facebook

An antivaccine activist explains how she uses Facebook reporting algorithms to harass and silence pro-science bloggers

oracknows — Fri, 01 Apr 2016 01:00:58 +0000

An antivaccine activist explains how she uses Facebook reporting algorithms to harass and silence pro-science bloggers

I wish this post were an April Fools Day joke, but it is not.

Three weeks ago, Skeptical Raptor and I wrote posts describing how a particularly vicious, nasty antivaccine troll named Heather Murray had successfully gamed Facebook reporting algorithms intended to report abuse in order to silence pro-science bloggers. It is, unfortunately, a tactic that I first heard about over two years ago, when antivaccine activists affiliated with what was then called the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) used the same sort of tactics to target pro-science bloggers and activists associated with a group whose purpose was to counter the misinformation spread by the AVN. What often happened was that the automatic reporting algorithm that Facebook uses to screen complaints for true violations of its "community standards" would issue temporary bans in response. Often the various "community standards" violated were unclear and difficult to avoid. For instance, directly mentioning someone by name in a disparaging fashion (or even in a non-disparaging fashion) could, if complained about, result in a ban. Bascially, Facebook’s banning algorithms are the ultimate black box. They might as well be in the center of a black hole, given how impenetrable they are and how difficult it is to shine any light on them.

Obviously, as I've explained before, the clear intent of this tactic is to silence pro-vaccine voices on Facebook. These bans can last anywhere from a day to 30 days and basically prevent the person victimized from posting to Facebook for the length of the ban. Once a ban is in place, there is basically no appeal, either. For one thing, it's damned near impossible to get a hold of an actual human being at Facebook to review and reconsider spurious complaints that trigger such bans. For another thing, the level of complaint that triggers a ban seems to get lower with each successive successful complaint resulting in a ban. This has allowed antivaccine activists to keep hitting their pro-science targets with new bans almost as soon as an existing ban expires, resulting in their being locked out of Facebook for long periods of time and, when they get back on Facebook, being forced to be very careful about what they say and constantly look over their shoulder for potential attacks. If one of your outlets as a pro-science activist is Facebook, these attacks can essentially shut you down by taking you offline intermittently and making you a lot more measured in what you say. It also—intentionally—discourages pro-science activists from calling out the antivaccine misinformation promoted by those who use this tactic.

Everyone knows what a piece of work Meryl Dorey of the AVN is, how nasty she is. When I picture Heather Murray, I think Meryl Dorey amped up by a factor of at least 100 in terms of sheer nastiness, for reasons that you will soon see. First, a brief recap. When last I left this sordid tale of Facebook ineptitude and lack of concern, I enumerated some of the tactics Ms. Murray had used against Ms. Hagood. These included:

Starting an online petition to Ms. Hagood’s employer requesting disciplinary action or termination.
Repeatedly reporting Allison to her school for her online activities, trying to get her fired.
Posting her private address online.
Emailing people she knows.
Creating a web site, the purpose of which is solely to harass Ms. Hagood.
Repeatedly sending her insulting or threatening messages.

I also described the sorts of things Ms. Murray did to get Ms. Hagood banned. For instance, Ms. Murray had Photoshopped an image of Ms. Hagood to make her look like the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz, complete with the text, "I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!” When Ms. Hagood posted the image to demonstrate the harassment against her, it was she who wound up in what we now call "Facebook jail," not Ms. Murray. Although it can't be proven, it is widely believed in the relevant pro-vaccine Facebook groups that it was almost certainly Ms. Murray who reported her. It wasn't just Ms. Hagood who was victimized, either. Our favorite dinosaur, Skeptical Raptor, was also targeted, receiving a ban because he was reported for allegedly using racially inflammatory hate speech. In context, even as described on Ms. Murray's site, he clearly was not, but rather using an example of offensive speech to make a point about how offensive he found something in a movie. Ms. Murray's dishonesty in having reported that post as Facebook abuse is truly breathtaking. But, then, she has demonstrated herself to be an antivaccine loon and Holocaust denying anti-Semite.

What's truly irritating about these particular incidents is that Heather Murray herself is a raging antisemite and Holocaust denier, as has been documented elsewhere. I didn't go much into it last time, but I sure as heck plan to this time. For example, look at this post right here:

In fact, I was having acid flashbacks reading this post, back to the days when I used to blog regularly about Holocaust denial, because there sure is a heaping helping of Holocaust denial right here. Indeed, the Holocaust denying tropes that Ms. Murray regurgitates were of the very same variety that I used to spend to much time deconstructing and debunking back in my Usenet days on alt.revisionism and early in the history of this very blog. I mean, seriously. Ms. Murray swallows whole the lie that Adolf Hitler himself used to try to justify the invasion of Poland, including his utterly risible claim that he never wanted war. (Coincidentally enough, I'm re-reading William Shirer's excellent Berlin Diary, which recounts his time as a news correspondent in Nazi Germany from the time shortly after Hitler took power to just before the entry of the US into the war, and in fact just read the section on Hitler's invasion of Poland, in which Shirer recounted this very lie and how Hitler used it.) I mean, seriously. Believing lies Hitler told for propaganda purposes to get his people fired up to go to war and try to keep Poland's allies from coming to her aid? It doesn't get much more Hitler-admiring than that.

Ms. Murray also barfs up the old Holocaust denier canard that the prisoners in the Nazi camps died of typhus and starvation and were not intentionally murdered, as though it wasn't really horrific that the Nazis rounded up so many people and put them in camps where they were overworked, underfed, and victim to raging epidemics of infectious disease. Yes, many did die of disease and starvation, but there were also homicidal gas chambers. There were also two kinds of camps, work camps and death camps (although Auschwitz-Birkenau was both). In the work camps, prisoners were basically worked to death; in the death camps they were murdered by a variety of means, in particular gas chambers. Of course, no Holocaust denying, Hitler admiring rant is complete without an antisemitic comment about our "Zionist puppet masters." That's because Holocaust denial is always rooted in anti-Semitism. There are no Holocaust deniers who are not anti-Semites. At least, if there are, I have not been able to find them, and I have been looking for 18 years now.

So, yes, Ms. Murray, through her own copious statements, regularly reveals herself to be anti-Semitic as hell, and a Holocaust denier, to boot. I'd love to see her come here and spew her bigoted pseudohistory. I guarantee you that, as is the case with antivaccine loons, she can't repeat a claim that I haven't heard and analyzed many times before. In any case, I feel the need for a shower after that, so much so that I'll just leave you this link if you want to see more of her blatant anti-Semitism, other than this last example I'm posting here:

OK, so from my perspective (and that of most people who do not share her bigoted views), Ms. Murray is a despicable, contemptible woman. That isn't the reason I posted this, although posting this did give me an excuse to emphasize just how nasty she is, something I failed to do last time. (I don't know what I was thinking then.) Far more important, however, is that she is now explaining how she targets pro-science advocates. A series of comments from her from a super-secret closed Facebook group have found their way into the "wrong" hands (i.e., ours). First up:

OK, as vile as Ms. Murray is, I'll give her credit for opening a Facebook profile named Frau Heather as being mildly amusing. Whether that was what let her succeed at shutting down Ms. Hagood and others again, who knows? Unfortunately, now that the beans have been spilled, we now know not to do that sort of thing again. Of course, contrary to Ms. Murray's claim I never really even tried to figure this one out because "Frau Heather" was not an insult that I recall ever having used to describe her. In fact, I didn't really use any insults at all; I just described her behavior relatively dispassionately compared to how much her antics annoy me—more so than I have here.

Next up, Ms. Murray explains how mocking memes will get you banned:

Note that "AVWoS" stands for Antivaccine Wall of Shame.

Now, this is a rule that seems to be very inconsistently applied, because I see mocking memes about people all the time, and I know for a fact that pro-science advocates have complained to Facebook about memes made to mock them. (After all, what was Photoshopping Ms. Hagood's face onto the Wicked Witch of the West or Photoshopping her to look like Hitler but producing mocking memes?) Notice how much Ms. Murray gloats, though. I know that Ms. Murray will see this post sooner or later—although not on Facebook, at least not posted or commented upon by me, as, even though I have blocked her and every sock puppet of hers that I know about, I am not stupid. So let me just say right here that I take much pleasure in exposing someone whom I consider to be a terrible, vicious woman, her flagrant anti-Semitism, and her antivaccine nonsense, particularly revealing what she's saying about how she did it. This is information that will allow her targets to take more precautions and at least make her harassing pro-science advocates more difficult, as it makes it possible to take precautions. Besides, I do so love shining lights into dark places, to watch the cockroaches scatter.

Finally, we have this:

In this post, Ms. Murray spells out exactly what she recommends and brags about how many members of AVWoS she's gotten banned. At first, I wasn't sure why she linked to my last post on the subject of antivaccine trolls trying to get defenders of science banned from Facebook. After all, that was a blog post. I never posted it to Facebook—intentionally so, just as I will not post this one to Facebook, either. (Why take the chance?) Of course, then I realized that she thinks she can find the commenters on that post and try to target them for harassment on Facebook too, as no doubt she has been trying to target me, thus far without success. Such are her cowardly techniques.

I must admit, though, that I hadn't heard of Jeri Keith before. It turns out that she's another antivaccine loon. She appears to like a lot of all caps. Quelle surprise:

So as a member of several antivax groups...or should I say PROCHOICE GROUPS we are looking to see if you are willing to stand WITH US in DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS TO CHOOSE WHAT IS PUT INTO OUR BODIES. The California Senate right now is trying to FORCE VAX SCHOOL kids and adults vaccines a mile long are in the pipeline for us as well...around 300. We WILLNOT STAND FOR THIS....we are THOUSANDS, and MAYBE TENS OF THOUSANDS STRONG at this point. So we would like to know...are you with us..or against us. We are willing to help make a video with all kinds of intelligent free-thinking people. We have doctors and lawyers, and scientists, and biologists all that DONOT vax and we have the SCIENCE to back it up. What say you all? Please let us know ASAP as we are hoping to be able to POST ON THIS PAGE.....OUR BODY, OUR KIDS BODIES, OUR CHOICE. And we will NOT ELECT any official that is trying to take away our rights to choose.

Yes, Heather Murray and Jeri Keith appear made to be BFFs. They deserve each other.

Of course, as I pointed out last time, antivaccinationists have no science to back up their harmful beliefs, only pseudoscience. All they have are cherry-picked data and biased studies incompetently done by the likes of Andrew Wakefield, Mark and David Geier, Christopher Shaw, and a small cadre of scientists and physicians who somehow fell off the wagon of science into the tar pit of quackery and pseudoscience. If that weren't the case, perhaps antivaccinationists like Heather Murray wouldn't attack the person first but instead would do what real science advocates and scientists do: Marshal science, experimentation, and evidence to argue her case instead of trying to harass and suppress speech.

If all that succeeded in doing were to inconvenience a few bloggers and writers like Allison Hagood, Stacy Mintzer Herlihy, our skeptical scaly Raptor friend, or myself, it might not be such a big deal. The problem is that Facebook is such an enormous platform that to be banned from Facebook is to loose access to a major means of getting one's message out. That's the intent. In the decade-plus that I've been blogging, social media has changed markedly. Before, blogs ruled. Now, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and other platforms rule. I still use a blog because it allows me to say things in way more detail than these other platforms do and requires me to write actual essays, but I know that it might not be the most effective platform in general for my message. On the other hand, I know my strengths and weaknesses, and blogs play to my strengths. The point is, though, that antivaccinationists can't win on science and evidence; so they fall back to despicable and deceptive techniques of the sort used by the Heather Murrays of the world.

Of course, the real problem is that Facebook allows this to happen. Even worse, there is a double standard that's been demonstrated time and time again, when pro-science advocates have complained about the very same sort of mocking memes, personal attacks, and offensive posts to which pro-science Facebook members are regularly subjected to. Heck, how is it that Ms. Murray's antisemitic posts don't "violate Facebook's community standards"? Now, I'm under no illusion that Facebook is anything other than a company looking to make money, nor am I under any illusion that I am Facebook's customer. Rather, I am Facebook's product to be monetized in any way possible, as are Allison Hagood, Stacy Mintzer Herlihy, and the Skeptical Raptor. Yes, those of you who are on Facebook are, too. The very fact that Facebook users who are victimized by these bans complain and clamor to be reinstated shows how Facebook has all the power. Add to that the billion users it has who generate far more complaints than it has employees to deal with, and, unless there is a mass exodus from Facebook because of its automated complaint algorithms or publicity that's so bad that even Mark Zuckerberg has to take notice, Facebook is unlikely to take any significant action to fix its badly broken abuse reporting system so that it can't be so easily used to harass and silence. So far, having few dozen users targeted by antivaccine loons doesn't qualify. Facebook has no compelling reason to fix its broken algorithms.

At the end of the day, I consider people like Heather Murray to be contemptible pathetic people, too cowardly to try to win on the field of ideas. In fact, for that very reason I considered not writing this post. However, given how Ms. Murray gloated about her methods, I figured it was worth discussing her one last time in order to give my readers a heads up.

Finally, I was amused to learn from various sources that Ms. Murray was—shall we say?—not very happy about my previous post and that she has claimed to have tried to contact me. Let me just say right here, right now, that I have received no such contact from Heather, and I checked the spam folders of all my public e-mail accounts, just to make sure I didn't miss an e-mail from her for that reason. So I'll make it easy for her now. She is welcome to comment here—if she dares. If she doesn't, my e-mail address is orac@scienceblogsllc.com. She should be aware, though, that as with any e-mail to the blog, I reserve the right to publish anything she says and respond as I see fit.

Best wishes, Ms. Murray.

oracknows Thu, 03/31/2016 - 21:00

So let me get this straight: you set up a profile that uses a nickname, and when people instead refer to you by your full name (which is out there for everyone to see on your original profile) you can then report them and successfully have them banned for "revealing" your full name?

Seriously, Facebook...

I never guessed that telling tales to the blackboard monitor could become the cause of so much satisfaction.

For instance, directly mentioning someone by name in a disparaging fashion could, if complained about, result in a ban.

In fact, you do not have to write anything disparaging about them. You merely need to mention there name.

On the subject of opening accounts based on other names, ths would appear to breach Facebook's terms of use.

That would be "their name"

Ah, FB, the digital version of the Western Sahara.

I never was on Facebook, and the more I read about what happens there, the more I am persuaded that I made the right decision. The Internet is a wonderful thing, but it also provides a window into the souls of racist, misogynistic, bigoted, and anti Semitic vipers.

I know how the algorithm works after being given five time outs by vindictive, gloating fools like HM above.

A name used multiple times in a thread can be reported under the 'Harassment' reporting substructure. You can actually report anyone for harassment for nothing more than using your name. So when HM sat on that nick name for a while, she then went through AVWoS and found every single mention of Frau or Heather and reported them for harassing her. Many of those reports stuck and they were banned.

Therefore, on Facebook, do not use names unless absolutely necessary. Copy and paste quotes if you need to address someone, but do not use names or malicious reporting can occur.

Another work around is to not capitalise names; the algorithm tends to miss that. It looks rude, but works.

I hope that helps explain some of her tactics.

@ Chris Preston #3

It can be any name, using her tactics of creating false accounts, not just yours.

The more I read of Ms M (and I wouldn't put it past her to try to use any comment in here to get someone banned by creating an account with that "name"), the more I know I would dislike her. Sure, I have some friends who are antivaccine loons, and also into energy fields, crystals, essential oils, and so forth (twitch), but they are not vicious. We've had several discussions that usually end up with "you believe your thing, I'll believe mine".

But Ms M is vicious. The actions she and her friends use, the lies, the attacks, are all the actions of a bully in the school yard, someone so afraid of their shadow that they have to lash out at any perceived threat that might show them to be in error.

Like many, I dislike diagnosing others over the internet. So I'll just say these people are the most entitled, nastiest people I've ever seen and I hope they (NOT their children) suffer from a VPD.

The white supremacist/anti vax angle is new to me. But it makes sense considering that white power types think there's a vast global conspiracy that's preventing people from dropping to their knees and worshiping them. (Instead of their own ineptitude.)

She's a disgusting human being right along with the women who sabatoge children's beauty pageants and run over kids at Easter egg hunts. However, if she were to get me banned at FB, I would consider it a favor and she could stick her gloating, well, she knows where.

" In fact, I was having acid flashbacks.." Orac.

How much do you want to bet that an anti-vaxxer picks up this and starts a meme that our esteemed host is a drug user, hippie freak or regularly attends raves ( altho' that's Molly not acid)?
All of which are not very likely.

Yeah, it's a figure of speech that I probably shouldn't use, given that, other than alcohol and caffeine, I've been completely drug free my entire life, and that includes even nicotine. :-)

Does Heather have a job, or ever intend to get a job, one that doesn't involve impersonating Irma Grese at a skinhead convention? Because, you know, HR, google...

Orac, if you haven't read Karski: How One Man Tried To Stop The Holocaust (E. Thomas Wood) I highly recommend that you do. It's excellent.

Does Heather have a job, or ever intend to get a job, one that doesn’t involve impersonating Irma Grese at a skinhead convention? Because, you know, HR, google…

A lot of people use pseudonyms on Facebook for this very reason; for instance, if you teach Hebrew and Yiddish, you might not want everybody to know what your opinions on Netanyahu or Isreal's increasingly right-wing ethnic nationalism are.

There was a time when Facebook was trying to force everybody to use their real names, including trans people who used a chosen name rather than their given name, but it almost resulted in a mass exodus to "Ello" (where I have an account, but ended up never using it.) Facebook changed their policy pretty quickly after that.

Honestly, I've never understood what draws so many screamingly paranoid "gumbit put spy satellites in my underpants" types to Facebook. After all, FB and Google are only the two largest private surveillance systems in the world.

OTOH, I don't quite get why anyone with half a brain would want to be on it either. Stupid internets.

Because they're both incredibly useful in their own ways?

Heather Murray is a foul, anti-semitic ditchpig and clearly knows how to game the system. Every blogpost about her should start off that way and give her the Google juice she so richly deserves.

@has: There are people who, for whatever reason, want to be in touch with old friends, distant relatives, or high school classmates. Facebook is the best available tool for people in that category, which doesn't include me. I've heard enough anecdotal stories of extreme derp (not just anti-vax nonsense, but also including political extremism, as Orac documents above) to be wary of joining Facebook.

Then there are the small businesses who use Facebook as a marketing tool. I'm not going to second guess their decision to join--they want customers, and Facebook is a good place to look for them.

FD: I am not on Facebook. I am on LinkedIn, which is more of a professional than personal site, and has much less derp[1]. I'm also on ResearchGate, which is specifically aimed at people in the scientific research business. The latter two networks met my threshold of "the advantages of having this outweigh the disadvantages of having this." Facebook has not. Nor has Twitter.

[1]LinkedIn is not immune to derp. I have seen a post there "challenging" people to name a city that does not contain an E. Such as Washington, Ottawa, Havana, Nassau, Santo Domingo, Kingston, San Salvador, Bogota, Quito, Lima, Santiago, Paramaribo, Brasilia, La Paz, or Asuncion, just to name national capitals in the Western Hemisphere.

give her the Google juice she so richly deserves

Alas, Google tweaked their ranking algorithm in 2007 to prevent this from working. For about three years prior to that, George W. Bush's official White House biography was the top result of a Google search for "miserable failure". Today the top result of that search is a Wikipedia article on Google bombs. So as much as Ms. Murray might deserve such a fate, it would be much harder to pull off.

There are people who, for whatever reason, want to be in touch with old friends, distant relatives, or high school classmates.

Not just distant relatives; I keep in touch with cousins and one aunt in particular by means of Facebook. I'm not much of a phone gabber, under normal circumstances, so it works for me.

I've learned to ignore, to a large extent, the "angry Republican" part of my family when they post whiny or angry comments on political articles I share. The funny thing about American politics at this point is that it doesn't really seem possible to actually change minds to a large extent - people have "chosen a side" and mostly won't budge - which means I'm mostly preaching to the choir, but whatever.

@Delphine #15 - she is listed as co-owner of several businesses in CA, but doesn't appear to work.

My admin profile (yes, I admit to having more than one profile, FB TOS be damned due to this situation) is back in FB jail on a 30-day ban for a post that was removed and determined to be in violation of their community standards. As you know, FB sends copies of removed posts to people who are in trouble.

The post that was sent to me WAS BLANK.

In addition, I have attempted to copy Ms. Murray's tactics as an experiment. As you can see, she refers to me as A. Hag. I created a fake profile with that name, and reported all comments using that name that I could find on a particular anti-vax group. Precisely ZERO of them were removed.

Something else is going on.

How long has that profile been in existence? Notice how Heather said she created her profile a long time ago and kept it on the down low. Your profile might be too new.

Ah, well. No doubt our not-so-friendly neighborhood antisemitic antivaxer will try again to get me a "time out" from Facebook. I'm fairly confident that she will fail given that she hasn't managed to succeed in the three weeks since I posted my last blog post about her abuses.

@Orac #24 That particular profile is my AVWoS admin one, and has been in existence since the creation of the current AVWoS page, which has been about 3 years.

@Allison Hagood: is it possible that because your posts are public, they can be "read" by the 'bots, while the ones you are trying to report are from a private group which the 'bots may not be able to read? Just wondering if that's the difference.

I've wondered that myself. My Facebook posts are nearly all restricted to my Facebook friends. I rarely, if ever, set my posts to be public. Thus far, Heather has failed to get me banned.

Delphine: "Does Heather have a job, or ever intend to get a job, one that doesn’t involve impersonating Irma Grese at a skinhead convention? Because, you know, HR, google…"

Well, she sure does not seem to make time to parent any children she has, and I feel very sorry any child of her who had special needs.

I am still parenting a child who his almost thirty years old. There are lots of people involved in trying to make him independent. It would be a death knell if I took the time Ms. Heather spends on Facebook --- and worse if the people who are all working hard for him to see that kind of hatefulness.

Let me just say this: she is not doing the disabled, nor the family of the disabled any favor. (and not just autism, many of us got an earful from someone who was questioning the different levels of IQ between autism and Down Syndrome that qualify for state Developmental Disabilities Admin services last week at a Transition Fair .... and just for the troll, 1588d, over at the "film festival drops Vaxxed" thread --- the fair was on the Microsoft campus in Redmond, WA).

@MI Dawn #26 No, the posts I am reporting using her tactics are all on a particular public page.

I have seen a post there “challenging” people to name a city that does not contain an E.

Is that intentionally stupid? London, Munich, Tokyo, Stockholm. Just off the top of my head. Or closer to home for me, Washington, District of Columbia.

What a stupid question.

@Allison Hagood Perhaps there is strength in numbers and you need more complaints so they don't get overlooked.

However, call it the conspiracy theorist in me, I think there is more going on here too. Maybe not political but it could be a personal favor.

To join Facebook would mean supporting a company I despise. That other media then require you to use a FB login means maybe they haven't considered their ethics either.

Mr Zukerberg's book of faces also censors posts which run afoul of the company's agenda du juor. For example, posting about the German sexual assaults perpetrated by Mulsim migrants often results in the post being removed, and sometimes the poster's account being blocked.
Mr. Zukerberg has met with Angela Merkel, whose policies welcome said migrants.

FB and the like are curious things: They function like a public common space, but they are actually private property. They work assiduously to project a feel-good image of youth-friendly culture, but are actually authoritarian and regressive, always favoring government power over individual expression.

The founders of these companies are part of the generation who will soon be senators and kings high elected officials.

In place of "government power", i should have used concentration of power, as while they may kowtow or collude with governments, social media companies are (obviously) private. It's more the idea that individual speech needs to be controlled by a 'correct thinking' authority, rather than what flag that authority sails under.

Say, if anyone here has our gracious host's ear, can they advise in favor of enabling comment edits?

To join Facebook would mean supporting a company I despise. That other media then require you to use a FB login means maybe they haven’t considered their ethics either.

So don't use Facebook. I can't recall the last time I've encountered other media that absolutely require a Facebook login; they nearly always offer their own login or offer Twitter, Disqus, or other options to use. Assuming there are still such media, though, then I guess you just have to weigh your hatred of Facebook against how badly you want to have a login for that media. I'm afraid I'm not particularly sympathetic to this problem.

Say, if anyone here has our gracious host’s ear, can they advise in favor of enabling comment edits?

I have no control over that. Sorry.

In #31, I should have referred to it as a personal contact not a personal favor. Once upon a time the business where I worked had to do this with Google (on 2 separate occasions) when their bot shut down our website because their algorithm mistakenly ID us as using a black hat technique.

Anyway, I find it curious there isn't more policing of this crowd on FB because Zuckerberg has also set them off.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/11/mark-zuck…

Long time reader, possibly first time poster.

I'm adding to the comments simply to give her more targets. You mentioned she's perhaps trying to identify commenters on pieces she finds particularly offensive. So, here i am! Find me on FB if you can! Spend precious energy chasing your tail and hopefully leaving alone other hardworking, honest, ethical people who value truth!

(I'm a bit naive, but you never know. Maybe it'll work.)

It's worth noting that Facebook policy actually prohibits opening an account with something other than your legal name. Her "Frau Heather" account is actually all by itself in violation. They don't typically enforce this unless someone complains.

I have a close friend who works at FB...I'll ask him about the banning process and report back.

I can't I believe how beyond immature, vile, smug, and hateful this woman is. She's like an overgrown schoolyard bully, gloating about how badly she abused someone and how she'll do it all over again just to be mean and childish. She clearly needs deep psychological counseling, and a long, long, long break away from virtual reality.

@ spectator

FB and the like are curious things: They function like a public common space, but they are actually private property.

And vice-versa. Regularly, some blogger - here or elsewhere - would start a thread around a comment posted on Facebook by someone with 2000+ friends, only for the comment's author or on of his/her numerous followers to show up and complain that the comment was part of a private discussion.

I have a close friend who works at FB…I’ll ask him about the banning process and report back.

Unless he has something to do with the banning algorithm, he probably won't be able to find out much, but it never hurts to ask...

herr doktor bimler:

I never guessed that telling tales to the blackboard monitor could become the cause of so much satisfaction.

Pity she wasn't trying this crap with Blackboard Monitor Vimes of Ankh-Morpork. ;-) He'd never put up with it.

LW:

I have seen a post there “challenging” people to name a city that does not contain an E.

Is that intentionally stupid? London, Munich, Tokyo, Stockholm. Just off the top of my head. Or closer to home for me, Washington, District of Columbia.

What a stupid question.

Of course it's a stupid question. It's really a marketing tool. If you respond, depending on your Facebook security settings (which, incidentally, can change without your knowledge if Facebook updates their security policies, so check them often), it may allow them some access to your profile. More importantly, your response will show up in your own feed, inspiring some of your friends to try it, which will get *them* linked in as well. It's basically a way to gain a list of Facebook users to advertise to. It's rather clever. The question is extremely easy, so anyone can answer. Clever people may look at it, think "how ridiculously stupid" and reply to that effect. Less clever people will think "oh, I know one!" and reply with that, feeling pleased that they did better than the quiz expected them to. But truthfully, it doesn't matter what you post as long as you reply to it. That's all they really want.

Best thing is just to ignore those little "quizzes".

"So don’t use Facebook. I can’t recall the last time I’ve encountered other media that absolutely require a Facebook login; they nearly always offer their own login or offer Twitter, Disqus, or other options to use. Assuming there are still such media, though, then I guess you just have to weigh your hatred of Facebook against how badly you want to have a login for that media. I’m afraid I’m not particularly sympathetic to this problem."

I'm not asking for sympathy, since there's no point in that. I'm lobbying the readers.
As for their being almost always another login, I looked at both the Detroit Free Press, and the Detroit News - both facebook only I think.

I see that Heather has her very own page at Encyclopedia Dramatica.

She also has her very own website:

http://www.avwos.com

Man, how ugly and poorly designed can a website be?

Monique's petition is also hilarious:

Secondly, since this petition was originated, it has been manipulated with malware and circulated to promote harm with all sorts of viruses attached. There have been many confirmed individuals that were compromised with this hacking method. Allison Hagood and her FB "Anti Vax Wall of Shame" members are relentless to stop me from exposing the truth.

@ Calli Arcale / herr doktor bimler:

Pity she wasn’t trying this crap with Blackboard Monitor Vimes of Ankh-Morpork.

Ahhh! I wanted to say something like this, but my brain failed to rise to the challenge.
Madame, you made my day. Or rather, Fabricati diem.

Monique's petition gives frivolous, ineffective internet petitions a bad name.

If you respond, depending on your Facebook security settings (which, incidentally, can change without your knowledge if Facebook updates their security policies, so check them often), it may allow them some access to your profile. More importantly, your response will show up in your own feed, inspiring some of your friends to try it, which will get *them* linked in as well. It’s basically a way to gain a list of Facebook users to advertise to.

As I said above, I saw this marketing gimmick (and I agree that's the most plausible explanation) on LinkedIn, but I had heard reports of similar things on Facebook. And yes, the reason I saw it is because at least one of my LinkedIn connections replied to this "quiz". As with Facebook the LinkedIn user is the product--the main difference is that LinkedIn has ways to monetize their user base that are not obviously nefarious (such as offering companies paid access to potential job candidates), while Facebook seems to be purely about the marketing.

She hasn't targeted me yet. Maybe I am not very obvious. Commenting on this just to give her more research to do. How hard can it be for her to find a former biotech employee?

Mrs. Woo! Always good to see you here. I hope you and the menagerie and the family are doing well.

Let me put it this way - when you've spent the first half of your life 5 miles from a former Nazi death camp and the second half in the city that's been through two uprisings against Nazis and on the way to work you pass like 10 commemorative plaques stating things like "on this site Nazis shot 100 civilians" - well, Holocaust denial makes me very angry indeed.
Not to mention this little fact that while Poland did have internment camps before WWII, they were for communists and socialists (regardless of their ethnic origin), not Germans. But then again, facts are nothing to these people.

