine bashing of Ben Carson bashing is already starting!

From Mothering:

"...do you know that he has part in a group creating a colon cancer vaccine?"

"Yes, Ben Carson is working on a colon cancer vaccine. How did anyone miss that?"

Annie @27 -- OMG that's hilarious!

They're eating their young!

I will never understand the boogeyman of "The government should force parents to vaccinate!" I would think reality and common sense would dictate the need to vaccinate.

Shay @23 -

How is it "in fairness to the President" to bring up a quote from almost 7 years ago and imply that it was part of what he said most recently?

The President appeared to be firmly in the vaccination camp, all the while agreeing to spend coin to research the supposed increase in autism. Randal wants to stop public health needed vaccines.

Paul's comments are hilarious when set against his avowed anti-abortion stand. Kids belong to their parents, unless the parents don't want them, then they belong to the state.

LH -- because our esteemed box of blinky lights specifically mentioned the 2008 incident which -- if you only are aware of the sound-bite -- makes it look as though he was "pandering" to the antivaccine movement while running for his first term.

In context, the quote comes off as not quite so anti-vaxx friendly..

I also note that I blogged about the whole quote in detail in 2008 and linked to my discussion in this post. Click the links, people, before you criticize. They're there for a reason. :-)

I haven't combed the numbers (polls) but from my conversations I can say the anit-vaccine loonacy crosses the complete political spectrum from far left progressives to far-right religious zealots. My sister is one of the latter.

I have a new weapon in my anti-lunacy bag of tricks:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/01/growing_up_unvaccinat…

See the top comment on the left.. Powerful.

There are really 2 different issues with 4 different policy positions.
Pro or anti-vaccine
Pro or anti- government mandated vaccines

I consider myself pro-vaccine. I have all my vaccinations up to date, I always get the quaternary flu vaccine, my kids are up to date on their vaccines and we even enrolled our children in a phase III trial for a new vaccine.

I also consider myself anti-government mandated vaccination. I can understand government vaccine mandates for places like public schools where kids will be crammed together as long as public schooling is not compulsory.

I think that Orac is lumping these two different issues together under 1 topic. I don't think that is fair or accurate.

I turned off a national news channel(CNN?) last night while treadmilling, because they were promo-ing "Pediatricians Go Head To Head Over Vaccines". Couldn't stand the thought of another round of "both sides".

But I wasn't fast enough shutting off the radio at midday when Rush Limbaugh was launching into a screed about how Demoncrats* are intentionally targeting Republican presidential candidates with vaccine questions in order to create a new version of the War On Women.

You see, there's no debate! It's a dead issue! Measles was eradicated in the U.S. until Obama relaxed immigration laws and allowed lots of Mexican with rashes over our borders!!

I've just got to be faster hitting the off button.

*intentional misspelling.

I’ve just got to be faster hitting the off button.

You always have the Elvis option.
http://www.elvisinfonet.com/elvisgoulet.html

@JeffM

The Slate article is very good. The anecdote from a reformed anti-vaxxer is helpful for sharing with those n the fence.

Interesting bit of news, thoujgh not exactly welcome around here

Two adults and two children have fallen ill in four separate cases, according to Toronto Public Health.

---

The message is that measles is circulating in Toronto,” said Dr. Lisa Berger, associate medical officer of health with Toronto Public Health. “There has been spread somewhere.”

Berger said that in three of the four cases, the individuals had not been vaccinated against the disease. In the fourth case, the person received only one dose of the double-dose vaccination, she said.

None are from the same family and there is no source case, said Berger. ”

I was impressed with Rand Paul's comment "The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.”

How easy is it to transfer ownership?

@16 Eric Lund

“The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children.”

I too am appalled that someone who claims allegiance to libertarian principles would say such a thing. Too often I think the 'health freedom' argument for parents control over their children is pitted as freedom vs collectivism, with any govt or CPS control being viewed as 'collectivism'.

I think that is completely wrong. Vaccination and ensuring proper medical care for children IS an individual rights issue. The individual rights of the child to proper healthcare and the opportunity to reach adulthood. Parents need to realize that THAT is what they should be seeking to uphold, their own children's rights. Not stripping them away in the name of 'health freedom'.

Again, the idea that a stalward of the libertarian party doesn't understand that is incomprehensible...

"Parents own the children." I've long suspected libertarianism isn't about the desire for freedom for all, it's about freedom for those who have "earned" it. This certainly goes a long way to support my suspicions.

DW:

both of these fellows rhapsodise in unencumbered fashion about freedom and choice but IIRC, neither is a particularly strong advocate of *choice* involving abortion and issues concerning women’s reproductive health.

Typical ladybrain logic fail. Libertarian support for property rights means the right of a man do what he wishes with his property, not that his property has rights. Therefore no contradiction in Rand Paul's stance on freedumb and choice.

J.K. Rideau

How easy is it to transfer ownership?

According to Micheal Shermer the infallible "mind of the market" will sort that out.

Little Green Footballs has been a very relevant site to the "debate" recently, for example: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44285_Vox_Misrepresents_Obamas_… and http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44280_Death_and_The_Anti-Vaxxer
As to Baby Doc Paul and whether parents own their children, we never thought we owned our children, but held them in trust for the adults they have grown to be. I am not a great admirer of Kahlil Gibran*, but his saying that "They come through you but not from you" resonates with me.
Regarding the Hepatitis B -- STD trope, as someone who treated HIV patients in the mid-80s, it sounds depressingly familiar - "It's the queers and junkies, it's their problem, who cares anyway?" Yet Hep B not only comes through other routes, but it can infect through so many more than HIV far more effectively that refusing the vaccine to your children will come back to bite you, or more accurately, your children, in the ass.
*"People read Gibran when they want to get laid." - Lenny Bruce

Gray Falcon

I’ve long suspected libertarianism isn’t about the desire for freedom for all, it’s about freedom for those who have “earned” it.

Your rights end where my privilege begins.

All fringe crazies meet around the back. I am a libertarian and I'm shocked that Rand Paul claims to have heard of ( not seen or witnessed)many cases where children have had grave mental injuries from vaccines. How very irresponsible to make that claim and not provide any data to back it up. I'm all for voluntary vaccination however; I believe and as stated in the article, the state has a compelling interest in denying those who chose not to vaccinate attendance at public schools without a medical exemption being the only exception.

I see that AoA is in full-on fetal-position babbling-to-itself mode, with John Stone not just still trying to sell the notion that there have really been only single-digit measles cases, but declaring that "there is a feeling in the air rather like the last days of the Warsaw Pact and the Fall of the Berlin Wall."

@ Militant Agnostic:

Right, choice is only for the chosen.

If the un-chosen would like to choose their own course in life they can't. I know that often includes what I mention but I wonder if marriage choice for gay men and lesbians i

Republicans have been the prime movers on the vast majority of antivaccine state legislation introduced in the last several years. To be fair, a few physicians who are also Republican legislators have sponsored bills to limit nonmedical exemptions, but taken as a whole, this stuff gets more support on the right hand side of the aisle, at the state level, in any case.

Take for example this (http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2015/01/06/concerns-r…) interesting new legislator, who took a bill before her committee to allow the department of health (*clutch pearls!*) to set school immunization requirements.

Her contribution to the process? She deleted all of that stuff, added in a new requirement for chickenpox, and created a philosophical exemption for everything. Unfrickinbelieveable.

Oooops!
if marriage choice for gay men and lesbians is acceptable.
AFAIK Paul may support it but most others don't.

Slate: The case for lawsuits. Sources include Arthur Caplan of NYU and Dorit Reiss. Check it out.

For further evidence of politicizing of the vaccine "debate" , check out today's editorial in the Wall St. Journal criticizing "Christie's Vaccine Stumble".

The editorial slams Christie's "meandering meditation on parental rights", praises Obama's pro-vaccine message (acknowledging that must have been physically painful) and notes that "The real public health problem isn't a lack of parental choice but a lack of common sense about vaccines, and politicians should do more to promote the latter."

This is all very nice, but I strongly suspect the Journal is landing on Christie with both feet because the Journal's editorial board views him as a dangerously "liberal" Republican candidate who must be neutralized before he threatens the nomination of a nice, sensible conservative candidate (interestingly, the editorial says nothing about Rand Paul's meandering meditations).

This is the same Wall St. Journal that routinely sneers at the idea of climate change, so their newfound allegiance to common sense and scientific consensus is a bit suspect.

DB, as you mention, I do find it interesting that the WSJ stomps on Christie for his mistake, but says nothing about Rand Paul, whose antivaccine spew was clearly way worse than Christie's, which was far more a stumble based on ignorance and the perilous conflation of "vaccine choice" with freedom. Moreover, Paul has been letting loose antivaccine bons mots for at least five years, if not a lot longer.

I rather suspect that's the same reason Breitbart.com comes down hard on Christie but doesn't seem to mention Rand Paul.

Oh, wait. Maybe not. Check out this video:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/03/rand-paul-flashback-mandatory…

At least my party still has the hot women......that's all I got on this one.

I would presume that everyone already knows that Senator Paul, like Congressman Paul, opposes government mandates. Thus Senator Paul's comments come as no particular surprise.

Senator Paul is also an inexperienced politician and (hopefully) not considered as a serious presidential candidate except by a small but vocal group of enthusiasts.

Governor Christie's rather mild comments, on the other hand, get more play because he is a more experienced politician and a more serious contender for the presidency. The comments are also more vague, giving people lots of room to argue about what he really means.

DB@52: The Wall Street Journal is ostensibly the mouthpiece of the investor class. If measles (or pertussis, mumps, diphtheria, etc.) outbreaks become common, the government would likely (and justifiably) have to impose some serious travel restrictions. That would be bad for business. Much better if vaccination rates are higher, so that those who can't get the vaccine (and those for whom the vaccine fails) can hide in the herd.

As for the Pauls: In the last two presidential primaries Ron had a devoted and vocal but small following. Rand might do slightly better, but unless the field is thoroughly fragmented (which the Republican money people are hoping to avoid) I don't see how he wins the nomination. Note also that Rand's senate seat is up for re-election in 2016, and Kentucky (unlike some states) does not allow a candidate to appear on both the president/vice president line and another office. So I'd look for Rand to exit the presidential race in late 2015 or early 2016. I'd be surprised if he continues past the New Hampshire primary.

It's a good thing posts here are moderated. Ron Paul supporters troll the internet for criticism of their guru and unleash a torrent of vitriol when they find (or think they find) some on a news story, blog, or so on.

Rand Paul today released a photo of himself getting a booster shot for Hep A on Capital Hill. The blowback from his recent comments was getting to him.

“It just annoys me that I’m being characterized as someone who’s against vaccines,” Mr. Paul said as he settled into a chair in an examination room in the Capitol physician’s office.

“There’s 400 headlines now that say ‘Paul says vaccines cause mental disorders,'” he added. “That’s not what I said. I said I’ve heard of people who’ve had vaccines and they see a temporal association and they believe that.”

Except that IS what he said. He's splitting hairs now that his buddies on the Hill are not backing him up.

Panacea, Orac does not "moderate" comments. IIRC, new commenters with new IP addresses are put in moderation, until Orac has the chance to remove them out of moderation. Only very filthy phrases might not be posted...simple no-no words used to emphasize an opinion...will eventually leave moderation and will be posted.

Speaking of libertarian health regulations:

For much of the past 36 or so hours, we’ve heard from a number of Republicans that risking the occasional measles outbreak is simply the price of liberty. While Rand Paul and Chris Christie were busy championing the sacred right to expose others to disease, it fell to freshman Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) to take up the next great cause in the fight for freedom from regulatory overreach. We speak, of course, of the right of restaurants not to require their employees to wash their hands after using the restroom.

Speaking during a question-and-answer session at the Bipartisan Policy Center on Monday, Tillis related a story from his tenure in the North Carolina legislature to help explain his overarching philosophy on the finer points of hand-washing.

“I was having this discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,” Tillis said. “Let an industry or business opt out as long as they indicate through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment, literature, whatever else. There’s this level of regulations that maybe they’re on the books, but maybe you can make a market-based decision as to whether or not they should apply to you.”

When Tillis’ interlocutor noticed a Starbucks employee coming out of the restroom and inquired whether Tillis would apply his anti-regulation stance to employee hygiene, Tillis affirmed that he would.

“I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says, ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after they use the restroom,’” he said. “The market will take care of that.”

Great read. Personally, I believe they've become the anti-science party and that GOP should now stand for Gobs of Paranoia. Looks like both Christie and Paul are backtracking. Nice to see the RN involved in the anti-science ebola quarantine weigh in on Christe's actions on this topic.

if marriage choice for gay men and lesbians is acceptable. AFAIK Paul may support it but most others don’t.

This is where they play the States Rights card so they can be both for it and effectively against it.

Slightly off topic: there is a new facebook page encouraging everyone who is pro-vaccines to donate money to UNICEFs vaccination effort, in the name of prominent pro-diseasers (Vaccines from Anti-Vaxxers). Might I suggest Chris Christie, Rand Paul, MAM or the so-called "Dr" Jack Wolfson as suitable recipients. The "Dr" will be receiving a card thanking him for 400 tetanus vaccines to protect mothers and children, and a message stating how I feel about him in a few days. I found it to be a far more satisfying way to let out my anger at these people than repeatedly punching a wall.

On topic: I think that parents should absolutely be able to choose not to vaccinate their kids. However, this choice, like any, has consequences. If they make that choice, they should not be allowed to send their kids to public schools, take them to public parks or use public transportation. If you choose not to participate in public heath measures, you also choose not to participate in any public service where you can infect those who for legitimate medical reasons can't vaccinate. And of course, if an (intentionally) unvaccinated child starts an outbreak, the parents should be held liable for all costs to society and the individual.

Mephistopheles:

He opposes government mandates *on well-to-do adult men*. He thinks it's fine to tell a rape victim she has to bear the criminal's child, but once the woman has made it through pregnancy (at her own expense, of course), he has no objection to letting the child die of whooping cough.

Let's not forget Hillary on vaccines too, demanding an investigation into vaccines and autism while speak to anti-vax crowds.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/03/hillary-in-2015-vaccines-work/

Apparently you didn't read my post very closely. Actually, I rather suspect you didn't read it at all, other than perhaps the title. In this post, I actually did make it a point to refer to how all three major candidates in 2008, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton showed a little too much credulity when it came to the vaccine-autism link. I even linked to blog posts I wrote about each incident back when they happened in 2008.

Seriously. Read the damned post next time.

It is rather interesting how some ostensible libertarians can be so opposed to women's rights. The actual Libertarian Party platform has a very strong plank supporting women's right to choose, Faux libertarians have a distressing tendency to be all about freedom until it comes to certain intrusion into private health and sexual matters. On the other hand, to be fair to Paul, he has been generally good opposing foreign military entanglements and the rise of the surveillance state.

Time to get your credit cards out and give to charity on Paul's and Christie's behalf. You can buy a donation of vaccines through UNICEF and have a gift card sent to the anti-vaxxer of your choice (with a personal message for extra sneering joy), thanking them for the donation you've made as a gift to them. http://www.unicef.org/inspiredgifts/index_51968.html

“I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says, ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after they use the restroom,’” he said. “The market will take care of that.”

Excellent, then he won't mind those who eschew vaccines and their unvaccinated spawn will be required to wear signs stating such.

Hey, let the market take care of that right?

Vicki,

I disagree with his position on abortion, but that's not how Senator Paul would phrase it. His phrasing is at http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3.

Videos show that Mr Christie was more subdued today - he didn't speak to reporters in London.

Orac @67

It is rather interesting how some ostensible libertarians can be so opposed to women’s rights.

I thought I explained it quite clearly at #43

Seriously, this is what you get when you combine the misogyny of abrahamic religion with the sociopathic philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Hey Minions! I worked all day on an anaylsis of the GOP politics around the vax comments, with discussions of the primary/caucus schedule, campaign financing, vax and exemption rates in each of the early states, data from a study in Pediatrics about the difference between anti-vaxers and non-vaxers, more GOP pols who've made comments during the day, Hilary's take, and Ron Paul's outlook as a 'serious candidate'.

Yes, it's almost Oracian in length, but not quite. Please take a look.
https://sadmar.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/gop/

Last time this came up I looked into the question of who "owns" the children and concluded that rooted in British common law the state claims to have the strongest claim on "ownership". By convention, and lacking more suitable candidates, the parents are, by default, given charge of the children until it is shown that they are unwilling or unable to raise them as good citizens.

This is why there are no property rights claims when the state removes children from derelict or abusive parents.

Orac, I see your Christie and Paul and raise you a Walker and a Carson. I love your work, but I don't see how this supports your notion that the GOP is somehow well on its way to becoming "the antivaccine party". The fact that Christie had to walk-back some of his comments because of the heat aimed in his direction would seem to also not support the idea that this original comments found fertile ground with the party base.

The fact that Christie had to walk-back some of his comments because of the heat aimed in his direction would seem to also not support the idea that this original comments found fertile ground with the party base.

The conclusion doesn't really follow from the premise, but that may have something to do with "the party base" not being imbued with any particular meaning.

@Art:

Last time this came up I looked into the question of who “owns” the children and concluded that rooted in British common law the state claims to have the strongest claim on “ownership”.

Parens patriae has come a long way, baby.

I may not agree with their politics, but props to Rubio and Jindal for apparently getting it right the first time:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rubio-jindal-latest-weigh…

Ahh, the AAP chimes in on Christie and Rand with about as spineless a statement as possible (http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/American-Ac…) ;

"A measles outbreak has grown to more than 100 people in 14 states. As public officials discuss the outbreak and the immunizations that could have prevented it, the American Academy of Pediatrics urges each of them to research the issue first, using credible, science-based sources of information. It is incumbent on public officials to speak from the facts when shaping public perception and policy. This is crucial when it comes to our children's health and safety".....

"We encourage public officials to employ sound science in communicating about such an important topic. Our children's health is at stake."

C'mon--is the AAP that terrified of offending anyone that can't specifically address the anti-vaccinationism expressed by Christie and Paul? Then again, this is another manifestation of the same AAPathy that, to date, has weakened the AAP to the point of not speaking out against FAAPs Robert Sears and Jay Gordon.

Art, #74: the concept in English law (not sure about Scottish) also involves the "inherent jurisdiction" of the high court, which is what is ultimately invoked when parents are acting against the interests of their children.

The 1989 Children's Act is also very clear on parental responsibilities towards their children. In my old line (child and adolescent mental health) we kept an eye on repeated failures to attend appointments as a possible sign of neglect which we would need to contact our local children's services about (family protection in US-ia, I think).

FWIW, some big name Republicans have made statements in favor of vaccines. From the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky offered an intensely personal opinion Tuesday about the necessity of childhood vaccinations: "As a victim of polio myself, I'm a big fan of vaccinations."

House Speaker John Boehner of Butler County came out pro-vaccination Tuesday: "I don't know that we need another law, but I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated."

Cartoon of the day:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/cartoons/2015/02/beeler0204.html

Re. Orac @ 60: Sen. Thom Tillis, moving the party "forward" from anti-vaccination to anti-sanitation. Who needs clean drinking water standards either? Bring back the chamber pot too!

We were having a time of it over on Daily Kos on Tuesday, reading about Tillis and more about Christie and Paul, and feeling stuck somewhere between shock and nausea, alleviated only with the aid of mild scatological humor.

The three of them even got nicknames:

Cholera Christie, Typhoid Tillis, and Polio Paul.

And someone came up with a package design for a Tillis-endorsed brand of latex gloves, that one should wear while shaking hands with Republican politicians.

All of which commentary doesn't sum to policy proposals, but there have been many of those over there as well.

IMHO if this got politically polarized it would be a good thing. Republicans would get trounced in next year's election, and then hopefully the party would get its act together about science. That would make it easier to pass legislation.

As for voluntary/mandatory, I'm for mandatory and free, with medical exemptions only. Make it a requirement for anyone applying for a driver's license or state photo ID, and if they're a parent, they have to show that their kids are vaccinated as well.

It's bad enough to have little vectors running around in school, but they do also take the bus and go to movies and malls, etc., where they can infect more people. So I say No to that: get your shots or live in a closed community like the Amish.

As for Paul's item about parents "owning" their kids, on any ordinary news day that would be shocking and horrifying enough, but Tuesday it merely came across as dumb-headed and crass.

@MOB #81
FWIW, the Cincinnati Enquirer is trying to spin mushy fake walk-back as 'pro-vaccination.'

"I’m a big fan of vaccinations." So is Chris Christie. So is Mike #36. Note the subject of the sentence. Well, at least Mitch is a 'fan'.