A friend of mine was a PR at Facebook here until recently; he told me that you don't need to get loads of people to complain, as one complaint is sufficient to get something looked at. He couldn't tell me anything about the banning decisions, though - they were just as impenetrable to him as to the rest of us, though he could get something looked at quickly if necessary.

On the fake name multiple profiles, I'm pretty sure that's against the Facebook ToS, so they're worth reporting just for existing.

LW @ 30:

Those kinds of posts (name a city without an E in the name, give a dog's name that doesn't have an A in it, what's the result of 5 + 5 + 5 x 5 + 5) are nerd snipes designed to collect usernames and other personal info for spam generators. I've been suckered by a couple because people on the internet can't do simple arithmetic, and the SIWOTI reflex is hard to ignore sometimes.

Not a Troll @37: Chances are 99.99999% that Zuckerberg hasn't heard anything about it.
I'm pretty sure that something like this happens in all the vicious areas of Facebook. In order for something to be done about this specific instance it has to come to the attention of internal FB.

Clearly you took my comment about Zuckerberg way too literally. Don't you recognize hyperbole when you see it?

I have been noticing a lot of abuse of Disqus flags at places I comment. Regularly I'm seeing all the pro-science voices in the discussion get removed. And again--there's nobody to take this to.

For people who wail a lot about free speech, they aren't really very clear about how it works.

I am fairly sure that Facebook uses an algorithm that looks at a database of ethnic, racial, etc. insults and only acts when it finds one. I suspect the second level is in some place like Bangalore or Quezon City, staffed by people with a reasonable command of English, but like the algorithm, are lacking the appropriate context . I kind of hope so, since the likely alternative is nauseating.
I've reported a number of comments but only one was taken down, and that only after the second level. Allowed to stand was a suggestion for a new superhero named "Jew Taker". Same thing for a rant about Jews running the world. Worse is the page called "Jewish Ritual Murder" dedicated to the blood libel. Thousands of people have complained about that one, including members of Congress and the Anti-Defamation League, but it doesn't "violate our community standards".
I shouldn't be surprised, given that anti-Semitism doesn't get the same reaction around the world as other kinds of racism. For example, just look at all the anti-Semitic authors whose works are still part of the great literature canon.

A random sample from HeaIThLERs website:
"For instance in Israel it is illegal to marry a non-Jew as well as gay marriage. Non-Jews that enter Israel as a refugee are imprisoned for 3 years."
Those two sentences contain more lies than they do words.
I wonder if any antivaxxer has had the courage to denounce her for it; they likely wouldn't fare any better at her hands than vaccine supporters do.

Allison Hagood@23

Something else is going on.

Cross posting my comment from Skeptical Raptor's blog. I also want to add "get over yourself" given that I have said the same thing 4 times (I think) now and apparently been ignored every time. The Facebook reporting problem is much bigger than the harassment you personally suffer and there's no reason other than ego to think Heather Murray has special influence.
----------
Nope. Nope, nope, nope. This is unrealistic and uncomfortably close to stuck backspace key = being hacked. The Facebook reporting algorithms are broken and the problem has been well known since they were implemented. They have been abused for much bigger things such as repressive governments silencing dissent.

Sorry to say, you are not that special. Your troll is very unlikely to be in a privledged position. She is just one of many who knows how to abuse the system.

Why does it not work for you? Interesting question and I don't know the inner workings well enough to answer definitively. I have two thoughts however:

1. Quantity. Despite Facebook's protestations quantity seems be a major factor in when action is taken. It seems likely that it's not just Heather but a number of AV trolls reporting you.

2. Reason. I suspect the algorithms assess posts differently based on the reason for reports. It's possible that had you chosen a different reason your reports would have been acted on.

Remember, you are a sample of one. A couple of your reports weren't accepted while Heather's were. We don't know many reports she submitted. We don't know how many other accounts duplicated the reports (clearly she has multiple accounts herself).

What we do know is that this is a system that has been abused from its inception by many people to harass many people. The probability that they all had inside help seems low. The possibility that there is a flaw in the system that they all exploited seems much more realistic.

We know the reporting alogrithm is automated. The chances that there are even many people at Facebook with the ability to influence internal automated systems seems low. That would be an abject failure of least privledge policy which is IT 101.

Let's leave the paranoia to the other side.
----------
Kate@55

A friend of mine was a PR at Facebook here until recently; he told me that you don’t need to get loads of people to complain, as one complaint is sufficient to get something looked at. He couldn’t tell me anything about the banning decisions, though – they were just as impenetrable to him as to the rest of us, though he could get something looked at quickly if necessary.

Thanks Kate for providing some confirmation that the average Facebook employee does not have knowledge of or influence over the algorithms.

#62 yes, I tend to ignore people who are rude for petty and unnecessary reasons.

Facebook has no compelling reason to fix its broken algorithms.

This 100 times. I think I said it in the last thread as well, Facebook is too big and too central in people's lives for market pressure to be a realistic tool for enacting change. Heck, the reporting algorithms aren't even the worst thing Facebook has done (remember when they were doing secret research on users withoit consent or any kind of IRB oversight?).

@Mary M #59.

I don't know how your issue will fly using this method but whenever I've had technical problems with reporting other users (or any problem) to Disqus, I start a discussion within Disqus about it. Moderators get right on it when they see that :)

"Man, how ugly and poorly designed can a website be?"

Wonder what the http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com guy would do with it.

The "Quadrazillions Of Health Freedom Fighters" loon's website already won an award over there.

#54

In my experience, the people who scream that the the Holocaust didn't happen also want to finish the job, and will be near the front of the line to do so when the opportunity strikes. They are not harmless eccentrics.

We take an orderly society for granted, but it can break within days.

re #36

Aha, mystery solved.

Clearly you took my comment about Zuckerberg way too literally.

Not really. I did a search on the controversy of the antivaccine movement on FB and found that Zuckerberg did a book report on immunizations last year.

That, and the post about his daughter's shots, led me to believe it was a pet cause of his. I didn't expect that he read the 70,000 comments on his recent post but it was in the media enough to think someone would have told him about it if he was deeply interested in the subject. Yet, perhaps it doesn't go beyond his own personal PSA posts.

I don’t know how your issue will fly using this method but whenever I’ve had technical problems with reporting other users (or any problem) to Disqus, I start a discussion within Disqus about it. Moderators get right on it when they see that

Disqustink proper doesn't have moderators; there are exactly six things that the mothership will concern itself with. "Gang flagging" isn't one of them, to the extent that it exists at all.

“Man, how ugly and poorly designed can a website be?”

Wonder what the h[]tp://www.webpagesthatsuck.com guy would do with it.

The “Quadrazillions Of Health Freedom Fighters” loon’s website already won an award over there.

As did Patty Bolen (No. 18).

A random sample from HeaIThLERs website

Heh: meta name="keywords" content="Allison Hagood, Dorit, PSYOPS, cyber bully, harassment".

I have been noticing a lot of abuse of Disqus flags at places I comment. Regularly I’m seeing all the pro-science voices in the discussion get removed. And again–there’s nobody to take this to.

The various sites that use Disqus have different ways of dealing with flagged posts. Some automatically delete posts that have been flagged a certain number of times. Certain people take advantage of this. For example, one prolific commenter called Ted Miner has at least a dozen sock puppet accounts on Disqus and uses them to flag posts that he disagrees with. I can expect my posts on some boards to be deleted with a couple of days.

Somewhat hilariously, one of these boards (which never locks threads) actually locked one thread when the number of comments went from about 1600 to less than 50 within 3 days by people gaming the algorithm. I imagine the moderator got cheesed off by people complaining that their innocuous posts were being deleted.

I feel a bit sorry for the moderators who check each report when these people turn up on their boards.

Vuppe was a Mod when I worked with him. I see he's now an All-Star. Reads like the same thing to me if you look at some of his comments.

https://disqus.com/by/kandric/

Again, I'm not sure how he'd handle your issue. Most likely he'd refer you to the individual website's Mods who control deleting comments but you can always raise the question with Disqus.

The Facebook reporting problem is much bigger than the harassment you personally suffer and there’s no reason other than ego to think Heather Murray has special influence.

Exactly.

The most probable reason why Heather Murray is more successful in getting people blocked and posts taken down than you is persistence.

Disqus also had the issue of the Upvote bots. It looks like they got a handle on it, but not before some people got banned and some earned over 100,000 upvotes.

As I type this now, I am on a 30 day Facebook ban courtesy of Ms Meryl Dorey of AV(s)N. All because I used her name to counter her on a Facebook post on Prime Minister Turnballs Facebook page on the No Jab No Pay legislation. I did not swear or threaten Ms Dorey in any way. I did however note that she is a person who encourages abuse towards families of children who have died from whooping cough.

For a person who supposedly upholds 'free speech' she certainly moves to stifle her opponents. Free speech indeed.

Again, I’m not sure how he’d handle your issue. Most likely he’d refer you to the individual website’s Mods who control deleting comments but you can always raise the question with Disqus.

Disqus refers all queries about individual sites to the moderator of that site. It only acts on a couple of system wide issues itself (spam and harassment) and on posts on its own discussion boards.

Disqus also had the issue of the Upvote bots. It looks like they got a handle on it, but not before some people got banned and some earned over 100,000 upvotes.

This was largely fixed by requiring logging in prior to upvoting or downvoting a post. Some people get around this by having multiple sock-puppet accounts and use them to upvote all their own posts (see Ted Miner previously mentioned). Frankly, you have be dedicated to go to this amount of trouble.

I think the Disqus example is just one more demonstration that some people will find ways of gaming the system to remove criticism if that is possible.

For a person who supposedly upholds ‘free speech’ she certainly moves to stifle her opponents. Free speech indeed.

Sarah, I don't know why you are surprised by this. It has always been Meryl Dorey's way.

So don’t use Facebook. I can’t recall the last time I’ve encountered other media that absolutely require a Facebook login

Village Voice, which hosts Roy Edroso's column,
http://www.villagevoice.com/authors/roy-edroso-6354670
demands that commenters log in with the Facebukkake.
In consequence, the comment threads hardly exist at VV and people go to Roy's own blog.

This is why I don't participate or engage in the AVOWS page. I lurke. I know that's not the bravest answer, but FB keeps me connected to my family, friends, my kids school, my school, current events, news, professional organizations and on and on. Facebook is so central these days, I won't argue wether that's good or bad it just is. Antivaxers are total loons with no conscious, and I can't risk being cut off from not just things I want to know, because t things I need to know.

Has it ever been considered that maybe Heather works for Facebook? Someone has to be behind the algorithms, someone has to be the staff behind the screen (likely hundreds if not thousands of people). Why not her?

This is why I don’t participate or engage in the AVOWS page.

Hell, they banned me, so I can't even view it if logged in. They're on their own as far as I'm concerned.

Disqus also had the issue of the Upvote bots. It looks like they got a handle on it, but not before some people got banned and some earned over 100,000 upvotes.

This was largely fixed by requiring logging in prior to upvoting or downvoting a post. Some people get around this by having multiple sock-puppet accounts and use them to upvote all their own posts (see Ted Miner previously mentioned). Frankly, you have be dedicated to go to this amount of trouble.

It would still actually be quite easy to automate Disqustink voting to an N of the number of public application keys one felt like dredging up.

Chrissyb@82

Has it ever been considered that maybe Heather works for Facebook?

Unlikely. Your problem is not unique and the likelihood that all reporting abuse is an inside job is small. Remember, reporting has been abused from its inception for things such as repressive governments silencing dissent. There's no reason to think Heather is special, she's just another one of many who knows how to game the system.

@JP #53

Thank you. I have been trying to keep up with posts but not commenting as much or finding the time to check back when I do, but the old house is under contract and with any luck we will finish the new house and be moved in by end of summer.

The menagerie is pretty good. We will be breaking and riding the horses this spring.

Hope.everything is well with you, too, JP? Always nice to see you.

@Narad re #46: Man, that's harsh.

Honestly, I have to look at all this with admiration. It says something about how much this nutjob fears you that she goes to such efforts.

Thank you for this column. Allison Hagood and I intend to get revenge on her by writing another book. She's taken her campaign to my husband by sending him a nasty pm. It includes ridiculous accusations of kinds including allegations that my hubby is a pedophile.

I don't even know what to say her anymore other than it's pathetic that her life's mission is apparently to lie about the holocaust, emulate the Nazis and harass advocates for public health.

Allison, Stacy,

Need help to deal with her? Pedophilia accusation is something I find hard to deal with and I've dealt with many nasty critters over the last 12 years, one of which was sent to my province's national forensic hospital after I've provided testimony against him. I'm on gmail and easy to contact.

atoussaint1976

Oh, and I'll await the sh!tstorm going my way if it ever meet my inbox :D

Alain

It appears to be SOP for anti-vaxxers/alt-med/etc advocates to have a very tenuous grasp of what freedom of speech and censorship actually mean.

Over this side of the Atlantic there is a publication called "What Doctors Don't Tell You", which is basically anti-SBM propaganda. A number of us, independently and collectively, took exception to it being sold in supermarkets, newsagents and the like alongside genuine news publications and protested to the retailers (result it was withdrawn from sale in many places). The owner of WDDTY complained about a campaign of censorship...

For extra laughs said owner has banned many folk, including me, from WDDTY's FB page for having the temerity to correct some matters of fact or point out that their "editorial board" don't actually have a valid and active medical qualification between them.

Now that IS censorship...

This is exactly why I left Facebook.

Or was sanctimoniously kicked off of Facebook & thereby chose never to return.

I must admit though, I have a (to use one of Trump's brainless words) tremendous amount of more free time now that I'm not on Facebook. To do other things I enjoy. I let myself get consumed by it there for a few months. Life's honestly better without it, as there was a lot of damaging drivel just like this on there. Of course, now I am not as easily able to connect daily with many of my family members as well as long-time & distant friends, but it is what it is. Now I just have to make concerted efforts to reach out to people in other more traditional ways.

Facebook does not care about your connections anymore. They only care about your marketability.

#16 JP

There was a time when Facebook was trying to force everybody to use their real names, including trans people who used a chosen name rather than their given name, but it almost resulted in a mass exodus to “Ello” (where I have an account, but ended up never using it.) Facebook changed their policy pretty quickly after that.

This is right around when I was banned from Facebook for using my cat's name in Oct. 2014, & as far as I know, Facebook basically did nothing to change their policies at all. They may have given a few transgender drag queens their stage names on Facebook back because of their publicity, for they were being viciously targeted by bigots as well, but for the rest of us who were affected, this remains untrue.

You can still be banned for using a fake name, a nickname, or any other perversion or derivation of your name if someone reports you, & there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. You can try to appeal the ban, but they will demand you change your name to your legal name & provide them with proper forms of identification to further confirm who you really are. Some have been able to argue for their name, but a lot are lost to Facebook forever.

I have an online acquaintance who legally changed his name after having had his profile set up with his birth name for a few years or so. The "legal battle" and red tape he had to wade through with Facebook for them to update his name was quite frankly ridiculous.

Off topic (but is antivax BS ever off topic?) and I apologize if someone saw this elsewhere and linked it, but Daily Beast sent someone to the premier of "Vaxxed."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/01/i-watched-the-anti-vax…

Apparently there were ~20 people there. Oh, and it was nuts.

I do have a sockpuppet FB account, along with my "real" one. I almost never use it. Maybe I'll see what I can do with it...Hmmmmm

Alain,

The allegations have not been yet but thank you for the offer of help.

Here's an interesting link to a review of Vaxxed that was linked to in the New York Times. The anti-vax nuts are, of course, all over it.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/vaxxed-from-cover-up-to-catastrophe-is…

Reason # 37 I don't have a FB account.

Hope.everything is well with you, too, JP? Always nice to see you.

Doing okay. I'm on track with my academic duties, and I'll be finished for the semester by April 10th, hopefully, though I can take a few extra days if I need to. Flying out to visit family on the 15th; I'll get to see my mom and my brother and my two nephews, one of whom I haven't met yet, so that will be nice. And my brother has a dog (Skeeter, a chocolate lab), so there will be canine company as well.

Stayed over with a good friend last night who also has a dog, a very sweet pitbull. She's been working pretty hard on dog training; Nina was noticeably less "I will jump all over you and lick your ears!" than she was the last time I visited. We played some fetch with a green chew-toy ball she has, but, being a pitbull, it was more like tug-of-war most of the time, because she knows how to get the ball, but isn't terribly good at letting it go.

@ Lurker # 94

The Beast reporter was at an 11AM workday screening. 20 is decent attendance for that. The NYT reported later showings yesterday sold out. 8PM tonight is already sold out.

Can't people who don't want to use their real name on FB open an organization account, like the real AVWOS? I see posts from 'organizations' that are obviously made by some individual, e.g. replies in threads on their page. Can those folks NOT post on other pages under those accounts?

On the Tribeca Wrap- up thread
I mention a link to a Friday viewing which featured a Q and A session with Andy and company.
@ delbigtree links to the 15 minute you tube 'treat".
I think that the Q and As were to later showings Friday ( and Saturday) not the first one.. possibly, there were about 10 rows of viewers but it was hard to see and only a very brief glimpse of the audience. A smattering of applause sounded like not-a-huge crowd.

@sadmar #100

You can post as a page you are an administrator for, but there has to be a regular account it is attached to.

Another fringe lunatic being given way too much attention. Why are grown adults still giving people like this the time of day instead of, oh I don't know, using the block feature as it was intended? Don't get me wrong, she sounds like she's very good at throwing tantrums herself, and her website is a good example of her best tantrum by far, but what do you normally do with kids who throw hissy fits? You send them to their room without dinner. Murray probably also needs a diaper change, but she's not the only person out there like this and at the end of the day, the real problem here is with the shitty automated moderation features of Facebook, making them possible to be abused in the first place. Shitty people will do shitty things, as long as they're able to do shitty things.

Remiel says (#103),

Shitty people will do shitty things, as long as they’re able to do shitty things.

MJD says,

In parallel, creative people will do creative things, as long as they’re able to do creative things.

Heather is devilishly creative in her efforts to temporarily suppress some FB bloggers....bad girl.

Apparently someone has used the same techniques against the Vaccine Information Network.

http://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/corrupt-facebook-bans-41-v…

Crissyb@82: If Heather worked for Facebook she'd be fired in a heartbeat for this stuff.

MJD

Heather is devilishly creative in her efforts to temporarily suppress some FB bloggers….bad girl.

Wrong. People have been harassing Allison this way for over 2 years (a certain friend of the blog wrote on it back then). Reporting abuse has been used to supressive other groups for even longer. Heather is not innovative among antivaxers let alone among trolls in general. Persistent? Yes. Creative, unique, novel, innovative, particularly bright? The evidence does not support those statements.

Ahem. suppressive.

I'm wondering if this Heather is the same person I've come across in the Google Sphere who dabbles in horse breeding and racing, although the latest FB page update is 2013? She also seems to have linked to a business in Orange County with a list of customer complaints and a "F" BBB rating and her listed as CEO. There are comments on the old FB page about the stables and horses pictured (broodmares & yearlings) about the owner being anti semitic.

Lawrence @#110 - same.

Considering this pattern of posts you cite, violating Facebook's 'community standards', you have to wonder what community they are actually serving. Perhaps the Facebook employees writing the algorithm were vaccinated as children. Yeah, that would explain it.

That last was snark, in case you doubted it.

Everyone seems to miss the point that I want addressed. Why did they take the death stats out of the form a mother has to sign before a child is inoculated. In the eighties when my children were little and getting these inoculation, on the Form I had to sign it listed the number of children who died as a result of the shots. They no longer appear on the form. I'm sorry but if you don't have anything to hide you don't hide anything. a parent has a right to know how many children died as a result of inoculation and decide for herself if it is worth the risk to inoculate her child. It angers me beyond belief that they have taken the right to choose away with the denial of Education. These parents have a right to be educated on the pros and cons of every inoculation and they have the right to decide or at least they should have the right to decide rather or not the risk outweighs the benefits. I in no way agree Heather's approach nor do I agree with her bigotry. I also do not deny scientific evidence I just want all of it revealed not the part that makes science look good. I have heard the song and dance about how it's impossible to know if the shot caused it alone or if the child had some other illness that contributed. No one is stupid enough to buy that line we hear stats everyday regarding to how many people get COPD from smoking lung cancer from smoking etc etc did you know that about 30% of all COPD cases are not caused by smoking? They can get the information on that but there is no way to tell if the inoculation causes the death or if it were a car wreck? That is actually their response.. If you're going to tell us this and that caused death to Millions but you can't narrow down the number of deaths caused by an inoculation, please expect hate group cases like this one to come out of the closet if you are going out of your way to drag them out , don't complain about it, you get no sympathy. Give us the truth and I will back you 100%

Everyone seems to miss the point that I want addressed. Why did they take the death stats out of the form a mother has to sign before a child is inoculated. In the eighties when my children were little and getting these inoculation, on the Form I had to sign it listed the number of children who died as a result of the shots. They no longer appear on the form.

Um, are you talking about the VIS?

Death stats on consent forms? I don't ever remember seeing that in the 1980s and 1990s when I had my kids vaccinated. Yes, I got VIS for all the vaccines, and remember it showed percentages of side effects/risks of the shot. But I don't recall any specific death stat (i.e. "10 children died in 1986 from this shot" or even "25 children have died from this shot").

Sandra - got a copy of those forms with death stats you can post somewhere? I'm curious.

Ms. Sergent: "In the eighties when my children were little and getting these inoculation, on the Form I had to sign it listed the number of children who died as a result of the shots. They no longer appear on the form."

That is strange, because it was never on any form I signed in the 1980s when I got my first child vaccines. Could you provide some kind actual evidence?

Please do come up with the official USA statistics on how many children died from the vaccines during the 1980s and before.

"No one is stupid enough to buy that line we hear stats everyday regarding to how many people get COPD from smoking lung cancer from smoking etc etc did you know that about 30% of all COPD cases are not caused by smoking?"

No, we did not know that because you did not provide any verifiable documentation for that claim. But I do know there are other particulates that people breathe. There are issues with air pollution, coal dust from mining, dust in grain silos, etc. It is significant that smoking causes more than half of the cases, when everyone breathes in dust and air pollution. Especially since from 1965 on less than half of the population smokes tobacco.

"Give us the truth and I will back you 100%"

You first. Just provide us the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the diseases.

While you are coming up with actual evidence for your claims, just do a little math word problem for us. Here is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program statistics as of June 2016, now look at the grand totals of the first table. Take the total number of vaccines given for the stated number of years (2,532,428,541 vaccines given between 2006 through 2014), then divide it by the total number of compensated claims (2211 claims). What is that number and what does it mean?

I admit that I didn't see any forms in the '80s, because that would have been my grandchildren. However, I had my own children given every vaccine available in the '60s and '70s, and never saw any "death list." Since I was a survivor of 2 VPDs for which they were vaccinated, and was not ignorant of the injuries and deaths caused by VPDs, I probably wouldn't have paid much attention. I was the weird mother who argued with the pediatrician when he told me that smallpox vaccines were no longer given. He probably dined out on that story for months.

MY COPD is from smoking and I have never known anyone with that ailment for whom smoking was not the cause.

Sandra – got a copy of those forms with death stats you can post somewhere?

I seem to recall hearing this one before; at least, I distinctly recall wasting a lot of time searching back through documents on a related one that never panned out.

Everyone seems to miss the point that I want addressed.

How outrageous, no-one responded to Sandra's question before she asked it!

Hi, Ellie. There are, in fact, people with COPD who have never smoked. My next door neighbor is an example. Here's a recent look at the literature:
https://www.uptodate.com/contents/chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease….

Hello, Brian. I'm sure there are other causes, especially in my area where lung disease is rampant. However, I was definitely speaking of my personal experience, and I do not know anyone who has/had COPD that wasn't caused by smoking or possibly secondhand smoke.

@Chris,

Is there a good source for how any of those compensations were for deaths?

Doing some very crude calculations based on the tables on pages 5 and 6 and assuming all deaths claimed were caused by vaccines, I get an upper bound estimate of death risk per vaccine administered of about 6 in 100,000,000.

So for the table on page 4, a maximum of about 17 people die each year in what might be caused by vaccinations.

For comparison, rougly 2500 -4800 people die in the U.S. each year from choking. So, for a population of 300 million eating 3 meals a day, about 1.5 people die per meal eaten.

So,on that basis, getting a vaccination is about 10 times as dangerous as eating your next meal.

Very crude, of course!

"Is there a good source for how any of those ompensations were for deaths?"

Um, yeah. Just read the tables, especially the column titles. You are not going to get details because of HiPAA. Yes, it exists, deal with it.

Dude, I know you are being provocative for a reason, so I have to ask about the incidences of encephalitis, high fevers, paralysis, deafness, pneumonia, and other issues with vaccine preventable diseases. These also need to be measured, for both as effects of the vaccines and the diseases. To neglect that statistic is totally dishonest.

"squirrelelite, (sarcasm noted) those questions are what Ms. Sergent should answer. Let us wait for her learned response to that particular math word problem.

Though I have asked this question more than once, and so far I have never received a relevant answer. It seems that those I ask have the very very very few internet accessible computing devices that lack a basic calculator. Which is very weird. Even my old internet idiot dumb flip phone had a calculator. I don't understand how someone who can comment on teh internets does not have access to a calculator.

Let us wait to see is Ms. Sergent ever comments on these pages again, or just does a Sir Brave Robin. I am voting on the latter.

"So,on that basis, getting a vaccination is about 10 times as dangerous as eating your next meal."

Except when you put in the frequency variable. I doubt you would have a live child it you decide to feed that child only on the days they are scheduled for a vaccine. The frequency between the infant vaccine schedule is about sixty days... I sincerely doubt most infants survive ten days without being fed.

As I think about it, your scenario is quite repugnant.

I have received another 30-day ban for this post, which in no way mentions a name other than the one of the person with whom I am actually conversing, and that person would not have reported this post:

"Hey, Melissa Kane, looks like the braintrust over at the Fail Wall doesn't have the moral integrity to screenshot your post accurately. Poor things."

It turns out that Ms. Murray and her fellow harassers are creating fake profiles using my and other activists' names, and using those profiles to report posts that mention names even in conversations between friends.

So, Facebook has created a system in which no one may ever refer to anyone by a name under any circumstances, ever, even in conversations between friends.

@Chris,

I really apologize if my scenario was repugnant.

I was just trying to compare the risk of vaccination based on the compensations, which is extremely low, with the risk of other common life activities.

Since Ms Sergent complains about extremely low probability risks not being mentioned, the onus is on her to show that is important enough to risk the much higher threat of the diseases.

I understand what you were doing, but I may have overthought it. I sincerely doubt Ms. Sergent would understand the frequency of the events. Good grief the drive to and from the doctor's office is more risky than the vaccine.

Once again, Facebook reporting algorithms facilitate harassment of pro-science advocates by antivaccine cranks

oracknows — Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:00:48 +0000

Once again, Facebook reporting algorithms facilitate harassment of pro-science advocates by antivaccine cranks

Nearly eleven years ago, back in April 2005, I opened my work e-mail (I was working at a different university back then) and saw an e-mail from someone whose name I had seen before, one Mr. William P. O'Neill. Opening the e-mail, I was shocked to find an e-mail to Orac; worse, the e-mail was cc'ed to my cancer center director, my division chief, and my chairman. In it, O'Neill outed me as Orac and was threatening to sue me over a post I did. Naturally, it was interspersed with accusations of my being a "pharma shill" and having lied about him. Now here's the odd thing. This is the post that provoked Mr. O'Neill's ire. All I did was point to Peter Bowditch's website, specifically his 2004 Millenium Awards. Basically, he was pissed at me for approvingly citing his nemesis, who had taken great pleasure calling O'Neill the Gutless Anonymous Liar.

Thus ended my anonymity, a mere five months after my first blog post. Such is life as a blogger. Nowadays my pseudonym is more a nom de blog than any sort of protection against "outing," as everyone knows who I am and anyone who doesn't and can't find out I consider too clueless to be worth dealing with. Since then, I've had more cranks take a run at me, either through "outing" me online or harassing me at work, than I care to remember. The most agita-inducing example occurred in 2010, when Jake Crosby accused me of an undisclosed conflict of interest with a pharmaceutical company, resulting in the antivaccine drones at Age of Autism sending complaints about this to my dean and the board of governors. Fortunately, nothing came of it, but I'll never forget it.

I tell this story, which I've told several times before over the years, not so much because it's so fascinating, but rather because it illustrates a fact of life that anyone who publicly criticizes cranks must realize. Not having evidence or science on their side, cranks, especially antivaccine cranks, attack the person. In particular, they go after what they perceive as their online critics' weakest point: Their employers. I was reminded of this in a post on Skeptical Raptor by Dorit Rubinstein about a campaign of online harassment against Alison Hagood on Facebook. It includes all the same ugly, sorry tactics, including these actions:

Started an online petition to Ms. Hagood’s employer requesting disciplinary action or termination.
Repeatedly reported Allison to her school for her online activities, trying to get her fired.
Posted her private address online.
Emailed people she knows.
Created a web site, the purpose of which is solely to harass Ms. Hagood.
Repeatedly sent her insulting or threatening messages.

As I said, the same old tactics. Meanwhile, elsewhere, pro-vaccine advocates are subject to attacks on Twitter, in blogs, and on other social media. However, there is one new tactic that is more recent. Specifically, it's about Facebook; specifically it's about how antivaccinationists abuse Facebook's reporting algorithms. I've written about this once before, when members of the Stop the Australian Vaccination Network were targeted by what was then called the Australian Vaccination Network for complaints against them on Facebook. Facebook, through its automated reporting algorithms, would then issue 12-hour, 24-hour, or even longer bans against pro-vaccine advocates.

Well, they're at it again. Not the AVN this time, but another group of antivaccinationists, and they're targeting Allison Hagood and others:

Last month, Facebook banned Ms. Hagood for 30 days, for posting an image that “violates community standards”. The image, with a caption Allison added, is shown below. This was her third ban in a row.

The original image, shared widely on Facebook by those who revile Ms. Hagood (shown above), is a photograph of Ms. Hagood’s green-tinted face photoshopped into a still of the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz. The original caption reads, “I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!”...

For posting this image, Ms. Hagood was banned from Facebook for 30 days. It is likely, although impossible to prove, that the image was reported by the anti-vaccine activist who created the original image.

Dorit Reiss documents a Facebook conversation gloating about it on the Skeptical Raptor blog:

Anti-vaccine activist #1: Actually A hag’s (sic – the anti’s nickname for Allison) main account is about to come off a 30 day suspension, and I have just the comment to report that will extend it another 30 day
Anti-vaccine activist #2: [image of laughing squirrel with HAHAHA]
Anti-vaccine activist #3: Dahahahaa
Anti-vaccine activist #4: Go for it!
Anti-vaccine activist #5: Go for it!

A year later, they're still at it. In fact, Allison's been banned multiple times, including recently. Mostly it's been Allison Hagood and Stacy Mintzer Herlihy, who co-authored a recent pro-vaccine book, Your Baby's Best Shot: Why Vaccines Are Safe and Save Lives and seem to come in for particularly opprobrium from the antivaccine fringe. However, earlier this week, the man responsible for the Skeptical Raptor website fell into the sights of antivaxers. It's useful to consider just how far they went to do this, too, and the way to do that is to look at a Facebook post one of my readers forwarded to me from an antivaccine group known as The Vaccine Resistance Movement (VRM). It's a Facebook cesspit of the most radical, batshit radical antivaccinationists you'll find. This is the post I was pointed to in that Facebook group (click to embiggen):

Yes, this is the sort of tactics that antivaccine loons use to harass and silence pro-science advocates on Facebook.

That last bit sounded very much like a threat.

So, yes, from this it appears that the above woman is behind at least one of these bogus complaints to Facebook. There are actually many more antivaccinationists harassing pro-science advocates on Facebook, but this is the one I saw in a public forum, thanks to one of my readers; so this is the one I'm naming and shaming.

Perhaps you are wondering what the "racial slur" that Skeptical Raptor allegedly made. Here's what I meant when I was referring to just how far someone like Heather would go to find something to complain to Facebook about. What she found demonstrates not just her mendacity but Facebook's cluelessness. I'm Facebook friends with Skeptical Raptor; so I know the story. While it's a little more complicated than this, one thing that contributed to Raptor's ban is a post of his from three years ago in which he referred to someone as "niggardly." As anyone with any education knows, this word is not the N-word that is among the worst, if not the worst, of racial slurs, nor is it related to the N-word. Rather, it means, basically, stingy or cheap and has nothing to do with race or slurs. It turns out the Raptor used the word in a post in which he mocked someone who thought "niggardly" was a racist comment. Heather, clueless as she is, thought this word was related to the N-word. Even more cluelessly, Facebook accepted that explanation. Whether it happened at the level of its automatic algorithm or whether a real human approved the block, who knows? Facebook's banning algorithms are the ultimate black box. They might as well be in the center of a black hole, given how impenetrable they are and how difficult it is to shine any light on them.

Because of idiocy like this, I don't use the word "niggardly" anymore exactly because people these days are so clueless that they mistake the word for a racial slur. It's a shame and I know it's truly dumb, but unfortunately language has evolved and the stigma against the N-word is so strong that people hear something that sounds vaguely like it, and their brains shut down. There really is little point in fighting it any more. That battle was lost, and using that word risks getting bogged down explaining that it has nothing to do with the N-word and distracting from my message. Besides, my intentionally using the word as a protest isn't going to change the way things are, and the way things are is that clueless wonders like this antivaccine warrior think the word is "hate speech," and Facebook even more cluelessly agrees.

So let's recap what we have here. We have a group of rabid antivaccine activists intentionally going through Facebook with a fine tooth comb to locate anything that they think they can report to Facebook that might get a temporary ban, and then they report it. It doesn't matter how tenuous that "dirt" is. We have service (Facebook) with a system for dealing with hate speech and online harassment that is easily gamed to harass people, an observation that is ironic in the extreme, so much so that it would be amusing if it weren't so destructive. Facebook's reporting algorithm is now a tool of harassment, such that it can be used again and again to keep pro-science advocates banned and continually on their guard. Finally, Facebook's double standard is so incredible that many complaints about things that should be complained about and should result in a ban result in no action. I personally have complained about harassing posts about myself and others, and each and every time I've received a notice that the post "does not violate Facebook community standards." I've heard similar stories from several others.

Indeed, take a look at the comments after Dorit Reiss' post. You'll see that Allison Hagood has gotten another 30 day ban over, well, let her tell you:

I have just received my fourth 30-day ban for a post that in no way violates any community standards of any kind. The text:

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

That is fucking priceless. I am in love with Frau Heather's irony right now."

Referring to someone by their first name is not harassment, not bullying, not a personal attack. Laughing at someone's idiocy is not harassment, not bullying, not a personal attack.

Also, Allison's posting of a link to Dorit Reiss' article on harassment on Facebook was also reported as "hate speech." Meanwhile, in the comments after her post, Heather is posting screenshots of Facebook confirming that the targets of her complaints had received temporary bans and gloating heartily. Obviously, my opinion of her is incredibly low. She is cowardly, vindictive, and, let's be frank, a complete and total asshole. She is also welcome to comment here to defend herself if she wishes. Her first comment will go to moderation, but I'll approve it, and after that she will be able to comment freely. Somehow, I doubt she'll take me up on my offer, because she can't function anywhere where she isn't preaching to a friendly, approving crowd cheering her on for her dishonest use of the Facebook reporting system.

So, in the end, once again antivaccinationists have no science, only pseudoscience. They have no good evidence, only cherry picked data twisted into an unrecognizable pretzel in the service of supporting their pseudoscience. So they attack the person, facilitated by Facebook's reporting algorithm. It's truly despicable behavior and not at all disappointing for antivaccinationists. After all, it's what they do; we don't expect anything more honorable from them, and meanwhile, those who've aligned themselves with the antivaccine movement who try to portray themselves as nice and honorable guys (I'm talking to you, Dr. Jay Gordon) stay silent. What is disappointing is that one of the richest companies in the world, a company that revolutionized social media, is apparently incapable of preventing itself from being played for a sucker by antivaccine activists turning its tools intended to prevent and stop harassment into tools to harass.

Either that, or the people running Facebook just don't care. After all, it's not just antivaccine cranks who can game the system. In response to complaints, Facebook routinely deletes peaceful, anti-racist posts by activists, doling out 24-hour and 30-day bans the way it has to Stacy and Allison, while deciding after similar complaints against them that bigoted posts calling for preparing for violence against Muslims don't violate Facebook's community standards.

Truly, Facebook is broken, and its system designed to police community standards seems to indicate that community standards favor pseudoscience, bullying, racism, and harassment.

ADDENDUM: A little birdie told me that the administrators of VRM took down Heather's post and sent me this (click to embiggen):

oracknows Thu, 03/10/2016 - 00:00

Categories

Education

one thing that contributed to Raptor’s ban is a post of his from three years ago

A post from 3 years ago?

That really is mendacious.

Also I would be willing to bet my left testicle that Heather is fully aware that niggardly is not racist.

This is why I don't "do" social media. All it does is allowing all the bad things about real-life "leak into" your online life.- the very thing I come to the Internet to avoid. Me hanging around here in these comments on this blog is a rare glitch in my otherwise introverted self...

Also... who the heck is Oraq? Orac's Middle-Eastern cousin mayhaps?

I just went over to Raptor's blog and found this:

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antivaccine-acti…

It reveales the extent of the harassment Mrs (Ms?) Hagood has endured in more detail, including rape and death threats - ON HER PHONE. To me, someone sending you a text message is far, faaaaar more "intimate" than an email or other online message and would freak me the hell out.

Err. I was wrong. It was on Facebook still - that message interface looks soooo much like the iOS texting interface...

Orac: "Not having evidence or science on their side, cranks, especially antivaccine cranks, attack the person."

In a way this is an improvement. When I first started studying quackery many years ago they used to sue. Many lawyers had no problems taking on such clients. Fortunately the court system quickly began to rule against the quacks.

Thank you for this column.

This is the post that got me a three day suspension from Facebook:

For making the following statements a few years ago about a Neo Nazi anti-vaxer :

Heather makes some of the most vile statements I've ever seen posted anywhere outside of places like stormfront where the fucking Nazis gather. She should be grateful that Allison deigns to mock her. Were I charge of the universe, she would not be allowed to leave the house without her KKK robes and burning cross so as to warn the world about the kind of person she is.

This is the same woman I wrote up a few years ago on The Times of Israel:

www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/anti-semitic-hate-speec…

She's an unrepentant Nazi. She's harassing my writing partner. She calls for the death of my kids. And Facebook takes her side and bans me.

Here's the article I wrote about her (corrected link):

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/facebook-and-the-misguided-protection-of…

She is a Nazi.

@Stacy

I don't see why Facebook should punish her. Countries that actually put people in jail for Holocaust Denial baffle me. I am of the opinion that there should be no limit to free speech, idiotic ideas should be put out there for all to see and laugh at - especially on Facebook where there is a blooming photo and name of the one making the argument.

It is only when you start talking about the things they do ban it becomes an issue because it is obvious that there is a way to abuse the system to silence other people.

I don't want to put her in jail. I don't even want her suspended from Facebook. What I want is for Facebook to tell me I have the right to call her a Nazi without banning me. She is a Nazi. I want them to stop harassing my writing partner as well.

Facebook isn't doing this. I'm baffled as to why.

I guess I was right to stay off of facebook despite multiple entreaties by people I know.
( Not my cup of tea: I frequently read one of my gentlemen's page wherein the political commentary by others is often mind-shatteringly awful despite his extremely liberal/ socialistic position I can hear that on television if I so choose)..

HOWEVER watching woo-meistery, I've learned that some of the its thought leaders** want followers to make avid use of it to publicise / proselytise their agenda and product line- both of which are usually interdependent. Mikey brags about his " 1.7 million" followers. Null claims " 150 million" responses to prn.fm ( facebook et al). Anti-vax groups manage to scrounge up 15K to 30K ( except for Vaccine Machine which hovers around 50K).

Interestingly, one of the outlets near and dear to my heart**, TMR- which is now four years old- actually started amongst a group of facebook friends some of whom attended university together and others who were attracted by the bright and shining woo. Its inner circle uses their personal facebook to advise newcomers about how to treat their children's symptoms. Supposedly, there is another social networking interface which they use as well to shield their inner workings from SB lurkers.

** sarcasm

It is just like YouTube and their stupid content ID-system - all automated, too. Seems to be these people have figured out how to Facebook's autmated system against people they don't like.

seems to me*

My kingdom for a comment edit function!

I once had an anti-GMO nutter go through my Facebook to attempt to prove that it was not the decade old profile that it actually is (his gist being that I was lying about not being a Monsanto shill). He managed to find out that the Facebook timeline started 9 years ago and took that as proof that I was lying. Only other thing he came back with was a video of me swimming one of my last national meet races as a collegiate athlete, because apparently that should be embarrassing to me.

My profile is now locked down about as tightly as it can be.

People be cray.

You know what's NOT considered abuse by Facebook? Death threats!

From my good friend Melody Butler at Nurses Who Vaccinate

"Seems like Rosie enjoys sending threats to those she disagrees with. She's been messaging the page with several threatening posts detailing how she plans to kill members of our organization. If anyone can provide information on Rosie we can pass on to authorities when we file our report it would be greatly appreciated."

Thank you Orac for addressing this issue. Like Stacey mentioned above, comments that call for me to be killed and my brain ripped out apparently are acceptable to remain on Facebook despite attempts by many including myself to report them. There's a whole collection I can send you if need be. Thankfully the poster is several thousands of miles away from me, but still, it's always a nerve-wracking to have such threats directed to you at a personal level.

I am of the opinion that there should be no limit to free speech

There always will be limits. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not, and should not be, protected speech. Speech intended to incite violence is not, and should not be, protected speech. If any of the people who have posted rape or death threats against Ms. Hagood live in New Hampshire, they are in violation of RSA 631:4, which prohibits criminal threatening (and the act is a felony if a deadly weapon is involved in the threat). I assume other states have statutes along the lines of New Hampshire's. Facebook has a serious problem if they are allowing the issuers of such threats to escape punishment.

I agree that prohibiting Holocaust denial is too much regulation, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

In principle, I agree with not limiting speech. I will point out, however, that the U.S. criticism of laws censoring Holocaust denial in Europe comes from a position of privilege. We are a two-party majoritarian electorate system where small, extreme parties can't easily get a foothold in the legislature or executive, though they can have an influence - and we were removed from the direct impact of Nazi control of countries.

Countries where, through coalition government, small parties can have more direct role in policy making and where the Nazi scars were still fresh when these laws were passed are not in the same position.

The way to battle speech is, generally, more speech. But remember that it's easier to do when the system has other built in controls against dangerous extremes getting power.

That's not directly relevant to this problem, though. I don't think anyone here was advocating for silencing Holocaust denial.

I think death threats (DEATH THREATS!) ought to be grounds for suspension from Facebook if not complete removal. I don't think Allison and I should be punished for calling a Nazi a Nazi. I mean it's not as if she's denying it.

I should say it now-

Stacy, Dorit, Allison and Melody-

I applaud the fine work you're doing and I'm sure that many readers here feel much the same.

@Eric. Ah the old "shouting fire in a cinema"-thingy. That would imply that freedom of speech == freedom of consequences.

Which it is not. You should be free to shout "Fire!" in a cinema as long as you are prepared to face the possibility of punishment for causing a panic - that is not something free speech shields you from!

I left out Michael.

Heather?

You know what you're really inspiring us to do? Speak up even louder in favor of vaccines. And write a second book. I am working a new sample chapter in between commenting here.

Thank you for covering the nearly 17 months of harassment I've been receiving. Most of that has been from this person and others, some involved with and encouraged by her, but there have been others who've contacted my employer and left me anonymous threatening voice mails at my office.

The involvement of this particular individual began when she posted, on a public Facebook book (now gone) designed to attack AVWoS, a shocking, anti-Semitic Holocaust denial screed in which she blamed WWII on "the Jews" and stated that Hitler never wanted war. I still have a screenshot of that, which I took at the time and posted elsewhere as an example of the strong thread of anti-Semitism that runs through the anti-vaccine movement.

Since that public posting of her public anti-Semitism, she has been relentless in harassing, cyberstalking, doxing, and threatening me. I wonder if her behavior is related not only to her conspiracy theories about vaccines (among other things - she seems to believe every conspiracy that exists) but also to her discomfort at the thought that someone she cares about may not respond well if they discover her anti-Semitism.

I appreciate that this issue is getting wider coverage.

Thank you Alison and Stacy and Micheal and Dorit and Melody for the work you are doing. Sorry it is making you the target of such nasty people, please be comforted that there are people of good will who abhor that they are trying to shut you up.

Facebook really needs to get a grip on the malicious use of there reportng systems. I was banned out right when someone maliciously reported me for not using my 'real' name. Now I know that they want you to use your 'real' name, but there are plenty of people who have a whole host of different but good reasons not to use their 'real' name. Furthermore in the UK it is perfectly legal to use any name you want as long as you are not doing so with the intent to commit crime. It seems to be impossible to reach a human to challege such decisions.

Thanks Lord Oraq (sic) for posting this article.

My patience with these whackaloons has slowly been disappearing. At first, I found them amusing, because it's obvious, like Orac the Wizard has written, they lack evidence, so they go on the attack.

Facebook is a fun social place for me. I swear that most of my posts are about politics (Bernie bots are as annoying, but they don't go anti-semitic or hate-filled, because well that would be ironic) and the Walking Dead. And metal. Sir Orac the Wise and I have had long chats about the merits of certain types of Goth Metal. Seriously. We should post those publicly.

Gloryhammer rules. No, that's not a euphemism for Donald Trump's...errrrrr....hands.

These jackasses aren't going to scare me off of Facebook.Because I never would have known about Gloryhammer and zombie unicorns (yeah, trust me, it makes sense) if it weren't for a conversation on Facebook. And no anti-vaxxer, anti-semitic dumbass is going to keep me from learning who's next on the Walking Dead.

This type of behavior is why the Select committee looking into Planned Parenthood should not get the names of the researchers!

We appreciate your support, Jazzlet. Heather and her cohort of idiots will not silence our voices.

@Amethyst #20:

You should be free to shout “Fire!” in a cinema as long as you are prepared to face the possibility of punishment for causing a panic

And what if someone gets trampled to death in the panic? Would you still be comfortable with your choice?

The way to battle speech is, generally, more speech.

It is for exactly this reason that death threats should be (and are, in some states) prohibited. The intent of a death threat is to prevent the target from responding with more speech, whether by terrorizing her into not speaking up, or silencing her by force. When the authorities cannot act until after the latter has happened, this is not good for rational discussion of the issue--at that point it's too late for the victim, and the rest of the public sphere doesn't get to hear her views on the issue.

There is probably a clause in the Facebook TOS that specifies the venue for applicable law (presumably the California county in which Facebook's corporate headquarters is located). Most software companies have such a clause in the license agreement. But there should still be ways of turning up the heat on Facebook. If California has a similar law to the New Hampshire statute I linked in post #16, report it to the California police. If the issuer or recipient of such a threat lives in a state with such a law, report it to the appropriate local authorities. Make Facebook's lawyers explain to the police why Facebook's willful failure (if it's been duly reported to Facebook, then they can't claim not to know) to take action against members issuing such threats does not constitute aiding and abetting.

In principle, I agree with not limiting speech. I will point out, however, that the U.S. criticism of laws censoring Holocaust denial in Europe comes from a position of privilege. We are a two-party majoritarian electorate system where small, extreme parties can’t easily get a foothold in the legislature or executive, though they can have an influence – and we were removed from the direct impact of Nazi control of countries.

Countries where, through coalition government, small parties can have more direct role in policy making and where the Nazi scars were still fresh when these laws were passed are not in the same position.

I used to write about these issues a lot back in the day because my "gateway" to skepticism was refuting the lies of Holocaust deniers. If you search the term "David Irving" you'll see that I'm opposed to the criminalization of Holocaust denial and was quite vocal ten years ago that David Irving should not be charged in Austria with Holocaust denial, much less imprisoned for it.

As for the position of privilege, I pointed out ten years ago that I totally understood the purpose of these laws in the immediate aftermath of World War II and could agree how necessary they were then. Here's the problem. When I wrote those posts about David Irving, it was over 60 years after the war; today it's more than 70 years after the war. It's thus been close to three generations since Hitler shot himself in his bunker and the allies came across the camps as they advanced into Germany. There comes a time when the training wheels have to come off. It's not unreasonable to ask: When is that time? One would think that three generations would be long enough. After all, the youngest members of the generation that was old enough to actually fight in the war are now in their late 80s.

The issue is really Facebook's double standards. I am suspended for calling a woman a Nazi when she praises Hitler. Someone threatens Melody with death or pm's me "c-world with fugly baby rot in hell," and we are told they are not violating any standards.

There's not even anyone you can complain to at the organization. I've tried and gotten nowhere. If Facebook is going to act as our de facto public square, officials at the company need to do a better job of policing it.

Heather Ann Murray strikes me as the sort who used to draw glasses, unibrows, buckteeth and devil horns on people's yearbook pictures. Possibly scrawled comments in bathroom stalls, too.

How can I help? Is there any way the pro-vaccination readers can help? If I send information to Facebook will they read it?

Pro-vaccination information needs to be on the web. Is there anything your readers can help keep it there?

I've commented about this on FB but I'll put it here, also. FB doesn't support the injured, only the injurees.

My cousin has children dying of a neurological (rare) disease, genetically caused. She loves her children dearly and posts pictures of them regularly. One person took some of her pictures and posted them in his/her account, with foul language on them. She properly PM'd the person to remove them. They refused so my cousin tried to report them. First FB replied the picture didn't violate the TOS (!) - there's no real way to say the person took a personal picture and photoshopped it. When my cousin protested again, the creep reported her for harassment and she was locked out for 24 hours. I tried to protest, and the creep took one of my pictures and also put foul language on it. FB did nothing about that, either, "it doesn't violate the TOS". I should have been breastfeeding. Maybe THAT would have done it...

Anyway, several of my friends and my cousin's friends posted and reported. Some got 24 hour suspensions for the report, most got "doesn't violate TOS" messages. My cousin and I ended up blocking the person and locking down our sites more.

FB is seriously screwed up when people can do things like this with impunity, and those who try to protest are those punished.
We know Mark Zuckerburg is pro vaccine. Now let's see if he is pro science.

Facebook's policy regarding what is acceptable and what is not, really blows my mind. Personally, I don't have an account, but I've heard enough on other media from my friends, who tried for example to report a page promoting violence against women or using Nazi imagery to threaten immigrants and refugees. However, since the text wasn't in English, getting someone to react was usually a long and difficult process. And not always successful, either.

Anyway, I would like to thank here all the people who have to withstand such nasty attacks for their support of science.

Anyone else thinking that Facebook employees dealing with reports and handing out suspensions might be anti-vaxxers themselves? That would explain nicely why one side gets banned on a regular basis while anti-vax crowd continue their harassment spree.

I don't really support laws prohibiting holocaust denial even in countries with a history, so am not really going to defend that. The battle there should be one of speech. And I think Orac makes an excellent point about the passage of time. On issues that are not holocaust denial statutes, however, I still think European countries have more justification to take measure like prohibiting certain political parties and penalizing certain kinds of hate speech - because their political systems are more vulnerable to direct effects of such actions, and even with the passage of time, the history is there.

The concept of militant or defensive democracy - a democracy that can use limits on speech to protect itself - is tricky, but not without basis.

Those stories are so upsetting. I'm really sorry, MI Dawn. Automated or person, that goes far beyond speech and there is no excuse for letting it - or what Melody was subjected to - stand.

I sometimes wonder if crap like this is going to drive Facebook (or somebody like them) to produce Strong AI in order to have a means of outflanking whackaloons from exploiting their reporting systems. The reason these algorithms even exist is because Facebook doesn't have the manpower to deal with 1.5 billion bitchy whiners and they are always searching for more efficient ways to fill the deficit. Sorry for the off-topic; my commiserations for Allison et al. Fight the good fight.

I'm a plaintiff's attorney and science groupie in Colorado. This article outlines a number of actions that would likely be actionable in court - intentional interference with contractual relations pops right to mind, privacy violations, etc. Have scientists fought back by taking these harassers to court?

Orac, Raptor, Dorit and Melody

Please go to a page on Facebook called 'The Internet Offends Me', send them a quick message. If any help can be provided regarding the harassment you've been receiving, it is there.

The anti-GMO activists also using this tactic. Although not banned, I had comments deleted after being reported as a breach of Facebook community standards. The offending comment?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1568915430097363&set=gm.1030167…

Heather admitted to me yesterday that her and her serpents deliberately targeted 10 people to report and "literally laughed thier asses off" when they found out they were all banned. This is not the result of using an algorithm - this is double standards and someone in facebook is facilitating this vile harassment.

My vote goes to "...or the people running Facebook just don't care."

Should we give her some of her own medicine? And other anti-vaxxers as well. Scour trough comments over comments and report everything even remotely problematic, to shred her with bans and the like.

Erik @ 41 - I do not have the financial resources to pursue legal action. I have already spent a couple thousand dollars on legal fees getting my attorney involved in the harassment at work, merely to have legal representation to interact with my employment system to ensure that the system understood what was happening and why, and how to protect my First Amendment rights.

Death and rape threats? Damn it, report the to the POLICE - they can get Facebook to do the right thing for a change, but more importantly, the whackjob antivaxers can be charged for that sort of crap. Log it, screen shot it, print it - bring in the reams of print outs to file the complaints - Police like it when you bring loads of evidence to back up your complaint and threatening people electronically can damn well get you jail time over here in Oz.

*Eric @41. I apologize for misspelling your name.

@Orac,

I've been on auto-moderate here at RI for about 1-year because of my consistent and effective posts related to the hazards of natural rubber latex in vaccine packaging?

I'd rather be banned for 30-days at RI than have a life-time sentence of auto-moderate.

When you mud wrestle a pig you get covered in filth and the pig enjoys it.

ClaudeL @42 - I did that several days ago, during the brief window when my account was not suspended. I haven't heard back.

"My vote goes to “…or the people running Facebook just don’t care.”"

They very likely do care though perhaps not in the way in which you imagine.

There is legal safety in an algorithmic response. Once a human touches an issue such as this and applies human "judgement" they risk a loss of immunity from legal liability under the Communications Decency Act. You'll find the same sort of thing with Google/YouTube bogus copyright complaints and similar disputes on many other sites.

Of course FB could respond to the issue by improving their algorithms, but only if they can do so in a broad, non-discriminatory fashion. Or if they feel a significant legal or political backlash on this particular issue.

Otherwise, they may see this as not much of a problem. After all, they are a business. If they lose customers or have their reputation tarnished they may become motivated. But if the complainers keep clamoring to get back into FB their business is perfectly safe. The conflict can even increase traffic and revenue.

If I were Heather, I really don't think I'd want the world to know that I was a Nazi who is harassing pro-vaccine advocates. Is she under the impression that her campaign here wasn't going to be noticed? Maybe she runs in the kind of circles where the KKK hood is some of a badge of honor but for most normal people, it doesn't look good.

There has to be some way to let Mark Zuckerburg know that his site is being to fight against a cause he supports. When we were looking for someone to write a foreword to our book, I went to contact a few people including Melinda Gates. Maybe someone should let her know what's going on and she can try and catch his ear?

I’d rather be banned for 30-days at RI than have a life-time sentence of auto-moderate.

Oh please please, it would be like Christmas!!!1!

I’d rather be banned for 30-days at RI than have a life-time sentence of auto-moderate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiqOsKngc-c

The FaceBook reporting algorithm is clearly still a work in progress. I once reported some soft-core porn (mostly because it's extra not coll when you go photoshopping other people's faces on porn) and I was told that it was not in violation of community standards, which is absurd.

That said, I know a few people and I'll see if I can get them to tell me more about it, and how much it is discussed internally (although not the specifics of that discussion).

I have a feeling that as this election season goes on the ban-as-tool-of-harassment will be used more and more.

The attempted edits to Allison's W—dia page by 72.228.93.219 (ironically, in Syracuse)* are sadly amusing, not least because this person keeps trying to reinstate them.

* If only it were Rochester, abode of whatever passes for Christina Waldman's law practice.

rs @53:
"There is legal safety in an algorithmic response."

Agreed. Beyond that, Facebook could never afford to hire enough people to have a human look at every single thing. With the better part of a billion users you would need a couple of million people just to keep up.

What they should have is an algorithm that identifies accounts that are regularly placed on a ban to see 1) if the ban request always comes from the same person or group and 2) if the ban is actually justified.

If person A always submits complaints about person B, but person B doesn't submit an equal number of complaints, then it might be worth having a human look at. Or if Person C is responsible for the banning of 80 people, that might also be a flag.

The issue is that the people who would be looking at this stuff would probably have to have extra training, making them even harder to come by.

Narad @359 - I have a name to put with that person/IP address. He also has posted defamatory statements in public, claiming that he believes I am working myself and my "followers" up to actual violence against anti-vaccine advocates, and kidnapping of their children. He references me by full name, and provides information on my employer so people can contact them to complain and demand that I be fired.

Those public posts have been deeded not a violation of community standards.

There has to be some way to let Mark Zuckerburg know that his site is being to fight against a cause he supports.

Twatter?

...my consistent and effective posts...

This is half true, which is a high point for MjD.

I’d rather be banned for 30-days at RI than have a life-time sentence of auto-moderate.

Be very careful what you ask for.

Once a human touches an issue such as this and applies human “judgement” they risk a loss of immunity from legal liability under the Communications Decency Act.

I'd have to look for actual cases, but my memory is that the Section 230 protection is plenty broad regarding moderation of comments.

Should we give her some of her own medicine? And other anti-vaxxers as well. Scour trough comments over comments and report everything even remotely problematic, to shred her with bans and the like.

No.

Why not give her a taste of her own medicine? She deserves to be watched closely at the very least, especially given her campaign of harassment. I blocked Lowell Hubbs and got him suspended after he got me a 24 hr suspension for calling him out on his multiple DUI's.

Another thing to do is see we can go after some more major media like Time / the Washington Post or NY Times.

"I’d have to look for actual cases, but my memory is that the Section 230 protection is plenty broad regarding moderation of comments."

Agreed. Perhaps I was too vague, but then so are the courts at times. Moderation is a vague term, as is what is considered inappropriate content. For a company it's always safer to keep humans out of the loop in these matters so they can be seen to be as neutral as possible. Even when humans do intervene their communication about decisions is crafted to obfuscate who or what is making the decision.

Thanks, Dorit. It just reinforced my knowledge that some people haven't advanced mentally or socially beyond a very immature age, but that there are a lot of good people out there, even strangers, who will act on an atrocity to help out.

I have also suffered from both a 24 hour ban & also an "age-check" on my FaceBook account....I'm not sure exactly how they are gaming the system, but they certainly have gotten rather good at inflicting various amounts of pain on their targets.

I disagree with looking for comments to report. Even more with spurious reporting. These kinds of tactics are for those with nothing else (and nothing better to do). If there is real harassment we need to find other tactics to stop it.

We need to work to fix the system, not waste time swatting gnats.

It would be nice if say, a Forbes or Huffington Post, did a piece on this....

Then how do we fix the system? Surely Zuckerburg would be horrified if he actually knew what that his own site was being used to harass pro-vaccine activists. How do we get in touch with someone there and demand change?

I posted once about Swann's garbage story he posted on local cbs, and received about fifty conspiracy nutjob replies in my email. Obviously that only served to have me keep vaccinating those little disease incubators as per schedule. Although I use my middle finger more now to guide my needle.

It's more like -- the consistent [garbage] posts by desktop jockey that is mjd. If there was a silence user post option in this forum, it'd be a just a little slice of heaven. I dream big some days, I know.