Boehner, not so much. " I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated.” is about as weak and distance as prose gets.

Cincinnati, as some may not be aware, is only de jure in Ohio, de facto it's the largest city in Kentucky, which is probably why the Enquirer is carrying water for McConnell, and failing to parse for it's readers Boehner's shout out in support of he-who-shall-not-be-named, better known to us as Rand Paul: "“I don’t know that we need another law." That 'other law' we don't need is restriction or elimination of PBEs, or any other measure that would actually involve "government" big or small to intervene in even the teensy-tinest way with the collapse of herd immunity due to 'personal freedom'.

That's the line, "I like vaccinations! (but if you don't want your kid to get one, that's up to you)."

Politically, exemptions are the issue, period. Cruz did actually come out a bit 'pro-vax' in a policy sense by saying other states should adopt Texas's standard, which is 'religious and medical exemptions only' – pretty easy to do in Texas. Rubio really put himself out there: "medical exemptions only".

HRC didn't say anything about exemptions, but compare her comment to McConnell and Boehner, "”The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let’s protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest” She actually endorsed the science, called the anti-vaxers flat-earth idiots, one-upped the anti-vaxers on the 'Mom' card, referenced herd immunity ('all our kids') and implied policy be using the plural subject "us" and the active verb "protect".

The way you figure out what someone means by an ambiguous-seeming statement is by figuring out all the other expressions that might have been used to express whatever, and seeing what the expression at hand is NOT.

E.g among the things "I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated.” is NOT is "Listen people, there's a public health crisis. If your kids aren't vaccinated for measles, take them in for the MMR now."

How does anyone sane NOT say that now? Only one reason. They're afraid of the voting/finacial power of "”I guess being for freedom would be really unusual.”

Hillary Clinton on Twitter 2/2/15:

The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest

@Gray Squirrel #83
In Lancaster County anyway, the Amish shop at WalMart. There are bunch of special spaces in the parking lot reserved for buggy's. (The don't do the indoor mall, though. Too hochmut.) I'm totally for 'medical only' myself, and vax is the kind of thing where most the Amish anyway might come around. (It's not core to a simple plain life "not of the world".)

But we all know if it's medical only, there'll be a First Amendment challenge from somebody. I say: "Bring it on!" But I'm not running for President in Iowa or New Hampshire, the later BTW being the only state in the Union w/o a mandatory seat-belt law..... FREEDOMMM!!!

(They should change the motto from "Live free or die" to "Live free and die")

OBVIOUSLY AoA is quite pleased with Christie and Paul: today they feature articles by Heckenlively and Handley.
Although TMR wasn't up when I looked, its facebook page was and it featured a link to Handley's " Angry Father's Guide to the Measles Vaccine".

But we all know if it’s medical only, there’ll be a First Amendment challenge from somebody.

So far, we haven't seen any such challenges in Mississippi or West Virginia, the two states that currently allow only medical exemptions.

@DB #82
I don't know how you interpret the cartoon, but fwiw...
It's not saying "Science has won and proved anti-vaxers are as wrong as flat-earthers."
It's a political cartoon saying that the anti-vax 'movement' has sailed off it's own dining room table and is now as politically relevant as flat-earthism. It's saying anti-vax ain't gonna be around much longer. I think it's probably right, but we'll see. It all depends on far and how long the current outbreak goes, sad to say...

The frustrating thing about having Christie et al wade into this is that they have blurred the line between "should vaccination be compulsory" and "should vaccination be a condition for school entry." Those are two very different things. State laws mostly address the latter as they relate to children.

As for the First Amendment and the "because, freedom" argument, this is pretty well settled in the law. Nonmedical exemptions exist because of politics.

Antivaxers frequently misrepresent school vaccine mandates as being compulsory or "forced" vaccination in order to co-opt the "freedom" and "the government can't force anyone to inject chemicalz into my body" message. This is a feature, not a bug, as I'm sure Rand Paul knows. I doubt Christie knew and that's why he so blindly blundered into this issue. To him it probably seemed like a reasonable approach to make "both sides" happy.

@ sadmar:

Whatever happens, I think that the anti-vax movement WILL be around - although it may have hopefully less influence on young parents in the future- and it may be moved off further into the darker, festering depths of the cybersphere.
many, many diehard believers have invested their lives in it and some entrepreneurs - as well as parents- have made money off of it and have achieved a measure of fame- they get support and applause for their madness.

If you read the regulars at AoA/ TMR and dedicated facebook pages, you'll find that the movement has become their social life and often, their claim to fame. They identify themselves through it and they have a perpetual axe to grind against the mainstream.

How would people like them ever get on television otherwise?' These outlets then embed the video and followers later congratulate the Truth Teller on facebook.
Quite a few get book deals to narrate their tales of woe or showcase their 'investigative journalism' Would any of them write a book WITHOUT these covens of bad science pulling for them or without a cohort / fellow traveller who owns a publishing company?

And they get to style themselves as Brave Maverick Parents in mimicry of the Brave Maverick Doctor- ex-doctor , really- so many mini- Andys and Andreas attempting to ride upon his tattered coattails..
And last but not least, Andy is only 50-something, he can be around for decades.

I'd post this link to Orac's pitiful, cowardly blog titled "Antivaccine cranks try to create Vaccine Injury Awareness Month. Everyone either yawns or laughs."
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/10/01/antivaccine-cranks-try-to-…
but he's closed that heinous blog, akin to Holocaust and climate change denialism, from further comment.

Here's a new, brief article I wanted to share with all the vaccine injury denialists here:
http://www.gutmicrobiotaforhealth.com/gut-microbiota-infant-vaccine-pro…

So if the Republicans need another voice saying we need to get rid of any kind of public health requirement of any kind I present:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thom-tillis-on-whether-employees-need-to-wa…

I'm still waiting for the embarrassment my state elected him to the Senate to overtake the relief I feel that we don't have him mucking around directly with my state anymore.

What is the next thing that restricts our freedom to infect others that will be made OK to do by legislative act?

Well, the Wall St. Journal has belatedly turned on Rand Paul in a new editorial headlined "The Weird Vaccine Panic". Paul is lambasted for "broadcasting misinformation" and "libertarian dormitory passions". He was also criticized specifically for trying to connect "mental disorders" with vaccines, in what the Journal said was "a dog whistle )perhaps unintentional) to autism fears".

The editorial also took note of Obama's sidling around vaccine fears in 2008, along with Hillary Clinton who "responded to a questionnaire from an autism activism group with a commitment to 'make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines'". And the Journal declared that the "privileged communities of the liberal elite" in southern California are centers for vaccine refusal.

It's sort of entertaining to see the political fur flying - as long as these folks get it right in the end.

So far, we haven’t seen any such challenges in Mississippi or West Virginia, the two states that currently allow only medical exemptions.

No, Patti Finn did her usual crash-and-burn routine in Workman v. Mingo County Board of Education.

On the subject of Mississippi, though, this is timely.

^ It should perhaps also be noted that Mississippi is unusual, in that the reason there's no religious exemption is that in 1979, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held them to be unconstitutional on an equal protection basis (Brown v. Stone).

sadmar,

The way you figure out what someone means by an ambiguous-seeming statement is by figuring out all the other expressions that might have been used to express whatever, and seeing what the expression at hand is NOT.
E.g among the things “I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated.” is NOT is “Listen people, there’s a public health crisis. If your kids aren’t vaccinated for measles, take them in for the MMR now.”

While that can be a useful technique, there are a few limitations and cautions. For instance:

- you don't always know the context of the statement, which can make a difference. The words used depend on the question that was asked.

- you don't know that the article includes the full statement. The article may leave out the boring bits, or may be restricted for length. Just as an entire 1 hour speech may be cut to 4 5-second sound bites on television news, a longer quote may be cut down to what the reporter (or editor) considers the essential point.

- it can be used in parsing those you agree with as well as those you disagree with. For example, only given former secretary Clinton's statement above, can you realistically infer her views on religious or philosophical exemptions? How about President Obama's views?

As to Boehner's statement that "I don’t know that we need another law", I suppose that would all depend on the context. He's a Congressman from Ohio - perhaps he doesn't think a federal law is appropriate (due to, say, Constitutional issues) and he thinks that the Ohio statue (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3313.671) is adequate. I really couldn't say.

As to "Cincinnati, as some may not be aware, is only de jure in Ohio, de facto it’s the largest city in Kentucky, which is probably why the Enquirer is carrying water for McConnell,...", the article does say that "The Enquirer surveyed the governors of Ohio and Kentucky plus members of the local congressional delegations on their views about vaccinations." Thus if you found and read the article (as opposed to my snippets), you'd also see responses from other Ohio and Kentucky politicians. McConnell (KY), Rand Paul (KY), and Boehner (West Chester Township, OH) would be considered members of the local congressional delegations.

DW: "Ethically challenged, lacking in empathy and self-centered parents…all of them."

Except for parenthood, that could also describe any Republican candidate. Like the anti-vax movement, the GOP has become a haven for unpleasant people.

@ PGP:

But I didn't say that.
Must have been my evil twin - well, one of them. I have several...
( Not that I'm not evil)

"Which prompted the greatest Onion headline, ever"

Second greatest? "New President Feels Nation’s Pain, Breasts."

I really feel like we're in a place where parental rights over 'ownership' of their children are in direct conflict with critical public health concerns - and that's the individual right of each child to herd immunity, IMO. There should be no religious or philosophical vaccine exemptions for school. Medical only.

Rand Paul's ties to the AAPS highlighted in today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/politics/rand-paul-linked-to-assoc…

Perhaps the silver lining in all of this is that the anti-vaccine movement will get the negative publicity they so richly deserve and will be finally relegated to the same level as holocaust or moon landing deniers. It's a horrible price to pay, though.

“The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children.”

Makes you wonder if his parents made him pay for his freedom.

Charlie Pierce has yet another excellent column on this today:

So this is what I'm thinking. The Republicans will use this as a wedge to split the Democratic party along the Nervous Parent fault-line that is rivening it. This fault line may well crack open between classes, as the wealthier left seems more inclined toward using Internet quackery to protect their little snowflake babies.

Don't know if anything will come of it, slightly off topic(but not);
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2015/02/anti_vaccination_d…

And...Jake Crosby weighs in on his Epoch Times blog, which gave me the opportunity to link to his posts on the CDC Whistleblower. Jake removed all the comments on the Whistleblower one month ago, yet he continued to post comments at me.

Jake's last comment directed at me was posted 8 days ago and he admitted that his mentor for his "Culminating Experience" (MPH-Epidemioogy thesis), was former medical doctor Mark Geier, who (somehow) got him access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink database.

Screen shots...the only way to preserve comments that Jake sends down the old memory hole:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/blog/obama-contradicts-vaccines/

To excuse Dr. Randel Paul's opinions on medicine just because he is an eye doctor. It is way too forgiving. He went through many of the same general classes required of every doctor, he would have been taught all of the same basic principles of medicine and science that is taught every medical student. While I often spoke poorly of the medical profession in my career, chided them memorization over application, even I can not imagine that anyone gets to put a "M.D." after there name without being exposed to enough information to know better. No, don't blame his education, don't blame his specialization. You insult a lot of good honest doctors.

FYI, There is no love lost between Mitch and Dr. Paul, Mitch is an over school establishment republican, a wheeler-dealer, a person with huge ties to the establishment. Dr. Paul is an upstart, whom beat Mitch's anointed candidate in the primary. There was no love lost in the primary battle, Dr. Paul spoke of Mitch as the enemy. After the victory, pleasant fwords and a facade were placed over wounds and scars, do not expect that they do not fester beneath the surface.

@ lilady:

Gawd, I just read that!
Jake seems to have difficulty interpretting what people say ( e.g. Barack Obama) despite the fact that it was relatively simple and in English .I'm not sure if he has some sort of language-based disability ( or NVLD) or if it's merely a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality.

He doesn't put simple facts together as most people would but then he creates mountains out of molehills and intricately elaborates upon relationships that don't exist outside of his fevered imagination.
In short, lots wrong there.

I notice that PRN put up one of his old, crappy AoA posts about Dr Offit saying f@cking and sh!t.or suchlike.
If I met Jake in person I'd probably say f@cking and sh!t as well.

BUT I'd glad to come across this after reading someone's recollections about victims of terrorism- I need a laugh.

No spoken or receptive language disability, Denice. Just a nasty, over indulged "kid" who only thinks he's qualified to work as an epidemiologist; he's not.

I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Offit, Summer 2013. He's a warm, compassionate charming man who is dedicated to the children entrusted to his care and he's been subjected to Jake's lies and pathological stalking behaviors.

I'm delighted to be your "evil twin".

Can anyone point me to the scientific evidence for herd immunity?

Can anyone direct me to the scientific evidence for herd immunity?

Thank you.

Can anyone direct me to the scientific evidence for herd immunity?

Sure.

One way to see how this is going to fall out is to keep an eye on 'mainstream' non-fanatical granola crunchers...
@ Denice #92
That's what I mean in my hyperbolic way in #89, AV isn't going away as a culture, I just think it's on its way off the table as a significant political influence. And while I'm sure about the former (it will live on in some form) I'm nowhere as sure about the later, but that's how I read the signs du jour

As far as book deals and TV and profitable ventures go — Disneyland changes everything. Again, it's so sad/stupid it had to come to this, all the poor kids actually getting sick. My hypotheses for the near future:

AV Entrepreneurs. There will continue to be $$ to be made by selling re-inforcement to this community, just less of it. The 'base" won't shrink, but the secondary/tertiary spheres will and mainstream publishers who would have put out an anti-vax book two years ago won't touch them now, leaving them to specialty presses.

Television/Media: Clearly the new AV role here is whipping boy/ villain. Which will just make them more mavericky in their own shrinking bubble. But it's absolutely slaughtering them as a meaningful social force.

'Natural' Entrepeneurs/activists: Wedges may well appear in previous alliances. In the cherry-picked media quotes from appalling unaffected AV parents, I've noticed two slightly different philosophies: 1) the very specific 'MMR causes autism' standard line, 2) the more generic 'naturalistic fallacy" rejecting corporate commodities, embracing Gaia myths & organic everything This position has previously accommodated a 'vax MUST be toxis POV' though the exact mechanism and product of toxicity is left open and can be fluid. What any number of commenters (a growing minority it seems) in this subculture are showing is that anti-vax isn't necessary to this world view and can easily be discarded. One of the anti-(anti-vax) 'trolls' on mothering.com has a sig "I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. And I'm pro-vaccine." C.f. also Tara Cook-Littman, the pro-vax, anti-GMO Connecticut Dem mentioned by BD #1 who got pole-axed by the GOP in 2014 for having been duped into giving an interview to the producers of Bought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mxYu7CL1Xg

Anti-vax isn't core to the organic/natural mythos — and neither are organic 'cures". The mythos basically comes down to a fairly generic belief that less processing is 'healthier' in some vague way. Typical granola-crunchers just try to reduce 'unnecessary' industrial diddling in a more-or-less pragmatic mode — e.g. they still drink tap water, etc. So this 'lifestyle choice' can go forward perfect well if MMR and flu shots move into the category of "no reasonable pragmatic natural alternative" along with hundreds of other elements of quotidian existence in industrialized society.

So I'd keep my eye on the less wiggy 'natural food' promoters — not necessarily Mikey — to see if any of them are easing up on doing any cross-promotion with the AV crowd — as I have a feeling it will be in their economic interest to do so.

@ Meph #99
All excellent qualifiers! Yeah, those are the kinds of things you have to do if you're using that method (a basic technique of 'semiotics') in a serious scholarly paper. They're part of the necessary 'controls' if you will, of establishing a solid argument. I was just firing off a quick lil polemic: sort of 'well, it could be this' rather than any kind of sold 'proof'.

And I thought I had at least implied that re: HRC by noting that unlike Rubio and Cruz, she didn't state an exemption policy, only inferred one by very different language choices than McConnell and Boehner used. Still, if there was a liberal's illustrated dictionary there'd be a pic of BIll and Hil next to the entry for "slippery".

I'd also add re: McConnell and Boehner. As Majority Leader and Speaker they'e going to be concerned with keeping some appearance of unity amongst the various caucuses in their party, and model 'let's stay on the same page' strategies. Both of the quotes (can't speak to the full statements) offer the opportunities in private discussions with different members to say either 'I came out as pro-vax' OR 'I didn't endorse restricting exemptions'.

@ MarkN #55
"At least my party still has the hot women……"

Citation needed. :-)

There are numerous tv shows about her case and over 1600 people on Facebook

OK, that combination has totally convinced me!

Oh dear. Dan Olmsted has posted a link on AoA to an interview he's done with "Vox". I imagine he thinks he comes over quite well, but actually comes over as a frothing loon, with all his points debunked - mostly with references, some to our esteemed host.

The phrase "done up like a kipper" springs to mind.

You sad, sad fool, Olmsted.

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/4/7972335/dan-olmsted-anti-vaxxers

@ MarkN #55 and sadmar#119
Your sexism is noted.

MartinB @122 -- I'm acutely aware that accusations of hypersensitivity and humorlessness are the go-to tactic for sexist bullies attempting to defend the indefensible, but MarkN and sadmar's little exchange struck me as being entirely in jest, and actually pretty funny.

@palindrom
Sure - when talking about a political party, discussing the "hotness" of women is just funny and nothing else.
Yes, it was somewhat funny, yes, it was in jest, no, it is not a big problem, and neither is the world going to end nor will MarkN and sadmar be held in contempt forever because of these remarks, but yes, the remarks were sexist all the same.

@ sadmar:

I think the book deals may continue but only because they originate from Skyhorse, which is owned by a fellow traveler,, Tony Lyons, who has written a few tomes from his perspective as a ( woo-drenched) autism parent- he published his ex's book as well- that's devotion to a cause for you!

But truly, I think that recent events have helped push anti-vax towards the darkest depths of cyberspace- Ickes' and Bolen's territory as it were. Actually, this might assist alt media loons who have been telling the faithful that the mainstream is utterly corrupt; *bought* by the corporatocracy and governmental fascisti.

I listened to PRN"s head honcho rant yesterday and I detected a hint of desperation amidst his pressured, malaprop-ridden speech ( see PRN/ the Gary Null Show/ yesterday) and dear Mikey appeared to be grasping at the same straws but more feverishly than is usual ( see Natural News, recently). It may make it harder for them to reach a general audience- which is after all, their aim, supplanting the mainstream in an orgy of paradigm shift: their fantasy system come true.

-btw- I thought the 'hot women' jibe was funny.

The mention of Tony Lyons is inclined to set me off. This is a guy - very much like Wakefield - who has abandoned any kind of professional standards in order to hawk his wares to the vulnerable. He sees the desperate parents of often seriously challenged kids as a marketing opportunity.

Forget his pumping of Wakefield's fraud which, had he perpetrated it in the UK, would have bankrupted his company with uninsurable libel bills.

But look at his publication of a book advising parents how to vaccinate their children, written by people who are not doctors and have no relevant expertise. In my view, a truly sickening scam on the public that could never pay for itself without the captive vulnerable group to be preyed on at the usual quack conferences.

Then look at his publication of a book by the ludicrous malignant crank David Lewis, whose writing is so poor and whose mental condition so questionable that any competent publisher would have thrown his manuscript into the trash after reading the first page.

This is the David Lewis who says that my journalism is of such a high professional standard that I must be corrupt. Really. I kid you not. Unusually, you can see Mr Lyons's author saying so himself. I have him listed on my website as the funniest crank I've ever encountered:

http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-true.htm

I’m totally for ‘medical only’ myself, and vax is the kind of thing where most the Amish anyway might come around. (It’s not core to a simple plain life “not of the world”.)

They don't need to come around, however: the idea that the Amish do not vaccinate is a myth. The majority of Amish parents do vaccinate their children, and among the minority who do not the most common reasons cited for failure to vaccinate are the same anti-vaccine fueled fears that non-Amish anti-vax parents embrace in the absence of supporting evidence. (see PMID:21708796)

@ Brian Deer:

There is so much lunacy surrounding Lyons that if he didn't exist, sceptics would have to invent him to serve as a sterling example of the literary enablement of bad science.

I once spent an hour or two surveying his wares ( @ Skyhorse's website)- new releases especially - altho' there are a few meaningful items- there is a miasma of alt med/ anti-vax/ autism garbage in numbers hitherto unseen in the western world. He gave Gary Null his own imprint. He has already printed loads of AoA contributors' bilge as well as Andy's, sponsors book events with them and assists TMR by printing their madness involving parental advice gone wrong, histrionic tales of woe and the creation bizarrely restricted cuisine for kids with ASDs. Lyons even has published autism-themed fiction -
oh wait, all of these books are fiction, aren't they?

He wrote ( IIRC) two books about autism himself. The entire list of crap lit hawked at AoA was made possible by him.
Lewis fits right in.

I think that recent events have helped push anti-vax towards the darkest depths of cyberspace

Unfortunately people have short memories. I am very much afraid that going through outbreaks periodically is the only way to convince people that VPD's are, in fact, dangerous and children need to be protected from them.

For a moment I had skyhorse confused with "Slaying the Sky Dragon", which is a book that attempts to disprove the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The book is, of course, a hilarious compendium of crackpot science.

Sounds like its near-namesake is also not exactly an authoritative source on matters scientific.

Martin #124 - yes, thank you, all of that.

I sure hope Martin never winds up reading Clickhole.

Brian Deer, Tony Lyons publishes (almost) all of the anti-vaccine books written by the AoA crank journalists and commenters. He did, after all, refuse to publish one book:

"Skyhorse has got several excellent books. Not mine however. They won't even reply when I send them the manuscript for my book (which is freely downloadable at maryWmaxwell.com). Title: "A Balm in Gilead: Curing Autism and Awakening the Physicians."

When I was a Good Girl, years ago, four of my books got published by university presses. Now that I am a Bad Girl (i.e., I say who dunnit), I may as well be a leper.

Speaking of leprosy, it was caused, in modern times, by the smallpox vaccine. Don't take my word for it; many eminent docs said so. And then that was end-of-career for them, of course.

Posted by: mary w maxwell | January 28, 2015 at 11:44 PM"

@ lilady:

It never fails to amaze about how these people catastrophise every single life event that befalls them as they imagine that having an autistic child- rather than the perfect one that exists only in their imagination- is an earth-shattering tragedy which they OBVIOUSLY will rise above In g0dlike fashion to countless readers' applause.

Lyons isn't just their enabler- and that of the loony medical critics as well- he is a fellow traveller- he's one of them- and as much a drama queen.

I think that my friends** whose lives have been transformed by terrorism decades ago sound much more upbeat than this lot of soppy cry babies.

** not the ones form Northern Ireland

@ Lilady: I'd quite like the five minutes back that it took me to download Mary Maxwell's opus but, despite everything, I think she would not make the threshhold for Mr Lyon's tastes because she is not a malignant crank.

Did I say anywhere that BMJ got a threatening letter from some run-out-stock lawyer for David Lewis (the dental equipment hygiene guy) threatening to sue them if they didn't accede to all kinds of weird demands.

Of course, they got told to f--- off, but it was truly hilarious. I ought to post it sometime. It was full of stuff like "you will post on x website denouncing Brian Deer" and so on and so forth.
Pages and pages of gibberish.

not the ONE FROM...

@Lilady, there is a grain of truth in the smallpox vaccine and leprosy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC422848/

I mean grain, in that there is some evidence that given a small pox vaccine to a person with leprosy can cause problems, but I expect not as much as a leper that actually catches smallpox.

Of course, they got told to f— off, but it was truly hilarious. I ought to post it sometime. It was full of stuff like “you will post on x website denouncing Brian Deer” and so on and so forth.
Pages and pages of gibberish.

And you're holding this back from us why?

@ Denice #125

In my remark about book deals, I was thinking about:
Dr. Jay, whose Autism and ADD books are published by Wiley
Dr. Bob, whose Vaccine book is published by Little Brown
and of course
Jenny McCarthy, whose autism books are published by Penguin

A quick Amazon search reveals a number of 'beat autism with health food' books from major presses.

@Lilady, there is a grain of truth in the smallpox vaccine and leprosy.

Maxwell's basic source dates to a bit before 1973, though.

@Colonel Tom - actually, excema is also a contra-indicator for the smallpox vaccine as well.

@Lawrence I am surprise, contra-indications for the small pox vaccine is surely not something being currently taught?

However, and it shames me that I have this link saved, is a case where excema was a factor in a "secondary" exposure. The reason why I have this link, is the poor girl properly expressed her concerns to a Dr., but her concerns were not given the weight they should have been.

I must warn that this is a rather, graphic, case summary.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5925a2.htm

I got the same vaccine, and everyone was warned to minimize contact. I have no idea if disciplinary actions were taken, after he completed his deployment. For all I know, he never came home.

I also like the notes on this case, one might use the "upon hearing hoofbeats expect horses not zebras", but the notes are rather "clinically icy" in their presentation that the other indications for the STD he tested for were just not there. .

Not that I am antiVax, debate about the smallpox vac and its military use is a more subtle issue.

Of course, they got told to f— off, but it was truly hilarious. I ought to post it sometime. It was full of stuff like “you will post on x website denouncing Brian Deer” and so on and so forth.

I believe the standard legal version of the response to that is "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."

Narad, thanks for the 100 + year old references from whaleDOTto.
C'mon Brian Deer; we're waiting for your post about David Lewis...Wakefield's good buddy who sent you the scoring sheets for the bowel specimens from Wakefield's study subjects.

Colonel Tom: I had the smallpox vaccine (NYC Department of Health Dryvax smallpox vaccine) during the run up to the bogus WMDs scare, promulgated by Bush I...post 9-11. I was qualified to receive Dryvax because I had smallpox vaccines in early childhood and prior to a trip to Europe, 1972. I also did not have an history of eczema.

Incidentally, as either sadmar or Denice predicted, now that anti-vax views have intersected with politics, Rachel Maddow is indeed covering the matter, and quite well. She's charmingly somewhat baffled by the whole thing: "Wait, this is a thing? Why on earth is this a thing? Why on earth are mainstream politicians touching this thing with a ten foot pole?"

If there's one thing I can do whilst almost catatonically depressed, it's watch Rachel Maddow. Well, that and drink gifted homemade mead, apparently. Dangerous stuff, that.

Funny thing, as a kid, I had measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, and poliomyelitis, all before they were vaccine-preventable. but I still wound up with an autism spectrum condition, and I can't even blame it on vaccines.

@ JP:

Well, I hope she can influence some left-leaning people.
She has social power in certain quarters I would guess as well as being quite gifted as a barkeep instructor.
Am I not right?

@Colonel Tom:
While Rand Paul almost certainly learned at least the basics of infectious diseases, immunology, and vaccines in med school, it doesn't mean he didn't start forgetting the day after the final. With a lot of medical knowledge, it's a matter of use it or lose it. Of course, he may also have been poorly taught. I still remember many things I was taught and never worked with because some of my instructors made them interesting and taught with clarity.
When I was still a working PA, I did presurgical testing. One time I saw an abnormality on an ECG and called the surgeon to tell him that the case would have to be postponed for further workup. When I started to detail the findings to him, he said "You forget, I'm an orthopedic surgeon. I don't know about that kind of thing."

leprosy, it was caused, in modern times, by the smallpox vaccine

Time travel is a dangerous thing when misused.

@Denice:

I can only hope so. I've been monitoring FB for any sort of anti-vax statements by my more crunchy liberal friends back on the Left Coast, and they've been basically silent - good news or bad, that, I'm not sure. In any case, if anti-vax views do start to become aligned with right-wingers, it might at least drive some liberal fence-sitters in the opposite direction. (My friends here in Ann Arbor town have been joining me in pro-vax sentiment; they are, though, of the more nerdy, wonky liberal variety. One of them is studying medical history, and runs the excellent Nursing Clio blog.

I do always enjoy Maddow's "Cocktail Moment" segments, and have been tempted to attempt several of the recipes, though the closest I typically come to mixing drinks is putting ice in my bourbon, and that on rare occasions.

Old Rockin' Dave, I went through about half of those classes with the med students, bio medical engineer, and I just have trouble believing that you could forget so many basics. How diseases spread, how can you forget that. Now you forget what exactly what areas of the heart are affected by which bifascicular blocks, but you surely remember what the bundle of his is. I hope. My allergist understood his own condition when his cardiac pacemaker cells began to go wonky, and he was older than dirt.

Rekha Basu, Des Moines Register columnist is on Rachel Maddow, talking about how Paul's and Christie's vaccine comment's are dog-whistling both the Iowa Tea Baggers (no big government) and Christian Conservatives (Parents Rights) that form the two wings of the GOP caucus vote in the state and have few issues in common — even though, as Maddow says, "there's no national constituency for playing with that kind of fire, playing with vaccine conspiracies." Also, both Maddow and Basu say the pols know setting themselves up to get criticized by the media, lets them complain about being bashed by liberal media, which also plays really well in Iowa to both factions.

Maddow's take is ultimately that these are not blunders — even though the national press considers them so — but planned strategic moves to gain ground in Iowa that will be abandoned and forgotten once the campaign moves to larger states and a national audience.

Meanwhile Christie and Paul are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Putting it forward, taking it back, putting it forward, taking it back. Christie might have had a chance to get away... but he doesn't want to! Today it came out he's like the only governor that doesn't participate in Hallmark's vaccine reminder card to new moms program...

Here's a 2009 photo of Chris Christie smiling posing with a group of 6 anti-vaxers, with only one identified on screen: Louise Habakus. And then the screen shows the campaign letter Christie put out referring to — well, Rachel says "anti-vaccine groups" with a pull quote "I stand with them now, and will stand with them as their governor." But I see Orac has the text in the OP; "families affected by autism [who] have expressed concern over New Jersey’s highest-in-the nation vaccine mandates." Evil, evil mandates.

I Googled "Chris Christie Louise Habakus" and see this story went viral at the beginning of the week... Stuff movin' faster than I can follow...

@ lilady. I fear the danger of succumbing to the entertainment quality of some of these people. Malignant cranks may have all manner of personal issues they are expressing - in some cases, I believe, organic - but they are easy to play for laughs.

A more serious issue arises when you come across people like Wakefield, Lewis and even Celia Farber (who descends from time to time from the astral plane to critique molecular biology).

They believe they are entitled to accuse any number of people of the most horrendous, foul crimes against humanity, with the most vicious, unsubstantiated abuse. Then, if the accused turn round, defend themselves and and say: "You lying f--- scumbag", people such as Wakefield, Lewis (the most malignant of the cranks that I have ever encountered) and Farber, they sue, or threaten to.

Between them, they've run, I'd say, about ten or more lawsuits: none of which have done anything useful, but have consumed huge amounts of money and given them a few years to use these for public relations purposes (to quote a judge), presumably to raise more money.

Well, yes, the double standard these cranks demonstrate is spectacular. They'll compare pro-science advocates of all manner of horrific activities, crimes even. They'll compare them to Hitler and the Nazis. But if anyone calls them out for their misinformation, pseudoscience, and lies, suddenly they clutch their pearls, shocked—shocked, I say!—that anyone would say anything mean about them. Then some of them threaten to sue.

They’ll compare them to Hitler and the Nazis
Case in point:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/anti-vaxxer-radio-host-accuses-jon-s…

Responding to Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s criticism of both the far left and far right wings of the anti-vaxxing movement, an anti-vaccination promoting radio host compared the Jewish comedy host of being a “Nazi” ready to put the anti-vaxxers in “concentration camps.”

They’ll compare them to Hitler and the Nazis.

Gerg, a Canadian, has recently asserted that vaccines are worse than DAESH, or something, and that history will judge Obama harshly.

Speaking to the GOP = leaning anti-vax thesis of the article, I'm pleased to report that the on right and libertarian-leaning discussion website I follow, people are jumping the Rand Paul ship as fast as they can (Christie they never liked much anyway). Vaccines are the hot-topic of the day (as they are elsewhere), and I'd give a rough estimate of 90% of commenters are strongly pro-vaccine; the anti-vaxxers who comment are challenged in strong language.
Can't speak for the politicians, but for the electorate, I do think it's split pretty evenly left and right.

Colonel Tom, you know as well as I do that they can make you study something but they can't make you believe it. Baby Doc's membership in his fringe medical society proves that, not to mention all the other a-hole physicians Orac has alerted us to.
It seems to me that his sole motivation in getting his MD was to become a surgical specialist in order to rake in some bucks, and not have to bother with all those troublesome facts that contradict his favorite fairy tales.
Thankfully, not all surgeons are like that (Hat tip to you, Orac.).

@Old Rockin' Dave, I do have a paranoia of my own that runs into what you just said. Having been a premed, having a cliche of friends that were premed, having been in a graduate program taking some school of medicine classes, having worked with lots of doctors in my early career. I have this concern that the whole medical education system is slanted more towards those individuals that are in it for the money. Not exclusively, but the insanely high cost of the education combined with the tortuous training, it does seem to be biased towards a certain type of very materialistic souls. Not exclusively, but if I had to evaluate the other 12 pre-med chemical engineers I went to school with, I'd say at least 4 of them were money fixated. Especially Chuckles, geez what an ahole he turned out to be.

I have this bad tendency to believe that people do bad things because they don't know better. Time and time again I am disappointed by my bias.

Its funny, my daughter's illness kicked up again, and I was surfing to see if there were over the counter testing for parasites. I did not know that this is a new pet theory of some really wacko people. I found an excellent source of information on round and tape worms, the website sponsored by a doctor with good credentials, her school respectable. Until I got deep into what she was recommending, including that she used an herbal concoction similar to the medicine my grandmother would have brewed. She did leave out the red oak fungus at least, that stuff will take you to places you don't want to go. I might use traditional blends for minor purposes, but if you have round worms I'd really expect a doctor to use pharmaceutical grade medicine. The stuff my grandmother made, I still use it on chickens and dogs.

Well, at least I know why my pediatrician looked at us like we were kooks when the wife asked about worms.

I have been immensely pleased with my cardiologists, I am on my third one. Unfortunately, the first one I had I have outlived, against all odds. He was the walking breathing posture child for cardiac health, fit and active. Damn inoperable cancer in the hippocampus.

Old Rockin' Dave:

Please tell me this has nothing to do with Duvalier.

Vicki, it's just a passing middle finger up to the Drs. Paul, Congressman and Senator, father and son. The rotten apple didn't fall far from the diseased tree.
Colonel Tom, I have had general good luck with my docs, with the sole exception of the urologist who nearly killed me by leaving a bleeder in my abdomen. That turned an expected two day hospital stay into two weeks, half in SICU, most of which I can't remember, and that also left me with a hypovolemic ischemic encephalopathy, mainly manifested with some badly delayed recall for proper nouns and the occasional adverb. Ironically, for someone who made his living as a PA, the recall most affected is for brand names of medications.
I entirely regret not going with my gut on this one - I didn't like him from the beginning, and I have learned that a doc that I don't like as a person is more than likely to be a bad practitioner.

Crap Dave, we're both members of the scrambled brains club. At least in my case, I doubt my surgeon did anything wrong. I was at death's door because I had a real atypical right side heart attack (right corn artery), I was misdiagnosed for six days. By the time they got me on the table I was almost gone. A few little clots got stirred up. Lost the power of speech for years, but during a religious ceremony I discovered I could still sing. I'm almost to the point where I can "sing-talk" to just talk. My use of language appears to have suffered too.

Am I understanding properly, that you went into shock from a bleeder to the point your brain went hypoxic? Crap, how were they monitoring you post-op? That is just, so wrong.

I have spoken here before about the bad obstr that refused to believe us on the conception date, daughter almost died during a late delivery as it was. My beloved, praise to her, had the sense, strength and gift to know a person that won't listen is not who you want to delivery your child.

You also seem to know Senator Paul fairly well, as I keep telling people it isn't a political mistake on their part, he almost certainly believes the crap that he is saying. He believe he has obtained everything on his own, andothers that need are weak.

P.S BTW, people like us were part of my never completed PhD. Everyone talks about artificial intelligence, but we really don't understand how memory works (although we know much more now). One part studying the tragic cases, one part trying to model computer programs to mimic human memory.

The dissonance that overshadows both parties glimmers here. The Left, the intellectuals and scientists and artists; all embody the liberated mind, the free thinkers; and yet they fail to sympathize with parents who, in the light of vaccinations being admittedly often preserved with Mercury, a known neurotoxin, have shied away from exposing their children to questionable medical practices, of which many have been revealed over the decades. In fact individual choice seems to be the watchword of the Left, but not on this topic, clearly.
Meanwhile, the Right, that bastion of Christian thought on Creation, among other questionable notions;and yet, they advocate a 'sink or swim' policy with social services, implying that Darwin was right, Gol'darnit! People should survive or not on their own merits and efforts, ignore government edicts if they choose, and the Government should basically ignore them....sounds like Natural Selection to me!

No, molly cruz, almost no vaccines are preserved with mercury these days.

Also, you are at best oversimplifying on the left/right thing: for one thing, the intelligentsia are not necessarily "embodying the liberated mind." "Individual choice" is too broad to be useful here: it could be carelessly used to describe whether I go to church, and if so which, as well as whether I drive a car while drunk or toss my trash in someone else's backyard.

Molly Cruz, a new coal powered power plant puts out hundreds of pounds of mercury, a gypsum wallboard plant puts out a third of a ton of mercury because it uses byproducts of coal combustion. Forest fires put out huge amounts of mercury, rereleasing material absorbed from years of coal combustion. Mercury is so many places, yet some how mercury that used to be in some vaccines in a form of very limited bio-availability are the few molecules that cause autism.

Molly Cruz, the mercury (lower case m, the upper case is a god or a planet, that's just me being pedantic) in vaccines you are referring to is an organic compound called thimerosal. Yes, it contains mercury, but very little is absorbed, the amount in any single dose of a vaccine is incredibly tiny, and most vaccines that used it were reformulated in the wake of Wakefield. The presence of mercury in it doesn't mean much out of context; cobalt is seriously toxic to humans as well, but it's present in cyanocobalamin, aka Vitamin B12, which you regularly ingest in your food without a second thought.
Meanwhile, I have never heard that there is an inherent or natural right to spread potentially deadly infectious diseases to others. I don't think there was a plot to leave it out of the Constitution, the Atlantic Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or any other document. Even the Bible comes down foursquare on the side of quarantine.

Colonel Tom, I had a "robotic"-assisted prostatectomy. I went back to the OR for the interventional radiologist, then again for an emergency laparotomy. I was a week in SICU, either heavily sedated, lightly comatose, or both. I was another week on a regular floor, most of which is a blur too. I was blunted for months after. Finally realized I often can't recall names I should know well until well after I need them. My brain throws out plausible but wrong answers (Frederick Turner for Frederick Remington, Keith-somebody for Ken Russell, etc.). Recently I meant to reference "regression to the mean" but could only come up with "reversion"; good substitution, but still wrong. I find that if I review everything I know about the person or thing, it will eventually come to me, but it can take any time from minutes to a day or so.
Now as to the Pauls, the two of them, and many another libertarian, are somewhere between obtuse and detestable. I have often said that Ron Paul puts the "Aryan" in "libertarian". I share the opinions of them are expressed well by Prof. Steve Dutch at this link: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/NoLibert.HTM

Old Rockin' Dave, the technique of not trying to remember a name, but remembering an event or circumstance where you used that name. Sometimes it works.
I actually called up a friend doing research with access to a PET scanner. For the shear fun of it, we traced the three areas of my brain that got zapped. I thought it was important at the time.
I find "libertarianism" such a strange mindset. While I actually am a huge fan of self-sufficiency and discipline, I am also a person who had the safety net there for them after his father died at a very young age. Social security and my father's VA benefits are what kept us in beans and corn meal. Back then, summer jobs and selling your life to the military were enough to get you a college career.

Given your ability to devastate the most impervious medical quackery with reason and logic, after all these years, I still am amazed how politics seems to short-circuit that part of your reasoning mind. I see your two Republicans with Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer (or any other D from California) and raise you Dennis Kucinich.