Meanwhile, in the comments after her post, Heather is posting screenshots of Facebook....

Was this the right link?

Last week I tried to reach the Boston Skeptics through their Facebook page and found it was "temporarily unavailable" or some such. Was there something similar going on?

For a company it’s always safer to keep humans out of the loop in these matters so they can be seen to be as neutral as possible.

While I don't disagree, probably the bigger issues are preserving "customer" base, as rs notes in #53, and so preserving profits. FB sells ads, and as long as people are only suspended for awhile, and nobody takes their 'eyes on the screen and go home', they'll continue to have money coming in.

FB could review each suspension, but that takes people, and people are expensive to keep. As long as FB can keep selling the same amount of ads, and not add to staff, even if the individuals staff members care about this problem, they don't have a reason to change.

If I thought it would help, I'd join up and then quit and tell them why.

We need to work to fix the system, not waste time swatting gnats.

I'm reminded of one time that I was visiting my college girlfriend for a week or so at her mom's house. One morning, out of the blue, the kitchen was filled with houseflies. Not quite this,* but pretty bad.

Her brother and I spent a good long morning just killing scores of flies (including the deployment of one of these).** I think we prevailed, but I'd have to double-check with him.

Anyway, now that I've gotten that off my chest, the point is that I don't mind swatting some gnats here and there as a hobby (and that TINW). Indeed, if "the system" is FB, gnat-swatting might be compared with the quixotic.

* I'm too lazy at the moment to find a better link.
** Thanks, laserpointerforums!

Stacy Herlihy@32:

The issue is really Facebook’s double standards. I am suspended for calling a woman a Nazi when she praises Hitler. Someone threatens Melody with death or pm’s me “c-world with fugly baby rot in hell,” and we are told they are not violating any standards.

There’s not even anyone you can complain to at the organization. I’ve tried and gotten nowhere. If Facebook is going to act as our de facto public square, officials at the company need to do a better job of policing it.

The only thing Facebook cares about is acquiring all of your personal information and making money. And I'm willing to bet they get a lot more of it out of the gutter-feeding mouthbreathers than from folk like you.

Have you considered taking it to the press with a big fat file of evidence? Online hacks like Gawker Media always seem to relish slinging well-deserved mud (Zuckerberg is a not infrequent target, and antivaxxers and altie scammers get theirs too), plus a bit of variety to break the neverending torrent of Trump certainly wouldn't hurt right now. Won't fix FB (honestly, nothing short of burying it under solid concrete would), but could be worth it just to watch the roaches panic and scatter under the suddenly harsh light.

^ Rats.

I have criticism for anti-vax attitudes in general because there's a place for vaccines in 21st Century medical care. I have stronger criticism for those who are uncivil, profane and threatening.

At your request, David, I have voiced this on Twitter today and will continue to do so.

Best,

Jay

Death and rape threats? Damn it, report the to the POLICE

If memory serves, this isn't the first time that this has come up in these comments. The basic rule of threats is that they have to be credible.

Vague but harrassing communications don't cut it. In this case, the remedy would be civil: intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference (for contacting one's employer), etc.

Hey Jay,

What do you think of people like Heather who are outright unrepentant Nazis? People who call me the c word and call my girls disgusting names? Those who harass Allison at work?

Like many other pro-vaccine activists like Meloday, Dorit and Michael, I've been subject to hours of abuse. And for what? For standing up to the greatest health development of the last five hundred years? For daring to suggest that vaccines really are safe and save lives?

NVIC ran a hit piece on me on their Facebook page against me by a lunatic who thinks his daughter's diabetes was caused by vaccines. There were dozens of comments on the site threatening harm against me and my kids before it was finally taken down. Our book has dozens of reviews online accusing us of just about every crime under the sun.

Dr. Offit can't even tour because he gets too many death threats. My dear Allison has spent thousands of dollars defending herself against anti-vaxers because she co-wrote a good book on vaccines and has helped raise funds for vaccines for poor kids. Dear Dorit endures some of the most vile name calling I've ever seen on every single anti-vax internet forum.

Where does it end? When will your side clean up their act?

I too have been targetted by the bullies of the anti vax movement. In fact, my (incorrect) employer details are listed on the age of autism website with people actively writing to that employer even though I clearly do not work in the medical field.

I haven't met anyone as dishonest, spiteful or downright crap as anti vaxers. When you think they can't go any lower, they surprise you every time.

If babies weren't dying I simply would not give them the time of day.

I have seen some other examples of how FB drops the ball.
Despite thousands of complaints, including from the Anti-Defamation League, the page "Jewish Ritual Murder" (the charge that Jews kill gentile children to use their blood to make matzoh), the page stayed up.
On a movie page when the question was asked "What new superhero would you like to see?", the answer "Jewtaker" didn't violate their standards. Neither did the comment making the "Jews secretly control the world" charge get removed.
My best guess is that an algorithm scans the post for ethnic/racial/other hate words and lets it stand if they're not found. If you ask for a review, it seems to be checked by a human, but I suspect they're in some other country, maybe are not native English speakers, and have no clue about evaluating the content. I couldn't find another level to take it to.

Why not give her a taste of her own medicine?

Because that would make you as bad as her and you don't want to be there.

Then how do we fix the system?

Publicity.

If descriptions of what is going on get traction in the media and start making Facebook look bad to lots of people, then Facebook will change the way they do things.

Where does it end? When will your side clean up their act?

They will never clean up their act. They have no evidence. This is all they have. You only have to see some of the comments that are tolerated on Age of Autism to understand that the anti-vax movement is willing to accept nearly anyone, Lowell Hubbs included.

I do not agree that reporting death threats, disgusting comments about my kids and open calls for the murder of all Jews makes me as bad as those who harass pro-vax advocates.

However,I do agree the real issue is indeed Facebook's refusal to distinguish between worthy public behavior and the very opposite.

I guess Mark Zuckerberg's actually not all that pro-vaccine.

Inmara:Anyone else thinking that Facebook employees dealing with reports and handing out suspensions might be anti-vaxxers themselves? That would explain nicely why one side gets banned on a regular basis while anti-vax crowd continue their harassment spree.

Makes sense to me. A lot of Silicon Valley/crunchy types don't vaccinate, and the ones who don't have children are mostly dudebros who don't think rape threats (or rape) are wrong.

Dr. Gordon: Please stop lying. You NEVER supported vaccines and you still don't. And you sling mud with the best of them. Stop pretending to be a knight and get down in the mud with your pals. Have you stopped having affairs with the mothers of your patients yet?

When has Melody made death threats? When has Allison suggested a single person get raped? When has Orac or Michael Simpson ever been uncivil, profane and threatening? Hell, when has Dorit ever said anything nasty about anyone?

Dr. Gordon: Please stop lying. You NEVER supported vaccines and you still don’t. And you sling mud with the best of them. Stop pretending to be a knight and get down in the mud with your pals. Have you stopped having affairs with the mothers of your patients yet?

As if I thought you couldn't be more vile...
Seriously, PGP put down the internet and go have a nice cup of STFU.

You only have to see some of the comments that are tolerated on Age of Autism to understand that the anti-vax movement is willing to accept nearly anyone, Lowell Hubbs included.

Let's [sic] not conflate AoA with VacTwoof, the latter of which has become the refuge of Mr. Sudds.

AoA, as I recall, even reins in "White Rose" = “Hans Litten” = “Sophie Scholl” = “Georg Eisler” once in a while, although it's allowed to use multiple pseudonyms in a single comment thread. (It also occasionally lapses into normal punctuation with the same pseudonyms, but I don't much care. Cf. Jake's joint.)

Re: "Fire in a crowded theatre": it's legally irrelevant to free speech and is a "crutch for censorship". Sorry for the tangent. I fully support your work against anti-science twits. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-us… https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologi…

#81 Thank you, Dr. Gordon, for saying that.

And I agree with ScienceMom's criticism of the ugly response at #90. That was uncalled for. Especially in response to Dr. Gordon's comment.

I do not agree that reporting death threats, disgusting comments about my kids and open calls for the murder of all Jews makes me as bad as those who harass pro-vax advocates.

I didn't say it would.

However, rummaging around in someone's old facebook posts to find things that can be taken out of context, reporting them and getting your friends to do the same, all in order to get someone blocked from Facebook would make you as bad as her.

No one is proposing to do do that, Chris.

What we are baffled over is why death threats seem fine to Facebook but calling a Nazi a Nazi gets you suspended. That apparent problem needs to be corrected. If Facebook is going to be the public square, it clearly needs far better policing.

No one is proposing to do do that, Chris.

The comment at #46 did exactly that.

This is why I stay off Facebook. More than enough bullshit and drama in the real world.

Being a private entity, I believe that Facebook can do whatever the hell they please in regards to what does and does not follow their guidelines.

Sadly, Facebook is so big and so profitable I highly doubt that it's possible for any one group to gather a critical enough mass to effect change

Agreed with Chris Preston. No need to sink to their level.

"Dr". Gordon: I apologize for the crack about your patient's parents.

Dorit, ScienceMom: Ok, so my crack was uncalled for, but why are you defending him? A few years ago, he would have been happily slinging around slurs and threats, and he hasn't demonstrated that he's learned anything from the epidemic in California.
He's pretending to support vaccines, but I bet he's still advising his patients to hide in the herd, just like his buddy "Dr." Sears does. Why should we believe that Dr. Gordon now supports vaccines, in light of his past behavior?

Jeepers PGP:
blockquote>Makes sense to me. A lot of Silicon Valley/crunchy types don’t vaccinate, and the ones who don’t have children are mostly dudebros who don’t think rape threats (or rape) are wrong.
Science Mom is right.
"Seriously, PGP put down the internet and go have a nice cup of STFU."

@Rich Woods, #24:

In the sense that I would still stand up for unrestricted, no-holds-barred free speech, yes. Most definitely.

Allison Hagood@23

I still have a screenshot of that, which I took at the time and posted elsewhere as an example of the strong thread of anti-Semitism that runs through the anti-vaccine movement.

Link?

Dorit, ScienceMom: Ok, so my crack was uncalled for, but why are you defending him?

Politicalguineapig, I have a rule I adhere to of only criticising people for what they have actually done. And indeed praising them when their actions are praiseworthy - despite how I might otherwise feel about them.

This means I will criticise people for making unfair accusations, such as you have done.

As a result of your broad brush accusations and lack of self-criticism, I have always considered you to be a jerk, but your contributions to this thread have seen you fall to a new low in my estimation.

Jay Gordon @81:
At your request, David, I have voiced this on Twitter today and will continue to do so.

Bravo
Though I do not know this "twitter" whereof you speak.!

And no anti-vaxxer, anti-semitic dumbass is going to keep me from learning who’s next on the Walking Dead Kim vs. The Cougar.

FTFY.

"Besides, my intentionally using the word as a protest isn’t going to change the way things are, and the way things are is that clueless wonders like this antivaccine warrior think the word is “hate speech,” and Facebook even more cluelessly agrees."

And this is how political correctness leads to an illiberal society in which people are shunned and shamed even if they did nothing wrong.

No, it's coming to a simple concession to reality and a realization that fighting over this particular word is really not something worth wasting my time on. In other words, It's not a hill worth dying on. Fighting over the word would do nothing but distract from the message I'm trying to communicate, and the message I'm trying to communicate is what I deem important, too important to risk sidetracking. This is especially true given that the word itself is rather 18th century-sounding and there are many other alternatives to communicate the same idea.

But, hey, if you want to tilt at windmills trying to fight the mistaken view of this word, be my guest. Have at it. Knock yourself out. Good luck.

Blithely stepping around the current controversy , I ask,

"Do you ever wonder where antivaxxers get their rhetoric?"

AS you know I follow alt media loons daily and here's what popped up at Natural News yesterday ( print and video):

Mikey discusses an Australian Health Minister, Jill Hennessy, ( a "Victorian" -sic) who says vaccines are safe
she is
"a crazy, psycho danger to children...liar.. propagandist for toxic vaccine industry.. quack.. needs to be b!tch slapped...child murderer...pushing poison... medical mafia terrorist.. evil, disturbed person.. insult to humanity.. gets turned on by a child's suffering.. anti-life ..." ( part of a) "cabal of darkness, almost satanic.. like Aztec and Mayan human sacrifice''

He includes her address so followers can harass her/ her superiors further.

Mike displays his usual sartorial splendour and his Glock.

Similar foetid tripe over at prn.fm.

Hennessy liked a post showing that the book Allison and I wrote was on the shelves of an Australian library.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=821017608020406&set=p.821017608…

capnkrunck @#103, the post was on an attack page that has since been removed, so there is no link, and I haven't posted it unredacted anywhere since doing so gets ME reported for hate speech. By Heather, who originally posted it in the first place.

Yes, that's right. When I post a screenshot of a public post Heather made in which she denies the Holocaust and blames WWII on "the Jews" and claims Hitler was a good guy who never wanted war, Heather reports that post for hate speech and Facebook agrees and doesn't remove it.

However, Facebook never removed the original post and deemed it not a violation of community standards.

If someone with a blog wants to include the unredacted screenshot, I'm happy to provide it.

ARGH my kingdom for an edit function. #111 should read capnkrunch, and Facebook DOES remove my repost, but DIDN'T remove the original.

More coffee is needed.

Thank you for writing this article. I've always stood strong in my belief that Ms. Murray doesn't care one way or the other about vaccines. Harassing and stalking people, while trying to play the victim, is the name of her game.
What earned me my 3 day ban on the faceplace was a comment made in Apr of 2014 that simply said, "I don't actually think it's the same Heather. I have a hard time thinking that "Heather" is a Heather at all. I've just hardly ever met a female racist, homophobic, Holocaust denier."
I don't see how this violated any of Facebook's standards.
In the mean time Ms. Murray went after me and my whole family, minor children included, with the vengence of someone that made it their full time job. Much like she's doing to Allison.
She started with the usual jabs about my weight, the way my children look, and then moved on to my husband. The one that doesn't even drink alcohol. She used his full name, claimed he was an unemployed meth user with HIV that plays in a basement band. He is a well respected musician here in KCMO, but the rest was just her stereotyping. He has a "real" job with a multi-billion dollar corporation as a billing specialist. When we reported this to Facebook they did nothing, so my husband had to take it to the legal dept at his place of work. Where he underwent a drug test and HIV test, and the legal dept sent her a cease and desist. Angry she was proven wrong about his ability to play multiple instruments in multiple bands, and have a respectable job, she doxxed his place of employment, and called for all her flying monkies to call and harass them. Again Facebook did nothing. She then took profile pictures of ours and used it as the cover pic for one of her hate on Allison pages. My eldest happened to be in a caat in that pic because she tore her tendons in her thumb. She then called for everyone to call CPS on us because we "beat our children", Once again, Facebook did nothing. She went on to fill that thread with pictures she had to scroll back to the beginning of both my, and my husband's Facebook account to find. Pictures of me drinking out of a champagne bottle at the age of 21.....7yrs before I had kids, claiming I'm an alcoholic. Pictures of my husband's bachelor pad before we even started dating and he used to smoke cigarettes inside his home. And Facebook did nothing. She even faxxed these pictures to my eldest daughter's school. So proof she stalked an 11yr old.
Ms. Murray suffers from some severe mental disorders. I don't feel right making fun of her because of these disorders, but I do find her dangerous and feel that the public should be warned.

@Allison Hagood

I think the comment your describing is the same one in a post by Stacy, which she linked to in comment #7. Is that the one?

I had to get up and walk around the room before typing this, but I'm about to defend Jay Gordon. PGP, stop it. It's like you take one step forward and then two steps back. Just stop.

I don't think Dr. Gordon's a saint but I don't paint him with the Sears brush, either. He strikes me as more reasonable than the reactionary moron, Dr. Bob, and on a personal note, his website was extremely helpful to me when I had an infant who wouldn't sleep and every other piece of info I came across said "let her cry it out" which felt terribly wrong for everyone involved.

I read what you tweeted, Dr. Gordon, thank you for taking a stand. I agree with the others who've written that stooping to "their" level is wrong. I don't know what the answer is with respect to Facebook, and I sympathize with the people who've been threatened and maligned. But it's Facebook and at the end of the day, it's Facebook.

Yep. I suspect that, if Dr. Jay weren't so friendly and willing to accommodate antivaccine parents, we might even get along pretty well. He might even be persuadable if he could ever come to realize his own confirmation bias and how personal anecdotes don't trump science. OTOH, I've been trying for nearly 11 years without much success.

As for going through antivaxers Facebook posts with a fine tooth comb to look for material to "give them a taste of their own medicine," while I sympathize with the sentiment, I have a hard time thinking of an activity that would provide less bang for the buck or be a bigger waste of time. That's not to say that new posts we happen to come across shouldn't be reported when appropriate. I just think that going to a lot of effort to dig for dirt is pointless and does bring us down to the antivaxers' level. As emotionally satisfying as it might be, I can't support or recommend such activity.

@Todd W #13 - yes, it is. Thank you! I had forgotten that Stacy's Times of Israel article link was available in this thread. I also have dozens more screenshots of posts by Heather expressing similar sentiments.

What earned me my 3 day ban on the faceplace was a comment made in Apr of 2014 that simply said, “I don’t actually think it’s the same Heather. I have a hard time thinking that “Heather” is a Heather at all. I’ve just hardly ever met a female racist, homophobic, Holocaust denier.”

Oh, I've come across many since the late 1990s. I don't think they're less common than racist, homophobic, Holocaust-denying men. They just usually aren't the ones who speak out or rise to prominence.

We need to prod Facebook to protect people like Melissa. I'm sorry you went through that experience. False CPS accusations and workplace harassment are not acceptable.

FYI, it's not just Facebook. The book that Allison and I wrote is sold primarily through Amazon and in libraries. Dozens of nasty personal comments have been made about the book on Amazon by people who haven't read it. We have been unable to get Amazon to remove these comments.

I spoke to my contact at Facebook and while they wouldn't say much (anything) for the record, they did suggest that prominent (Internet-famous) people should try to become "verified" (the blue check mark, like on Twitter) which should provide a greater degree of protection.

Well, that's a lame response. Not very many people qualify, and what about the rest of us. (No, I don't think I'm that "Internet-famous.)

@ Melissa Kane:

I'm sorry about what happened to you and your family.

I just want to note that you have a reasonable attitude about your oppressor -
it's true, people who experience mental illness are not totally** responsible for their actions BUT they still can harm people.

Best wishes to you.

** it's debatable- and individual- how much they- or anyone- are responsible.

I'm not famous in any way, Internet or otherwise, and that response basically says that non-famous people are at the mercy of crackpots and dangerous loons who manipulate the reporting system. It's unreasonable to expect regular people to have no protection from harassment facilitated by Facebook.

"Facebook’s reporting algorithm is now a tool of harassment."

Now?

No, it always has been. The fact that you're friend is now a victim of it doesn't make it new.

I used to run a gay atheist page. The constant reports from the religious nuts forced me to cancel my original Facebook account. Frankly, I can't even fathom running a page until this issue of report harassment is properly addressed by Facebook. I won't hold my breath waiting. It's been 2 1/2 years for me. Others have been waiting longer...

Aside from chatting with friends or perusing news stories, Facebook is a broken format to me for exercising any type of serious communication.

It's true enough that the "good" Dr. Gordon has removed a lot of the more 'militant' anti-vax links in the past, but there is this added within the last 6 months -
http://drjaygordon.com/vaccinations/bob-sears-excellent-sb-277-vaccine-…

His web site may be cleaner, but we can't know what he says in the exam rooms.

He also still recommends homeopathy for ear infections, Colloidal Silver for colds, and vitamin C for flu prevention.

I, myself, wouldn't take a stray cat to him for treatment.

Personally, I don't like the term "internet famous". It sounds like a backhanded compliment.
"Well, you're not really a public figure, but you're internet famous."

When I first went to Allison with the idea of writing a book, I did so with a bit of trepidation. I knew the subject was considered controversial in some way (yes, I know it isn't) and a significant number of anti-vaxers are not exactly the nicest people (why yes I'm looking at you, Barbara Loe "the slut shot" Fisher).

We knew that asking Dr. Offit to write the foreword would align us with him and that there are people who hate him. We knew that going in.

What we did not expect is that Facebook would literally help facilitate such people and provide them with a platform. Or that the company would punish pro-vaxers rather than vicious anti-Semitic lunatics.

I, myself, wouldn’t take a stray cat to him for treatment.All to the good, since he's not a veterinarian.

Sigh - first sentence was a quote.

@AJHayden: One notes that I linked to an article I wrote over two years ago about Facebook algorithms being gamed by antivaccine activists in Australia to silence pro-vaccine speech on Facebook that they don't like. I am well aware that this is not a new issue. It is, however, a relatively new issue compared to the sorts of harassment I first started experiencing 11 years ago online as a result of my blog.

Noted. Thanks for your reply.

What to do about these people:

1) Set up an email address on your broadband carrier's service (they usually give you five free ones) consisting of "first initial last name" @ the domain the carrier provides. Choose a name that turns up either a) nothing or nearly so when searched or b) a large number of people with that name because it's a very common name.

2) Use your new pseudo to post some anti-vax crap in some of the usual places such as TMR. This helps build up some history that's searchable.

3) Set up a new FB account on a machine you no longer use, with that pseudo as your "real name." (What is "real" anyway?) Noodle around a bit and post boring comments in places that make you look like a parent.

4) Then go to the antivaxer groups' pages and apply to be let in. They'll search your background and find your previous antivax posts on TMR and the like, using your "real name."

5) Once you get in: Look for people who are promoting "pox parties" and the sending of chickenpox-infested material through the mail, e.g. used lollypops and the like, so they can "share natural chickenpox and get natural immunity". (For anyone here who doesn't know, yes this happens and it's fairly common.)

6) Once you get inside those groups, take date/time-stamped screenshots, print them out, then take them to your nearest branch of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. This may mean having to drive to a nearby big city. Show the stuff to the Postal Inspectors. Also let them know that some other anti-vaxers have been sending you credible death threats such as to your personal phone number that is either a mobile device or an unlisted landline or whatever.

7) The Postal Inspectors will go after the perps like mad dogs, for the felony of sending infectious material through the US Mail (which puts postal employees directly at risk). The Postal Inspectors are ferociously effective at prosecuting criminal cases that involve use or abuse of the mail, and they do not lose cases. They will subpoena Faceborg records to get the necessary information. Faceborg will most likely comply.

This may or may not directly catch the people who are doing harassment of vaccine supporters, but any criminal prosecutions of anti-vax loons are always good, and may have a bit of a deterrent effect.

8) Once a prosecution gets reported in any media, go to that media org's reporters (e.g. local TV news, local newspaper) and ask if they're interested in your story. That may result in the local news station calling Faceborg's media relations number and asking for comment.

That in turn may embarrass Faceborg and lead to getting the harassers shut down.

It's worth a try.

Facebook was always a dangerous and dysfunctional platform. Since a friend in the intelligence community (don't you just love that phrase?) warned me to avoid FB, I have never used it and doubt that I ever will.

@Eric Lund #30: Make Facebook’s lawyers explain to the police why Facebook’s willful failure (if it’s been duly reported to Facebook, then they can’t claim not to know) to take action against members issuing such threats does not constitute aiding and abetting.

FB's lawyers could argue that like the post office, the platform only serves to facilitate delivery of content and there fore can not be held responsible for what is delivered. Amazon is making the same argument for the sale of dietary supplements on their sites with illegal and bogus claims, including those containing pharmaceutical drugs and dangerous substances.

It’s true enough that the “good” Dr. Gordon has removed a lot of the more ‘militant’ anti-vax links in the past, but there is this added within the last 6 months –
http://drjaygordon.com/vaccinations/bob-sears-excellent-sb-277-vaccine-…

His web site may be cleaner, but we can’t know what he says in the exam rooms.

He also still recommends homeopathy for ear infections, Colloidal Silver for colds, and vitamin C for flu prevention.

*sad trombone*

Still like what he has to say on sleep.

The chilling effect of these attacks on speech is bad enough, but am I the only one alarmed by the seemingly increasing stridency and militancy of these anti-vax groups? "Vaccine Resistance Movement" sounds to me frighteningly close to the name that a paramilitary organization would use and the violent rhetoric coming out of Austrailian anti-vax'ers in particular makes me nervous. As these people get further marginalized, how long until they choose to take a page from the Operation Rescue playbook?

I rarely use Facebook and I guess I have no idea what goes on there in the anti-vaccine world. I even agree that there's a "false equivalence" when one compares the amount science supporting the safety of vaccines with the publications disputing that safety. But I think that questioning the schedule for childhood vaccines and wanting improvements in vaccines (pertussis and influenza to name two) is not anti-vax per se at all.

Some commentary by Heather on an article I wrote calling her out on her anti-Semitism:

Checkout all the Jewish ties to 9/11 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/.../esp_sociopol_911...

It is the utter single-mindedness of those who hunt down and persecute so-called Holocaust Deniers and Revisionists that I object to. Millions of people, not only Jews , suffered and died horrible deaths on battlefields, on the high seas and in fire-bombed cities during a conflict that may never have happened, had international Jewry not declared economic war on Germany.

*
Let’s also not forget Judea declared war on Germany in 1932, and for 8 years Adolf warned them if they persisted in trying to corrupt the economic miracle that he created while USA and the world stood in soup lines that they would pay a heavy price.

For many years the Jew's were able to take their possessions and peacefully leave Germany but despite the warnings some didn't and those who didn't heed his words for 8 years were trapped after England declared war and now international Jewry the USA England and France needs take the responsibility for the Jew's who were sent to camps and eventually died from starvation due to allied air superiority bombing the supply lines, which included food to the camps.

In all the news reels I have seen about liberated camps I never saw one plump Jew, all the bodies were emaciated from long time hunger so this idea of trains rolling in and gassing people within hours doesn't add up. Ernst Zundle who did a documentary on the Zyclone b (a delousing gas) from mortar samples taken from Auschwitz clearly showed that the amounts were not lethal and cannot be concentrated enough to do so. There were much more effective gasses during this time yet none were ever found.

Which makes me wonder if Adolf was such a bad person why he didn’t fight on the Russian front using gas, clearly with the western winds at his back he could have annihilated them and won the war.

"His web site may be cleaner, but we can’t know what he says in the exam rooms."

In the exam rooms I say pretty much what I say in public: In the 21st Century, we have done such a good job vaccinating in every corner of the globe that one is safe traveling without vaccines. The circular discussion is that I can countenance delayed and refused vaccines because of vaccines . . .

In exam rooms, I tell parents that I dislike the current schedule, have no proof that a delayed schedule is safer but will strongly support their requests to vaccinate on a different schedule. Should they choose to give no vaccines at all, we discuss how miserable pertussis is, how measles and chickenpox are found in much greater numbers in Europe and elsewhere and that lack of tetanus immunity will make every rusty thumbtack or visit to the ER much more anxiety-provoking. And much, much more. I have taken care of hundreds of families who might have planned to give no vaccines at all and eventually do vaccinate based on reasoned discussions in my office. (Yes, don't I think I'm just so wonderful.)

As an aside, I receive threats on my life, my license, my hospital privileges, my family. As you can see from a cursory reading of just this one page, incivility is not limited to anti-vaxxers. And a sincere thank you to those of you who responded in opposition to that incivility. And, yes, Orac, for who we both are, I think we get along reasonably well. We both love dogs and Steve Jobs.

an Australian Health Minister, Jill Hennessy, ( a “Victorian” -sic) who says vaccines are safe

"Victorian" because Ms Hennessy is Minister of Health in the government of Victoria, one of the states comprising Australia.

There's a lot more sick commentary from her on the article I wrote. She is exactly what I said she is a -- a horrible Neo Nazi.

Ernst Zundle (sic) who did a documentary on the Zyclone b (a delousing gas) from mortar samples taken from Auschwitz clearly showed that the amounts were not lethal and cannot be concentrated enough to do so. There were much more effective gasses during this time yet none were ever found.

Which makes me wonder if Adolf was such a bad person why he didn’t fight on the Russian front using gas, clearly with the western winds at his back he could have annihilated them and won the war.

So she's not just a revisionist, she's a stupid, ignorantrevisionist.

Dr. Jay, why do you question the schedule, and what are the improvements you would like to see to the pertussis and influenza vaccines?

In the 21st Century, we have done such a good job vaccinating in every corner of the globe that one is safe traveling without vaccines.

You know you're really wrong here, right?

Do you ever have patients who travel outside of North America and Europe??

Orac @121: I agree it's not much, but the person I talked to isn't authorized or qualified to say anything else.
And you might very well qualify as "internet famous", I don't know what the standards are these days.

I 100% agree that the harassment is wrong and Facebook needs to do more about it, but they have 1.5 BILLION users. That is a lot of content to monitor.

(Also, PGP @90: You have anything else nasty you want to say about all Facebook employees, all residents of the greater SF Bay Area or anyone else who you'd like to tar with that state-wide brush? You give guinea pigs a bad name.)

@Stacy #138 - that is taken word for word from a review for this movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3526810/reviews?start=90

My bet was on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I thought it was plagiarism from somewhere. Give me a call if you can tonight, Allison. Thanks.

Hi Delphine.

I received a typhoid vaccine and my second Hep A prior to going to rural Nepal after last year's earthquakes and had received my first Hep A prior to doing some clinic work in Ethiopia. I'd recommend the same to families in my practice.

Pretty much every day I discuss travel to Africa, South America and Asia with families in the practice. I tell them that the incidence of many diseases is not much higher in most Third World areas but that measles and meningitis are found in greater number elsewhere. I also tell them that should they contract certain illnesses in certain locales treatment would be very different and perhaps more dangerous than it would be here. YF vaccine is specifically not recommended for travel to Tanzania--the most recent discussion yesterday and I refer weekly to a couple very conventional travel docs in my neighborhood when parents want that perspective. Most of them do and most get more vaccines that I might suggest to them.