Here's how another Science oriented blogger put it 3 years ago:
http://www.science20.com/cool-links/urban_legend_democrats_are_proscien…

Here’s how another Science oriented blogger put it 3 years ago:
And here's how another Science oriented blogger kicked seven kinds of sh1t out of Berezow and Campbell's tendentious exercise two years ago:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/progressive-mythology/

In the comments, of course. :-)

Battling antivaccinationists at FreedomFest, part 2 (Dr. Whitaker responds)

oracknows — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:00:37 +0000

Battling antivaccinationists at FreedomFest, part 2 (Dr. Whitaker responds)

During this year's TAM, I had the distinct pleasure of accompanying Steve Novella and Michael Shermer to debate an antivaccinationist at FreedomFest, a conservative/libertarian confab that was going on in Las Vegas at the same time as TAM. That antivaccinationist turned out to be Dr. Julian Whitaker, a man who champions Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and is one of Suzanne Somer's doctors. There's no polite way to put this, Steve Novella wiped the floor with Dr. Whitaker, mercilessly pummeling him with facts, analysis, and logic to the point where even the audience appeared to be grumbling. Even though I am someone who has demonstrated over the years a proclivity for applying heapin' helpin's of not-so-Respectful Insolence to antivaccinationists like Dr. Whitaker, even I was starting to feel a little bit sorry for him by the end of the debate, although not sorry enough to lay off of him after the debate was over. As you will recall, I went up to the table, along with a statistician I didn't know, and started asking some very pointed questions about a graph he used to demonstrate the "autism epidemic" and correlate it with increasing numbers of vaccines. That graph is reproduced below, my having taken a picture of it from the newsletter passed out before the debate:

As I said in my last post, seldom have I seen such statistical, mathematical, and scientific ignorance on display in one graph. After all, Dr. Whitaker extrapolated from a dataset starting apparently at 2000, producing in essence exponential graphs in which autism incidence for boys will reach 100% by 2032 and 100% for girls by 2041. Yes, I kid you not. That's exactly what the graphs claim. So the statistician and I asked Dr. Whitaker how he generated the graph, what datasets he used, what statistical model he used, his justification for using what appears to be an exponential curve fit; what software he used; and in general how he can justify a projection that shows 100% of the population being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders within 30 years. Dr. Whitaker's answers were evasive and indicated that he clearly didn't know what he was talking about. To his credit, he did say that he would send me the information I requested, and I did give him my e-mail address. He also told me that a man named Shawn Siegel had made the graph for him. Siegel describes himself as having done "research," but his research and reality are related to each other only by the occasional coincidence. One might expect someone like Siegel to produce something so utterly ignorant. He has no scientific training. However, someone like Dr. Whitaker should really know better. But he doesn't. He not only believes such an utterly incompetent graph, but publishes it in his newsletter and uses it during his talks to fool the scientifically illiterate.

In any case, I haven't heard back from Dr. Whitaker yet (not that I really expected to), but my readers inform me that he has answered, after a fashion, in the comments of a blog post he had written earlier. I guess the after having been asked again and again how he had done the graph in the comments of the post and on his Facebook page he finally felt compelled to answer. Unfortunately, his answer equals the scientific insight of the original graph, and I don't mean that in a good way. You'll see what I mean in a minute:

I understand that the projected rate of 100 percent seems unreasonable. However, the graph is based on estimated autism rates of 1 in 5,000 in 1982 (a rough estimate based on the fact autism rates were not routinely recorded back then) and 1 in 91 in 2009 http://pediatrics.aappublicati..., for an average yearly increase of about 14 percent. (Current statistics reveal that 1 in 88 children are now affected. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/auti...

The graph reflects the assumption that the current rate of autism diagnoses continues in this upward trend unabated. According to these numbers, autism spectrum disorder will saturate the pediatric population by 2040. Anyone who does the math will come to the same conclusion.

No, he will not. Anyone who tries to do the math correctly will conclude that whoever made this graph is an idiot.

I'm half-tempted to let the reader figure out what's wrong with this for himself or herself. Let's see. Did Dr. Whitaker really just extrapolate between two points, a 1 in 5000 incidence in 1982 to a 1 in 91 prevalence in 2009. Leaving aside the fact that this apparent increase in autism prevalence is likely mostly due to broadening of the diagnostic criteria, increases screening, and diagnostic substitution, I can't help but note that Dr. Whitaker lays down a lot of wrong here. The study he cites found an autism prevalence of 1 in 110 in 2007, not 2009. So let's take a look at what he appears to have done. Now, for the life of me, I can't figure out how he got a 14% per year increase. Such an increase from 1 in 5000 would equal (0.0002 x 1.14²⁷), which is 0.00688, or roughly 1 in 145, not 1 in 91. If we use the year 2007, which is the year whose data was reported in the referenced paper, the results are even further away. If you use 2012 (i.e., 30 years), then you can get close (0.102 or 1 in 98), but that would be wrong. So right off the bat, something's weird.

It's much, much worse than that. What Dr. Whitaker apparently does is to make an estimate of a yearly percent increase from two data points, one of which is pretty uncertain and the other of which is separated by 25 years (except that, apparently, he used 27 years). It then takes that estimate and extrapolates out into the future, assuming that autism prevalence will keep increasing at 14% per year until it hits 100%. Either that, or he fitted an exponential curve to the data in this table and extended an estimate based on data points over an eight year period thirty years into the future. Again, this is wrong on many levels. I did think of back calculating to figure out exactly how Shawn Siegel or Dr. Whitaker (or whoever) did construct this graph, but, really, why bother? (My readers can do this is they wish, but, again, why bother to do the work that it would take?) His base assumptions are so wrong, so utterly brain-dead, that all that is left is to point out that his assumptions are so utterly ridiculous that any extrapolation he does can be immediately dismissed.

If you don't believe me, then just look at the graph again and consider something that was mentioned in the comments of my original post. Look at the graph. It shows autism prevalence for boys reaching 100% by 2032 and autism prevalence for the entire population reaching 100% by around 2038. Now consider: According to the same graph, autism prevalence for girls won't reach 100% until 2041. This is impossible on a mathematical basis alone. For the autism prevalence to be 100%, it must be 100% in both boys and girls, but Dr. Whitaker's graph doesn't show girls reaching 100% until after it reaches 100% of the population at large. The only way this could happen is if prevalence among boys went higher than 100%. Again, this is impossible.

None of this stops Dr. Whitaker from opining:

Again, the fact that it goes to 100 percent is certainly alarming and hard to believe. Confounding factors include the likelihood that not all children will be vaccinated, the potential for changes in autism diagnostic parameters, and the possibility that rates of increase will decline. (On the other hand, rates may also increase.)

For those who take issue with this projection, check the relevant data I’ve provided and do your own projection.

I did, and I conclude that Dr. Whitaker doesn't know what he's talking about. You can't take two data points, one of which is uncertain, extrapolate an exponential curve between them, and then assume that that rate of increase will just go on indefinitely. Diseases like this might follow a sigmoidal curve, but there would be no way of estimating where the curve is likely to level off without many data points. Even then, one extrapolates more than a little bit beyond existing data at one's own peril. Doing such an extrapolation based on two data points Of course, the truly ignorant assumption behind these graphs, even more so than the bizarre mathematics, is the idea that, even if autism prevalence were increasing this amazingly rapidly, it must be vaccines that are causing it.

Perusing the original newsletter that I described, I now can't believe I missed the part where Dr. Whitaker was in essence taunting Steve because apparently he couldn't make it to FreedomFest last year. According to Steve, he was invited at the last minute and details weren't properly nailed down before his responsibilities at TAM overtook him. According to Dr. Whitaker:

Have you ever been to a widely publicized debate between two adversaries where only one of them showed up?

Well, I have. I was all set to debate Steven Novella, MD, from Yale University School of Medicine at FreedomFest in Las Vegas in mid-July. We were to argue the pros and cons of the mandated vaccine program that Americans have endured for years. But Dr. Novella simply didn’t show, and I was left to present my point of view: strong opposition to this nonsense, as you’ll read in the first story. I had looked forward to the debate, but at least I was able to tell the hundreds of people in the audience about the horrific damage vaccines are inflicting on our children—and that is hardly debatable.

Except, of course, that it was very debatable. Dr. Whitaker's day of reckoning had been delayed a year, but it came, and when it came he looked about as foolish as foolish can be. I strongly doubt that there will be a rematch, as I suspect that even Dr. Whitaker must realize how thoroughly humiliated he was.

Finally, Steve makes an excellent point:

...debating cranks and true-believers can be effective skeptical outreach, if you have sufficient mastery of the topic at hand. I would add that mastery includes more than knowledge of the science of the topic itself, but also knowledge of the arguments used by the other side. Just as many solid evolutionary scientists have been demolished in debates against slick creationists (like the infamous Duane Gish), it would be folly to go up against an anti-vaccinationist without a thorough knowledge of their propaganda.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I usually don't agree with debating cranks like Dr. Whitaker. However, not everyone agrees with me. I respect that, and Steve's commanding performance almost changed my mind. If, however, you're going to take on an antivaccine crank like Dr. Whitaker (or a creationist crank or an alternative medicine crank, or any other crank), you absolutely need to know the common distortions, misinformation, and tropes used by that flavor of crank. It's not enough to know the science. You need to know how that science is distorted by cranks. Steve knew that. My guess is that Dr. Whitaker's originally scheduled opponent probably didn't. Too bad for Dr. Whitaker that his original opponent had to bow out and Steve was actually available this year.

oracknows Wed, 07/18/2012 - 21:00

Battling antivaccinationists at FreedomFest

oracknows — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 01:00:32 +0000

Battling antivaccinationists at FreedomFest

Like so many other skeptics, I just returned from TAM, which, despite all the conflict and drama surrounding it this year, actually turned out to be a highly enjoyable experience for myself and most people I talked to. As I've been doing the last few years, I joined up with Steve Novella and other proponents of science-based medicine to do a workshop about how difficult it is to find decent health information on the Internet, and how the "University of Google" all too frequently puts quackery on the same level as reliable sources of medical information because all that matters for most search engines when it comes to ranking search results is the number and kinds of sites that link to a given site.

One of the best things that happened at TAM was also one of the most unexpected. it could also have been the worst thing that happened there, but fortunately it turned into a major skeptical win. Yes, I know that's a bit of a spoiler, but the fun of this story is journey, so to speak, not the outcome. Wednesday evening, I happened to run into Evan Bernstein, who informed me of something that Steve Novella was going to do the next day, right after our workshop. Basically, I learned that Steve was going to debate an antivaccinationist. Evan didn't know any details other than that Michael Shermer had arranged it and that Steve had been tapped at the last minute. He didn't even know who the antivaccinationist was going to be or what the event was. Naturally, I was intrigued.

So, the next morning I asked Steve about it. I turns out that the event was FreedomFest, a right-wing/Libertarian confab that happened to be going on at the same time as TAM up the road a piece on the Strip at Bally's. Steve didn't know who the antivaccinationist was going to be either, which made me marvel at him. I don't know that I'd have the confidence agree to walk into the lion's den with less than a day's notice not even knowing who my opponent is. Steve invited me along. Clearly, this was was an opportunity that I couldn't resist. So we met up with Michael Shermer, and it was from him that I learned that Steve's opponent would be Dr. Julian Whitaker.

My eyes lit up.

To my surprise, neither Steve nor Michael knew who Dr. Whitaker was. Being more than happy to give them some background on Dr. Whitaker, I told them. Regular readers here might remember that I've mentioned Dr. Whitaker before. First off, he's a big fan of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, serving as the primary pro-Burzynski medical "expert" in that propagandistic paean to the brave maverick doctor, Burzynski: The Movie:

Dr. Whitaker is also big among the "alternative medicine" crowd for his claims to be able to cure diabetes "naturally," without food or drugs (of course!). In doing so, he claims that metformin doesn't work, antibiotics don't work (because, apparently, they don't succeed in saving every diabetic foot) and that, in general, conventional medicine doesn't work. If you really want to know all you need to know about him in a nutshell, Dr. Whitaker is apparently one of Suzanne Somers' doctors and was featured prominently in her cancer quackery book Knockout.

But how did this whole event come about? According to Shermer, apparently the doctor who was originally going to be Dr. Whitaker's opponent, a local pulmonologist, became ill at the last minute and couldn't appear. I rather suspect in retrospect that Dr. Whitaker probably now wishes that his original opponent hadn't been forced to bow out. (You'll see why soon enough.) The next question I wondered about was: Why was this pseudodebate going to be held at FreedomFest? That's easy. If you look at the FreedomFest program and scroll down to Dr. Whitaker, you'll note that he is the founder of the Freedom of Health Foundation, which is, as you probably guessed, an organization designed to promote "health freedom" (or, as I like to call it, freedom for quacks from pesky government interference directed at protecting the public).

So, the stage was set. Michael Shermer invited us to hop into his car, and we headed up to the strip to join the battle.

The debate

We arrived at Bally's about 45 minutes before the debate was scheduled, wending our way through the casino and hotel to easily find the convention area where FreedomFest was being held. Even though we hadn't registered and didn't have a badge, the organizer Mark Skousen was more than happy to let us wander around the exhibit area until it was time for the debate. It was an...interesting experience. Not unexpectedly, there were various publishers and authors pushing books that either claimed that President Obama is destroying America, blamed him for the economic meltdown, made apocalyptic predictions about our health care system in the wake of the passage of "Obamacare" (properly known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), and in general attacking anything "socialist," which apparently includes the entire Democratic Party and a lot of Republicans as well, all aided and abetted, of course, by the "liberal" media. Peppered in among the right wing literature, there were also various conservative and libertarian activist groups trying to get people to join up and stop Obama from destroying America. (I notice that Obama destroying America seemed to be a major theme running through a lot of the exhibits I saw at FreedomFest.) There were also a lot of investment companies that I had never heard of before, such as Sovereign Investment services (one wonders if it meant this "sovereign"), as well as that old popular standard, companies hawking gold coins or gold bullion as a hedge against the day the economy completely collapses.

Don't get me wrong. There were a lot of respectable exhibitors there, too, such as Reason Magazine and others, but there was a lot of dodgy stuff there as well. Naturally the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and Heritage Foundation were there to promote anthropogenic global warming denialism, among their other causes. It wasn't just politics and economics, either. There was also a bit of the old woo, as well. Prominent among the woo was a company selling hair loss remedies. (Given the setting, the jokes practically write themselves.) Then Michael Shermer showed us a booth selling pendants that supposedly provide "hidden meanings." We spoke with the proprietor a while. She was very friendly and cordial to us, but it rapidly became clear that this hiddenmeanings jewelry fused an unholy combination of The Secret, numerology, and Bible Code-like readings of—you guessed it—hidden meanings in the symbols and text that can be found in the symbol in the jewelry. Let's just put it this way. One of the slogans of the company is "It can mean Anything to Anybody at Anytime!"

I'm sure that's probably true.

As the time drew near, we ceased our odyssey through libertarian commerce and headed over to the Silver Room, where the debate was to be held. I immediately saw that something else was wrong. As we entered the room, we immediately encountered a woman passing out a newsletter, Dr. Whitaker's Health & Healing: Your Definitive Guide to Wellness Medicine. It was the September 2011 issue, and, emblazoned across the page was a large headline Vaccinations: The Destruction of Our Country. This does not bode well, I thought, as I thumbed through the newsletter, which packed pretty much every major antivaccine trope into a single article to produce antivaccine pseudoscience so dense that it collapsed into a black hole, beyond whose event horizon no science, reason, or critical thinking could escape. I could feel the pull on my neurons, which cried out not to be sucked down into the black hole. Fortunately, Orac is made of sterner stuff than that. I did, however, take a picture of the newsletter for your edification because I didn't want to give Dr. Whitaker my e-mail address to get his online newsletter:

As you might imagine, I immediately recognized Dr. Whitaker. He's not hard to miss, being a rather large, gregarious, and somewhat imposing man, who immediately came up to greet Michael Shermer, who introduced him to Steve and myself.

Then I saw the moderator.

My first thought was that she looked very, very familiar, but I just couldn't remember who she was. Then, hanging in the background given that I wasn't the featured speaker and was basically tagging along for support, I saw her introduce herself and Dr. Whitaker to Steve and Michael as Leslie Manookian. It was then that I knew that this was going to be a typical pseudodebate about pseudoscience. Before Steve went up on stage, I warned him that I thought Dr. Whitaker was probably pretty slick and might well be able to do the Gish gallop with aplomb. I also warned him that the moderator was a die-hard antivaccine propagandist, having made—you guessed it!—a propaganda movie that I reviewed last year, The Greater Good. I later learned that there were going to be two screenings of the movie at FreedomFest, one at 8 PM that night and one the next afternoon. Lovely, I thought. The health freedom wing of the Libertarian movement is flaunting its embrace of antivaccinationism at one of its big conferences. Marvelous.

And so the debate began. Manookian started out by saying she never questioned vaccines until "she met a guy." Apparently, this guy believed that his child had been rendered autistic by vaccinations, having regressed within a fairly recent time frame after a round of vaccines. She then "did research" and became increasingly appalled by what she found, which, from what I could tell, were mostly anecdotes and the usual pseudoscientific arguments used by antivaccinationists. As a result, Manookian became an antivaccinationist—sorry, a vaccine "skeptic"—so much so that she went on to make an antivaccine propaganda movie, to which I subjected myself in order to review.

She then went on to start the debate out by asking Drs. Whitaker and Novella why there is a "debate" about vaccines. At this point, my teeth immediately began to grind, to the point where I feared for my molar enamel. This is a typical framing of what I (and many others) like to call a "manufactroversy." Basically, the word manufactroversy is short for "manufactured controversy" and is basically a pseudocontroversy that is created to oppose conclusions overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and/or science. Examples abound, of course: Anthropogenic global warming, vaccines, much of alternative medicine, "9/11 Truthers," and "birthers." The bottom line, is that there is no scientific controversy over whether vaccines cause autism. The question has been asked multiple times and answered multiple times: No. Of course, being a scientist, I have to qualify that just a little bit by saying that "no" means that we can't detect an effect above the noise level of the epidemiological studies that have been done. In other words, even if there is an effect, it is so small that it can't be detected by current epidemiological methods, which can detect pretty darned small effects. For all intents and purposes, as far as science can tell, vaccines do not cause autism. Neither does the mercury in the thimerosal preservative that until 2001 was used in many childhood vaccines. They just don't; scientists have moved on, regardless of what antivaccinationists claim.

Dr. Whitaker started out with what was essentially the same old tropes, including confusing correlation with causation, harping about how autism prevalence has skyrocketed since the 1980s and 1990s. He made the claim that almost no child was developmentally disabled 30 years ago but now one in 88 children are diagnosed as having an autism spectrum disorder. During this segment, he also went on about how chronic diseases are skyrocketing along with autism and that it must be the evil vaccines. OK, I added the "evil" part, but it was quite clear that Dr. Whitaker thinks that they are evil. He made that very clear. So did Manookian, for that matter.

This was just the warmup. Steve, as you might imagine, easily demolished these arguments, pointing out that correlation does not equal causation. He also discussed how there have been several very large studies that controlled for relevant variables have failed to find even (as I like to put it) even a whiff of a hint of a correlation between vaccination and either autism prevalence or onset. He discussed how we as humans are hard-wired to infer causation from observed correlation, which makes it very understandable that people mistakenly conclude that vaccines cause autism? Why? Because, as we've discussed time and time again here, autism is often diagnosed in the age range when children receive a lot of vaccines, which means that by random chance alone we will often see diagnoses made in close temporal proximity to a round of vaccinations. Moreover, it was easy for Steve to point out that diagnostic criteria were broadened in the early 1990s, that schools started screening for autism, and that schools also got funding from the government to help autistic students. Again, Dr. Whitaker's arguments were softball pitches, easily hit out of the ballpark as Prince Fielder hit balls out of the ballpark three days earlier in the pre-Allstar Game Home Run Derby. In essence, Dr. Whitaker made the same sort of ignorant arguments that Dr. Jay Gordon regularly makes, as exemplified in the comments after this excellent post by Emily Willingham why the "autism epidemic" is almost certainly no epidemic at all.

There is one point that I would have added that Steve didn't. It's a general rule in medicine that the more you look for something, as in launching mass screening programs, the more you will find it. Always. Consider ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which is a premalignant precursor of breast cancer, a certain percentage of which (not fully known) will progress to become breast cancer. Back in the early 1900s, DCIS was rare because by the time it grew large enough to be a palpable mass, it almost always had become invasive cancer. Now, thirty years after mass mammographic screening programs became prevalent, DCIS is a common diagnosis. Indeed, approximately 40% of breast cancer diagnoses are in fact DCIS, and a recent study found that DCIS incidence rose from 1.87 per 100,000 in the mid-1970s to 32.5 in 2004. That’s a more than 16-fold increase over 30 years, and it’s pretty much all due to the introduction of mammographic screening. This sort of thing should not be surprising to doctors, but apparently sometimes it is.

Dr. Whitaker emulates Penn Jillette, but not in a good way

It was at this point that Dr. Whitaker lived up to the name of Penn Jillette's Friday night party at TAM: He brought the stupid. Oh, man, did he bring the stupid! First, he stated unequivocally that he thought that vaccines were the primary cause of autism, scoffing at the idea that it was primarily genetic in nature or that vaccines were not causing it. As bad as that was, worse was to come, and it did when Dr. Whitaker showed this graph:

I reproduced this graph from his newsletter because I instantly saw that it was the same graph:

I want you to sit back for a minute and drink in the utter silliness of this graph, the utter lack of science, the utter nonsense. It's been a long time since I've seen its like. I'm sure many of you can figure out what's wrong with it on your own, but my duty as blogger demands that I explain, and I'll give it exactly the time it deserves. Take a look. Notice how Dr. Whitaker extrapolates from a small dataset to produce curves that go right up to 100/100, or 100%. Steve's jaw (and mine and, I daresay, Michael Shermer's jaws) dropped in astonishment. That's right. Dr. Whitaker produced a graph that predicted that by the year 2032 all boys will be diagnosed with an ASD and that by 2041 all girls will also have autism. I kid you not. Lest you think that this wasn't Dr. Whitaker's intention, that he didn't know the implications of his extrapolation, I will quote from the relevant section of Dr. Whitaker's newsletter discussing the graph:

Let's do some simple math based on these solid statistics. Beginning in 1990, when the mass vaccination program took off, the incidence of autism and autism spectrum disorder in children exploded. The projections indicate that by the year 2031, virtually all male children will be diagnosed with autism or autism spectrum disorder, followed by all girls in 2041. Autistic kids will surely outnumber normal kids in the relatively near future. How will our society function if all kids age 10 and younger are so disables. This is the most frightening projection I can imagine, and it is simple math!

What is going on? The one obvious and absolute constant for these skyrocketing numbers of autistic and learning disabled children is vaccinations. Over the last 25 years, the number of vaccinations forced on our children has virtually exploded. Why? Are measles, mumps, chicken pox, and flu really that dangerous? In my opinion, irrevocable harm caused by vaccinations is infinitely worse than the diseases we vaccinated against.

Later, Dr. Whitaker writes:

There are only two things that can stop this madness. First, parents must have the right to decide what is injected into their children. Second, laibility must be borne by the pharmaceutical companies.

If these two things happen, we might recover from this nightmare. If they don't, armed guards will be escorting our children to vaccination centers, and, within a few decades, our children—and our country—will be destroyed. Many of you will live to see this devastation. But most of your children and grandchildren will be so damaged by vaccinations that they will not notice it. They will be lost to autism. That, my friends, is simple math.

So, is Obama destroying America, or are vaccines destroying America? I get so confused.

Apparently Dr. Whitaker doesn't recognize the difference between "simple" and "simple-minded." I do rather admire the apocalyptic imagery for its sheer loony excess, combining antivaccine misinformation and anti-government conspiracy theories into a highly toxic brew. Fortunately, Dr. Whitaker did manage to restrain himself from using imagery quite as overblown during the debate, although it probably would have been more entertaining if he had not.

To cap it off the stupid, Dr. Whitaker scaled the Y-axis to go up to 120. This was so bad that I almost felt sorry for Dr. Whitaker. When Steve explained why these graphs were so silly, the audience "got it" instantly, and it was at that point that Dr. Whitaker began to lose the audience, which became fidgety when he spoke. Some of the audience even started muttering about how bad he was, and I'm not referring to Michael Shermer and myself. We were doing more than muttering about how pathetic Dr. Whitaker's performance was. We were outright saying it to each other in those low voices people use when they have to say something but want to avoid disturbing others.

It was also at this point that I realized that I could actually do what Steve does. On balance, I knew how to answer all of Dr. Whitaker's arguments as well as he did. In some cases, Steve did better than I probably could have. In other cases, I think I could have demolished Dr. Whitaker's arguments even better than Steve did. What I lack is Steve's preternatural ability to stay calm and not openly reveal his contempt for such a silly argument. Maybe I need to learn that. (Or not. I am, after all, Orac.) In the meantime, I was content to serve as Steve's bulldog, which is why I went up to the table to see Dr. Whitaker after the talk and ask some pointed questions about how he generated the graph.

We didn't pull any punches, either. We asked pointedly where he got the data, how he generated the data, what mathematical model he used to produce the graph, how he fitted the curve, how he could justify extrapolating so far from such a limited data set, how he decided what curve to fit, and how he can justify a curve that goes to 100% when there is virtually no condition that 100% of the population will suffer from except for (eventually) death. His answers were—shall we say?—not exactly convincing, and we kept trying to get a straight answer out of him. With only one exception, we failed. That exception was that Whitaker said that the data were from the CDC (fair enough, although it would be interesting to know the reference). How his group had created the graph, we never really found out. All he kept saying was that he just projected from the existing data. He had no clue, however, what mathematical model was used, what computer software was used, or what assumptions were made. He took my email address and promised to get send me the information. I have yet to receive it, despite sending Dr. Whitaker a friendly reminder on Twitter (@WhitakerMD; so feel free to "remind" him). To be fair, I will post about this again if he ever comes through. In the meantime, I really need to train myself to be more like Steve in these situations.

And all the rest

But enough of my shortcomings. How did the rest of the debate go? Well, it actually went pretty much like the first part of the debate. Steve basically mopped the floor with Dr. Whitaker. There was nothing left, not even a stain on the chair—metaphorically speaking, of course. It was actually rather painful to watch, in the way that it's painful to watch one baseball team get pummeled by 12 runs, even when it's a baseball team I really detest, like the New York Yankees. However, there was no "mercy rule" in debate. Basically, Dr. Whitaker trotted out a number of antivaccine "greatest hits," and Steve pummeled him for it. For instance, Dr. Whitaker showed this graph:

Yes, this graph is yet another example of one of the oldest and most deceptive antivaccine tropes, one that I like to call the "vaccines didn't save us" gambit. Basically, this intellectually dishonest—downright deceptive, actually—tactic involves pointing out that mortality was falling from a given infectious disease before a vaccine for it was introduced. In this case, it was measles and a few other diseases. The implication that antivaccinationists want people to draw is that hygiene, sanitation, and the like were the "real" causes of the decrease. The long version of the rebuttal this gambit is here. The short version is that disease incidence does not equal mortality and that measles incidence plummeted after the introduction of the vaccine. The reason mortality was falling before the vaccine was for other reasons. Medical care was getting better, and a smaller percentage of people who got the disease died from it. In fact, Dr. Whitaker explicitly stated the false premise behind this gambit, saying at one point that incidence equals mortality. Quite appropriately, Steve called him out on it, and did it in a way that the audience understood it.

Other issues that came up included some dubious antivaccine studies that we've covered at various times before, including some dubious antivaccine studies that we've covered at various times before. Dr. Whitaker also called for a "vaxed vs. unvaxed" study, but completely misunderstood the issues involved. He apparently thinks that such a study would could consist of just looking at vaccinated versus unvaccinated children without controls for various confounding factors. However, at times he seemed to be calling for a randomized "vaxed vs. untaxed" study, because at one point he complained about studies not having placebo controls. Steve pointed out that such a study would be unethical. Dr. Whitaker also complained about randomized studies of new vaccines because the placebo control wasn't just saline but had all the other ingredients besides the antigens, including adjuvants, seemingly not realizing that, scientifically speaking, that is an even more appropriate control than saline.

Finally, the bulk of the last one third of the debate was more about politics than about science. Dr. Whitaker brought up a Supreme Court decision last year related to vaccines, specifically Bruesewitz v. Wyeth. He didn't call it by that name, however; but it was obvious that that was what he was talking about. Not surprisingly, he also misrepresented the decision as stating that parents cannot sue vaccine manufacturers for vaccine injury. This is, of course, nonsense. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, established a no-fault compensation system, paid for by tax dollars, for children injured by vaccines. It created a new special court, the Vaccine Court, through which claims for compensation have to go through first.

This law was necessary because a flood of lawsuits was threatening the very foundation of the vaccine program, and Congress feared that there would be no vaccine manufacturers left in the United States because liability concerns would drive them out. Reasons for the law aside, not only do parents who think their children have been injured by a vaccine have recourse to the Vaccine Court, where, win or lose, their attorneys’ fees are paid by the government, parents who do not prevail in Vaccine Court can then sue in regular courts. The law simply says that they have to go through this special court first. The Vaccine Court also happens to have easier rules of evidence (i.e., not applying Daubert tests to expert witness testimony) and in essence bends over backward to try to compensate children injured by vaccines. Not only that, but the Vaccine Court reimburses claimants for reasonable attorney and court costs and, as a result, has become a bit of a gravy train for a certain group of lawyers who represent parents in front of the court. In any case, although there are a bunch of nuances about product liability and other issues, when you boil it down to its essence, all Bruesewitz v. Wyeth says is that the law as written currently prevents parents who do not prevail in Vaccine Court from suing in state court. They have to go to federal courts.What Dr. Whitaker harped on is what antivaccinationists always harp on about this decision is a line from the dissent by Justice Sotomayor about vaccines being "unavoidably unsafe."

That was the CliffsNotes version of the ruling. You can find out more here and here.

The final question was a simple one: Should there be mandatory vaccination? Obviously Dr. Whitaker railed on about "health freedom" and how parents should have the right to control the health care of their children. I also rather suspect that this was the main reason most people attended, because the audience definitely got antsy when the discussion veered away from this topic after the question was mentioned. Steve wisely took the tack that this is a political question, not a scientific question. He then reiterated that the science is clear: School vaccine mandates lead to higher vaccination rates, which lead to lower rates of vaccine-preventable illnesses. It is thus up to us and the political process what we wish to do with these scientific findings. And that's what I usually say, too. Science informs policy, but it is the political process that determines policy. School vaccine mandates work, and at the very least it should be as hard to get exemptions, be they religious or philosophical, to such mandates as it is to follow the vaccine schedule. But that's just my view.

When all is said and done, I must admit that I was actually rather shocked at the outcome of this debate. I say that not because I don't have total faith in Steve's abilities and didn't expect him to acquit himself well, but rather for the same reason that I've always thought it was a bad idea to debate pseudoscientists. I realize that not everyone agrees with me about this, and, because Steve and I work together, I thought it was my duty to support him in any way I could. Be that as it may, I expected Dr. Whitaker to be much slicker and harder to handle than he in fact turned out to be. Quite frankly, he was painfully bad, and I felt really stupid for having overestimated his abilities so massively. On the other hand, it's always better to overestimate your opponent than to underestimate him. In any case, Dr. Whitaker made easily rebutted arguments, couldn't even Gish Gallop very well at all, was ignorant of the science, even bad studies that purport to show a link between vaccines and autism, and appeared completely flummoxed by obvious points that any halfway decent debater would expect his opponent to make. In short, he looked every bit as though he had expected a cakewalk and as though he is used to adoration, not challenge.

Steve gave him that, and more. From the reaction of the audience, I'm also pretty sure that he got through to some fence sitters.

Unfortunately, it's not a surprise that this sort of nonsense showed up at FreedomFest. Antivaccine quackery is not just for crunchy well-off liberals living in enclaves on the coasts. It's quite popular among the "health freedom" movement, and the health freedom movement is very much sympathetic to the Tea Party movement, as I've pointed out recently mentioning a post by Kent Heckenlively at the antivaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism in which he bragged about connections between the Canary Party (which is rabidly antivaccine) and the Tea Party in California. One also notes that in the comments after that post, Jake Crosby extensively parroted Tea Party talking points.

I will finish by pointing out that it's one thing for an antivaccine "party" like the Canary Party to link up with a local Tea Party organization. It's quite another thing when a national meeting in which many of the luminaries of conservatism, libertarianism, and the Tea Party movement go to pow-wow together starts giving a platform to antivaccinationists. It is disturbing in the extreme that what has become a major conservative meeting every year would allow such rank antivaccine quackery a prominent place in its program, with a "debate" and two screenings of a movie that is nothing more than antivaccine propaganda disguised as a "tell both sides"-style "balanced" documentary. It's not the first time this has happened, either. I found last year's list of speakers, and Dr. Whitaker was there, giving a talk entitled Vaccines: Good or Bad?, and in 2010 he presented a talk entitled "Treatment for Heart Disease, Diabetes, and Cancer; the good, the bad, and the stupid." This seems to be a relatively recent development, too. I checked the 2008 and 2009 speaker lists, and there was no Dr. Whitaker, nor were there any talks on vaccines. Given this recently added "feature" of FreedomFest, all I can say to Mr. Skousen is: For shame!

oracknows Sun, 07/15/2012 - 21:00

Categories

Policy

Dr. Whitaker is a Scientology doctor. He claims he's not a member himself, which I believe, but he is one of the most prominent people behind the Scientology anti-psychiatry group CCHR (Citizens Commission on Human Rights) and their "Industry of Death" anti-psychiatry museum in LA. They claim, among other things, that psychiatrists were really responsible for the Holocaust, putting Scientology up there with the Holocaust deniers.

Scientology is full of medical quackery and Whitaker promotes a lot of their nonsense. For instance, they believe in massive doses of niacin and other vitamins instead of medical intervention and to "detox". Whitaker endorses these ideas in the mainstream world. He is also good friends with Rashid Buttar.

Several DAN! doctors are also scientologists, as they share common quackery.

For more on the connection between Scientology, autism and Whitaker, I recommend this article. It includes a mention of Dan Olmsted who used to work for a Moonie newspaper.

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2006/11/07/autism-scientology-and-the-…

Oh, I wish I could have been there!

I am also very curious about that graph. Typically on a graph you put larger graphics (points) to designate those locations that you have actual data. The line would only be the estimated fit for the graph. This is why the graphs actually have points that are not on the line, and you hear the terms "R-squared" and "nonlinear regression."

In other words: extrapolate past the available data with caution. Especially if you think going to 120 out of 100 is actually feasible. I actually like imaginary numbers, but that is ridiculous!

I want to know where those big fat points come from. Especially the ones that actually show a change of exponential slope above 90%. Why does it decelerate then?

It is really an example of making stuff up that has no relation to reality.

It's a Spinal Tap graph. "It goes to 11!"

(I couldn't put the umlaut over the a in Spinal.)

Is there footage!! Seems to have been an awesome encounter. Wonder what Whittaker and Manookian thought of the whole fiasco.

Maybe we should send a big thank you to the pulmonologist who dropped out (Why you would call a pulmonologist to debate vaccines beats me- would have thought someone trained in infectious diseases would have been better.

On the mortality chart wish they showed things like smallpox, polio etc. Vaccination is seriously non trivial especially in third world countries where, unfortunately, the anti vaccine cranks are creating doubts and confusion.

Wow. That graph is really impressive in awe-inspiring way. The sheer stupidity is hard to top. The only way to make it more ridiculous would be if the curve looped back along time axis.

Especially the ones that actually show a change of exponential slope above 90%. Why does it decelerate then?

It doesn't. The points are in one year increments and the apparent slow-down is an artifact - second to last increase is more than 10 percent point and the last increase has to stop on the 100% mark - so for the last year there is just last few percent points to go.

Actually, the problem is that there should be a slowdown close to 100%. If the curve was plotted based on the data resulting from an actual simulation you would expect an S-curve - with plateau closing to 100% but never reaching it. Somewhat like vertically and horizontally flipped first half of the curve, rather than perfect geometric parabolic shape we have here. Hence, my educated guess is that this data was pulled out of somebody's nether regions - somebody took the rate of increase of autism incidence and geometrically extrapolated it resulting in this ridiculous curve.

Oh, one more thing - I just realised that all three curves were plotted independently from each other. Take a look at the year 2028. Autism incidence among boys reach 50%. So you would expect that general population incidence would be more than 25%, right? Nope, here we barely got to 20%. Apparently, within decade there is going to be twice as many girls as boys.

One of the slogans of the company is “It can mean Anything to Anybody at Anytime!”

Cripes, I could have shown up with a pallet of copies of the Bollingen I Ching and cut this fellow off at the knees.

Wait, but if autistics become 100% of new births, I won't be disabled anymore! Awesome!

Cecil Fielder

Dude. [/pedantry[

It's even stupider than that--according to the graph, autism diagnoses are due to reach 100% in the general population 3 years or so before they reach 100% in girls. Apparently by that time the epidemic will have reached such heights that MORE than 100% of boys will be autistic.

If Steve managed to explain what was wrong with that diagram without using the word "stupid", he's a better man than I.

Science marches on & anti-vaccinationists are still stuck in the late 1990's. Jeez, don't these guys get new talking points at all?

I would have loved to have seen that - and that type of audience, probably young, Ron Paul supporters (amongst the group) aren't stupid - they are pretty well educated and have a good grasp of the Science involved. The Canary Party might think they are allies, but if they ever got down to the "crazy" I have a good feeling which side those guys will come down on (the RP guys, I mean).

@MFII - Point of pedantry - in Spinal Tap, the umlaut is over the "n". :-)

The saddest thing: you probably didn't convince a single anti-vaxxer, not even the moderator. Their minds are too closed.

"First, parents must have the right to decide what is injected into their children. Second, laibility must be borne by the pharmaceutical companies."

What is unscientific about this orac?

"However, at times he seemed to be calling for a randomized “vaxed vs. untaxed” study, because at one point he complained about studies not having placebo controls. Steve pointed out that such a study would be unethical."

Why is this unethical orac, there are plenty of people who don't vaccinate, is it unethical to prove that vaccines don't work?

"This law was necessary because a flood of lawsuits was threatening the very foundation of the vaccine program, and Congress feared that there would be no vaccine manufacturers left in the United States because liability concerns would drive them out."

So does it no interest you that the flood of lawsuits may be because there is a problem with vaccination per se?

"On the mortality chart wish they showed things like smallpox, polio etc. Vaccination is seriously non trivial especially in third world countries where, unfortunately, the anti vaccine cranks are creating doubts and confusion."

Burrahobbit maybe you should check out the happyness status of all those Indians who now have Bill Gates' new version of polio, twice as deadly since the vaccine campaign and a brand new name to boot.

Dr Whitaker brought the stupid, and much hilarity ensued.
The first thing I noticed about his chart was that it goes to 120 of 100 per 100. Which 3rd graders does Whitaker have on staff. Is one of them named Cartman, by any chance?

"He made the claim that almost no child was developmentally disabled 30 years ago"

Really? That's within memory of a lot of people. Me, for instance. I don't remember there being almost no developmentally disabled people in 1982.

My grandmother had two developmentally disabled cousins born in the 1880s. From her description, they may well have been autistic. My father had a developmentally disabled cousin born in the 40s.

I donate to a charity for developmentally disabled people in group homes, many of whom are in their fifties.

Did he really expect people to believe that claim?

What was that Mark Twain quote about extrapolation of data? How if we extrapolate the data from the rate of growth of the Mississippi Delta, in a few hundred years, the delta will be fully within the state of Nebraska?

I love the "improved sanitation" argument against the success of vaccines. It works so well for explaining why Somali cattle no longer suffer from rinderpest.

Katherine Lorraine, he also said that if you extrapolated into the past, that it was once over a million miles long.

@Old Rockin' Dave:

I was looking for the quote, but putting '"Mark Twain" + "Mississippi River" quote' in Google... yea... that don't work very well.

Also, are you indeed old and rockin'? Cause that's cool.

Assuming there aren't more than one Shawn Siegel prominently "researching" vaccines, the graph was made by this guy http://www.blogger.com/profile/18299865859313681027.
His qualifications seem to be 2 years of google-U, so don't be surprised by the quality of his junior thesis.

@ Katherine:

Adding "extrapolation" to the search brings it up readily.

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

From http://www.twainquotes.com/Mississippi.html

If I had been Dr N, I would have first noted to the audience that the moderator was indeed not at all moderate. If you have a debate, the moderator should not be party to one side and ESPECIALLY should not be the creator of a biased film that trumpets that one side's beliefs.

But then again, what do you expect from these people- sense and fairness? It's not gonna happen: their entire position is scaffolded upon half-truths, semantic tricks and crappy graphs that dynamically illustrate meaningless concepts pictorially.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
our very own Lawrence ( a/k/a Brian) went forth the battle other anti-vaccinationists- @AoA- to spectacular results: while Jake's post complains about LBRB's address, Lawrence gets to the heart of that issue.And beyond, i.e. AJW. Interestingly, they allowed his comments over several days.

Yeah among other things I don't buy, "there were almost no developmentally disabled children 30 years ago" is pretty high on the list. Anecdotally, in my cohort at my school district of ~50 kids, there was 1 who was classified then as "retarded" and I don't know what he specifically would be classified with now.

I guess by antivaccine standards, it used to be 2% Progress!

Chris @0357: It looks to me like somebody has fit an exponential to each of those curves separately, and belatedly noticed that the percentage of the population with some condition cannot exceed 100%. There is a well-known quote to the effect that anybody who thinks that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world is either an idiot or an economist. Dr. Whittaker, AFAIK, does not claim to be an economist.