The pertussis vaccine is now known to be far less effective than we thought and immunity wanes far faster than we thought. We need a better shot. The flu vaccine needs a billion dollars worth of research and we discourage that expenditure by telling patients what a great flu vaccine we already have.

@ herr doktor:

I know I know. There was a Ray Davies song about it.

Mikey sounds as it he doesn't know.
Odd way of expressing it in his video, said more than once. Perhaps he was insinuating that she was from that long gone era , indeed behind the times, unlike a natural health genius like himself.

We certainly could use better pertussis and influenza vaccines. They're still way better than the zero protection non-vaccination offers. And I don't think recommending either vaccine to people discourages research. To remind you, the rates of flu vaccines are much lower than others. It's not that they're selling to potential.

And anyone threatening your life or family is someone I don't want on my side of this debate, thank you. That's inexcusable.

Poor Jay Gordon just doesn't realize when to keep quiet, and bask in the (extremely limited) favorable commentary he received in this thread. Instead, he has to prove that he still hasn't learned some elementary medical lessons.

"In the 21st Century, we have done such a good job vaccinating in every corner of the globe that one is safe traveling without vaccines."

You betcha! We all know that vaccine uptake is superb all around the world, antivax fearmongering doesn't affect residents of the Third World, vaccine workers are held in high regard in all places and are even escorted to their duties by radical Islamic security guards. As a result, there are just no vaccine-preventable diseases left to catch - just like in California, measles has been of no recent concern at all because all the kiddies were vaccinated.

"I refer weekly to a couple very conventional travel docs in my neighborhood when parents want that perspective. Most of them do and most get more vaccines that I might suggest to them."

Translation: There are smart parents who aren't buying into my "the world is safe from infectious disease" argument and want optimal vaccine protection instead of the pitifully inadequate suggestions I made to them (reminiscent of those parents Jay has spoken of here, who apparently had to talk him into giving their kids needed shots).

"The pertussis vaccine is now known to be far less effective than we thought and immunity wanes far faster than we thought. We need a better shot."

Exaggeration aside, we realize the limitations of the pertussis shot and the need to explore possible booster shots as well as a more immunogenic vaccine. What we don';t need are antivaxer docs trying to steer parents away from a still-valuable vaccine.

"The flu vaccine needs a billion dollars worth of research and we discourage that expenditure by telling patients what a great flu vaccine we already have."

I am trying to come up with a nicer term than "lie" to describe this claim, but have not yet been able to do so.

Bacon, you've always been a very unpleasant person and remain so.

Accuse me of plagiarism, but not lying. I was paraphrasing an infectious disease expert's comment about overpraising flu vaccines.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/28/141800408/analysis-questions-flu-shot-eff…

What he said then is still true now.

I tell them that the incidence of many diseases is not much higher in most Third World areas but that measles and meningitis are found in greater number elsewhere.

You cannot be serious.

In the exam rooms I say pretty much what I say in public: In the 21st Century, we have done such a good job vaccinating in every corner of the globe that one is safe traveling without vaccines.

And ...

I received a typhoid vaccine and my second Hep A prior to going to rural Nepal after last year’s earthquakes and had received my first Hep A prior to doing some clinic work in Ethiopia.

I'm having difficulty with this.

Delphine, this data is easy to obtain.

Vaccination rates against almost all childhood illnesses in Peru run from 95-98%

Kenya, 85-90%

India, only mid-70s

France 95-99%

Poland 98-99%

Brazil 95-99%

USA 90-98%

Interesting numbers.

So's this, Jay.

http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/ts…

The chilling effect of these attacks on speech is bad enough, but am I the only one alarmed by the seemingly increasing stridency and militancy of these anti-vax groups?

I'll just leave this here.

Great stuff, Delphine! But I think it supports what I'm saying regarding incidence rates.

I tell them that the incidence of many diseases is not much higher in most Third World areas

Am I misunderstanding you?

The chilling effect of these attacks on speech is bad enough, but am I the only one alarmed by the seemingly increasing stridency and militancy of these anti-vax groups?

Way ahead of you:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/12/03/the-violent-rhetoric-of-th…

@Stacy #138 – that is taken word for word from a review for this movie

A quick look suggests that part of #138 (which I'm not seeing in the review) is actually lifted from one Anthony Lawson (who doesn't use the "plump" part).

Are you reading the numbers differently than I? More measles, no more pertussis.

Because of vaccination, global rates of virtually all diseases are way down. That's how I read it.

Bacon, you’ve always been a very unpleasant person and remain so.

Accuse me of plagiarism, but not lying. I was paraphrasing an infectious disease expert’s comment about overpraising flu vaccines.

As far as I can tell, this is either a non sequitur or addressed to the wrong person (who may be in my killfile).

@ Narad:

OT
but seriously... on television,
your town, tonight.

So she’s not just a revisionist, she’s a stupid, ignorant revisionist.

Yeah, I've been countering Holocaust denial online for nearly two decades now, and I'm familiar with all the tropes. She can't even get her Holocaust denier tropes right. For one thing she misspelled Ernst Zündel's name and Zykon B. It also wasn't Zündel who did a documentary about testing the walls of the ruins of Auschwitz gas chambers for residue indicative of exposure to Zyklon B gas. It was Errol Morris, who did a documentary (Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.), which chronicled, among other things, Leuchter's incompetent testing of residues on Auschwitz walls.

The connection between Leuchter and Zündel is that Zündel hired Leuchter as an "expert witness" in his trial in Canada back in the 1980s for publishing works of Holocaust denial. He went to Auschwitz and other death camps to "prove" that the death chambers couldn't have been used as homicidal death chambers. While there, he took specimens without permission. At the time, it was over 50 years after the war; exposure to the elements for five decades guaranteed that he would find little, if any, evidence of cyanide exposure.

So, basically, not only is she a Holocaust denier, but she's a clueless Holocaust denier who can't even regurgitate the lies correctly.

Never mind. I think I misunderstood what you wrote. I'm sorry. Doped up on Nyquil.

Yeah. I was a kid and out of the country during Zundel's heyday but most Canadians of a certain age know of him, because of the trial. I didn't recall a film but I do remember the book.

Which makes me wonder if Adolf was such a bad person why he didn’t fight on the Russian front using gas, clearly with the western winds at his back he could have annihilated them and won the war.

You would think that's an attempt at extremely dark humour, but...no.

@Dr Jay Gordon - I found out the other day that my daughter-in-law has succumbed to vaccination's success and the frightening rhetoric of the anti-vaccine movement. She is supposedly "too much, too soon," according to her husband, and he can't honestly tell me which, if any, vaccines his daughters have received.

I found this out when one was cut in my chicken house and I remarked that at least at her young age she was probably up to date on tetanus. She probably doesn't have it, and her mommy and daddy are full-time farmers.

This is the real risk created by the anti-vaccine movement working so hard to create doubt and even refusal of vaccines.

You might want to be a little more strongly encouraging - as the influence of pseudoscience increases, your patients are at increasing risk of contracting an illness where "natural immunity" proponents have "succeeded," and vaccine uptake is too low for vaccines to be so incredibly successful.

OT
but seriously… on television,
your town, tonight.

I haven't turned on the television since last summer, and I only have OTA DTV. To what do you refer?

@ Narad:

It appears that protesters and loyal Trumpians clash prior to a planned event which was later cancelled
( @ University 'pavilion')

CLASHED
( but not rocking the Casbah)

It appears that protesters and loyal Trumpians clash[ed] prior to a planned event which was later cancelled

One thing I recently been perplexed by is that somebody has been plastering the (different, but university) neighborhood with advertising for some sort of Trump Concern Rally downtown on election day, March 15. Hang on, I'll arse myself to walk next door....

Here. My phone has a terrible camera, but I think you'll get the drift. There's no Web site listed, just "love" on and on.

"'Another thing,' I remember Billy Hitchcock saying, as he complained about being defined in the public mind by such pronouncements, 'is that I don’t get all this constant love, love, love stuff. I mean, maybe some people need to hear that all the time but I was brought up that way, weren’t you?'"

^ "I recently be." Or "have recently," whatever.

^^ Oh, no, wait, there does appear to be a URL above the giant, seemingly diseased on imaging, heart.

^^^ Hmph. Check out the photo on the Washington Post item "Luuv Trumps Hate"?

The holocaust is not an abstraction to me. I was taught by survivors. My mom's best friend had that tattoo on her arm. The small towns where my relatives grew up in Europe have no more Jews.

To see this hatred come alive again is to tap into the ugliest history memory I have. It is to bring to mind the nightmares of my childhood and the sad voice of my grandmother and the great aunts and other relatives she knew had been killed just for being Jewish.

I want to take a dozen baths just having shared electrons with that vile woman.

^^^^ Last one, I promise. I just realized that I had omitted a crucial connection to Dove, the Band of Love.

I also noticed "Zyklone," and that spelling is interesting because "Zyklon" is German for "cyclone."

She also uses the grocer's apostrophe, e.g. "Jew's" as plural (Jews) and as a misspelling of the plural possessive (Jews'). And she calls Hitler by first name as one would do with a friend. "As my good buddy Adolph used to say..."

Does anyone here know of any civilian search tools that allow searching concatenated exact strings without modification by the search engine? Reason is, that particular Holocaust denier's idiosyncratic spellings could be used to uncover more of her material elsewhere.

In other anti-vaccine news...

Dan ( AoA today, his Weekly Wank) believes that Monsieur Trump's speech and actions betray diagnoses of - ultimately- mercury poisoning: he has all of the signs!

Like the other Donald T, who was amongst the first of the autistic people studied by Kanner , he probably was given huge doses of mercury-laden vaccines as an infant because his parents were well off in affluent post-war New York. This produced ADHD and symptoms of more serious conditions. Which are, of course, all on display for everyone to see.
It's SO simple really.

Interestingly, several of Dan's commenters disagree with him and actually call him out.

As I often remark, it is not a good idea to diagnose people if:
- you are a rank amateur
- your studies of clinical psychology do not exceed those of the average 12 year old student
- if you have never met them
- if they aren't seeking a diagnosis from you
- if you think your fol de rol will lead to more views of your crappy website.
- if your investigative reporting skills don't amount to a hill of beans.

( -btw- people do 'diagnose' others in everyday life because they want on some level to be able to predict how others will act. Everyone makes guesses about what's wrong with people with whom they interact. Nothing wrong with that.
It's called 'naïve science'.
In some cases, more naïve than others)

Mrs. Woo says (#167),

This is the real risk created by the anti-vaccine movement working so hard to create doubt and even refusal of vaccines.

MJD says,

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) is the litmus test.

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/February-2016/vaccine-injury-clai…

Based on NVICP communication, it's getting easier for some to create doubt and refuse the use of some vaccines.

@Dangerous Bacon #150:

I am trying to come up with a nicer term than “lie” to describe this claim, but have not yet been able to do so.

Terminological inexactitude, perhaps?
MJD
[Makes comment about NVICP, then links to the website of the National Vaccine (dis)Information Center.]
Oh, and you were doing so well.

I do not follow #SXSW. I was not aware that part of the programming was today's Online Harassment Summit.

Online harassment is a reality that society can no longer ignore. This pervasive issue threatens to undermine all the positive possibilities and potential of our increasingly connected world. SXSW is proud to be a part of the movement that champions online civility while identifying solutions for a safer online community moving forward.

I will be interested in seeing if anything comes of the summit.

Does anyone here know of any civilian search tools that allow searching concatenated exact strings without modification by the search engine?

Umm, enclose the string in quotes? like this, Gray Squirrel #177:

"with the anthropomorphic smiley-face on front pumping out its siren song of dusky, magical mist"

Coincidentally, this was a story on Colorado Public Radio this week - an interview with a Holocaust survivor living in Boulder. It's heartwrenching to hear.

This is the history Ms. Murray denies.

http://www.cpr.org/news/story/how-one-holocaust-survivor-found-his-way-…

Julian Frost says (#180),

Makes comment about NVICP, then links to the website of the National Vaccine (dis)Information Center.

MJD says,

The yin and yang of vaccines.

While we're on the subject of vaccines, are there any vaccine-DNA-insight tests available?

Pathway Genomics has Medication-DNA-Insight which indicates which medications are optimal for a person based on their genetics.

https://www.pathway.com/medication-dna-insight/be

Q. Will the NVICP and NVIC be obsolete if such testing becomes available.

Here's the correct site for Pathway Genomics - Medication-DNA-Insight :-)

https://www.pathway.com/medication-dna-insight/

Umm, enclose the string in quotes?

Occasionally Google seems to still do fuzzy searching for quoted strings. Under Search Tools changing All Results to Verbatim should solve that.

Occasionally Google seems to still do fuzzy searching for quoted strings.

If one doesn't allow google scripts or cookies then one gets the caveat of *without quotes* such as:
"“with the anthropomorphic smiley-face on front pumping out its siren song of dusky, magical mist you sick fucks”

Results for with the anthropomorphic smiley-face on front pumping out its siren song of dusky, magical mist you sick fucks (without quotes):

http://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9Cwith+the+anthropomorphic+smiley…

Heather sent my husband a nasty pm on Facebook. She's threatening to call him a pedo and threatening to put up a site in my name calling me a racist because um . . . I'm Jewish and I don't hate Israel and I made some mild criticisms of Christian doctrine just like I criticize Jewish laws and. . . um Jews are all racists or something like that.

Apparently her poor daddy would faint if he knew his daughter was wearing that hood. So we're supposed to let her be a Nazi. We're just not supposed to call her a Nazi.

Or something like that. I think.

I am surprised Herr Heather has not popped up here to roll in the chaos like a dog rolls in feces. Given her ego and virulent narcissism, commenting here would be far too tempting to resist.

@ Stacy. And of course if you report the message to FB it will be within *community standards*. FB's community standards are much like Berlin's in 1939.

You are totally right, Kelly.

This is the text of the pm my husband was sent:

Www.avwos.com coming soon stacyherlihy.com which since your wife like to call me a racist c word as do its going to feature her hate filled comments, racist views oh and her attacks on my 90 year old father. You know calling a WW2 veterans child a Nazi isn't going win people over. Nor is the fact that her hubby post pictures of naked little girls on his Facebook.

Wow she is a nasty, nasty person.

"My grandfather is a WWII vet so I can't be an antisemite" sounds a lot like a "it's cool, I have a black friend."

If Orac could edit that post so as not to give her any more publicity, I would be quite appreciative. Thank you!

Stacy, take that to a lawyer ASAP, it is prima-facie evidence of extortion.

One of the definitions of extortion is a threat to denounce someone for a criminal act unless they comply with a demand. A threat to sue someone in civil court unless they comply with a demand is not extortion, but a threat of a criminal prosecution is.

To publicly make a claim that a person has child abuse photos, is to immediately invite a criminal investigation of that person. To threaten to make that claim unless the person complies with a demand, is extortion, and doing it over an interstate telecommunications medium makes it a federal crime.

First step: take it to your lawyer. Second step depending on what your lawyer says, or first step if you do not have a lawyer, take it to the FBI. Since it involves claims of child abuse photos, possession of which is a federal crime, that will raise it to a higher priority than other possible types of extortionate threats.

If there is any chance that the perp could cause the threat to disappear or be deleted, you need to take date/time-stamped screen shots now and preserve them on external storage media such as a disc or thumb drive.

-----

Re.search tools:

Yes, using quotation marks helps, but doesn't guarantee the outcome. Bad me, I had further-misspelled the original misspell as "Zyklone" with a K, when it was actually "Zyclone" with a C. On the search engine Ixquick.com this brings up three pages of results, including a couple on "Stormfront" which is a notorious white-supremacist site (and is also monitored by FBI for domestic terrorists).

The problem with Google is the "filter bubble effect" (see the article "filter bubble" on Wikipedia) where Google's AI tries to figure out what you "want" to see, and then give you more of that, rather than producing a "flat" or unbiased search result. For some odd reason, Google seems to be obsessed with mind-reading, and it makes for unreliable search results.

Another good search engine is DuckDuckGo (as with Ixquick, it doesn't attempt to mind-read), and it did not require using quote marks to produce exact string results, but once again the quantity is small, and the discussions on this page didn't come up.

If Nazi-sympathizer Heather's comments were made on Faceborg, they may not come up in any external search results.

Where "free speech" is defined by hate speech, freedom comes to be defined by hate. To my mind those are signs of a deeply pathological society.

It is disgusting, isn't it Grey Squirrel? FYI, I have never said anything about her father. If she hates being called a Nazi, she ought to finally take off the brownshirt.

Thank you Stacey, Demise, and Allison for continuing to restore my faith in humanity. One day this balloon of hot air will pop and all that will be left is her embarrassing rants.....because the internet lives forever, and so will her shameful bigotry.

Most of all thank you Liz Ditz for including my comment in your article.

Edit what post? Besides, the purpose of this post is to name and shame; so I'm not changing anything.

To be fair, there are plenty of groups that hate Jews; being a rank antisemite doesn't neccessarily make one a Nazi.

That said, "I'm not a Nazi; it's just that Jews are evil" does not make for a very convincing argument.

@capnkrunch

Indeed I have leaned that what author Caitlin R. Keirnan terms 'liberal intolerance' has thrown up some pretty nasty stuff, including referring to the industrialised murder of Jews, Homosexuals, Roma (Gypsies), ecetera by the Nazi Regime (eg The Holocaust) as "...white on white crime..." and presumably thus of no real importance or interest.

Caitlins full post, from which I've taken the term can be read at her blog via the link below.

http://greygirlbeast.livejournal.com/1167779.html

OT, but for any lurker wondering about it;

Which makes me wonder if Adolf was such a bad person why he didn’t fight on the Russian front using gas, clearly with the western winds at his back he could have annihilated them and won the war.

By her logic, because people succeed at killing themselves in their garage with their car's fumes*, everybody downwind of any trafic-heavy megalopolis should just drop dead.

Accounts of the WW1 showed that the use of lethal gas in an open field was less than efficient, especially if the winds don't cooperate and send the gases back to your lines. That didn't stop both French and German armies to try repeatedly, and maim plenty of people in the process, notably with mustard gas. But it may have made the German high command leery of using combat gases on the scale of Siberia.
It works better if there is something to contain the gases and the targeted people, like trenches. Or a closed room.

Since WW2, highly neurotoxic gases have been developed, so the dispersing effect of winds is less of a factor on ground zero.

* speaking of this, killing by filling a room of people with carbon monoxide, either bottled in advance or generated on-site by a diesel truck's exhaust, was also a method used by the nazi regime, at least in one death camp and also in their forced euthanasia campaign in hospitals.

While we’re on the subject of vaccines, are there any vaccine-DNA-insight tests available?

Pathway Genomics has Medication-DNA-Insight which indicates which medications are optimal for a person based on their genetics.

Looks like you've given Orac a topic to blog about, Michael.

I've heard of Pathway.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-investigation-pathway-genomics-can…

* speaking of this, killing by filling a room of people with carbon monoxide, either bottled in advance or generated on-site by a diesel truck’s exhaust, was also a method used by the nazi regime, at least in one death camp and also in their forced euthanasia campaign in hospitals.

Actually, carbon monoxide from truck or tank engine exhaust was the more common method of killing used by the Nazis early on.after the Holocaust turned exterminationist.Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka used CO gas in gas chambers, while Chelmno used mobile gas vans. e Stutthof, Mauthausen, Sachsenhausen, and Ravensbrueck, although not designed as death camps, all also maintained small gas chambers used to eliminate prisoners deemed "unfit" to work" that used Zykon B.

I meant editing post 191 which brings attention to her ugly little site attempting to defame many of us. I hate to think that I'm helping to bring any traffic to her. She's just managed to unnerve me. Chasing after me is one thing but going after my husband is so . . . evil. What's next? Will she start cyber-bullying my thirteen year old daughter?

I've seen this kind of thing elsewhere too. A Facebook page called MUH men's rights activism, which pokes fun at MRAs was shut down because the screenshots it had of vile threats by MRAs were reported by MRAs as hate speech.

Anyone wanting to try searching for specific word strings might want to try Google's advanced search. Just add /advanced_search to the end of www.google.com. The page also has a link to the search settings page, which lets you mitigate the filter-bubble effect by editing or turning off your search history. (You can also change your location, which is useful if you're looking for a business in a different geographical area.) Google has a lot of interesting hidden bits.

In other antivaccine crank news, Jake breaks almost 6 months of radio silence to inform the world that Dr. Ben Carson has endorsed The Donald for president.

It's amusing to see former Republican candidates submerging what remains of their ethics and endorsing Trump, in hopes of receiving handouts from a Trump administration.

Ben Carson probably has dreams of being Surgeon General, although being a former surgeon doesn't remotely qualify him for the job.

Re: search tools

There are times when one doesn't want to see the top links in the search results -- links to buy stuff, links to Yahoo! Answers, links for *transformer* that turn up cars that turn into robots.

https://millionshort.com/

enjoy.

@Dangerous Bacon,

It's especially ironic since not so long ago there was open talk of Trump running as an independent if the Republicans didn't pick him.

Ohio governor Kasich seems to be the holdout from that bandwagon.

All presidential candidates have promised party leadership they will support the eventual party candidate. In party politics solidarity with the party is important, at least on big things like this.

The page also has a link to the search settings page, which lets you mitigate the filter-bubble effect by editing or turning off your search history.

Ahh. But then one must be slapped with Google cookies, scripts, and...errm .. features, Beryl #207.

Those 'features' are making people stupid, or at least making them appear to be stupid when someone stops typing every other character to stare at autosuggest or flittering Google Instant. Also, the autosuggest 'feature' is censorship; I can't recall a specific example but there were times when typing a naughty word like pirate b.. is all it took to make the suggestion box go blank.

Re: Blocking Google Instant
Postby Disgruntled » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:42 pm

I've now blocked Google in all its forms from every computer in my home. I'm tired of being bombarded with the negative CRAP that shows up in their stupid suggestions/google instant. It's awful and just by performing a simple search I'm bombarded with the lowest, negative, and most ignorant crap people search for. I don't want it flashing before my eyes just because I'm performing a simple search.

I've read hundreds (literally) of suggestions, complaint, and so on on how to disable Google's invasive features. It's clear that Google doesn't give a flying fluck what their users want, think, or wish. Features are forced on to users like it or not, and complaints go unacknowledged.

I'm tired of this. I've blocked them from every computer in my home and voila - no more "suggestions". My computer and home are peaceful again.

Fluck you Google.

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7643#p60642

Yes, using quotation marks helps, but doesn’t guarantee the outcome.

Well I've learned something new today, Gray Squirrel #194.

if you want to get really specific you can specify the proximity of your search terms with the undocumented AROUND operator.

http://lifehacker.com/5707961/use-the-around-operator-in-google-searche…
and also

If you search for the same thing often (e.g. yourself, maybe?), you can turn that search into an RSS feed and get notified of new results. This will prevent you from combing through results to find new additions

http://lifehacker.com/5739284/the-best-ways-to-tweak-your-search-when-g…

Now you can stalk your mark and know pretty quick when they post some arrangement of those "idiosyncratic spellings" all you want.

Here's the article that Melissa Kane refers to:

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2016/03/anti-vaccine-haras…

Mitzi Dupree @ 213: I've also blocked Google on my network, for all the usual security reasons, and that I do not like feeding my life to their AIs.

Speaking of Google's AIs and the whole subculture that stuff is connected with, here's some world-class quackery for you, preying on the hope / faith / wishes of a young brain cancer patient:

http://thebaffler.com/salvos/everybody-freeze-pein

"[Kim] Suozzi, an agnostic libertarian and aspiring neuroscientist [she was 20-something at the time she was diagnosed with brain cancer], began taking cryonics seriously after discovering the work of the futurologist Ray Kurzweil [chief of engineering at Google] through a cognitive science class at Truman State University in Missouri. After surgery failed to stop the growth of her brain tumor, Suozzi determined that upon death she—or rather, her head—would be frozen and stored for decades [at Alcor], centuries, or millennia in the hope that one day, diligent, wonder-working doctors would transplant her consciousness into a new, healthy body, or perhaps onto a high-capacity hard drive...."

[Items in brackets added from other parts of the story. Item re. Kurzweil is widely known and easily checked.]

The whole Alcor / immortality thing deserves some serious insolence. Especially since it's become popular among the Silly Con Valley crowd.

I read Liz Ditz's article and it got me wondering, has anyone gotten law enforcement involved? The harassment Melissa described strikes me as something that requires escalation far beyond Facebook complaints.

she—or rather, her head—would be frozen and stored for decades...

Ahh Gray Squirrel #216, I've seen that one -- Cold Lazarus.

Dr. Emma Porlock and her colleagues, attempting to unlock the secrets of human memory for the Masdon drug empire, get a cryogenically stored 400-year-old human head to project its memories through virtual reality displays. But Porlock and her team are chronically under-funded, and she may have to go around Masdon to a media sleaze merchant to get the money she needs to maintain the project. But an even more complex world of secret police, RON (Reality-Or-Nothing) riots, and murder is going on outside the lab. And the deeper Porlock goes into the frozen memories of the writer Daniel Feeld, the more twisted the labyrinth of intrigue becomes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115140/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

It was written by Dennis Potter as he was aware that he was dying of pancreatic cancer. It's got a great cast and it's a great story though there is a whiff of BBC set *cheezyness* interspersed throughout.

This dystopic is the ultimate in voyerism, reading the head. There is one particulary harrowing scene of his conciousness being dragged back from the end of the Tunnel of Light upon dropping into the cryogenic drink -- Somehow, this opening seems to set the tone of the cost and degree of such heady exploitation.

"I am on the wrong diet; I am being made to eat and drink my own thoughts... Nooooooo!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfEgdCu5RSM

Oh look, Facebook is targeting an Australian Aboriginal woman for offending ... something. Not vaccine-related but it is depressingly familiar.

I gave a speech in good faith on International Women's Day, a day Facebook saw fit to acknowledge with a tacky little welcome image. My only crime has been to share that keynote when it has become available. Through their actions, they have additionally, as well as demeaned culture and women, demeaned my words and turned them into something they are not. My words, while an empowering rallying cry, were never meant to be used in this way. I resent the fact that Facebook, through their lack of cultural knowledge and respect for women, have turned them into this. They fail to provide a safe place for Aboriginal people and for women. Indeed, through the selective applying of their "community standards", they continually allow it to be an unsafe space.

http://blackfeministranter.blogspot.com/2016/03/statement-regarding-fac…

Re Denice Walter @ #109

Australia, like the USA, is a federation. Victoria is one of our States. There are Health Ministers in each State Government as well as the Government of Australia. (By way of example, you would probably not refer to "the Governor of America (sic Florida)". )
Jill Hennessey is an elected member of the current Victorian Government, so good luck to a bunch of American nutjobs trying to target her out of office. I can't speak for Facebook, but the Australian legal system holds freedom of speech as a relative right, not an absolute one, in which robust defamation laws do a reasonable job of managing irresponsible and untruthful utterances. And, yes, Ms Hennessey supports vaccination with the full weight of Government behind her: http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/update-vaccinations-before-heading-back-t… . There has been a recent chickenpox outbreak at a particular school which seems to be linked to a local anti-vax cluster, happily the medical authorities are trying to encourage vaccinations. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/eighty-children-get-chickenpox-at-bru…

To continue my post #208

Jake has another new post, announcing that "Autism Investigated" has endorsed Donald J. Trump for President of the United States.

No doubt that if this was reported by the liberal media, all other autism advocacy organizations would follow AI's bold leadership, and the election would be all but over. /sarcasm

@ Johnny:

Oh that's rich.
I expect that he'll somehow try to get his name associated with that idiot: it seems Jake likes to ride someone's coattails - Andy, Olmsted et al, Hooker, whomever- so why not DT?

Lots of money** and lots of crazy.

** a LOMBARD if I ever saw one! ( and that's not a person domiciled in Lombardy, Italy -btw-)

This is my first post on this site. Sorry for being such a late-arrival. Have been an avid fan & reader of this pro-science blog for at least the past year. Finally felt I needed to make a comment as this topic is relevant to my own experience.

I used to be on Facebook myself under a pseudonym, actually my cat's name, as I had set him up a Facebook page to just show how awesome he is. Essentially, I was living vicariously through my cat on Facebook, because as a professional & a physician, I didn't want my real name searchable & my personal business thereby plastered all over the social media site.

And apparently, Facebook really doesn't like that. One of their policies is that people are supposed to use their real names when creating a Facebook profile, they say, so as to prevent "trolls" from the shameless harassing of others without any consequences or recourse. Of course, the real reason for the policy is to ensure that every advertising dollar can be assuredly marketed to a genuinely real person. But even that terribly self-righteous Facebook creator deep down knows this is complete bull & a disingenuous explanation.

Anyway, I was browsing a favorite Facebook page of mine at the time, "Refutations of Anti-Vaccine Memes", when I learned that the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) was making ludicrous unfounded statements again.

And thus, I fought back by commenting on the NVIC's Facebook page, refuting their misguided interpretations with sound evidence & a logic-based rebuttal. I also called the NVIC out for being a truly anti-vaccine organization rather than an organization centered around promoting accurate vaccine information, as they like to spin it & portray themselves.

Lo & behold, my cat's Facebook account was suspended by the next day, no questions asked, due to complaints received for using what Facebook considered a fake profile name. In order to restore my account, they were demanding that I send them a photocopy of my driver's license ID as well as another legal form of identification to prove who I am & that a real person was behind the account. What?!!? I don't even need to give that detailed of personal information to the government when asked usually. And it would be a cold day in hell before I ever appeased the Facebook overlords with that kind of information, which in all honesty, they have absolutely no business in even asking.

I have never returned to Facebook since, & I will also never support Facebook ever again as a result of their misguided policies & complaint reporting procedures. And they will never be able to market to me again. I now loathe the company & everything it stands for, as it allowed immature disingenuous anti-vaccine loons to censor me without question. Shameful.

I use a pseudonym on Facebook and thus far have had no problems with it. I do have a contact at HQ, though.