As for why the axis goes to 120: That looks like a standard Stupid Excel Trick. Excel defaults to giving axes a larger range than needed to plot the data contained in the plot. It also explains why the projected points look exactly like the data: whoever produced the graph plotted the fit values as a function of time.

I first saw this graph just before I was going to bed at a much too late hour. It just smacked of being made up by someone who is incompetent.

I loved this so much! Kudos to Dr. N, and thanks for writing this up Orac. I'm sure Whittaker was dismayed when he realized that this "last minute substitution" was an incredibly sharp and knowledgeable speaker/debater. Wish I could have been there.

Here's the full schedule from the Freedom Fest:

http://freedomfest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/FF-2012-Agenda-Grid.p…

"Dr. Whitaker is also big among the “alternative medicine” crowd for his claims to be able to cure diabetes “naturally,” without food or drugs (of course!). In doing so, he claims that metformin doesn’t work, antibiotics don’t work (because, apparently, they don’t succeed in saving every diabetic foot) and that, in general, conventional medicine doesn’t work."

Too bad you missed Dr. Whitaker's Saturday, July 14th Schedule to catch his lecture "Heart Disease and Diabetes: More Effective, Less Expensive, Safer Therapies".

The Pulmonologist that Dr. Novella replaced is Dr. Jonathan Baktari, who runs "The Vaccine Center" in Las Vegas, which looks to be a "Travel Medicine Clinic" for vaccinations necessary for foreign travel, and for dispensing vaccines for college entry. It doesn't seem that he takes insurance for his college entry students, and there is no insurance coverage for vaccines required for travel. He's hardly an "expert" on vaccines...but he can read the Recommended Childhood and Adult Vaccine Schedules and the CDC Yellow Book:

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/yellowbook-2012-home.htm

"“He made the claim that almost no child was developmentally disabled 30 years ago”

Really. When my son was born 36 years ago, there were a slew of developmentally disabled kids. I was able to get a place him for him in an infant stimulation program (he was 14 months old), at a school for the severely physically handicapped...which he was. I opted for that program rather than other programs because he needed a lot of the stimulation offered at that program.

Poor baby flunked out of that program, as he was obviously profoundly mentally retarded as well. I visited a number of classrooms in a number of "special" day schools and was able to secure a pre-school program for him at the local AHRC chapter.

Too bad Whitaker wasn't with me when I visited the local warehouse/developmental center when I saw the locked wards where 3,000 children and adults resided. I then wrote an article for the regional newspaper about the deplorable conditions that existed there, when the State tried to avoid the Federal-court order to place these severely and profoundly disabled people in community based group homes, by tearing down the large institutions and building mini institutions on State land. (I got paid $ 100 for the article, which I promptly donated to the family of a young infant born with biliary atresia)

Another reason why the chart should not extrapolate to 100%. Don't these kooks ever pay attention to their own propaganda? I thought the antivaxers were winning! By 2030 no-one will be vaccinated and no-one will have autism!

Regarding the prevalence of autism 20-30 years ago:
we know that the current prevalence in adults of ASD is 1%, so the prevalence in kids a generation ago must have been that or even higher (some autistics may just have had developmental delay. We just were not identifying them properly.

Woo-meisters like debates:
the set-up enables them to manipulate data and people. Grand Poobah of Woo Null tells his enraptured audience that he won EVERY single debate he ever participated in and that now the Orthodoxy, Powers-Wot-B- whatever they call SBM these days, are frightened to debate him. Just like the media are frightened to explore the REAL issues that his 'network' steeps itself in ( actually his lead-in/logo says so).

Where would woo be without cheating? Manipulating data and conducting amateurish research are the pillars of woo, thus they are necessary in a debate and quoted ad infinitum. The Gish Gallop, flooding the debates with tons of material- related or not- to distract them, is a popular tactic; extraneous details are tossed into the mix and emotionally loaded speech is par for the course- histrionics keep the audience hyped up if they are unprepared. Linguistic tricks and *leading* language are common. Because woo has gone political ( I venture that Dr N's debate, sponsored by a rightist political movement, ran deep with this undercurrent), irrelevant details about "freedom" and "liberty" might pop up as well. They try to make the audience angered that they are being treated unfairly by 'the other guys' and thus, side with their woo-ful protectors.
Having a moderator that is either in-experienced or sides with you doesn't hurt.

Hilariously, commenters at RI who counter SBM use similar techniques to "bring the stupid"... I guess that they are capable of learning and emulating role models: unfortunately they've chosen the WRONG set.

Yeah, why should we let the Government make us get our kids vaccinated? They're our kids, after all.
And while we're at it, why should we let the Government tell us what side of the road to drive on? It's my car. My taxes paid for both sides of the road, didn't they? And if I get in an accident, it's my body, isn't it? And my kids too!

“First, parents must have the right to decide what is injected into their children. Second, laibility must be borne by the pharmaceutical companies.”

What is unscientific about this orac?

He didn't say it was unscientific because it isn't a matter of science; he said it was political and partially, factually incorrect. He explains this quite clearly in his post. Please read before commenting.

“However, at times he seemed to be calling for a randomized “vaxed vs. untaxed” study, because at one point he complained about studies not having placebo controls. Steve pointed out that such a study would be unethical.”

Why is this unethical orac, there are plenty of people who don’t vaccinate, is it unethical to prove that vaccines don’t work?

The ethics of a randomised vaccinated/unvaccinated study is explained quite well here: http://silencedbyageofautism.blogspot.com/2011/03/vaccinated-vs-unvacci… and explained numerous times here. You would also need to require citations for your claim that vaccines don't work as there are hundreds, if not thousands of studies and analyses that demonstrate quite definitively that vaccines do work.

“This law was necessary because a flood of lawsuits was threatening the very foundation of the vaccine program, and Congress feared that there would be no vaccine manufacturers left in the United States because liability concerns would drive them out.”

So does it no interest you that the flood of lawsuits may be because there is a problem with vaccination per se?

I guess your Google U edumacation is failing you miserably. The problem isn't with the vaccines; it's with the perception of them by parents and hysteria drummed up by lying, ignoramuses like Barbara Loe Fisher and Andrew Wakefield.

“On the mortality chart wish they showed things like smallpox, polio etc. Vaccination is seriously non trivial especially in third world countries where, unfortunately, the anti vaccine cranks are creating doubts and confusion.”

Burrahobbit maybe you should check out the happyness status of all those Indians who now have Bill Gates’ new version of polio, twice as deadly since the vaccine campaign and a brand new name to boot.

Again, please provide evidence of your drivelling claims.

Mu,

Shawn Siegel is likely the person who made this comment:: "Any vaccine is over vaccination" (http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2010/07/cdc-vaccine-recommendati…)

Puts things in perspective.

The data in those graphs are not based on CDC data. The CDC does not collect incidence data on autism (but likely the author doesn't understand the difference between incidence and prevalence anyway). The CDC also does not issue data annually. Instead data reports are every two years.

My guess looking at the graphs is that they used an exponential and just capped it off at 1. The approach to one is somewhat disjointed. A sigma function would have been more smooth.

““He made the claim that almost no child was developmentally disabled 30 years ago”

What a load of crap. I guess that's why they closed down all those institutions, no one to fill them? Begs the question of why they built them in the first place.

there are plenty of people who don’t vaccinate

Unfortunately for your purposes, "plenty" is not the same as "enough."

My mother-in-law worked at a state school for developmentally disabled children, although that's not the language that was used at the time. (It's one of the few that's actually still open today, though she doesn't work there anymore, having moved when my father-in-law was relocated by the military.) The place opened in 1902, specifically to treat the developmentally disabled, which is quite clear when you read their charter.

That's the South Dakota Developmental Center. I happened to see it a couple of day ago, though only in the distance; I was in town for a funeral. They were quite overcrowded when my mother-in-law worked there, but reforms have changed that -- the very same reforms that lilady was involved with.

Has Thingy returned under the new name 'Bouquet'?

Renate, I thought the same thing!

Is this some new antivaccine trope I haven't come across?

Bill Gates’ new version of polio, twice as deadly since the vaccine campaign and a brand new name to boot.

"Why is this unethical orac, there are plenty of people who don’t vaccinate, is it unethical to prove that vaccines don’t work?"

Its extremely unethical to have a randomized trial where some people are purposefully left susceptible to vaccine-preventable diseases.

I realize that to a death worshiping Malthusian cultist like yourself, the prospect of someone else dying to a preventable disease is something that you'd pleasure yourself to as if it were actual pornography. However, any one with even the slightest bit of morality should recognize the problem with it.

Not to mention that the loss of a sufficient level of vaccination would destroy the shared benefit we all have from the whole thing and would actually put the rest of us at risk as well.

bouquet definitely had the distinct aroma of Thingy at first but I doubt they're one and the same. Thingy's too full of herself to change 'nyms, and she definitely knows how to blockquote.

So does it no interest you that the flood of lawsuits may be because there is a problem with vaccination per se?

The flood of lawsuits only shows that many parents perceive events to be vaccine-induced, not that vaccines actually cause such events.

Dr. Whitaker has weighed in on California AB 2109 and also *mentioned* his upcoming debate at the Freedom Fest:

http://www.drwhitaker.com/new-legislation-seriously-misleads-parents-ab…

I just posted there, but I'm stuck "in moderation".

Is this some new antivaccine trope I haven’t come across?

Bill Gates’ new version of polio, twice as deadly since the vaccine campaign and a brand new name to boot.

It's the same old non-polio AFP routine. The circulating reference appears to be to this.

Orac: "Again, Dr. Whitaker’s arguments were softball pitches, easily hit out of the ballpark as Prince Fielder hit balls out of the ballpark three days earlier in the pre-Allstar Game Home Run Derby"

The only problem with this is the propensity of antivaxers to keep recycling the same balls into play over and over and over again. You keep knocking 'em out of the park, your averages look great, you lead by an insumountable margin but your opponent is fanatically convinced that he's winning.

Speaking of which, I have no doubt that Whitaker and his fans are self-delusionally certain that he whupped Novella in the debate and that there was no answer for Whitaker's "100%" graph.

Been away a while, and wondered if the usual entertainment was still here. No (at least in this thread so far), but hey - we have a bouquet to brighten up the room! Where to begin, where to begin...

“First, parents must have the right to decide what is injected into their children. Second, laibility must be borne by the pharmaceutical companies.”

What is unscientific about this orac?

Uh, rights and liabilities have to do with law and politics, not science. Hope you weren't a library science major.

Why is this unethical orac, there are plenty of people who don’t vaccinate, is it unethical to prove that vaccines don’t work?

Did the word "randomized" not catch your attention there? This would involve not giving treatment to people who want it, and treating people who don't want it without informed consent. Get it now?

So does it no interest you that the flood of lawsuits may be because there is a problem with vaccination per se?

That's right, any time there's a lawsuit it proves there is a problem per se. So the next time someone sues the City of San Francisco for a fall on a cable car, it will prove that falling over turns you into a nymphomaniac. (
http://www.fodors.com/world/north-america/usa/california/san-francisco/… )

Yes lilady he testified against AB 2109 for the Senate Health Committee. I lost track of the misstatements and lies about vaccines half-way through his testimony.

Dr. Whitaker has weighed in on California AB 2109 and also *mentioned* his upcoming debate at the Freedom Fest:

On his FB page, he only posted a picture of his "debate" with Dr. Novella, not a word about the content. I guess just showing up is good enough for the anti-vaccinistas.

@ Narad: Your link to that PubMed citations about NPAFP (Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis) has been *touted* on all the crank websites.

(At the risk of prompting the *SFB* Troll)...here's a complete article about NPAFP in India:

http://www.medicalchannel.pk/downloads/vol16/no3/03-CAUSES%20OF%20NON%2…

From Bouquet's post:

"However, at times he seemed to be calling for a randomized “vaxed vs. untaxed” study .

Uh, untaxed? Anybody but me notice what might be a "Freudian slip?"

Anyways, it was a standard joke in my manufacturing days that you draw your curve first, then plot your data - but don't try it on your peers, or they'll rip to shreds. Do it ONLY in reports to your boss's boss who's on some kind of tangent they read about somewhere but has no clue how stuff actually works - but does have an MBA. Hopefully it'll distract them/satisfy them long enough to buy you enough time to figure out what's really going on and actually fix it - or, if it's not feasible, that they'll forget about it and move on to the next fad.

Right. The anti-vaxxers and woo-meisters just luv hatin' on the Gates and their foundation: they're gotten a lot of mileage on the topic- more fodder for blog posts and rants.

All the more reason to support the Gates.

Dr. Whitaker has his own Facebook page and he has a picture of himself (only), taken during his debate with Dr. Novella:

http://www.facebook.com/WhitakerMD

Too bad I don't "do" Facebook

puppygood @439 AM, and anyone else who likes a light serving of math --

To my eyeball, it looks as if Whitaker fit a straight exponential to the points and "just assumed" that it would continue forever, which is ludicrous.

We would have looked ever-so-slightly less stupid if he'd fit a logistic function, or sigmoid to the data. But all it would have done is added a slight patina of mathematical respectability to a dumb, dumb argument.

Egads, in the 3:20 comment read "HE would have" instead of "WE would have".

I'm sure we all look stupid from time to time, but I hope never quite THAT stupid.

@ Science Mom: I see you *got there* first (Whitaker's Facebook page). No I am not Science Mom and I am not Orac, nor are they "lilady".

How anti-vax logic works...
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2673#comic
I really wish SMBC would devote a few panels specifically to the nuttiness that is anti-vax.

Not only are vaccines a giant conspiracy, so are numbers, a fact to be revealed in 2032, when 40% of males plus 20% of females equal 100% of the population.

Heh. Sadly, for some reason I didn't notice that little part of the graph. Perhaps I was too blinded by the sheer flaming stupid of the rest of the graph.

Hm, got crossed with the similar blue graph lines for "Gen'l" and "boys". As others have noted, the ratio of boys to girls flips drastically in coming years. It must be so, it says right here on this chart ...

btw, the chart also proves Young Earth Creation; the world was created in the year 2000.

Prove me wrong ;-)

here’s a complete article about NPAFP in India

Ah.... http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=F…

The actual site appears to have had some code injected.

@ Spectator:

Aha! That flipping ratio** ( of boys to girls) indeed is part of the conspiracy - much like the flipping of the geomagnetic poles that shall occur right. about. now.- in 2012- it will serve to confuse people- catch them of fguard. I have heard tell that the Great Reallignment itself will happen in 2032..... in Glastonbury.
Prove me wrong.

** which is flipping lunacy.

@ Narad: I just tried that link again...and it *works* for me ????

http://www.medicalchannel.pk/downloads/vol16/no3/03-CAUSES%20OF%20NON%2…

Oh, I'm sure it works. Do me a favor and look at the source. Check for a blob of seemingly random characters right at the bottom.

Check for a blob of seemingly random characters right at the bottom.

Sorry, the site, not the PDF. I'll check it out myself later.

GroovyKinda:

Well played, sir!

(You are dealing with a totally inept computer techie here, Narad)

I see no "blobs" at the bottom of the article. The source of the article is here:

http://www.medicalchannel.pk/

@DW - funny you should mention flipping of the magnetic poles. Someone close to me got into a tizzy about it after listening to late night talk radio (I think it was Coast to Coast) - and that was a couple years ago. Her head is usually screwed on tighter than many other people (including mine), but you never know.

Unfortunately at the time I didn't have much knowledge at hand, other than vaguely recalling from some science show that the "flip" had occurred several times before, based on geological evidence, without undue catastrophe to life, and that my only concern would be the danger to modern satellite telecommunications, etc. - and/or not being able to rely on a traditional magnetic compass.

Later looked into it further and found the actual process of "flipping" takes 1000 to 10,000 years - which is hopefully enough time for migratory birds, satellite engineers, etc.
to adapt.

But the real science of digging through rocks and measuring gradual changes in alignment of naturally occuring magnetic minerals is boring. All or nothing catastrophes make much better sound bites.

@ Infuriatingly Moderate:

As usual, woo-meisters and altie new agers take information based in reality and screw it up phenomenally,

Here is more crap**:
right now we are entering a new age that occurs only every 260K years - HOWEVER the New Golden Age itself will take about 20 years to REALLY get going when the planet's own heart chakra will open.. in Glastonbury. I have no idea why.

I have personally been told by a new ager told that the flipping of the magnetic poles will bring about many awful phenomena and widespread devastation so I'd better get prepared... but I forget what I had to do.. it must have been really flipping awful and I repressed it all...

-btw- since the hosts of the debate Orac visited are goldbugs and hoarders, I wonder of the New Golden Age will involve the Gold Standard?

** as imagined by a Ms Cooper

Please tell me somebody recorded this, and that it will be available on YouBook or FaceTube or the like?

I knew that Bill Gates was using vaccines to reduce the world's population by 90% at his reptilian masters' bidding. I didn't realize that he personally had genetically engineered polio virus so that it doesn't show up as polio in any diagnostic tests so it can be mislabeled as acute flaccid paralysis. Just wait until VAPP SP3.

Katherine Lorraine, I don't have the exact Twain quote, but that was the essence as best as I remember.
As for being old and rocking, I am like in the Jethro Tull song, "too old to rock and roll but ...too young to die." I am actually comfortably ensconced in middle age, but I do get to rock out now and then.

lilady, you can actually read the comments left at Dr. Whitaker's facebook page. Here is one of the comment:

I would have LOVED to have been there to watch you!!! I'll bet you were quite impressive...How'd it go? Did you get anywhere? Did you film it?

Any bets if he will post a video of that debate?

Glastonbury?
I think they mean Cardiff.
"The 21st century is when everything changes. And you've got to be ready."
--Capt. Jack Harkness

"...almost no child was developmentally disabled 30 years ago"
In 1880, no one was autistic, bipolar, schizophrenic, or a psychopath. Now millions of people fall into one of more of those diagnoses. The way they have mushroomed in the last 130 years means that, by my calculations, 189.3% of the world's population, and at least 89% of extraterrestrials, will fall under every diagnosis in the eventual release of DSM LXXII.
I love statistics. One day I will even figure out what they mean.

Denice Walter tells us "I have personally been told by a new ager told that the flipping of the magnetic poles will bring about many awful phenomena and widespread devastation so I’d better get prepared… "
It will be awful indeed. All the vril will fall right out of the entrance to the hollow Earth at the North Pole, with catastrophic consequences. The Loch Ness monster will swim over to Holy Loch, swallow a thermonuclear warhead, and swim through the underground ocean to blow itself up in Stonehenge. Unless we stop vaccinating now.

Yup, just as I expected; the anti-vaccinistas don't even care about his actual performance and information, just that he showed up and debated the big bad pharma dude. Between this blogpost and his less-than-stellar debating, I doubt he will feature the video (if there is one) on his FB page. Any takers?

I notice that the first graph was provided "courtesy of Shawn Siegel". Don't suppose that would be this handsome lad:

http://www.blogger.com/profile/18299865859313681027

He describes himself has having a "4 grandkids and a modicum of common sense". A modicum indeed.

Science Mom

I doubt he will feature the video (if there is one) on his FB page.

However, I am certain he will continue to use that stupid graph. Professional associations need to do more to purge their ranks of morons who somehow managed to memorize their way to a degree. This is a problem in engineering as well as medicine.

I look forward to usual anti-vaxx suspects flinging that graph around willy nilly. When they do, their attempts to answer pointed questions should be hilarious.

@Cynical Pediatrician: I suspect this is what DW was talking about.

http://www.dianacooper.com/keys-to-the-universe/cosmic-heart.php

@Old Rockin' Dave: You rock. Never mind scientific literature - Victorian literature (Bronte, Dickens, et. al.) made it very plain how "weird people" were actually treated. Plus the books that tried to turn suffering and death into a blessing ("Little Women", "Little House on the Prairie", et. al). They had no choice. In 2012 we do.

It saddens me that the generations who remember how the so-called "good old days" really weren't that good are dying out. Like my SO's grandmother, who died at 99 in 2001 and was totally PO'd at anyone who thought she lived through a "Golden Age".