Like the above commenter mentioned, it's not uncommon for professionals and those in academia to use a pseudonym on Facebook for privacy reasons. I use mine in part to keep the pro-homophobia Russians off my trail. (Long story.)

Lo & behold, my cat’s Facebook account was suspended by the next day, no questions asked, due to complaints received for using what Facebook considered a fake profile name. In order to restore my account, they were demanding that I send them a photocopy of my driver’s license ID as well as another legal form of identification to prove who I am & that a real person was behind the account.

Hmph. My first pseudonym merely had to identify its friends based on random photos that they had posted at one time or another and then change to a slightly less preposterous pseudonym, but that was a while ago. I pretty much gave up on FB nearly a year ago.

My youngest used her paternal grandmother's last name for her Facebook profile. My kids' last name is uncommon, so they are quite easy to find. Which happened to my middle child who in high school was stalked by a girl in another high school (she actually called to apologize).

Youngest child quit Facebook when she became unsatisfied with their security measures. The middle child just maximized the security of his Facebook page and only communicates with people he knows.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I have screenshots of Heather admitting how she is gaming the system, and admitting her targeting and harassment of me.

I've been banned for a week from Facebook because of the following post. I hope the powers that be are happy there, doing the bidding of a neo-nazi anti-vax lunatic:

A few years ago when I first had the idea of writing a book on vaccines to share all I had learned about the subject I thought I would tackle the project myself. I thought I could handle it. I hadn't written a book before but I'm a reasonably good writer and heaven knows I've bought and read enough books to open up my own public library at least twice over.

Then I remembered something.

I remembered that many people who are opposed to vaccines aren't particularly nice. I remembered that these are the people who call the HPV vaccine, a vaccine that can literally prevent cancer, (YES CANCER!) a vaccine that is given to ten year olds "the slut shot." They harass Dr. Offit, (a personal hero of mine) the inventor of a vaccine that has literally helped save thousands of lives, so much that he doesn't dare do a book tour.

Yeah.

Before the book, I'd been writing and commenting on this subject for over a decade. During that time I'd been called all kinds of names. To my shock (because who the heck thinks saving kids from polio and pertussis is controversial?) I was called the kind of names that make you look at someone like they eat kittens for breakfast.

So I found a co-author. A brave, fierce, amazing, wonderfully intelligent co-author. I found someone passionate and devoted who I knew would be able to able to stand up in public with me.

And here we are a few years later in a place I never quite expected to be. As we start to work on a second book, I am sadly forced to write about my dismay and horror at the hours of hell that Allison has endured at the hands of those who refuse to remember history or let science be at our side.

In her own words:

"Since co-authoring a book for parents on vaccines ("Your Baby's Best Shot: Why Vaccines are Safe and Save Lives"), I have been cyberstalked, cyberharassed, doxed, and threatened by anti-vaccine advocates. My personal home address was published on social media. My employer has been contacted numerous times by anti-vaccine advocates demanding that I be disciplined, fired, or silenced from engaging in vaccine advocacy. Death and rape threats have been posted against me. I am under almost constant harassment by anti-vaccine advocates fraudulently reporting posts and photos on my social media pages."

This is the world we live in: a world in which a vaccine advocate -- a person who believes that children deserve to be protected against horrible preventable diseases, diseases that maim, deafen and literally kill -- that person is allowed by our society to be harassed at work at every turn.

I can only stand back and offer my support to someone who does not deserve to be treated this way. Please join me in standing for Allison Hagood as she stands up to those who shun science and threaten us all.

Is Facebook's Android App Monitoring My Phone Calls?

aardvarchaeology — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:06:20 +0000

Is Facebook's Android App Monitoring My Phone Calls?

Facebook's Android app seems to be monitoring whom I talk to on my phone. A few days after I've called somebody who wants to submit a paper to Fornvännen, or after I've texted the mom of one of Jrette's buddies, the web site will suddenly suggest, "Hey, maybe you might want to be Facebook buddies with this person you didn't even know was on Fb, and with whom you have no shared Fb contacts!". And there's that person.

It's possible, I guess, that this is actually set off by those people looking at my profile on Facebook. But it's happened a few times too many. I wonder...

aardvarchaeology Tue, 02/10/2015 - 17:06

Tags

LinkedIn hasn't done this with phones (yet) (that I know of), but they do have a habit of rummaging through e-mail inboxes to determine that maybe you should be connected to some other person. Even when you have no contacts in common with that person. Even in circumstances where it's not entirely appropriate. For instance, I do field interviews for my undergraduate alma mater, and they usually contact me by e-mail. Official policy is that it's not appropriate for interviewer and interviewee to be connected via social media (it's OK if they connect after the admissions decision is made). LinkedIn has suggested as contacts several applicants (none successful) who have interviewed with me. In several cases, there is no other plausible connection between us.

Eric, is this LinkedIn's Android app reading your email on your phone, or is it their web site exploring other open tabs in the browser on your laptop?

There is *definitely* some kind of monitoring in place on cell phone text messages. I have an iphone 4, and I noticed that I get advertisements from Google AdTrends, based on things I've never mentioned on the internet.

Example: I met a girl, started dating her, we didn't do any emails or connect on social media. She was Asian. Within days after exchanging texts, I started getting "Date Asian Women" ads all the time.

I have no idea how this information got from my text messages to the advertisers. It's happened other times, but this was the most obvious and definitely creeped me out.

When I check the privileges of the Facebook app in my Android phone, it can (among a _huge_ number of other things) "read your contacts", which is further explained as (crudely translated from Swedish): "Allows the app to read contact information stored in the phone, including information about how often you have called, emailed, or in any other way contacted specific persons..."

Android is a Google product, and Google is a totally unregulated surveillance empire on a scale that makes NSA envious.

The entire purpose of everything in the Google ecosystem is to monetize every piece of information that any of its users generate. This includes using means such as keyword scanning Gmail (both the users and all their correspondents) and Google Voice (ditto, arguably illegal wiretap). The Facebook ecosystem has the same purpose and works the same way.

The solution is to exit those ecosystems, and LinkedIn as well.

You don't need them. You really don't. Whatever "benefits" they provide, are readily substituted by other types of services. There is no such thing as a free lunch or perpetual motion, and "free" email, phone numbers, and social media work the same way. "Free" means they spy on you relentlessly.

And "targeted ads" are only the tip of the iceberg. Big Data output is used and abused by Human Resources administrators in corporations to make hiring & firing decisions, used by credit bureaux to affect peoples' credit ratings, etc.

The whole "information economy" is a pernicious invasion of privacy and the freedoms that privacy protects.

Think of it this way: Knowledge is power. When _they_ know all about _you_, and _you_ know nothing about _them_, who has the power?

Martin @4: I don't know that they are reading other browser tabs, but this is their basic website (I don't have the app on my iPhone). They actively encourage their users to do this, and the reason it hasn't worked in my case is because my e-mail doesn't work the way they expect it to.

G @5: Basically, if you aren't paying for a social media product that you use, then you are the product. LinkedIn hasn't been pushing ads on me, other than via "recommended" "news" stories which I can freely ignore. I have never joined Facebook, so I don't know firsthand what they do, but they have a reputation for being particularly intrusive. After all, at least LinkedIn can claim to be connecting employers to potential employees, and charge the employers for those ads (they also offer a Premium service for which users must pay after a trial period; I haven't taken the trial offer yet). Facebook has no other obvious way to monetize their database than to push targeted ads.

OK, you mean that LinkedIn offers to comb through your address book. That's common. I thought you meant it read your mail without asking.

Going off on a tangent a bit: "Banning kids from using technology is counter-productive" http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-kids-technology-counter-productiv…

A wise man once suggested the key to happiness was to 'know yourself'. As the joke goes: If you need help contact the FBI. I guess the modern version is you cal the NSA or DHS.

Sadly, we might include: The credit card company, your cell service provider, and, based upon a friend receiving a string of advertising for supplies for babies after buying diapers for his sister's kid, your local grocery store.

Everyone seems to want to jump to conclusions about what I want to shop for, who I might want to meet, and where I want to go based upon a single purchase or contact. I really wish they would stop. It is mighty annoying.

Martin @7: No, it actually reads your e-mail, as far as I understand. At least one person I know dropped LinkedIn for that very reason: he is in the financial industry, and he can't have third parties looking at his confidential mail messages.

As I said, the reason LinkedIn hasn't been able to find any contacts for me that way is because my e-mail doesn't work the way LinkedIn expects it to. I did the experiment about a year ago. If it could read address books, it should have been able to read mine, since I use the standard Apple product.

I have been a bit worried about academia.edu since they started to offer Google and Facebook login options and use so much Javascript. I would definitely recommend being cautious about installing apps for social media sites on your phone, and about giving them all the privileges which they request.

Eric @ 6: Yes, obviously true. And when any such entity becomes predatory in its ecosystem, its potential prey would do well to either avoid it or gang up on it and kill it off. For the majority of humans the solution is to just avoid it.

I've also received LinkedIn spam that had obviously harvested my email address from software used by people I know. What's evil about that spam is that it pretends to be written by the people themselves: "Hi, I want to chat with you on LinkedIn..." etc. It's straight-up fraud and misrepresentation.

The moral issue for society to deal with is, what are the legitimate limits ? Fine print does not an excuse make.

When Google Voice uses keyword recognition on both parties to a phone call, the unwitting party (who may not even know that s/he's calling a Google Voice user) is effectively being wiretapped, and there are court cases about this issue. The excuse that "it's just a machine" doing the eavesdropping doesn't cut it either, as we see from Google's employment of Ray Kurzweil on an unlimited budget, the goal is to make their machines conscious and smarter than humans.

If Facebook or LinkedIn harvested information that their users placed on the respective sites, that would be within bounds of fair. But harvesting information from users' activities outside of those sites is clearly foul, in the same manner as stalking. And harvesting information from other apps running on a user's machine is even more out-of-bounds, for example their address books. That sort of thing should be considered criminal hacking.

If it was discovered that one of these entities harvested information from peoples' word-processor documents and the like, that would be a whole new level of foul. And it's to be hoped that EFF and similar organizations would unleash an army of smart lawyers to sue the offenders until they died ignominious corporate deaths.

But I'd say we shouldn't wait for that threshold to be crossed. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt is on record (and on video) saying that his goal is to snuggle right up to the line of "creepy" without going over. That statement by itself and the intent it expresses, goes over the line.

The same case goes for Mark Zuckerberg's numerous statements denigrating privacy, and Facebook's policies including the instance where they subjected their users to a psychology experiment that sought to affect their emotions, without informed consent. Once again, fine print does not an excuse make.

These people and their surveillance engines are deeply immoral by any reasonable and civilized standard. We should vote No by refusing to use (or be used by) their "services."

(OT: Breaking news)
-ISIS Just Executed More Than 150 Women In Fallujah
-Atheist guy in USA just killed three arab neighbours.
-Conservatives celebrate death of ISIS hostage Kayla Mueller, aid worker and ‘anti-Israel b*tch’
This is what happens when people lack critical thinking abilities, and de-personalise alleged enemies.

Going off on a tangent re. technology:
"Starting now, it will be much easier for people in USA to jump from one carrier to another and take their smartphone with them":
http://www.cnet.com/news/new-regulation-requires-us-carriers-to-unlock-…

(OT) Just in: China wind power capacity jumps to record high http://phys.org/news/2015-02-china-power-capacity-high.html They sure take climate change seriously.
It occurs to me, once a communist government has been convinced climate change is real, it can simply do what is perceived as necessary for the state to survive.
Democracy is great, but often has a "planning horizon" limited to the next election (3-5 years).

#15 - They have no choice - the air quality from reliance on coal burning power stations is killing the country.

When I was in Tianjin in 1996, they were already acklowedged that they had a massive problem with air quality and other major environmental issues which directly impacted the people and the potential to directly impact the economy, and were well advanced with development of hydrothermal power, which put them at the forefront of that technology globally. They are now also leading the world in solar and wind. The Chinese play a long game - this has been in planning for a long time, and they are seeing it through.

You have stated very clearly the advantages of a one party system - when they decide they need to do something in the national interest that require big changes, they can implement them very quickly, not bogged down by all of the powerful vested financial interests that run American style 'democracy', but which is democracy in name only. The totally perverse outcome of this is that the ordinary people get better repesentation in China than they do in America, despite all of the political theory. I have been trying to get you to see that for at least 5 years now, Birger - you adhere to a political ideal which is not working because it has been totally hi-jacked by powerful and wealthy lobby groups - the plutocrats, and because you have correctly spotted the massive Achillies' heals of Western style democracy.

China is not longer a Communist state and has not been for a long while. They have a tiered system of representative government, just not the one you are used to - each delegate at every level is chosen by election by his peers to represent them. It is a system that is capable of working well.

The great flaw in the system, though, is entrenched institutionalised corruption at every level, which President Xi has very boldly set out to eradicate. I can only wish him well.

As early as 1996, the Mayor of Tangshan told me very frankly that China has "the rule of man" and it needs to make a major transition as soon as possible to "the rule of law."

This is what Mr Obama thinks of the rule of law - it is to be run over rough-shod whenever it suits the American Empire. This is diistressing, but I strongly recommend that you read it: http://www.unz.com/article/saying-no-to-torture/.

I say again that I am no apologist for the Chinese,and that I detest politics in general (which means I am not wedded from birth to one or another 'party', when the party system is simply unworkable and open to all kinds of manipulation by the rich and powerful. The very serious danger for China now is not the political system, but massive entrenched corruption.

Returning to the topic of Martin's post, I am not clear why he is getting worked up about personal privacy, when he personally outed me on his own blog some years ago without any prior consultation, when I was commenting using the pseudonym Sandgroper and had (I thought) every reason to expect him to respect my personal privacy.

One rule for you, and another rule for whoever you decide to out when it suits you - is that it, Martin? You having the issue of privacy yourself now in relation to concerns about yourself, I think it is reasonable for me to ask you why you did that, and why you see your own privacy as more deserving than my own,

Of course, you always have the option of deleting my comment, rather than answering honestly.

It is possible that an app on your android device monitors your contacts and texts, depending on how much priviledge it is given. This is not illegal, technically, as you have the right to deny the app of such priviledges. For example, you can turn off your mobile data when you do not want any app to use it, or uncheck any options that include "read ... data" or "read .. contacts ...", etc. This apps all aim to maximise abilities to help the users, but in so doing, they sometimes actually annoy us.
-u15159982

Perhaps it has alreday been said here but with a Facebook app on your mobile phone they will also collect data of where your are during 24 hoursx365 Days.

It depends on how much access you allow an app whether or not it will collect data on your phone. Because when you install an app it asks access to your phone and in so doing you permit it permission and that means its totally legal.
u15085504

John, I bear you no malice, but there is a major flaw with every one-party system:
It takes a long time for the leaders to acknowledge problems that are not directly related to the survival of the system.
I am not familiar with much Chinese history during the 1980s instead I will use the example of African one-party states and their inability to recognise the great threat posed by the HIV epidemic. Instead, efforts against the disease were left to non-government organisations since the governments' first reponse was to sweep the prolem under the carpet.
Without political pluralism, most of Africa lost a decade in the fight against the disease.
Another problem is exposing corruption in high places; it is no coincidence Gorbachev chose to ease the censorship in the very corrupt Soviet system (alas, it was replaed by an even more corrupt cleptocracy).

I agree that the invasiveness of social media apps such as Facebook in this case can be concerning but they could also be advantageous . If you setup the privileges that you allow the app correctly it could help you , for instance how my Facebook mobile app saves all the contact numbers of my "Online Friends" to my mobile phone book . It saves time and effort
U14017769

It saves time and effort

I'm sure it can, but there are risks. There was a notorious case a few years ago in which a woman discovered her husband was having an affair when Facebook suggested that she should be friends with his mistress. That's a activity that, while legal in most countries, most people engaging in it would probably prefer to keep it quiet. There are other circumstances where you might not want somebody's phone number to appear in your address book; for instance, if the person is in the US and turns out to be a drug dealer, the police are going to take an interest in you when they find out you are in regular contact, whether or not you buy his product. User beware.

How did that work? Do I need to worry that everyone Facebook suggests that I should befriend is my wife's lover?

Probably not. The basic idea is that if Alice and Bob know each other, and Bob and Carol know each other, then the probability that Alice and Carol know each other is significantly higher than random chance. For instance, if Alice and I were classmates at university, then her university classmates were also my university classmates. In this case, husband and wife were presumably friends on Facebook, and likewise husband and mistress. But the wife apparently thought that there was no obvious connection between husband and mistress, and checked her out. I've forgotten details of the story, but my guess is that the wife would not have been as suspicious if the mistress had been a classmate, co-worker, or mutual friend. The wife may also have already had some reason to be suspicious that her husband was cheating.

So basically, if you actually do know the person, or you have some idea of how he knows your wife, there is no cause for worry. And of course the suggested friends may be friends of your other friends (I don't know if Facebook will tell you who the mutual friend is; depending on the person's profile settings, LinkedIn often will). But if you don't have any idea who he is, and he is appearing in a bunch of photos with her, you might want to ask her about it.

LinkedIn is more for professional networking, so there is no cause to worry there. You know certain people through your work, and she knows certain other people through her work. You will have met some but not all of her colleagues, and she will have met some but not all of yours.

I would be an extremely busy man if I was having affairs with even a small proportion of those Facebook contacts of mine that my wife is unfamiliar with. d-;

Birger #20 *sigh* - you are not subjecting me to malice. There are major flaws in every political system ever devised. This is because people who are motivated to exercise power over others are all arseholes, without fail. I have nothing but contempt for all of them. *All.* Am I finally getting through yet or not?

Antivaccine wingnuts, stay away from my Halloween Kit Kats and Reese's!

oracknows — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:00:38 +0000

Antivaccine wingnuts, stay away from my Halloween Kit Kats and Reese's!

Grant deadline today, which means I didn’t have time to produce yet another scintillating epic for my not-so-super-secret other blog. I did, however, have time to take note of a highly annoying thing on Facebook that was brought to my attention last night and is worth a brief mention here, so that the blog doesn’t go without a post today.

The National Vaccine Information Center, founded and run by Barbara Loe Fisher, is about as antivaccine as they come. It’s also pretty blatant about spreading misinformation about vaccines hither, thither, and yon, disguised as “vaccine safety” public service announcements. Examples include pseudo-PSAs shown at AMC Theaters, inserted into the in-flight entertainment system of Delta Airlines, and blasted out at a Times Square JumboTron.

So what is Barbara Loe Fisher up to this time? Well, mosey on over to the NVIC Facebook page and find out:

Post by National Vaccine Information Center.

Here’s a screen shot in case the NVIC deletes its post:

Yes, someone thought up the brilliant idea of making up labels to paste on Halloween candy advertising the NVIC website, which, as I’ve pointed out many times before, is chock full of antivaccine misinformation and fear mongering, and the NVIC is totally on board with encouraging its sycophants, toadies, and lackeys to paste this sticker on candy given to children. I recommend that pro-vaccine parents out there keep an eye out for such labels when trick or treating with their children. If you see parents giving out candy defaced with these labels, be sure to return them with extreme prejudice, making it very clear why you are refusing the candy.

oracknows Mon, 10/27/2014 - 05:00

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

autism

complementary and alternative medicine

National Vaccine Information Center

Reese's Peanut Butter Cups

Trick or Treat

vaccine

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

@Orac - is also turns out that the United Way of the National Capital Region lists NVIC as one of their supported groups.....

This is so creepy--as though somehow vaccines are now being snuck into candy.

@Chris Hickie, they're saving that for their xmas campaign.

I'd seriously consider sending a petition to the United Way about that.

I hadn't read the bit about the stick-on labels yet and hustled to check the Reese's and KitKat's I had purchased for this Friday.

Fortunately, they just have the usual nutrition information.

I think someone should notify Hershey that their copyrighted material is being appropriated to promote an antivaccine message. I mean, they didn't slap these on generic candies. They put them on very well-known, well-liked, and well-established candies with very distinctive packaging, and the logos are very clearly visible in these pictures. I think if Hershey decided to sue NVIC, they'd have a strong case. (IANAL, naturally.) In fact, we should all send them that message so they realize how many people are seeing their brand used to sell this message.

I hadn’t read the bit about the stick-on labels yet and hustled to check the Reese’s and KitKat’s I had purchased for this Friday.

Fortunately, they just have the usual nutrition information.

It's not Hershey's that's putting the labels on. It's the NVIC suggesting to parents that they print up a bunch of these labels and then stick them to the candy wrappers before giving the candy out to trick or treaters. Hershey's has nothing to do with this. It was just Hershey's being pictured, its packaging in essence being defaced with an ad for NVIC.

It's like taking candy from a baby. (Yes, I know … but somebody had to go there.)

United Way has managed to sink even lower in my estimation than they already were. They've taken some flak lately for high overhead. And it's hard for me to see how, in the internet era, a meta-charity like United Way is justified, when a bit of Googling will let me find a more specific charity to which I can direct charitable giving. It made more sense in the 1980s, when groups like the Smallville Anti Domestic Violence Coalition couldn't afford the advertising to make themselves known to large groups of people. But today I don't need the risk that my contributions (net of overhead) will go to some organization whose goals I disagree with, like NVIC or some hyper-religious organization.

Eric Lund: "United Way has managed to sink even lower in my estimation than they already were. They’ve taken some flak lately for high overhead."

This is why in our paycheck donations no longer go to United Way. We use the directed giving system to give to things like the library foundation, a foster child organization, the local children's hospital and the Scottish Rite charity that provided free speech therapy for oldest child.

@ squirrelelite #4: there is a petition at change.org: https://www.change.org/p/united-way-stop-funding-the-anti-vaccination-g…

I'm confused - should I be putting these on my chicken-pox lollies or not?

Thanks, Chris Hickie!

I signed it just now.

And thanks, Orac. I realized that when I got further into the blog. But, looking at the picture made me curious enough to go check my candies.

@Calli Arcale

There may be a case there (though I, too, am not a lawyer). By promoting this idea, NVIC is appropriating another company's product and image to promote their own. One might also think, if they receive these defaced candy items, that the candy company endorses NVIC.

Actually, I'm mildly surprised that they aren't sticking on labels which to warn parents about the deleterious influences of...
sugar, gluten, caseine, GMO ingredients and peanuts.

You know, the more I think about this--I think it's a good thing. This should let you clearly identify the kids your kids should not be playing with. No sleep-overs, no birthday parties, nothing.

I would say this is a feature, not a bug.

delete that TO

A downside of this latest NVIC disinformation campaign is that it's mostly kids who will see these labels, not parents.

The kids won't care, except some might get the idea that vaccines are a treat similar to candy and will look forward to them more, or at least mind them less. ;)

At any rate, NVIC could (and probably will) do worse - like encouraging antivax parents to dress their kids up as scary Hypodermic Needles or Toxins to emphasize how satanic vaccines are.

Or they could purchase several of these accessories and send Junior out as an Evil Dr. Offit:

http://www.thecostumer.com/p-18962-fake-hypodermic-needle-and-syringe.a…

I think others are getting at this as well, but just in case..
The owners of the KitKat brand in the states shouldn't accept that their product appears prominently in a context which is going to lead to kids being harmed.
In Europe at least, I'm pretty sure this would be actionable.

I'm pretty sure Hershey isn't going to find this too funny....

People should only put those stickers on the Hallowe'en-season "Coffin Crisp" bars, and maybe the "Scaries" and the "ScAero" bars*. A certain level of truth in advertising...

----------------

* Although I'd wager that at least the "Scaries" (brown & orange Smarties - the candy-coated chocolates, as opposed to the candies-in-a-roll we Canadians usually call "Rockets") would only be in Canada.

Mary M.: brilliant!

I suppose with the changing times, parents run any Halloween treats the kids collect through X-Ray machine and chemical tests before the kids get to eat it, but in my day the folks would never even have seen a label on the treats, and as kids we certainly wouldn't have cared.

Calli & Todd: If that image was in a magazine or TV ad there might be a copyright case, but I doubt it. For a photo posted on Facebook, it's an open and shut First Amendment OK. Don't waste your time writing to Hershey.

I'd say the best move is to pub this all over social media with Mary M.'s idea. "Look for the labels, so you know who avoid! Thanks NVIC for outing the loons in our neighborhood."

I suppose pro-immunization parents could organize and put Respectful Insolence stickers on M&Ms. The great Trick or Treat PR war. Just what kids need, and I'm surprised it took this long: every Halloween treat wrapped in advertising.

"Kids: sick of permissive parents who let you eat this stuff and ruin your life? We gave the answer" www.ISIS.org"

"Been bullied? Rejected? Turn it around! Ask mom and dad for a Bushmaster this Christmas! www.NRA.org"

"DADS: Stop Poisoning Your Kids!
Trick or Treat may seem like just good fun, but it teaches our children to look for handouts. Fight the satanist socialist nanny state. Support Right to Work laws for minors, and make junior go get a god damn job! www.GOPatriots.org"
Those labels, of course would be pasted on lumps of coal.

This is pretty bad, but even more disturbing is the "state vaccine policy guide" that NVIC has launched. I won't link to it and unintentionally promote it, but it's searchable to those who may be curious (and who haven't eaten lunch yet).

The fabrications in it about vaccines are about as vile as they are predictable, but its misinterpretation of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the foundational Supreme Court ruling on public health law, is just unreal in its willful deceptiveness. These people have no conscience.

A pretty thorough takedown of B-Lowe and her ilk ran in New Hampshire on Sunday that I will link to:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/14034294-95/editorial-dangerous-mess…

It's encouraging to see that advertisers are walking away from their money; more should follow suit. It's great to see that people are picking up on the United Way thing as well. If the tax-deductible funding to these groups can be dried up, they will wither and die.

DB@16: Don't give them ideas; it's been a bad enough Halloween season already. Pumpkin riots, Ebola scares, and a bunch of Really Bad Taste costumes--and so far I am only talking about alleged adults. Not to mention that in the US, Election Day comes too close to Halloween.

OT: Has anybody else seen an upsurge in alt-med spam lately? Quite a bit of it has crossed my inbox this morning, without being flagged by my spam filter.

Oops. I put gag URLs in a post, and the blog engine auto-completed the addresses and turned them hyperlinks. If the post clears, and the host can't edit them back, please ignore.

sadmar:

Calli & Todd: If that image was in a magazine or TV ad there might be a copyright case, but I doubt it. For a photo posted on Facebook, it’s an open and shut First Amendment OK. Don’t waste your time writing to Hershey.

Given that Facebook posts, YouTube videos, and blogs have been taken down for far less overt violations of copyright, I wouldn't be so sure of that. DMCA allows copyright holders to be downright draconian in protection of their intellectual property. All Hershey has to do is send Facebook a takedown notice.

DMCA allows copyright holders to be downright draconian in protection of their intellectual property.

The trouble with using DMCA here is that the people distributing these stickers intend them to be used in meatspace, where a DMCA style takedown is obviously impossible. IANAL also, and there may be other statutes under which the brand holders can take action, but it's not obvious to me what Hershey can do if NVIC chooses to ignore a Cease and Desist letter.

My how things have changed - not for the better.

I remember my childhood with many children trick-or-treating and canvassing for the March of Dimes at the same time.
The fear of polio and determination to stamp it out was strong.

Today we have lunatics who wish for the opposite and want to reverse all that heroic effort.

If somebody encounters this while accompanying their child I hope they stand by the lunatic's door and hold the candy up to the child while explaining that this evil maniac wants all little children to become deathly ill and that is the reason they must return the suspect candy.

Let's see how neighbourhood social networking deals with the nutter's reputation.

parents run any Halloween treats the kids collect through X-Ray machine and chemical tests before the kids get to eat it

Ohh, sadmar. It's darker than that. Deeperer, even...

Slipping needles into sweeties of Avaxxers and then labeling the bait so that all the usual 'best practices' are bypassed. They should feel pwnd.

Also, I thought ya'lld just stick with the mosquitoes again this Year?? What's wrong with that? Ohh? Killed the heartworms, right. sickos.

IANAL also, and there may be other statutes under which the brand holders can take action, but it’s not obvious to me what Hershey can do if NVIC chooses to ignore a Cease and Desist letter.

The first question one needs to answer is whether ad hoc stickering of one's private property and then giving it away amounts to moving goods "in commerce."

sadmar @#20:

Be careful how you URL on this site, sir/ma'am. You might regret it :(.

Anyway, although I detest what the antivaxers are doing with their Halloween candy this year, it *did* give me an idea for spreading the word about my Pokemon League should I ever revive it in the near-future.

Eric:

The trouble with using DMCA here is that the people distributing these stickers intend them to be used in meatspace, where a DMCA style takedown is obviously impossible.

I'm not suggesting sending a DMCA takedown notice to NVIC to stop the stickers. I'm suggesting sending it to Facebook, where this is being promoted, to get the images pulled. You're right that it would be nigh impossible to prevent people putting whatever stickers they want on candies before passing them -- and heck, who'd want that to be possible through litigation anyway? It's the *promotion* online that would be more damaging to Hershey, because everybody can see that -- which is actually NVIC's intent, I'm sure.

Besides, stop the online promotion of this campaign, and far fewer people are gonna be pasting these stupid stickers on candy, because they won't hear about it.

That's what's weird about DMCA takedown notices. You don't actually send them to the offender. (Well, you *can*, as a courtesy, but you actually don't have to.) You send them to the service that hosts the content. It's part of the "safe harbor" provision that protects the host from prosecution or lawsuit because of stuff their members post on their service. The theory is that in exchange for not being held responsible for the content, they are expected to promptly remove any violating content once it's pointed out to them. Content hosts vary widely in how they respond to takedown notices, but many basically cave at the first sign of a notice. Some will call the copyright holder's bluff. (Yes, it is often just a bluff. I have heard of skeptical blogs getting attacked by meritless takedown notices. As a content originator you're supposed to be able to protest when your hosting service pulls your content, but it's really at the service's discretion. And many just don't want the legal hassle if it turns out you don't actually have a case with your protest.)