Infuriating: I think it was Otto Bettman, as in Bettman Archive, who wrote a book called "The Good Old Days: They Were Terrible". And all too often they were. When we imagine ourselves in medieval society (for example), we always see ourselves as knights and ladies and romantic (Hah!) minstrels, not one of the large number of shit shovelers, dirt diggers, and drudges who provided their luxury. For most people for most of history, daily life was dirty, itchy, and smelly, with disease and death lurking around every corner. It just was part of life, just as you say.
When I was growing up, there was no such thing as Asperger's Syndrome, so no one knew what to make of me. I was just strange, and picked on (Ironically, I would probably have done well in the shtetls and ghettos of my ancestors - a perfect Talmud scholar, devoting all his time to studying and disputation.). Autism was pathetic kids who didn't talk or do anything much else, who had to wear helmets to keep them from bashing out their brains. Bruno Bettelheim authoritatively told us all that it was all due to "refrigerator mothers", but of course there were fewer vaccines then. I and many people I know were just odd pieces from some other jigsaw puzzle. We didn't fit in and we couldn't be thrown out, just in case we might fit somewhere.
I don't know what all this has to do with antivaxers and other woo-peddlers, but sometimes it does make Orac's posts more fun, doesn't it?

The source of the article is here

When clicking on that, I am directed to a Russian-language craptacular under the "free-mobi dot net" imprimatur.

@Infuriatingly Moderate

Please tell me that Diana Cooper site is a poe. Wait a minute - you can actually buy stuff there - surely it must be pure scam, nobody can believe that much bullshit and live.

Great essay today - I don't think I would have the patience to engage in a "debate" of this sort and my hat is off to anyone who can enter the fray and remain upright.
On a local, personal note: There is a pertussis outbreak in the Pacific Northwest. I got my booster shot last week & posted on Face Book urging my friends to do likewise. Thanks to my daughter-in-law who's expecting a baby soon and wants all who come in contact to be current in their vaccination status. The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR) ran an editorial today: "Get a Shot, Save a Baby", urging all adults to be vaccinated.
Again, I've been enjoying Orac's old and new posts since I discovered this site a couple of weeks ago and I very much appreciate the erudite & educated people who also contribute comments.

@ Infuriatingly Moderate:

I swear! I get all sorts of bizarre clippings, books, articles... sometimes just a *name* because people around me know that I relish this nonsense... about 90% of them are on the same side of the fence that I am on- *however* a few are serious- like he who warned me about the great metamorphosis headed our way.
.
.the Diana Cooper stuff was from a few months ago: someone gave me a new agey magazine article clipping about her work and mission...reading through her website, suddenly a tune comes to mind: Mr Donovan Leitch waveringly intoning... "Hail, Atlantis!"

Cynical paediatrician
There are parts of cardiff where it's still 1980

Presumably they'll all be Elvis Impersonators too

Using this graph for year 8 Graph Interpretation Assessment, 'What's Wrong With This Graph?'. This is 120% GOLD!

@Infuriatingly Moderate - Mr Woo was "catching up" on his "Coast to Coast" (another protector of troof) and making it incredibly difficult for me to hear "Eureka" and "Perception" tonight while I was catching up on blogs and posts in the support group I run. He was sleeping through most of it. I was kind of happy for that - at least there was less of it for him to get wrapped up in, at least.

He listens to a regular gold-hawking radio show, too. They have assured him the economy is collapsing in three months for as long as I have known him and he is still believing them! You would think that after awhile he would notice that three months ended a long time ago. I don't mind as long as he doesn't spend too much on it, though.

What I do mind is all of the anxiety and upset it causes him. When the world is as evil as it can be portrayed in all of these alternative websites, radio programs, newsletters, etc., you end up feeling quite alone even if you do possess all that 'secret knowledge." You almost have to feel sorry for them. I know that it is a psychological trick to try to feel in control of an uncontrollable universe, but it almost seems like the more they try to imagine control of it the more they find imaginary dragons to slay in the first place.

Reality just seems a lot less frightening to me for some reason.

Denice Walter on Diana Cooper

reading through her website, suddenly a tune comes to mind: Mr Donovan Leitch waveringly intoning… “Hail, Atlantis!”

I was thinking more along the lines of Lambert Hendricks & Ross singing Twisted. I wonder if Ms Cooper refuses to ride on double decker buses because there is no driver on the top. I now what you get when you take every new age idiocy and toss them in a blender. My chakras are now thoroughly discombobulated.

Neq to this site and found this discussion very interesting.

Not as brilliant as so many of you but I couldn't help thinking about my mother herding all 7 of us to the community center in the 50's to get the little sugar cube that was to prevent polio.
Now polio is not so common anymore.

Measles, one by one we all got it. Not so common anymore. I still remember that awful smell of that pink stuff we got slathered with but can't remember the name.

I guess someone knew what they were doing.

Very much enjoy reading the discussion.

The first word was supposed to be "new". Fumble fingers.

Burrahobbit maybe you should check out the happyness status of all those Indians who now have Bill Gates’ new version of polio, twice as deadly since the vaccine campaign and a brand new name to boot.

Bouquet It so happens that I am Indian, and I live in India. I am yet to see "Bill gates new version of polio, twice as deadly...."

What I do see is a bunch of anti science idiots who are living in a comfortable, reasonably disease free world projecting their paranoid fears on the world with serious effects on the health of millions (see the effects of AIDS denialism in Southern Africa)

PS. How the hell do I italicise comment...

Burrahobbit

PS. How the hell do I italicise comment…

For a quote -
[blockquote]Stupid staement b the antivax loon[/blockquote]
Replace the [ with the less than symbol and ] with the greater than symbol.

If you just want to italicise some text like the title of a song
[i]Song Titile[/i]
Again, replace [ and ] with the less than and greater than symbols - use b to bold text and s for strike-through. Remember to use / to close the tags

Thanks Militant Agnostic

seems to work

suddenly a tune comes to mind: Mr Donovan Leitch waveringly intoning… “Hail, Atlantis!”

You should be careful with this sort of thing, as you never know when you might run into someone who has put together a video of the song with footage from Spencer Tunick shoots and so forth.

There have been some vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies done. There's one quite old one I came across an account of recently, on malaria and typhus. The doctor leading the study was one Josef Mengele. Perhaps Bouquet could go look up that work first, before deciding that we should replicate it.

After an extensive search on U-Google I haven't been able to find any video of this debate. Did no-one film it? Those of us fighting in the trenches that are not scientists would have loved to have a video of this debate to refer anti-vaxers to. Hopefully someone did and it will show up some time soon.......please.

@ Redloh:

"Measles, one by one we all got it. Not so common anymore. I still remember that awful smell of that pink stuff we got slathered with but can’t remember the name."

Look up "Calamine" lotion :-)

There have been some vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies done. There’s one quite old one I came across an account of recently, on malaria and typhus. The doctor leading the study was one Josef Mengele. Perhaps Bouquet could go look up that work first, before deciding that we should replicate it.

I somehow doubt that bouquet even understands why "find a bunch of kids whose parents won't vaccinate 'em and a bunch of kids whose parents do vaccinate 'em and compare" would not be the randomized vax vs. unvax study that is being talked about.

Here's Orac's blog on the retrospective Vaccinated-vs-Unvaccinated study...the so-called "German Study":

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/11/for-the-anti-vaccinationis…

I do feel a bit sorry for Julian Whitaker though.

His situation brings to mind an ex-minor league pitcher who joins a carnival, going from town to town challenging the top local hitters with stunts and trickery. At one stop, he finds out the high schooler he was going to throw against couldn't make it, but a kindly stranger in town offers to fill in. The stranger turns out to be...Albert Pujols.

Ouch.

I was in Beantown yesterday at the MOS and Fenway for the Sox vs Sox game so I missed this post. Whitaker's a quack and I sincerely hope that Steve got through to the fence sitters and they got a good look at the woo surrounding them and said, "OMG, WTF?"

@ Mrs Woo:

The gold hawkers! Tell me about them! I follow them because I manage my own money and advise several older cousins ( my late father did this previously- I inherited the "job"): oddly enough, a few of he woo-meisters I survey also tell their covens to stock up on gold and silver. A trend-caster tells his followers to do similarly ( Gerald Celente)- some of this stuff veers off into contrarian theories of economics ( econo-woo) of which there is, unfortunately, an endless supply. I could go on but I am expected elsewhere presently.

of which there ARE, unfortunately, an endless supply...

@Roxee

As far as I know, no one recorded the debate, and they didn't ask Steve to sign a release that I saw.

"there is virtually no condition that 100% of the population will suffer from except for (eventually) death."

Errm...the common cold?

Gerald Celente drives me absolutely up the wall! Mr Woo, of course, is completely taken with the guy (after all, he predicted 9/11 - he says he did, so it must be true!) and is now convinced that the Euro will be dead tomorrow and the rest of the European union will dissolve into a mess that will emerge being led by a new Hitler at this point.

Oftentimes I can laugh it off, but when he listens to some of these people too late into the night, or they say things that are too frightening, he ends up with terrible anxiety worrying about how his loved ones will all survive and I get so angry at them. I can't figure out how many drink their own Kool-Aid vs. how many laugh all the way to the bank at the fact there are people out there in the world trusting enough to believe in them.

Orac,

According to Freedomfest.com the debate you so eloquently recounted here never happened:

"Dr. Julian Whitaker and Dr. Steven Novella (Yale) on “Vaccines: Good or Bad?” It would have been a good debate, but Dr. Novella was a “no show”!"

http://freedomfest.com/2011/2011/08/over-2300-attendees-celebrate-freed…

I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the copywriter on the website just had a misunderstanding regarding who didn't show up.

@PsyberDave - Or it could be a case of Libertarians being very "free" with the the truth.

OMG! They DID! Can't wait to see what kind of blogs that comment makes?

@PsyberDave

Really? That's some Chutzpah right there....

Well, I posted a comment on that article linking to the SBM blog article, and mentioning that even Dr. Whitaker said he debated with Dr. Novella on his Facebook page.

It looks like it may need to be approved. Perhaps some of you others have politely mentioned that the debate did occur.

My comment was still in moderation when I last looked.

So is mine. Perhaps we should tell them that even Dr. Shermer does not believe libertarianism means you ignore the data.

I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the copywriter on the website just had a misunderstanding regarding who didn’t show up.

That's awfully generous of you but how can you not know that a debate happened? Although we shall see if they make a correction very soon.

@chris

So is mine. Perhaps we should tell them that even Dr. Shermer does not believe libertarianism means you ignore the data.</blockquote

Except apparently when it shows that deregulation causes a financial crisis.

Blockquote Fail

should have been

So is mine. Perhaps we should tell them that even Dr. Shermer does not believe libertarianism means you ignore the data.

Except apparently when it shows that deregulation causes a financial crisis.

I hope I have not italicized the thread

My take on the "no show" is that to Freedomfest Dr. Whitaker "won" the debate, not that it did not happen.

They closed the comments on that article. I have a feeling that they didn't not like being corrected.

According to Freedomfest.com the debate you so eloquently recounted here never happened:

“Dr. Julian Whitaker and Dr. Steven Novella (Yale) on “Vaccines: Good or Bad?” It would have been a good debate, but Dr. Novella was a “no show”!”

That was last year's FreedomFest. Look at the dates on the top. Interestingly, I wonder now if they tried to get Steve last year; I'll have to ask him.

I see the comments being open, but 0 made?

Odd, if Dr. Novella had been invited to debate Dr. Whitaker last year, you would think he would know about Whitaker.

Sorry, for the error. Though it is odd.

Have you guys checked Whitaker's Facebook page. He's "bought it big time", now that some posters have linked to Orac's blog and some of the RI Regulars are posting...

http://www.facebook.com/WhitakerMD

@ Mrs Woo:

Celente is a piece of work: he has often appeared on the Progressive Radio Network as a guest of the Idiot-in-Charge- who since 2008 has also become as economic expert.

Celente has been predicting hyperinflation and total collapse *just around the bend* for years now. Both of these geniuses encourage people to take money out of banks, stocks, bonds and other reasonable investments and talk up precious metals and rural land.

I'm not an economist but I have had formal studies and come from a family that *does* this forever ( 2 countries) and I've had to manage money since my father became ill ( 2000). I know that it's hard work and lots of study: to make moderate gains, you need to be cautious, do research and realise that it doesn't happen overnight- more like decades.

Medico-woo is paralleled by econo-woo: and their ideas make it all sound so easy. It's as unrealistic as some of the woo treatments for serious health conditions discussed by Orac AND it similarly manipulates the vulnerable as it capitalises on fear. During the lows of 2009, I heard advice that, if followed ( "get out of stocks, bonds, banks,; buy gold and silver"), would have lost people real money - stocks bounced back ( even a dead cat bounces if dropped from a high enough place) ; altho' I trembled and quaked as libor and vix rose through the roof ( Fall 2008 ) I hung on and everything came back with gains. I did the opposite of what these 'experts' were telling people: my cousin got out and has since lost the equivalent of a year's salary because she sold at the lows ( she had a similar growth fund to mine/ different company).

These people are grandiose and believe their own press. If Celente were correct and did really have the inside track, why isn't he a billionaire?

Sweet Jeez...I just posted on Dr. Whitaker's website and it got through:

http://www.drwhitaker.com/new-legislation-seriously-misleads-parents-ab…

lilady,

Did you look at his online store? He sells almost as much crap as Mercola.

I don't know one legit doctor anywhere who has a commercial website or sells his own branded line of supplements. Yet every day on these boards we find quacks doing just that.

I hope they don't delete your post and that others echo your comments. You were very polite and diplomatic.

On his Facebook page the first half of the comments about the debate are ass-kissing "you go Dr. J" until the tone suddenly, and dramatically shifts.

I've been following his Facebook page and he has gotten a whole lotta grief...unfortunately I don't "do" Facebook.

Why don't you comment on his website...I'll know you got past "moderation" if you post using "Marc" as your 'nym.

(It is so tempting to dish out the snark...but I'll hold off...for now).

MSII, why did I hear you read the last few words of your post in Terry Jones' voice? :-)

Mr. Creosote? Which Python routine are you referring to?

I saw Terry Jones live once at the Montreal comedy festival. His act culminated with him throwing real fish (dead) into the audience. I'll never forget that.

I saw Eric Idle live too, more recently. I'm a major MP fans, like all self-respecting geeks.

If I posted I'd love to confront him about his anti-psychiatry work with the $cientology front group CCHR. They have a museum on Hollywood Blvd. in LA called "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death."

I don't know enough about the vaccine controversy to post.

And as a supporter of Burzynski I'm sure he'd love to see my full screen name! (I should change that now--the real MS hasn't been around for months and I signed up here in the throes of his threatening days. I was really hoping to draw him out, as juvenile as that sounds.)

@Denice & Mrs. Woo
CBC Radio has a summer season show called The Invisible Hand

For their second episode the looked at the gold standard and they asked economists which would be better have in the event of a Zombie Apocalypse - Gold or Chickens - the economists all chose chickens. Here is a link to the podcast.

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/invisiblehand_20120704_53131.mp3

The collapse of major currencies seems to be predicted as often as the Second Coming/Rapture or the demise of the Canadian Football League. At least Harold Camping had the good sense to quit after being wrong for the umpteenth time.

@Marc Stephens Is Insane

I should change that now–the real MS hasn’t been around for months and I signed up here in the throes of his threatening days. I was really hoping to draw him out, as juvenile as that sounds.

I think it's a great nym. It serves as a constant reminder. Also, for the uninitiated it may encourage further investigation.

@ Militant Agnostic:

Unfortunately, those I survey revel i providing bad economic information as well as bad medical information. I have also heard/ read loyal followers ask for specific advice about investment, where to move, what business to start...pathetic.

@ iilady:
I couldn't get to the comments at his site: it just stopped at "3 comments"; could you provide a synopsis, svp?
however, the Facebook ones were great! Imagine that! Rene and Lord D duet!

@Militant Agnostic - that's great, I've got chickens! However, the woman interviewed is wrong - chickens are lousy for gardens. You are better off with guineas, and the best idea are ducks and geese for your garden - they are less likely to dig up plants and eat weeds once your garden plants are established. My chickens killed one of my scented miniature roses that I planted this spring - in less than two weeks.

@Denice - drives me crazy - hubby is inheriting money and trying to figure out which kind of farming to get into since we'll have to be entirely self-sufficient and work every day to not starve to death and support his entire family. With social security disappearing with the pending economic collapse and money being worthless, we need to have "other options" to not starve to death. To temper his craziness I'm attempting to get him to invest the money into land to lease to others for farming, because he will then make enough on the leases to make the difference between current income and what income will be with social security for both of us. Then he has it as a fallback if the world economy does collapse, but has a more reasonable option if life continues as normal.

@MSII - I like it just because it reminds me of all the craziness that happened with that. It is especially good to realize exactly how off the wall crazy some alt-med supporters can be. Legal threats with no basis, etc. - I still end up wondering if he was originally sic'd on bloggers by Dr. B or just took it upon himself. Would be wonderful to know that answer one day!

@ Denice Walter: I just went to Whitaker's blog and now there are 5 comments...the latest one is from one of his fans. Try this..

http://www.drwhitaker.com/new-legislation-seriously-misleads-parents-ab…

I saw the dynamic duo Rene and His Lordship...simply brilliant.

I've just posted another comment Denice, you're going to like it.

@ lilady:
That worked! . FIrst Dr N @ Bally, now he gets it at home on Facebook and his website. Woo hoo.

@ Mrs Woo:

I hear/ read so much self-sufficiency/ sustainablity nonsense; a common thread- GMO crops will take over so get back to natural products AND they just happen to sell 'heritage' or 'heirloom' seeds ( Adams) or products for dealing with disaster ( trusty flashlights; also Adams) . First scare them, then sell them.

Usually those who promote scenarios like this either sell products ( including books about it) or are trying to make a name by out-guessing all of the real economists out there- it's like woo-meisters: they know more about medicine than REAL doctors and more about psychology than REAL psychologists. These guys know more about the economy.

The number one rule for all investors is DIVERSIFICATION- don't have all of your eggs in one basket ( oh... that saying may be literally true as well as figuratively in your case).E.g. have money in banks, stocks, bonds, funds as well as real estate. Within stocks ( or bonds) there should be further diversification: suppose you buy all bank stocks and then there's a banking crisis? Thus, more than one sector/ industry. You invest in things that people use that withstand economic tides - people use certain products even in hard times. So you invest in a range that encompasses good times and bad. You also diversify by level of risk ( low to high) and locality- e.g. more than one country.

General information like this is available via financial television and books by reasonable people, i.e. not doom sayers. Read columns from someone like Paul Krugman.

MSII: I was actually thinking of the narration of the middle of the Sir Robin scene on the MPATHG record...

Yes, I'm at THAT level of MP geekery. You should have seen me at the original Broadway run of "Spamalot."

Well, our chickens definitely aren't money-makers. I don't travel well or often, so getting the eggs to a place where I could sell them for a reasonable price to cover expenses isn't happening. Instead I sell them at church for enough to cover the cost of the supplemental feed so the birds at least "pay their own way." Our flock is maybe 30 total birds including the guinea fowl. :)

What all of this does is prey on fears and uncertainty and the very human desire for control (even if there is no real way to have that control). The more you increase the fear, the bigger your sales are. I often wonder if the people making money off of all of this believe it, as well, or if it is nothing but a type of marketing scheme to them in the first place. When Mr Woo is laying awake at night trying to figure out how to afford gas and what to pay for it with when the dollar no longer exists and how he will function if he cannot have gasoline for a tractor to be able to plow, etc., and/or to get to town to buy what we can't make for ourselves here I get so angry that he listened to it in the first place. Can't get him to quit because he has listened to so many of them (and they all reference each other, making all of them look more "legitimate") that he has been convinced their spin is reality and he and only those who have listened to them and believe have this secret knowledge that our government is actually going to go down in flames and there will only be anarchy left.

At the same time, almost all great civilizations have had a collapse. Still, with history to teach us and a bit more knowledge, I suspect it is actually in all leaders' best interest to keep their economies as stable as possible and maintain order. Tanking the economy on purpose to grab power makes no sense to anyone with a rational mind. This is explained away, of course, by the money-woo people with the whole "Illuminati/Bilderberger conspiracy" thing where there are a small number of families who want all of the wealth and power of the world for themselves and have plans to kill a large percentage of the population and enslave the rest. The fact that such a thing will allow them to grow no more wealth and reduce consumers to sell things to just doesn't stand up as an argument to Mr Woo for some reason (or the fact that if someone was that power-hungry and money-grubbing they would have a hard time trusting anyone else to help them take over the world in the first place - basic human nature).

I suspect the best I will get him to do is to sink it into acreage. My big worry is keeping him from buying everything for a farm, because I really don't believe he has any clue how much work there really would be in cattle ranching. He's just guessing from various things he has heard and seen over the years from other families actually doing it. It's like people who believe they can know everything a doctor does from Google U - when you don't know enough, anything looks "easy."

@ Mrs Woo:

IIRC, Mr Woo is trained in a profession that is necessary and usually reasonably well paid .He has thus, a better chance than most as the population ages. Nurses perform all sorts of tasks and work in many diverse situations. Training in new areas is relatively easy to access for them.
Ask lilady for details.

Even if there is 'total collapse', his services would certainly be important. I wouldn't sink all my money in land, what if *less* people rather than more, want to farm? Young people are fleeing to the cities. If there is a crisis, could people *afford* beef?

I just posted on Dr. W's website. Nothing about vaccines, I just questioned his credibility vis-a-vis $cientology and the anti-psychiatry movement.

I bet my post gets deleted.

I'm going to post more links to what his organization CCHR has done to enable a child molester in Australia.The fact that Eastgate "got away with it" is a travesty of justice in general and a black mark on the face of the Australian judicial system. And Whitaker endorses these criminals.

For anyone wondering who Jan Eastgate is, here's a link to Tony Ortega's anti-$cientology blog at The Village Voice. It does to $cientology what Orac does here to quack medicine. And the cult member sockpuppets who post there with their arguments are exactly the same as the alties who post here. They even use the same methods and tactics of argument.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/jan_eastgate.php

Dr. Whitaker replied directly to me and I have posted a rather long comment replying to him, about the VAERS reporting system and the real time reporting on the Vaccine Safety Datalink database. I'm stuck in moderation.

http://www.drwhitaker.com/new-legislation-seriously-misleads-parents-ab…

Can anyone preserve the comments on Whitaker's blog..."screen shots" perhaps...in case the blog or my comments "disappear"?

MSII:

On his Facebook page the first half of the comments about the debate are ass-kissing “you go Dr. J” until the tone suddenly, and dramatically shifts.

His Facebook article about debating Dr. Novella has been deleted. He left in the article where he says he will debate Dr. Novella, and it only has the fawning comments from his admirers.

Dr. Novell has explained what happened last year on his blog. It seems that the Freedom Fest "organizers" watied until the last minute to contact him with details. Because "Freedom" means not planning for someone else's schedule.

lilady,

I posted three nasty comments about the doctor's beliefs, and maybe some of his supporters will see what he's really all about. I'll take a screenshot because I'm sure my posts will be deleted.

I also posted on the Village Voice's blog encouraging others, especially all the ex-$cientologists who have been hurt to post as well. Should be fun to watch over the next few hours.

Ha ha! He blew me off! Told me to stay on topic about vaccine injuries. I can't believe none of my comments went into moderation; I've never posted there before.

I have a screen shot up to 12:30 p.m. ET. We'll see when the Village Voice crowd starts posting what happens.

lilady,

You're out of moderation hell chez Whitaker.

@ Marc...I saw your comments. You say you are not to certain about arguing the merits of vaccines.

Please, be my guest, to cut and paste any of my comments that have appeared on RI or on this other site that I post on...to post on Whitaker's blog. (Just leave off the commentary about my/your public health experience) :-)

http://shotofprevention.com/2012/07/13/so-much-more-than-just-the-histo…

@Denice - Mr Woo is an LPN, not an RN, and in his mid-60s. He raised four sons with no child support so never had a great deal of money for investment. He has a few investments here and there, but none that will make a regular income that he is comfortable with and, of course, since he is told they will all be worthless, is planning for them to be useless. Since he listens to finance woo, the only "real" things he can be sure will "save" his money is property ownership and precious metals. If he gets the "right kind" of land around here (well fenced, cleared with water available) it will usually be in demand for farm lease, either as crop land or cattle land. Crop land actually pays higher lease rates. No matter how bad things get, people will always need to eat. Now, whether they're eating cheap bread or range-fed beef or soybean meal depends on how poor they are.

I would love to talk him into reasonable investment. He is so far down the rabbit hole, though, I think that if I can get him to buy leaseable land at least he can have an income even if he chooses not to work it (when life continues to go on and governments continue to try to control their economies). It will maintain a real value based on the value of the dollar pretty much, and nothing else (unless a lot of suburbanization moves this way from Kansas City, about an hour away, at which point its value would increase).

I would love to have it in a diversified well-managed portfolio, but it's unlikely if not impossible to change Mr Woo's anxiety at this point. He has listened to too much from Gerald Celente, Alex Jones and the precious metals shills...

lilady,

I'm sure I'm about to be banned over Dr. Whitaker's happy little self-serving website, but if not I'll pull out some nuggets of your wisdom and post them later this afternoon.

It's not that I don't believe in the merits of vaccination, I'm just nowhere near as knowledgeable, qualified or articulate as you and others here to argue on the subject.

I was waiting for the news on TV last night and switched over, only to find the new Jenny McCarthy reality show hadn't ended yet. Even though I only had to wait 2 minutes, I couldn't stand the sight of her (and speaking as a fully-functioning, red-blooded heterosexual male, that says a lot!)

Has anyone read the Playboy cover story? She claims she only agreed to pose nude in order to further her "medical" agenda. Plus it's a massive stroke to her precious little ego.

I did think she was super hot a couple of years ago on Two And A Half Men. Chuck Lorre really likes casting nutbars (beside Sheen): he had Jenny on TAAHM, and Mayim Bialik on TBBT. Is there an anti-vaxxer in the cast of Mike & Molly?

@ Mrs Woo:

Well, you have a good head on your shoulders and will probably manage despite his ideas. Best wishes to you.

Thank you, Denice. I really appreciated your input and just getting to vent. In a weird way, if you're logical and rational, constantly having these alternative viewpoints shared and declared "truth" repeatedly feels almost crazy-making. I think the reason I got to a point where I interact so much here is that it kind of reassures me that my rational thinking is not what is crazy in this house.

I just keep pondering a way to maybe help him let go of a little of this here and there when I can, and try to figure out how to protect him from this as much as I can. I would love to have a day when he decides that these people are all self-serving mouthpieces with no real knowledge and can quit listening. The reduced stress would be such a good thing for him.

Please, please, please tell me...that some one is preserving all the comments that I posted on Whitaker's blog...and his replies.

My last comment go "through" where I lambasted him about the ridiculous charts he used during his debate with Dr. Novella.

http://www.drwhitaker.com/new-legislation-seriously-misleads-parents-ab…

I made a big oops when I said:

is Facebook article about debating Dr. Novella has been deleted. He left in the article where he says he will debate Dr. Novella, and it only has the fawning comments from his admirers.

It is still there, it just moved to the right side of the page. I apologize. I am going to blame the old laptop I use outside of the house.

As predicted, all my comments on Whitaker's site have been removed.

My minions at the Village Voice are starting to treat Dr. W. to some insolence of their own. I'd suggest subscribing via e-mail or RSS because those comments will eventually come down.

I "expanded" the comments on Whitaker's Facebook page and they are all still there...62 of them...including Rene's and Lord Draconis'...and some other "choice" ones, as well.

http://www.facebook.com/WhitakerMD

In case any of you were wondering where "Augustine" has been been...this is what he just posted at Whitaker's blog:

Augustine

Dr. Whitaker,
Lilady is a vitriolic hateful skeptic who seeks to make fun and insult you. She does not come in earnest. She has a history or cyberstalking anyone who comes in her path. She is a pro mass vaccination ideologue.

She is a groupie of self aggrandizing David Gorski, MD who has continually insulted you.

(I wouldn't "touch" that comment with a twenty-foot pole)

lilady,

Do you have a "friend" named Augustine? He or she is looking for you over at Dr. W's site.You've been outed...oh noes! You're a proponent of mass vaccination!

Marc, I have a comment here on RI "in moderation" about Augie. I'm not touching that troll's comment with a twenty-foot pole. I'd appreciate it, if you just ignore my personal stalking troll, as well.

lilady 1:53 pm

Please, please, please tell me…that some one is preserving all the comments that I posted on Whitaker’s blog…and his replies.

Done. You can use "Save page as" on your browser to save the webpage (easiest) or for a screenshot of the page, press Shift + Print Screen and paste the image into paint/document.

D'oh Sauceress...you are communicating with me...an absolute idiot when it comes to anything about computer functions. (Ask "Chris" how long it took me to figure out how to link to an article)

Dr. Whitaker has finally made a statement about the debate with Dr. Novella and an "explanation" about those *charts*...enjoy.

http://www.drwhitaker.com/new-legislation-seriously-misleads-parents-ab…

(Someone please do a screenshot!!!) Thanks.

Which internet browser do you use lilady?

Sauceress...I use the latest version of Mozilla Firefox.

Oops, within the last five minutes, after his *swan song* about the debate and charts, Dr. Whitaker closed down his blog for additional comments....damn it.

Find some bare space on any webpage and click right hand mouse button on it. Choose "Save as..." using Chrome or "Save page as.." using Firefox. I don't know but expect similar with IE.

Here's Whitaker's latest response:

I realize that this entire discussion is one that's fraught with opinions and emotions--and I thank those of you who respectfully cited your views. But comments that did not stick to the discussion at hand, or included profanity, have been removed since that's not within the climate of this blog.

Now, for everyone here who has inquired about the “Projection: Autism Incidence in US Children” graph I cited in my debate with Steven Novella, MD, at FreedomFest, here's my response:

I understand that the projected rate of 100 percent seems unreasonable. However, the graph is based on estimated autism rates of 1 in 5,000 in 1982 (a rough estimate based on the fact autism rates were not routinely recorded back then) and 1 in 91 in 2009 http://pediatrics.aappublicati..., for an average yearly increase of about 14 percent. (Current statistics reveal that 1 in 88 children are now affected. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/auti...

The graph reflects the assumption that the current rate of autism diagnoses continues in this upward trend unabated. According to these numbers, autism spectrum disorder will saturate the pediatric population by 2040. Anyone who does the math will come to the same conclusion.

Again, the fact that it goes to 100 percent is certainly alarming and hard to believe. Confounding factors include the likelihood that not all children will be vaccinated, the potential for changes in autism diagnostic parameters, and the possibility that rates of increase will decline. (On the other hand, rates may also increase.)

For those who take issue with this projection, check the relevant data I’ve provided and do your own projection.

Once again, I wanted to thank everyone who participated in this spirited discussion.

Best of health to each of you,
Dr. Whitaker

What a load of crap. Clearly this guy does not understand the nuance needed to produce proper projections.
His response translates to 'it went up so it'll keep going up until it's really high! It might not be perfect but if you want a better one go do it yourself.'

He clearly does not understand the huge problems with that graph. It is not that it goes to 100% that the only bit that is unbelievable, the fact that it shows all children being autistic before all of the girls become autistic.

I wonder if he will answer the question of who gets to pick up the bill for sick kids if the parents get a vaccine exemption.

@ AdamG

Julian Whitaker - ignorant moron and proud of it.

@ AdamG:
He cites a scare-mongering graph to please the
woo-bent then, when he gets called on it, maintains that it's hard to believe. And closes down criticism simultaneously.
Game, set, match.

Game, set, match.

Yes, clearly much was learned from this "spirited discussion"

Dr. Whitaker has finally made a statement about the debate with Dr. Novella and an “explanation” about those *charts*…enjoy.

Oh my, that's just so precious. I feel some RI coming on.

OT
Not sure if this has already posted, but I wanted to share a link I picked up over at the "Loosing in the Lucky Country" Skeptics site.

Parents make a dash for jab cash

Opponents to childhood vaccines say it is unfair to be denied Federal Government cash because of their beliefs, and are exploiting a loophole to claim more than $2000 a child after registering as "conscientious objectors"

I thought all the comments slamming these sleazy antivaxxers were worth reading to brighten up one's day.

@lilady: Oh, little Augie is over there? Wish I'd seen that earlier - I would have gone right over there and asked him if he'd learned anything...(evil grin..)

Well, perhaps we all shouldn't rest upon our laurels YET...
supposedly alternative media ( Info Wars, Natural News) has *blown the lid off* Big Pharma's bribery network ( @ Natural News, today) and whistle blowers *par excellence* Gary Null and Steve Kohn ( David Lewis' BFF) are revealing the details of the FDA's surveillance of scientists ( @Progressive Radio Network)- their investigation has gone viral....

I hope this won't lead to a cut in this year's bonus.F@ck!
Where's that grey ops fellow, now that we NEED him?

@DW - I feel so sorry for my primary care physician - I'm pretty sure that no one has been telling him about this. He doesn't even drive a nice car (he explains that it comes from putting kids through college and the type of doctor he chose to be - family physician as to why he doesn't drive BMWs, etc.). He volunteers once a week at a free clinic and two different two-week intervals overseas.

They're missing a huge market here in rural Missouri. I know they aren't "reaching" him - every single medication I get is generic!

Wow - maybe I should alert Lord Draconis?

Hm. Propublica.com shows a whopping $10.00 for our esteemed host. I'm really worried about his bias now.

Dr. Whitaker did shut down comments about the debate debacle, but he didn't shut down the other THREE articles on his blog, that I commented on...

http://www.drwhitaker.com/hpv-doesnt-require-yet-another-mandated-vacci…

http://www.drwhitaker.com/the-untold-truth-about-vaccines-and-children

http://www.drwhitaker.com/a-new-study-concludes-shingles-vaccine-is-saf…

Enough RI for you, Science Mom?

@ MI Dawn: I'm so glad that you didn't dish out the snark at Augie. I just *knew* the little b*sta*rd has been lurking here for months, waiting to stalk me on another blog.

@ Sauceress: Conscientious Objectors? Is that like the Conscientious Objectors that refused to be drafted...then wanted to claim benefits under the G.I. Bill, after World War II?

lilady
One of my favourite comments there was from:
Show Me The Money of Brisbane (Posted at 11:06 PM July 14, 2012)

I am an objector to all Family Incentive Payments - I don't have a child so I feel like I am being unfairly punished. I would like to know where I can get my $2000++ for objecting to the Government forcing me to have a child. Thank you.

Stupid government. I am in full favor of firing everyone in washington and replacing them with vultures. At least the vultures look better, smell better, and can make better decisions for freedom. Then again we have a few vultures in washington already.

I did not write this post, just by the by, and I have the static IP to prove it.

Nor the one stamped 9:45 pm.

@ Sauceress: Good grief, I hope the Government Incentive doesn't encourage "Show Me the Money" to breed. Think of the gene pool, if these conscientious objectors actually decide to have a child...heh...heh.

Would someone please give me a two-sentence summary of who or what an Augustine is? As a relative newbie I don't think I've ever encountered any posts from that 'nym. I could use the search box and go back and reach older posts and figure it out myself, but it would be so much easier if someone else would do it for me... :-)

Looks that moronic racist Ham from Dismal Seepage is impersonating Narad.

It does go to further highlight the robustness of the system, I suppose.

The "real" Narad:

You mean someone posts under your 'nym and makes you look crazy? Can't this blog platform prevent that, by requiring unique user names? Like once someone uses Narad no one else can ever use it. They'd have to use Narad2 or something.Or just use "guest" or "anonymous". That would protect the first person to "register" a 'nym.

It's sickening that someone would do that. It makes all posts suspect of not being genuine.

Are you really in Canada? Care to narrow that down? We might be neighbours (with a "u"!)!

I thInk I've taken care of the problem for now. Will monitor.

It was Medicien Man/Dr. Smart again.

MSII, you can Augustine in action here. He is often called "Little Augie" due to his juvenile behavior. He seems to be obsessed with transgendered people. We have no idea why.

[blockquote]I understand that the projected rate of 100 percent seems unreasonable. However, the graph is based on estimated autism rates of 1 in 5,000 in 1982 (a rough estimate based on the fact autism rates were not routinely recorded back then) and 1 in 91 in 2009 http://pediatrics.aappublicati…, for an average yearly increase of about 14 percent. (Current statistics reveal that 1 in 88 children are now affected. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/auti…[/blockquote]

So, he's basing his graphs on an 'estimated' autism rate - because there wasn't hard data.

That's textbook stupid right there.

...and someday I'll get my text right.

But today isn't my day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

MSII, this thread has some wondrous bits with Little Augie's transgender obsession.

Wow--thanks for those Auggie links. That's one big can of mixed nuts...

Marc...You just got a small taste of Augie and the Pothead Troll.

You really need to get up to speed here, about the sockies, the trolls and other assorted characters :-)

One thing I've learned here in a few months, sort of covers everything I seen:

It's a big, strange world out there with a lot of different people.

We should do some kind of mock awards presentation once a year. The Astra Star Child Strangest Thread, Best Use of All Caps in a Spittle-Filled Screed, The Hulda Clark Humanitarian Award for Most Useless Electronic Gimmick, The John Of God Award for Original Screenplay for a Comedy or Fantasy, and of course The Marc Stephens "You Can't Say That On The Internet" Lifetime Achievement Award for Excellence in Bullying.

We could also include the The Silliest Graph. This year's winner would be Shawn Siegel for creating the graph, and Dr. Whitaker not understanding that if every kid is autistic by a certain year, then the 100% intercept for the girls would not come several years later!

Another contender would be Obomsawin.

That would be Best Use of Graphics or Visuals to Justify Ludicrous Claims

The Eric Merola Visual Achievement Award for Commercial That Looks Most Like A Documentary

The Joe Mercola Online Merchandising Pinnacle Award for Most Products Sold at a Website

The Jim Humble Innovation Prize for Most Misused Household Cleanser in the Quest To Heal

The Jim Sheridan Holy Cross for Best Exploitation of Religion to Promote a Cure

I could go on...

The Mark and David Geier Family Trust Endowment for Best Actor in a Supporting Role

The Jenny McCarthy Golden Bust for Least Significant Actor Stirring Up Vaccine Hysteria (Rob Schneider has already won this year)

The Mayim Bialik Post Graduate Scholarship for Having Beliefs that Most Conflict with Science Education

The Gary Null Legend Award for Most Ironic Name

The Mike Adams Siver Screen Award for Sensationalistic Website of the Year

The Jake Crosby Rising Star Award for Nerwcomer Under 25 of The Year

The Max Gerson/Starbucks People's Choice Award for Most Imaginative Use of Coffee

On the topic of doctors with strange Libertarian beliefs, I just heard from a friend that one of his high school friends from the small Texas town on the Gulf Coast where they grew up (near where she still lives) is suing her doctor because he had been ranting to someone else about Obamacare and how he wasn't going to make as much money because of it, then when she told him she wasn't going to have health insurance for a month because she's changing jobs and her new job doesn't start until a month after her last day of the previous job, he allegedly flips out and says he can no longer have her as a patient because she's going to be temporarily a dirty jobless person or something. She says he actually told her "we don't serve your kind here" or words to that effect (these are two white people, BTW).

So the friend-of-a-friend wrote down everything he said and called a couple of lawyers and also found another doctor right away. It strikes me as amazingly unprofessional for a doctor to be parading his political beliefs in the office like that, but this is rural Texas, so not completely unexpected.

The only explanation I could think of for refusing a patient and then getting into a huge argument with them for not being employed for a month, is that maybe with the recession going on as long as it has, and people being out of work and living in their cars, etc., that if you're the type of "up from your bootstraps" person who blames others for their misfortunes, eventually the cognitive dissonance is going to grow to the point where you either have to a) start showing some compassion for the less fortunate, or b) double down on the Tea Party Kool-Aid and start looking for traitors and freeloaders around every corner.

@Jake - the ridiculousness of that is that she said she as going to be without insurance for one month. Being a cash payment for a month is not a big deal. Yes, there's the possibility of needing one doctor's appointment or having an emergency that you might have to pay off (and that is a scary thought), but many get by a lot longer as cash pay only without it being a big deal. My doctor's office gives cash patients a discount if they pay their entire bill at time of service because they save money with cash vs. insured patients because of the reduced cost of processing the paperwork.

Sometimes I suspect that libertarians come from people who only believe they have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. If you've ever had to choose between unemployment vs. working two jobs to make ends meet and leaving your too young to babysit themselves children at home alone and worry about whether or not you'll lose them to social services and get through it, you still learn from that experience that sometimes bad things happen to perfectly good people and that there is more than temporary circumstance that measures a person's worth.

Maybe the lawsuit will wake him up a little.

Lilady, MSII, Augustine has been posting a lot over at ERV

Another poster seems obsessed with polio like symptoms in India, I wonder who that could be?

OT but I must say it is very refreshing coming here and not having my intelligence insulted by the likes of Augie, Dr Smart or crazy thingy. This new platform is great :)

It's good to see that science based people don't shy away from a debate with quack&woo – I wish climate scientists would the same braveness and not chicken out of similar debates on anthropogenic global warming.