I’m not suggesting sending a DMCA takedown notice to NVIC to stop the stickers. I’m suggesting sending it to Facebook, where this is being promoted, to get the images pulled.

This is still an issue of trademark (not copyright), so it remains necessary to address how on earth this post rises to the level of dilution.

It’s part of the “safe harbor” provision that protects the host from prosecution or lawsuit because of stuff their members post on their service. The theory is that in exchange for not being held responsible for the content, they are expected to promptly remove any violating content once it’s pointed out to them.

The safe-harbor provision does not apply to trademark.

So? Like I said before, posts have been taken down for far less. If she had a Disney logo in there, you can bet it would already be down.

@sadasd, if it help, we wrote a respond to the NVIC policy guide. http://thevaccineadvocate.com/law-and-policy/

Rather than debate what Hershey could or could not do under any laws or regulations, I decided I'd just let Hershey know, and let their lawyers figure out what they can or cannot do. I figure that they earn the money, so let them figure it out.

I was pleased (but not really surprised) to see that a minion, Dr. Hickie, had beat me to the punch.

I see a raise in his future.

If she had a Disney logo in there, you can bet it would already be down.

A more proper comparison would be her own picture of a pile of defaced Disney T-shirts.

Slipping needles into sweeties of Avaxxers and then labeling the bait so that all the usual ‘best practices’ are bypassed. They should feel pwnd.

Also, I thought ya’lld just stick with the mosquitoes again this Year?? What’s wrong with that? Ohh? Killed the heartworms, right. sickos.

Perhaps you should wait until the LSD wears off, and THEN post.

Calli:
Publishing a picture of an object that bears a trademark isn't a use of that trademark unless extra conditions make it so. If you draw your own image of Mickey Mouse and post it on FB, Disney might complain. If you post a photo of yourself holding a Mickey Mouse doll, they've got nothing.

NVIC isn't trying to sell anything, especially candy. The Kit Kat bars in the photo are obvious signifiers of 'halloween candy' employed in a comment about Halloween that is clearly protected speech. If that photo was 'not OK' you couldn't post a picture of yourself holding up a "Boycott NVIC" sign sitting on the hood of your car, wearing a cap with a team logo, with a Mickey D's sign in the background, etc. etc.

I know copyright fairly well, but not trademark, so I checked a chain of links from the one Narad posted, and there are multiple statutory provisions that would exempt that photo from trademark litigation.

As you seem to know, though, IP isn't usually about what's actually in the law and who would win at court. It's usually about who can use threats of litigation, however baseless, to bully a weaker party into submission.

IP is also (Disney paranoia aside) always about money. Hershey has no financial incentive to pay one of their lawyers even for the time to draft and send a nasty letter to FB. And even if FB received any kind of threat, pulling that photo would set a precedent so damaging to their revenue stream, they'd just laugh for 5 seconds and move on with business. If Hershey pressed the issue, FB would reply that their legal team outnumbers Hersheys' 10-1 so good luck with your lawsuit and in the meantime we'll be pulling all Hershey products out of every commissary and vending machine in Menlo Park. I.e. they'd spend five minutes laughing in Hersheys' face and then move on with real business.

Allow me to extend this a bit further. Not only do I think the DMCA is inapropos, I also don't selectively approve of abusing it based on my feelings toward the target. If Hershey should be able to use a picture of their Halloween candy with NVIC stickers on it as the basis for a takedown, why shouldn't Mattel be able to pull Superstar from Y——be?

I'm not a copyrights expert, and that's a pretty specialized area. I can ask a colleague if it's critical. But from my short reading, I just don't see how this could be a trademark violation. They own the candy, they're not presenting them as if the candy was their own product, they're not stealing Hershey's trademark, they're just using it as a vehicle to add their own info.

If they gave out a bag that included a hershey candy and a piece of paper with their info it would not be a violation of trademark. How is this different?

From what I've seen, trademark violation is usually the other way - incorporating someone else's symbol or product into your own.

They banned me from their site after I posted some science on that thread. Fisher is a vile woman. She called the gardasil vaccine the slut vaccine. Yeah. That's my eleven year year old daughter and her vaccinated friends: sluts.

But from my short reading, I just don’t see how this could be a trademark violation.

Neither do I, but "trade dress" seems closer than the idea that a defaced photo of one's products is a copyright violation. There's a powerpointy look here (I had to manually change .ashx to .pdf).

OT, but on a topic this blog has been a leader on:

http://gawker.com/tinged-pink-when-the-cancer-narrative-cant-compass-yo…

It's a long essay by someone who lost a friend, somebody who died of breast cancer at the age of 33. The central topic involves the writer's resentment at always being told to have a positive attitude about cancer and the various fund raising organizations. I get that. But well down the page, we learn:

"Julia tried everything except conventional methods. No scalpel, no chemo, no hospital. A healing retreat in Germany. A healing center in London. A last minute jaunt to Australia. These pills. Those foods. Raw diet. Only sprouts. Kombucha.Kombucha cures AIDS, she tried to tell me. No milk. No drinking at meals. No alcohol. Everything in a glass bottle. She moved away from London for the sea, she moved back to London for work. London was so hard to escape. Her tumor got smaller then larger then smaller and I thought and I said: You are so brave. I still think that. . . . "

The author continues:

"Were conventional methods the answer? Julia dedicated herself to every alternative treatment she could find, every method she thought might have a chance, offer something she could believe in. "

It's a fairly long essay which goes into a lot of feeling and hurt, but is rather insensitive about the fact that the deceased could possibly have been cured, or at least had a much longer life, had she not adopted such an antiscientific approach to her own condition.

Some of the commenters make this point pretty well. Others tell stories of wives and mothers who did all the available conventional treatment, only to die of the disease.

I suppose there's always RICO.

@Dorit Reiss-I saw that earlier today, and it's excellent work.

Narad: Good one...

@Stacey #43
BLF is a vile human. Not clear whether she actually believes the swill she vomits out but she must be getting pretty desperate to keep pushing the slut vaccine bit. Cervical cancer = virgin? What a waste of Oxygen she is.

I don't think I've ever read a Halloween candy wrapper in my life. As a kid or as an adult. Nor would I be turning down free candy just because there was a sticker on it. You know how money spends the same? Chocolate tastes the same. If they want to put nonsense stickers on their wrappers, it's not my problem.

Antivax wingnuts might want to rethink their dedication to "research" at Google University, at least for today.

Google is saluting polio vaccine developer Jonas Salk. The graphic on the Google search page shows healthy children frolicking, with one holding up a sign saying "Thank you Dr. Salk".

One can only imagine the teeth-gnashing among the antivax crowd. "Don't parents realize how much healthier their kids would be if they acquired polio immunity the natural way, by getting the disease??!?!?"

I was just about to mention it myself. Gave me a big smile.

But what better time for them to truly act like the ghouls they are?

Dangerous Bacon, they don't seem too pleased!

http://www.mothering.com/forum/443-i-m-not-vaccinating/1460594-google-p…

Pop over to Modern Alternative Mama (sorry, Future Dystopian Mama to see her nasty, spiteful counter to the celebration of Salk. You might be in time to enjoy the battering she's getting in the comments, that is, before she gets busy with the ban hammer.

Modern Mainstream Mama made an image with some of the highlights.

On the subject of anti-vaccine wing nuts, see this satirical article.

http://thespudd.com/anti-vaccine-doctor-has-letter-published-in-medical…

Don't just read the article, read the comments too.

Charlotte and AC: Links?

@ChrisP
TheSpudd was great. That could not possibly have been the real Suzanne Humphreys could it? If it is, her medical school should be ashamed.

Mike Ma. I contacted the guy who runs The Spudd. I have inside information. You'll have to trust me. It was really her. However, the person commenting as Toni Bark was a Poe.

Thanks, ChrisP!

That was priceless.

@Ladybug,
Thanks for the followup. I wanted to believe it was really Humphfries but my skeptical nature gave her the benefit of the doubt. Priceless cluelessness. Perfect .

Looks like those are both on facebook (the Mamas referenced)

https://www.facebook.com/ModernAlternativeMama
https://www.facebook.com/ModernMainstreamMama

Yep, that's MaM. The number of comments has dropped by about 100 since I last looked so they've been busy with the deleting (mine have gone and I'm banned).

What is that, the slower version of actually poisoning the candy? This has actually passed the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" point. This may actually lay outside the bounds of free speech.

Over at the anti-vax home away from home (otherwise known as AoA) a commentator called Jon Marathon (which may have that RealName superscript if he were at Amazon, but I digress) is complaining about being called an ant-vaxxer by the 'liberal press'.

Autismmom has the perfect solution:

"Try reading "Natural news". You are less likely to get attacked or be accused of being an anti vaxxer or a tin foil hat wearer."

The trouble is that Autismmom is serious.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd find the argument that that conduct is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception about the association of Hershey's with NVIC in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A) to be colorable.

I’d find the argument that that conduct is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception about the association of Hershey’s with NVIC in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A) to be colorable.

You have to get to the "in commerce" part, not to mention to interstate commerce if you want to invoke the Lanham Act.

^ (Not that the latter is a particularly high bar.)

Giving candy away is commerce. Facebook sends things interstately, among other reasons that the commerce among the states clause is satisfied.

Twitter's New Filtered Feed Policy

gregladen — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 13:09:17 +0000

Twitter's New Filtered Feed Policy

Twitter is about to ruin itself.

I'm convinced that the people who made and run both Facebook and Twitter don't have a clue as to what Facebook and Twitter are for. And by "for" I mean how the users use them. I know, I know, if you are not paying for the product than you are the product. I get it. But it is also true that for a service to be successful it should meet a need or two, and knowing what those needs are is ultimately linked to success or failure. It seems like on line services like Facebook and Twitter are too big to go away or fail. And that is exactly how we humans tend to view established institutions right up until the day the go away or fail.

Twitter's CFO has said that Twitter will start to filter your twitter feed in a manner like Facebook does. This probably means that your feed will contain a subset of tweets that you normally would see depending on who you follow, or what list of tweeters you are looking at. There may be a technological way around this, but any fix provided by an updated API will not be helpful because Twitter has a reputation for changing the API (the way programmers use to interface with it) in such a way as to stifle development of applications that actually use twitter. Any larger scale or longer term investment in Twitter requires using the simplest interface, with few bells and whistled, or the rug may be pulled from underneath your project.

One of the great uses of Twitter is shared conversations (like this one) or shared not taking at conferences. Other uses include data collection and communication of ongoing processes. People have used twitter to record the catch by fisherfolk in marine conservation projects, for example. If Twitter Facebook-i-fies the Twitter feed, none of that will be possible because those projects and others like them require reliability of the flow of tweets.

Mathew Ingram of Gigaom notes:

An unfiltered stream is a core feature: This might seem like a small thing, similar to Twitter’s move to insert tweets that other people have favorited into a user’s stream if there aren’t any recent tweets to show them. But as the controversy over that feature shows, the Twitter chronological-order model is at the core of what the service offers for many users — and a number of them have specifically said it is the thing they like most about Twitter when compared to Facebook.

Unlike.

gregladen Thu, 09/04/2014 - 09:09

Tags

I still haven't yet figured out what Facebook and Twitter are for, which is one of the reasons I don't use these services. The other reason being that I have no desire to be the product rather than the user.

I shall refrain from stating the well known error in reasoning to which both service providers have succumbed because I have no wish to encourage their business tactics.

I stay in touch with all my friends using MySpace. I have this one friend, Tom....

ok. MySpace sux.

What Twitter and Facebook are "for" is collecting every possible piece of information about their users and then monetizing it in any way they can. In other words they are like private-sector unregulated NSAs that make money off every fact they obtain.

This includes selling your data to data brokers, who in turn connect it to your legal name and identifying information (if that hasn't already been done along the way) and repackage it for sale to others.

Those others include your current employer and prospective employer, credit bureaus, mortgage lenders, and others, whose goal is not to sell you stuff you don't need, but to impose their will upon you in various other ways such as by denying you employment, credit, and a place to live.

In other words, we have seen the creation of an unregulated private-sector Stasi, and the predictable result of producing a "watch what you say" culture.

You're not just the product. You're the prey.

Antivaccinationists abuse reporting algorithms to silence pro-vaccine skeptics on Facebook

oracknows — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:01:55 +0000

Antivaccinationists abuse reporting algorithms to silence pro-vaccine skeptics on Facebook

This is not what I wanted to write about for my first post of 2014, but unfortunately it's necessary—so necessary, in fact, that I felt the obligation to crosspost it to my not-so-super-secret other blog in order to get this information out to as wide a readership as possible.

I've always had a bit of a love-hate relationship with Facebook. On the one hand, I like easily how it lets me stay in contact with family and friends across the country, people whom I would rarely see more than once or twice a year, if even that. On the other hand, I have the same privacy concerns that many other people have with respect to putting personal information, as well as pictures and videos of myself, family, and friends, onto Facebook. Now that I've become a (sort of) public figure (or, as I like to refer to myself, a micro-celebrity), I've thought that I should cull my friends list to just real friends with whom I have a connection (or at least have met in person or had private e-mail exchanges with) and set up a Facebook page for my public persona, to prevent people whom I don't know or barely know from divebombing my wall with arguments. As I tell people, I don't want obnoxious arguments on my Facebook wall; that's what my blog is for. It's also why I make no apologies when I find it occasionally necessary to tell Facebook "friends" who get too obnoxious on my wall to knock it off and then deleting their comments if they irritate me enough, even though here on this blog almost anything goes in the comments. Different media, different rules. My "meatspace" friends and family read my Facebook wall, and many of them are unfamiliar with the rough-and-tumble free-for-all that are the comments sections of some of my blog posts.

My personal issues with Facebook aside, Facebook does indeed have many shortcomings, but until something else comes along and steals the same cachet (which is already happening as teens flee Facebook to avoid their parents) and even after, Facebook will remain a major player in social media. That's why its policies matter. They can matter a lot. I was reminded of this about a week ago when Dorit Reiss (who has of late been the new favored target of the antivaccine movement, likely because she is a lawyer and has been very effective thus far in her young online career opposing the antivaccine movement) published a post entitled Abusing the Algorithm: Using Facebook Reporting to Censor Debate. Because I also pay attention to some Facebook groups designed to counter the antivaccine movement, I had already heard a little bit about the problem, but Reiss laid it out in stark detail. Basically, the merry band of antivaccinationists at the Australian Vaccination Network (soon to be renamed because its name is so obviously deceptive, given that it is the most prominent antivaccine group in Australia, that the NSW Department of Fair Trading ordered the anti-vaccine group to change its misleading name) has discovered a quirk in the algorithm Facebook uses to process harassment complaints against users and abused that quirk relentlessly to silence its opponents on Facebook.

I'll let Reiss explain:

Over the weekend of December 21-22, an unknown person or persons used a new tactic, directed mainly at members of the Australian organization “Stop the Australian Vaccination Network” (The Australian Vaccination Network – AVN – is, in spite of its name, an anti-vaccine organization – see also here; SAVN had been very effective in exposing their agenda and mobilizing against them). In an attempt to silence pro-vaccine voices on Facebook, they went back over old posts and reported for harassment any comment that mentioned one person’s name specifically. Under Facebook’s algorithm, apparently, mentioning someone’s name means that if the comment is reported it can be seen as violating community standards. Which is particularly ironic, since many commentators, when replying to questions or comments from an individual, would use that individual’s name out of courtesy.

Several of the people so reported received 12 hours bans. Some of them in succession.

The only common trait of these posts appears to be that they use the name of an AVN supporter, who then uses that use of her name as evidence of "harassment" to report the post. If you go back and look at the examples of comments that were used to trigger 12 hour Facebook bans, they are about as innocuous as one can imagine. For example:

Here's another example:

“Karen; a challenge for you: find a case where a judicial officer (judge, special master etc) has heard evidence for and against a link between vaccines and autism and then found in favour of a link. Give me a link to the judgment, not what what Mike Adams or others claim is in the judgment.”

Antivaccinationists, being antivaccinationists, also can't resist bragging about what they are doing, posting images of comments successfully removed and creating a Facebook page called "FB Time-Outs for Provaxers":

One notes that this must either have been taken down or that it is a private, invitation-only group that doesn't show up on Facebook searches. This is still going on. Indeed, I received an e-mail on New Years Eve from Joanne Benhamu, who confirms that this has been going on several weeks and further reports that the individuals responsible for this campaign have been on a reporting spree. She also reports that couple of days ago every administrator for the "Stop the AVN" Facebook page, including Joanne Benhamu and Rachel Dunlop, has become the target of such bans. The effect, as described by Benhamu, has been to disable their ability to run the Stop the AVN Facebook page and prevent supporters from engaging in debate about the topic. She also gave examples of the frivolous nature of the complaints and the innocuous nature of the comments singled out for complaint. One comment that drew a 12 hour ban was: "Tess, are you disputing that your only source is a blog penned by a known liar?". Another comment that has resulted in Dr Rachael Dunlop being banned is: "Karen is a sock, or appears to be."

I can't emphasize enough how hypocritical this is.

Reasonable Hank has also pointed out the brain-melting hypocrisy of the AVN and documented several instances of the AVN crying "Censorship!" to raise money and quoting Meryl Dorey herself saying "Censorship is NEVER acceptable!" It's a viewpoint that I actually have a great deal of affinity for. Remember, I'm the same person who has lambasted laws criminalizing Holocaust denial when arch-Holocaust denier David Irving ran afoul of such laws in 2006 and was profoundly disappointed when Elie Wiesel proposed carving out an exception to free speech laws to criminalize Holocaust denial. I took a fair amount of heat for that, but I still believe that, by and large, the best defense against dangerous speech is speech refuting it.

Of course, government censorship is a different thing from the policies of a private company like Facebook. Facebook can do what it likes and set whatever policies it likes. It is Facebook's policies that are problematic. As easily abused as Facebook's policies appear to be, however, it is hypocritical in the extreme for Meryl Dorey to weep crocodile tears about "censorship" and then engage in the activities Hank documents, such as frivolous DMCA takedown complaints and intentionally marking unfavorable posts as spam. Reiss and Reasonable Hank provide compelling evidence that this is a deliberate strategy, most likely on the part of the Australian Vaccination Network and Meryl Dorey designed to abuse the reporting algorithm used by Facebook in order to give pro-vaccine skeptical activists a "time out" from Facebook. During these 12-hour bans, they are unable to post or comment; they are, for all intents and purposes, locked out of Facebook. As Reasonable Hank explains, this is no a petty Facebook squabble. Remember that each of these reports means a 12 hour ban from Facebook for the user. It is also highly unlikely to be a coincidence that comments from months ago are found and reported at a time coinciding with the end of a user's 12 hour ban. One user has reported multiple bans, one per day, so that he has not had continual access to his Facebook account for over a week. Just look at the list of comments that led to 12 hour bans based on frivolous reports of harassment and abuse. There is nothing abusive or threatening about any of them.

Again, the only thing these posts have in common is that they use the name of an AVN supporter, often only the first name. Apparently, yesterday Meryl Dorey herself finally commented, playing dumb in a transparent fashion:

After a disingenuous bit about how this is the first time she's ever heard of this and a claim that she has yet to see any evidence that AVN-affiliated Facebook users have anything to do with this and a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" urging that "we are better than this", Dorey turns up the nudging and winking to the point where she probably has elbow bruises and corneal abrasions to conclude:

Oh, and honestly, pages and people who breach Facebook's terms and conditions should be reported - don't think that I am trying to stop you from doing that, I encourage you to! But please keep it to those types of pages and posts.

In other words, carry on what you're doing, but please, just be a little less blatant about it and for heaven's sake don't publicly gloat about it when your abuse of Facebook's reporting mechanism succeed!

Again, this is a deficiency of Facebook's automated reporting mechanism. It's a glitch that's so transparently open to abuse that it's a wonder to me that Facebook hasn't fixed it already. As one of the commenters in Reasonable Hank's post points out, it seems fairly certain that the name recognition is automated to the point that the person doing the reporting of abuse need only have an account with the same name or partial name as the name mentioned in the comment in order to report it for purposes of suppression, elaborating:

So if I happen to see some guy on a US politics site saying stuff I disagree with to some other guy named “Andy”, it seems I can get the abuser banned even though it’s not me he’s abusing. The target “Andy” would be none-the-wiser.

Gosh, if were a troll, I could just spend my days searching random FB sites for anyone who mentions “Andy”, and get the users banned for the hell of it.

The Facebook account most used to make these spurious complaints appears to belong to someone with the 'nym Karen Little, who runs an antivaccine Facebook page in which she blatantly gloats about getting Australian skeptics banned, such as Peter Bowditch, banned and posts memes like this:

And this:

Post by Karen Little.

Unfortunately, Facebook has not proven itself to be particularly good at dealing with issues like this; its track record leaves something to be desired. However, with its more than one billion users, Facebook is still the 800 lb. gorilla of social media and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. It is a platform that can't be ceded to the antivaccinationists without a fight. Moreover, if the Australian (Anti-) Vaccination Network succeeds in driving pro-science activists from Facebook with these tactics, other antiscience movements will be emboldened to do the same. As I've explained time and time again, attacking the person and trying to silence him is a feature, not a bug, of crank movements. As I discovered early on, they hate pseudonyms and would try to "out" me every way they could. I learned the reason, too, and that's to target me personally in order to silence me. As I've experienced all too many times as various cranks have tried to harass me by complaining to my superiors at my job or even gone as far as to try to report me to my state medical board, which a misguided Stanislaw Burzynski supporter did last year. This is no different, except that it's easier. My bosses know enough now to recognize crank complaints, and the state medical board rapidly decided that the complaint against me was bogus. Facebook has an automatic algorithm; human judgment appears to have very little to do with it.

So what can we do? First of all, this needs to be publicized. Whether it's the AVN doing this (as seems very likely based on strong circumstantial evidence) or other groups of antivaccine warriors, this needs to be publicized. I don't know whether complaining to Facebook will do any good or not, but it nonetheless has to be done at the Feedback link. It might also help to report this as a bug. The key is that we have to get a lot of reports; otherwise it's unlikely that Facebook will notice. In the meantime, the only other suggestion I can think of is never to use the name of a known antivaccine activist, in particular the names above that were used to get people temporarily banned. It's a matter of self-preservation.

Social media sites like Facebook are a very useful tool for community building and disseminating information. However, the can be abused, and that is what appears to be occurring here. There might come a time when Facebook ceases to be useful because its reporting algorithm is too easily abused. Here's hoping that the management of Facebook can be made aware of that.

oracknows Wed, 01/01/2014 - 18:01

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

autism

complementary and alternative medicine

Australian Vaccination Network

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

Politics

Thanks for the article. My only beef about this story is that it only serves to fuel the childish hubris of the blockers, who, not doubt, are lapping this up with glee. They could never succeed in anything serious because they can;t contain their public gloating.

In the meantime, SAVNers have not been silenced, 12-hour bans or not.

Thanks for this post. I was the poster of the first screenie that earned me a 12 hour ban (my second) My first 12 hour ban which I didn't screenie but copy/pasted, was for this

"Karen I had a whooping cough booster 3 years ago. There are no babies or children even in the circles I move in. However, I use public transport and shop in supermarkets where there are little ones. Yes we vaccinate to protect ourselves but this is a community issue and my primary motivation for getting a booster was so that I wouldn't inadvertently pass on the disease, if I got it, to someone more vulnerable than myself."

BTW Karen is over on the AVN, protesting her innocence. Right

Doesn't matter Sue. What they have done is they have associated the behaviour with the exAVN, an organistion that seeks legitimacy. They have dragged the exAVN into the gutter with them.

No matter what the exAVN does now, this behaviour will be brought up during the discussion.

Can I just add, as one of the admins on the Stop the AVN page, that all the admins also copped the 12hr ban, and people who were not admins, but liked or commented on that thread.

This from the same people who cry censorship whenever one of us has the gall to merely tell them they are wrong.
I wanted to use stronger words than "people", but that would have resulted in me being banned :-)

I could have been willing to disregard this behavior as mostly from ill-mannered fans and teenager trolls testing their newfound power to silence mature people - you have idiots everywhere, even more so on the anonymous internets.
But if the leaders and other spokepersons of the antivax movement are actively endorsing it... The hypocrisy, it burns.

Anyway, to conclude my first post of 2014, happy new year to all science defenders and don't let the bullies win.

This is sick. Sort it out, facebook.
From the screenshots I saw, a lot of reporting seemed to be being done from just one profile . There will have been a surge in that profile's reporting that corresponds with all these bans of SAVN members. Find this person, evaluate the situationa nd deal with them appropriately.

In dated but related news, this change.org petition didn't seem to gain much traction.

^ "to have gained"

One has to assume that people who advocate the antivax ideas actually belive in them (unless they are playing some incredibly circuitous long con, that'll let them bathe in filthy CAM lucre). So it is pretty tough for me to imagine the mental gymnastics needed to justify that behaviour.

I mean the reasoning behind the campaign must be something like this "I am right and I know it - my information and arguments are true and more compelling than my opposition. Which is why instead of easily crushing them with evidence and properly constructed arguments based on data, I will just silence them."

Of course, from the outside wiev the supposed data and arguments hold little water, but from inside of antivaxxer mind they probably seem solid.

Oh well, poor AVN must fight against censorship of Sinister Sceptics Society by any means neccesssary.

Another form of, 'if your arguments suck, increase the volume to shout down your critics'. If the AVN folks could defend themselves with science, this tactic would not be necessary.

If what you say is true, I don't agree with the practice Orac. I don't agree with censorship in any form, perhaps only if comments are made on prohibited grounds that ranks them as hate speech (attaching someone for their race, age, sexual orientation, etc). Yet, you guys are talking about censorship?? C'mon Orac!

My concern with this whole thing is not so much that it is anti-vaxers who are doing it (which is amusingly hypocritical), but rather that it can be done. Users should not be able to be automatically banned for a frivolous reason (or, indeed as in the case of AVN's actions, for no reason at all). Part of the problem is that just a single comment can be used to completely ban a user. A quick and easy (though by no means ideal) fix would be to just suspend the particular comment for 12 hours, but still allow the individual to use Facebook.

I second Orac's suggestion: go to Facebook and give them some feedback about this "feature". Also, let them know what you think on Twitter (@Facebook) and via other social media. But if you only do one thing, use their feedback form.

Narad, those anti-vax petition always bring me a bit of joy, because they highlight how few of them there really are. 36 signatures? With ALL the MILLIONS of parents they claim to have? Same with the one that popped up in response to the Keep Jenny of the View petition, when all was said and done it ended up with a few hundred. A nice reminder that their numbers aren't as big as they proclaim.

This is the behavior of a wanna-be emo teenager on LiveJournal circa 2004. And it highlight's their very real fear that most people, when presented with real information, see their BS as what it is: BS.

Narad @7 - No wonder that petition didn't get much traction. It's an incoherent screed that would only be understandable to someone deep inside the controversy manufactoversy. It practically screams "I'm an angry nutter!".

And Smith @9 - True believers often rationalize behavior that's beyond the pale, in service of The Cause, up to and including violence.

"Debating" AVers on facebook is like arguing with children (at best). The tough part is that we know and studies have shown that what people read on social networks (aka facebook) does influence their decisions on vaccination.

Pity the AVN, reduced to censoring a few critical comments on Facebook. Meantime, it continues to face devastating criticism not only elsewhere on the Internet, but from politicians, public health advocates and major media outlets.

Here's an example of publicity the AVN is getting as the result of a failed attempt at a name change:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/antivaccine-group-s…

Yet, you guys are talking about censorship?? C’mon Orac!

Greg, this IS censorship. It is abusing processes to get people temporarily banned from Facebook for false reasons.

What's astounding to me is that they took pretty much no action at all over a live blood quack who spent months running a campaign of vilification against people who reported his misleading advertisements, characterising them as racists on no basis whatsoever other than that he (of all the live blood quacks reported) happens to be black, and in the process engaging in some pretty obvious misogynistic ranting.

Even his theft of images went unchallenged. But he managed to get three blogs taken down with frivolous DMCA notices.

It really does appear to be more than a coincidence: Facebook responds more to those who are in the wrong!

I am never going again to use a given name to answer somebody. I'll henceforth use the initial only, and see if FB allow a ban for it :P

Bwahahahaha. Apparently "Karen Little" either took down her gloating page or changed its privacy settings. The Keanu Reeve meme, in which the tag line was "What if I told you it wasn't the algorithm," now does not show up.

Any chance the page is on the Wayback Machine or similar?

That's the problem with committing the perfect crime: You can never tell anyone about it.

Let's be fair, Orac...antivaxxers are people who don't have the greatest critical thinking skills, to begin with.

I would also be sure (sadly) that the initial is no longer blue. I suspect that the ban process is automated, so we need to complain to have the programming itself changed.

It is a frustrating task sharing facts with true believers, since we already know that we debate mostly to be sure that those who are studying the matter get fact-based information to consider alongside the alarmist, unproven speculation.

Perhaps if they had science on their side they would operate more like RI, where differing opinions are tolerated and openly debated.

It's the hypocrisy that gets to me. I've personally been subject to many nasty comments on Facebook yet no action has been taken against those who make such comments.

This is only a sample of the sort of loathsome trolling that Facebook refuses to stop:

Sal Amander Stacy, SICK and insensitive doesn't begin to describe the filthy disgusting shit that you are.

December 8, 2013 at 4:10pm · Edited · Like

Yet, you guys are talking about censorship?? C’mon Orac!

Go tell it to your pals at AoA, Gerg.

Jake's Autism Investigated (an ironic title- if any) has censored at least two of Orac's minions** AFAIK.

If these sites are *la creme de la creme* of anti-vacciniana, it doesn't speak well for their tolerance of differing opinions .. reality, actually.

If the only way you can get people to accept your ideas is to get them to doubt whatever most researchers, experts, governments and media advocate, you're in trouble.

** Ren and Narad.

Yep, Stacy has it right - comments where I'm called a b***h, c**t, etc are fine and dandy and not harassment or threatening according to FB - but if I mention another person's name in the most politest of sentences, Whammo.

What do you suggest I write when I report this bug? I've not done this before-sounds like a skill I should acquire.thanks

I don't see FB changing any time soon so why not simply omit the name and carry on? Beat them at their own game.

@ Science Mom- Have read your Nov 12th post several times now, love it, but yes please, new one would be great :)

Science Mom- They're actually going back to very old posts and reporting them.

Apparently “Karen Little” either took down her gloating page or changed its privacy settings.

Comparing cached versions of posts that she's commented on with the current ones indicates that they're all gone. I don't think changing current privacy settings works retroactively in that fashion, suggesting that she deleted her account (or that FB did it for her).

Boring troll is till boring

The "Stop the Australian Vaccination Propaganda" FB page has also disappeared within the past 11 hours.

Science Mom- They’re actually going back to very old posts and reporting them.

Wow that's pathetic. Good thing they're a one trick pony. Slam FB with complaints is the best I can do.

Oh and thanks Scared Momma. After the holiday visitors and the little SM spawn are back to school, I'll get on that.

Yet, you guys are talking about censorship?? C’mon Orac!

Come on WHAT, Greg? You're still posting here, are you not?

By the way, the "you're hurting babies so we're justified in doing anything we like" mentality is starting to get eerily reminiscent of the anti-abortion movement.

@Stu: poor Greggers has his pants in a twist because Orac has him on moderation. More than willing to bet, however, that few, if any, of his posts haven't eventually been allowed through.

Well, now I know how to get a post removed and prevent one of mine from being removed. I agree and will no longer use names in response. I already have a page I use to post on "hot" topics to protect my personal identity.

Also Orac: What do you think about Jahi McMath case?

So I posted on AVN forum rebutting their nonsense like the cry for a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study, and the baloney about vaccines didn't save us, hygiene did. About 1/2 dozen posts, links to studies. And one post with some well deserved sarcasm.

I've never posted there before, in fact I've never visited the site before.

Well it took less than 2 hours for every one of my posts to be removed with the claim that I was a sock puppet.

This while they are under fire for censoring posts and right in the middle of claiming they aren't behind it.

Its like claiming you don't smoke while you turn around to take a drag.

LOL. It really is a futile battle. Like Alice behind the looking glass over there.

Good for you for trying Captain_a. If children weren't suffering, I would laugh. But the helpless suffer because of insane parents.

What is it about the human brain, that tells us, I am right, everyone else is wrong? Was it a survival tool somehow when we were evolving? Are some people just naturally more open minded? I ask, because occasionally I do have to fight the urge, I am right, no one is telling me different.

Timely...

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1476420_10151891865209…

I've been very saddened by the Jahi McGrath case. I know when you sign informed consent forms before surgery, they very quickly warn you of rare complications. We believe that tonsillectomy is "so commonplace that nothing can go wrong." My heart breaks for the parents, and I've been wondering if Orac would take it up or not. Sadly, it would have to fall over "when is it right to discontinue life support?" which can be a very touchy subject, and seems often to be cost based (for very real financial reasons) more than anything else.

Does any of the readership here have the spare time and resources to document and publicize this more widely? I cannot do this myself, but it feels like something worthwhile.

Tangling with vituperative nutcases isn't pleasant or especially healthy, but there are times when it needs to be done. It's along the lines of answering fools, except the fools (fool in the old sense of obstinately wrong, not meaning harmlessly mistaken) now sponsor laws, run for office and develop billion $ operations.
The new fools also spread pertussis, which they say only harms the genetically inferior.

I have to walk past the Oakland Children's Hospital on an almost daily basis. I'm about ready to throttle a) the media, b) the McGrath family's lawyer and c) the media again.

McGrath's family and supporters, I just wish to apply a very large cluebat to. It seems like they're willfully refusing to see the difference between a coma and brain death.

I'm already planning to be SOMEWHERE ELSE on Tuesday afternoon when the extended TRO continuing Jahi's respirator ends.

*ahem*

Sorry, needed to vent.

The anti-vaxxers have brought their report-to-silence scheme to CBS. All pro-vaccine comments were removed from this article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pregnant-nurse-fired-for-refusing-flu-shot/

Regarding Jahi McGrath and brain death, Dr. Alice Ackerman wrote up a good article trying to explain just what brain death is. You can read it here.

AVN and their allies act like a bunch of pre-teen bullies who've found out how to hit the nerdy kid and run away before teacher sees them.

@Karen

Well, I left my own comment on that CBS article:

A health care facility is entirely within its rights to require immunizations as a condition of employment, especially when the employee has direct patient contact. They should have a policy in place for legitimate medical exemptions, though. Masking is an appropriate alternative, since a well-fitted mask is only slightly less effective than the vaccine. Stay at home policies are all well and good, but they don't account for the few days before you show symptoms of being sick but are nonetheless contagious. While I understand the nurse's concerns, however, the scientific literature shows that the inactivated flu vaccines do not increase the risk of harm to the mother or fetus compared to those who do not get the vaccine. What's more, with the added protection of the vaccine, she and her fetus are less likely to suffer complications from the virus itself, which is a far, far greater risk than the shot.

If she did, indeed, offer to wear a mask, then I think the employer needs to reevaluate its policy. But her fear of the vaccine is also unfounded.

I'm curious as to how many sites they've managed to trick the algorithm. Really and truly making themselves appear to be a larger group than they are.

Todd,

Masking has been shown to have questionable efficacy. The NYS Union is suing the NYSDOH right now because of the shot-or-mask law. At my facility, we come out and say, "yeah, we know the mask probably doesn't do anything. It's coercion." I do find, however, that those who have honest medical contraindications are more than willing to wear the mask. It's those who just don't want the shot who fight.

@AnObservingParty

When I wrote up a post about masking policies last year, I turned up some research that showed masking can be effective. A fit-tested N95 is the best, though still not as good as the vaccine. A non-fitted N95 is still better than a surgical mask, and a surgical mask is better than nothing at all. IIRC, the maximum efficacy (for the fit-tested N95) was around 60% or so at preventing transmission.

Here's the post I wrote. In light of what I was able to turn up, masking is an acceptable option, but I'd argue that it should be a fit-tested N95, not just a surgical mask. Hot, uncomfortable and does hell for making a patient feel calm, but better than spreading the virus.

Yes, a surgical mask is better than nothing, but it's still limited and questionable, which is the kind I was referring to, because that's what the law entails. It doesn't cover/require N95s, and I don't think it should. We can't afford to potentially provide N95s for ALL hospital staff during widespread flu. The mandate covers any employee, volunteer, student, contractor, etc who may come into contact with a patient anywhere in the hospital, including in hallways, elevators, the lobby, the cafeteria when the employee is not actively putting food in his mouth...it's simply not logistical. There were shortages during 2009 when H1N1 first arrived, at least in my area), people don't wear them correctly, and seeing N-95s everywhere has a psychological affect. They're almost like a symbol of "THIS IS BAD!" and so people take extra precaution, which is not a bad thing when dealing with a TB room or something of the like. We don't want to lessen that affect, or open up a financial reason to scrap the mandate.

Good points. I definitely agree that the psychological effect is huge. Hospitals and health care facilities are already uncomfortable for a lot of people. Seeing N95s everywhere would be very unwelcoming and make already tense people that much more tense. And that stress response could have a detrimental affect on the patients.

Ideally, I think, immunization/masking policies for health care workers should be: if you do not have a medical contraindication for the vaccine, get it; if you have a medical contraindication, you can wear a mask; if you are simply refusing for personal, non-medical reasons, then you can take unpaid leave or find a new job.

Yep. I can't wait for the flu shot to get to the status of MMR. Get it unless you can't, or find a new job. It's a privilege to be able to take care of our patients.

Tangling with vituperative nutcases isn’t pleasant or especially healthy,

As one of our public health nurse (Iraq vet) once remarked, "There are days when I miss not carrying a weapon."

Under what heading should we report the bug? I had the list of options but none seemed ideal. If we were unified in reporting under one heading, my guess is it would go to one department or person instead of multiple reports going to various people (my assumption is that FB has different people to handle different bugs - I'm just guessing though so if someone has a better suggestion, please, let's hear it!)

I read the antivax comments on the various sites and I am amazed at the number of them that start out "I am an RN and I don't believe in vaccinations." What the HECK do they teach in nursing school about immunology??
Apologies to the very dedicated RNs in here who post immunologic sense on those sites--you know who you are and I thank you.
@Shay--As a veterinarian who used to do rabies vaccination clinics in the wilds of Alabama, there were days when I really did NEED a weapon. :)

OT question about woo promotion:

As long as a supplement dealer posts a disclaimer on his website and in ads stating that his product is not intended to treat or prevent any disease, is he then legally free to make claims in public forums/news media about his product treating./curing specific diseases?

For instance, if you sell a supplement to be taken by autistic children, can you go on Oprah and proclaim that your product cures autism without running afoul of the FDA - as long as your website runs a Quack Miranda Warning?

@Dangerous Bacon

Nope. If you make claims that your product cures, treats, mitigates or diagnoses a specific disease or condition, it needs to be approved by FDA, going through the usual approval process. You can, however, make vague structure/function claims for your product without getting approval. Of course, there can't be any actual active ingredients in the product, because then it's considered adulterated. Lots of "supplements" for male enhancement run afoul of that, since they actually contain undeclared Viagra.

@janet

At the hospital that I volunteer at, everyone is required to get the flu shot, from doctors and administrators to custodians and volunteers, unless medically contraindicated. Otherwise, you are not allowed to work in the hospital.

At the area that I volunteer at, al of the nurses seem intelligent and have taken the flu shot, as well as telling all visitors of the patients to get a flu shot, to reduce the risk of passing the flu onto others.

That's why the comments about RNs not believing in the flu shot is flabbergasting. I always think to myself, "It's not about you, it's about the patients you serve" Their behavior just smacks of selfishness.

Thanks Todd - do you know of any situations where someone has been warned/fined/prosecuted for making specific supplement treatment/cure claims in the media/on the Internet, where their defense was that the product label/website contains a Quack Miranda Warning? Or do you have knowledge of any applicable case law/rulings?

I am not Todd, oh Dangerous One but...
Quackwatch ( recent additions section) has:
FDA Orders Dr Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims
( by Dr Barrett/ 2011 +)- it's quite detailed

I'm from the tech space and in no way defending Facebook. The problem is here is in asking a computer to determine what harassment is - it's a rather difficulty proposition. I won't write a treatise on how that could be done, it would be long and besides, FB is not going to receive it. So the nasty anti-vaxxers essentially, are taking advantage of a technology loophole. I find their actions reprehensible and disgusting. They are very much the burning stupid I label them as. I'm a member of a number of skeptics societies, we're fighting them up here too. I agree with some comments that we should formally submit a complaint to FB. If it comes from a number of sources, it may well make the difference. Let's keep up the good fight.

You know, if this keeps up, Facebook is going to lose its reputation as a source of serious scientific discourse.

Sorry about that. On a slightly more serious note, the anti-vaccine movement has only succeeded in shooting itself in the foot. The pro-vaccine information is still out there, and they now have another tactic available: "If you really have science on your side, why are you gaming Facebook to shut down your opponents?"

“If you really have science on your side, why are you gaming Facebook to shut down your opponents?”

I believe the anti-vaxxer response to that is "Because you're WRONG!" *footstomp*

Or whatever the online equivalent is of that...

@Dangerous Bacon

I don't know any cases off the top of my head, but FDA has sent warning letters for making claims that a product diagnoses, treats, mitigates or cures a specific disease or condition. I do recall a number of years ago those Kinoki Detox Foot Pads garnered a warning. I had reported them after seeing an infomercial late one night. The wise and wonderful Denice Walter is good to point you to Quackwatch. Lots of cases noted there.

Some advice I'll give you if you do come across a bogus claim on TV/radio/interwebz that I got from FDA's Office of Enforcement: note the venue (station/web site), date and time of the claim and exactly what was claimed. Keep in mind, though, that something like "boost the immune system" is not actionable, while "prevents the flu" would be (unless, of course, it's homeopathic, which is a whole separate clusterf*** altogether).

"At the area that I volunteer at, al of the nurses seem intelligent and have taken the flu shot, as well as telling all visitors of the patients to get a flu shot, to reduce the risk of passing the flu onto others."

Getting the flu shot is

I've been commenting on another thread about the pregnant nurse who was fired for refusing a seasonal influenza vaccine, and the comments are overwhelmingly supportive of the hospital which fired her.

I just got "Godwinned" by a crank poster:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/12/30/nurse-fired-for-refusing-to-get-…

I’m curious as to how many sites they’ve managed to trick the algorithm. Really and truly making themselves appear to be a larger group than they are.

I've been running a haphazardly designed experiment. It took three reports of harassment before FB even notified me that the test comment had been reported, and that one included the "pornography" check box. What I'd like to determine is whether "harassing me or a friend" actually gets cross-indexed against the reporter's friends.

You might want to consider that Facebook might have on its censor staff a person who is anti-vaccine. The only way to deal with that is to contact the CEO of Facebook.

A friend experimented with a comment on my timeline. Reports by my friends were rejected.

@ Todd W.:

" wise and wonderful"? I though that I was "fun and fabulous"?

@ lilady:

Oh lord almighty! Here's an article that anti-vaxxers will probably be utilising as a source:
"The deadly truth: Flu vaccine and Pregnancy" (sic)
see prn.fm / Gary Null articles.
check his sources ( Doshi, Jefferson, Goldman etc)

Since I don't do FB, I suppose I could start right out with a handle including a common word. Then I'd be all set to shut down just about anyone who posts.

lilady - actually, after reading about many things that start out as flu-like symptoms, I have more sympathy for the "don't get a flu shot" viewpoint. If someone has flu-like symptoms the most innocuous thing (s)he can have is ... influenza! Despite the fact that influenza can cause death, it's nowhere near as bad as, say, polio or ebola.

If someone is going to have flu-like symptoms, I want it to be the flu. The vaccine makes it all the more likely that someone with those symptoms has something really, really deadly.

I don't have any sympathy for health care workers who refuse to get the seasonal influenza vaccine, other vaccines...or who refuse TB Mantoux testing...which are conditions of employment.

Perhaps the pregnant nurse ought to look into a career change, where her refusal to receive vaccines is not an issue.

More anti-vax attempts to silence sceptics:

( @ AoA- excerpted from ChildHealthSafety)
It seems that Dr Ben Goldacre encourages sceptics to report non-SBM treatments to relevant authorities and actively oppose quackery, thus when one of his min...fellow physicians on the Bad Science Forum reported a Welsh doctor to the GMC and her patient later committed suicide...

Oh well, the sceptics are to blame again. Will the world ever be safe from their manipulations?

Perhaps the pregnant nurse ought to look into a career change, where her refusal to receive vaccines is not an issue.

Tyrant! It was totalitarians like you who forced Typhoid Mary to abandon her food-preparation career!

@Denice Walter

You are both "wise and wonderful" and "fun and fabulous".

@ Denice Walter: Nice that John D. Stone planted that slime from CHS...and proceeded to post multiple comments which extol the virtues of his hero Wakefield.

Did you happen to notice that Jake is no longer listed as a "Contributor" on AoA?

@ Denice,

Mind if I pick up your brainpower for a few minutes?

I have a situation where I've been offered 2 jobs. The first one is with Specialisterne and SAP which you can have a description here:

http://ca.specialisterne.com/apply-for-a-job-with-specialisterne-sap/

The second job, I would be an entrepreneur and I'd offer consulting and repair services to 10 charity.

The similarity between both jobs are that they have the potential to offer a good salary but then, the entrepreneurial one might offer more liberty in setting up prices (in which case, I'd pay a visit to a financial planner before setting up my prices) and stable employment durability (the needs are staggering in both environments).

The differences between both job is exactly in the salaries. For the Sap job, they have their salary range but in the case of the entrepreneurial job, I'm on the lookout for a financial planner and will likely see one soon to figure out the cost of a comfortable living situation for myself, but maybe, 3 peoples (a potential significant other and her 22 month old baby, this is in the work...)

Also of concern is that, with the entrepreneurial job, I will find myself working 9 to 4 in the organisms but during the evening, I will definitely have to work on implementation plans for best practices in the organisms (like backup handling) in order to be efficient during the day.

As far as preferences goes, I've been entrepreneur for all my life and I have a really significant experience as entrepreneur thought I wasn't always well paid because I priced myself low. Not anymore; I want to ensure a comfortable living situation and have the means to access it in both jobs. The difference between both job boil down to which one offer the most rewarding experience as it is and I tend to think that the entrepreneurial one may be more stimulating because the personnel at Specialisterne told me I was overqualified for the job (but then, I may be overqualified for both job as it is).

The question I'd like to ask you is which details I should be on the lookout in both jobs in order to chose one or the other?

Alain

@ Todd W.:
Ooooh.

@ lilady:
Heh.

@ Alain:

It sounds to me like you are already leaning towards the second.

But a few things to keep in mind:
- do the jobs vary in the amount of supervision/ direction you'll receieve? Do you prefer more or less direction?
- do either give you options about how much time you will work or are the number of hours set?
- which job is more likely to include boring or menial tasks?
- does either afford any social opportunities?
- does either require additional training?
- does either involve work-related travel?
- will you always work alone (in each job)?
-in which do you believe that your services are more valued?

btw-
Alain: I just looked at your province's weather- please don't freeze (-30 C/ -20 F) . I was once in Old Montreal in March.

I feel that 30 F is slightly excessive myself.

- do the jobs vary in the amount of supervision/ direction you’ll receive? Do you prefer more or less direction?

I don't know for the first question. As for the second, I'm polyvalent and never received much supervising in any of my jobs.

- do either give you options about how much time you will work or are the number of hours set?

The SAP job, I don't know but most IT jobs are 40 hours average, 2 hours standard deviation except in rush period (end of project). For the entrepreneurial job, I'd ask for the keys of each charities' workplace for when I have work to do in the evening.

- which job is more likely to include boring or menial tasks?

Both.

- does either afford any social opportunities?

Don't know for SAP, plenty for entrepreneurial.

- does either require additional training?

maybe for SAP and it would be at their pace. In the case of the entrepreneurial job, I set the pace of my training based on the improvement I can bring to the organisation based on their known and unknown needs.

- does either involve work-related travel?

SAP, maybe. Entrepreneurial, no.

- will you always work alone (in each job)?

In SAP, there may be some teamwork but the job is tailored for autistics. Entrepreneurial, I might have an employee if needs are sufficiently big or I grow popular enough.

-in which do you believe that your services are more valued?

Entrepreneurial; I've received excellent letters of recommendations.

Alain

I just looked at your province’s weather- please don’t freeze (-30 C/ -20 F) . I was once in Old Montreal in March.

Don't worry, I went out today accompanied with my brother and his nice & warm honda civic 2012.

Alain

@lilady:

Re the fired nurse, enjoy.

^ (While I'm at it, if you're arguing with these people, I'd note that Flulaval [quadrivalen] is Pregnancy Category B.)

Pretty much as soon as Clifford Miller posts anything on ChildHealthSafety, John C Stone will repost it anywhere he can. The two of them tag-team on various online forums, most notably the Guardian's "Comment Is Free". I suspect Stone of writing quite a bit of the drivel that appears on CHS.

Miller has been part of Wakefield's legal team in the past. I suspect he thought he could make money from MMR litigation and now has to be seen to continue to back the MMR/Autism horse, even though it fell at the first fence and was humanely dragged away to the glue factory years ago.

The pair of them are almost certainly the vilest of the UK anti-vaxers (since the death of you-know-who).

What would be the ethics of this Clifford Miller running a website pretending to be a child health safety organization? If he is Wakefield's attorney, isn't that some form of malfeasance? I looked at the site and found nothing about who was behind it.

"Some advice I’ll give you if you do come across a bogus claim on TV/radio/interwebz that I got from FDA’s Office of Enforcement: note the venue (station/web site), date and time of the claim and exactly what was claimed. Keep in mind, though, that something like “boost the immune system” is not actionable, while “prevents the flu” would be (unless, of course, it’s homeopathic, which is a whole separate clusterf*** altogether)."

The claim I was referring to is a specific one about treating a serious medical condition and has been made repeatedly on an online forum by a a well-known supplement purveyor, who boasts that he's free to do so because his company's website makes no such claims (and has a Quack Miranda Warning). Seeing that the FDA is notoriously slow to go after supplement dealers who make specific treatment claims in their product literature, I doubt they'd act against a company official making such claims in a public forum unless there's a precedent for successfully doing so.

Back to vaccines - anyone seen the latest "vaccine challenge" issued to Piers Morgan by that tag team of laughable idiots, Alex Jones and Mike Adams?

http://www.infowars.com/piers-morgan-offered-1-million-to-survive-1000-…

By my count, spreading out those shots over the mandated two-week period would require poor Piers to be stuck with a needle over 71 times a day for fourteen straight days.

Remember - only three more days until UnNatural News forever changes Science as we know it!!!

If he is Wakefield’s attorney, isn’t that some form of malfeasance?

I can't really imagine how. Antivaccine kook lawyers gotta be antivaccine kooks when they're not being told to keep their mouths shut in Texas.

I looked at the site and found nothing about who was behind it.

He's stated as much. If it has bad graphs, it's Miller. I don't look at it enough to have formed an opinion of whether Stone is a significant contributor.

For instance, if you sell a supplement to be taken by autistic children, can you go on Oprah and proclaim that your product cures autism without running afoul of the FDA – as long as your website runs a Quack Miranda Warning?

No. FDA (as well as FTC) considers all promotional material (see also here [PDF]) to fall under the category of "labeling." Strictly speaking, FDA is in charge of whether something is being marketed as a drug, which brings it under their purview, and FTC is in charge of the rest of the illegal claims.

It is easier to submit complaints to FTC; if you want to go directly to FDA, you have to call the Consumer Complaint Coordinator for your district office.

a well-known supplement purveyor, who boasts that he’s free to do so because his company’s website makes no such claims (and has a Quack Miranda Warning).

MMS?

Back to vaccines – anyone seen the latest “vaccine challenge” issued to Piers Morgan by that tag team of laughable idiots, Alex Jones and Mike Adams?

I'm still waiting for any of them to address my vaccine challenge -- it's been out there, unanswered, for more than a fifteen years:

From: "D. C. Sessions"

Subject: Re: Immunisations

Date: 1997/07/20

Message-ID: #1/1

X-Deja-AN: 257910353

References:

Organization: If your name's 'Sessions', we ain't kin

Reply-To: sess...@primenet.com

X-Posted-By: @206.165.21.145 (sessions)

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health

dwin...@sisna.com wrote:
> In article ,
> ver...@dircon.co.uk (Vernon Quaintance) wrote:

> > What is ironic is that so many parents are forgetting that it was
> > immunisation which so reduced the incidence of these serious diseases.
> >
> Oh was it really? Many diseases were on the decline before immunizations.

Do, please, back up this statement. Let's take the USA or UK
(since they keep fairly thorough health records) or for that
matter Austria (which has had mandatory reporting for centuries,
one of the reasons for the fame of Austrian physicians) for an
example. Take your pick of any of the following:

Diptheria
Tetanus
Pertussis
Polio
Measles
Mumps
Rubella

IOW, the common mass-vaccination diseases.
Provide us with per-capita incidence rates (NOT mortality
rates, which are a lousy indicator of incidence) for, say,
the ten years before and after the institution of mass
vaccination and the corresponding vaccination rates.

Yes, it's terribly unfair of us to lay the burden of
doing real quantitative research on you. Normally we look
up the stats, such as the 1000:1 drop in US measles brought
by vaccination, and you and your allies snipe. (Yeah, right;
the USA in 1961 was such a public-health nightmare. Most of
the population starving, no clean water, all that -- and all
solved ten years later.)

Just for once back up your OWN claims. We're making it easy,
after all: you have your choice of seven diseases and several
countries; you can't complain that we're being selective.
All we're asking is that you provide the WHOLE story and not
just carefully-picked years. It should be easy.

> It is very unfortunate that vaccines were introduced at such a
> convenient time. Now people have it stuck in their heads that we would
> all be dead if it weren't for vaccines. Well what about diseases like
> scarlet fever for which we had no vaccine? Where did it go?

More on that in another post.

--
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
sess...@primenet.com

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/misc.kids.health/ZHxZh…

Note that this was more than 15 years ago; Orac saw it posted quite a few times when he was still posting on newsgroups. I've since reposted it too many times to conveniently count, added quite a few diseases to the list, and expanded the choice of countries to any that actually consistently kept records.

No takers.

So I'm not exactly impressed by "challenges" offered by the anti-vaccination crowd. Mine is tilted as far as possible in their favor, yet for some incomprehensible reason they not only never take me up on it, they seem incapable of even registering its existence. I don't understand.

@ Dangerous Bacon:

re vaccine challenges
I just heard ( tape of Friday) Null challenge Paul Offit to receive "100,000 vaccines" at once or suchlike (PRN.fm).
Supposedly there will soon be a major expose of the "quackbusters" (sic).
That internet radio site includes recent articles by the idiot-in-charge, some of them written with the assistance of his "scholars in residence".
Perhaps there are additional positions available for some people *we* know. Heh.
Right, you can interpret that a few different ways.

@Denise - I took a look at the challenge, which was 1000 vaccines, including the Anthrax Vaccine (something that isn't routinely given to anyone outside of the military & certainly not to children). In fact, the majority of the "vaccines" that are in play aren't even ones that appear on the US Pediatric schedule....again, solely designed to play to the conspiracy crowd.

I, for one, would be happy to reach a level where these morons think I am part of the "conspiracy"

"That internet radio site includes recent articles by the idiot-in-charge, some of them written with the assistance of his “scholars in residence”."

I picture these scholars wearing spotted outfits with large floppy shoes, piling out of a tiny car to do battle with the Skeptics..

@ Lawrence:

Well, Null is usually off by an order of magnitude or two. Nothing new there.

And we ARE part of the Grand Conspiracy because our fearless ( and peerless) leader is frequently mentioned** by
by Mssrs Null and Gale.
AND he did win that "debate" with you on his show, Brian.

Listening to this tripe, I often wonder what is most disturbing to me:
the utter cluelessness about SBM which leads innocent listeners astray towards possible self-endangerment
OR
the cruel and unjust slaughter of the English language.

** both by 'nym and name.

edit phail:
MORE disturbing

I believe Peter Bowditch did accept the challenge, and the challenger backed down.

@Mephistopheles:

As I continue to nurse my wife who is down for her 8th day with (clinically confirmed) influenza, trying to keep her hydrated... "innocuous" is not a word you want to use in my presence right now. Perhaps when she's able to walk on her own again.

Oh and as we breathlessly await Mikey's unveiling of Absolute Scientific Truth (tm) Tuesday, we have to settle for his pronouncement today that AGW is a charade and a farce** because IT"S COLD OUT!

I swear I didn't make that up.

** not that he uses words like that.

Oh Denice, you should make your way over to Deltoid to see the true AGW loons.

@Stu

Hope your wife comes through okay. Flu is a hell of a bug.

@Stu

I used to refer to the various upper respiratory ailments that occasionally made it into my system in winter as "the flu." As in, "oh, I couldn't go because I had the flu."

Then I actually GOT the real thing, and brother did I learn my lesson. Best to your wife, I feel her pain.

Stu, also sending my regards. I had a major bout of flu once. In bed for two days, during which time the only thing I ate (and promptly vomited up) was a banana; sick for three whole weeks; lost 9kg. And yet, right now I'm glad it wasn't as bad as your wife has.

Thank you guys -- the worst seems to have passed.

One of my biggest pet-peeves when I was a forum moderator was the use of username distortions in order to insult a person. It still bothers me. And yet, suddenly I see it as possibly the only way a person can avoid being targeted in this fashion. It's obvious no human moderator is involved in these 12 hour bans; it's clearly exploitation of the algorithm. So the lesson I guess is to mispell their names. What self-righteous bastards they are.

I suppose if the abuse of the algorithm wasless selective--if suddenly almost everyone on facebook began getting their accounts frozen for twelve hours for posting innocuous commentswhich included a name shared by the person reporting abuse--Facebook admin would be quick to fix the software.

But I don't think I'm quite at the point of suggesting that level of coordinated civil disobedience be attempted.

A new banning just took place. There's a Facebook page called "The Antivaccine Wall of Shame" (AVWOS) It has been taken down. Allison Hagood (one of the co-authors of 'Your Baby's Best Shot") has banned from Facebook for 7 days.

Here the message that Allison received from Facebook, relative to AVWOS

"The group "Anti Vax Wall of Shame" has been removed because it violated our Terms of Use. Among other things, groups that are hateful, threatening, or obscene are not allowed. We also take down groups that attack an individual or group, or advertise a product or service. Continued misuse of Facebook's features could result in your account being disabled.

Here is Allison's reply to Facebook:

"There is nothing hateful, threatening, or obscene about the group "Anti Vax Wall of Shame." The fact that you have removed this indicates that you have been receiving fraudulent reports from the anti-vaccine movement, who are on record as coordinating and planning massive campaigns of such fraudulent reports in an attempt to censor those of us who recognize established science in this area. Several stories have been written about these campaigns:

(she then gives the URLs for this post and others, which I need not give here to avoid moderation).

It is legitimate for Facebook to prevent harassment, and without context, the Anti-Vaccine Wall of Shame does look as if it might border on harassment.

Dorit Reiss (who wrote the Times of Israel piece, "Abusing the Algorithm: Usinging Facebook Reporting to Censor Debate) suggests the following be publicly explained to Facebook as context:

It is legitimate for Facebook to prevent harassment, and without context, the Anti-Vaccine Wall of Shame does look as if it might border on harassment. suggest explaining the context as follows.

To understand the need for the Anti-vax wall of shame, and why it is not harassment, you need to understand two features of the fight against anti-vaccine misinformation. The first is that anti-vaccine sites censor debate. So if they encourage people not to vaccinate their children against polio or tetanus - leaving those children at risk - based on misinformation, you cannot correct that misinformation on the page: they will ban and block you. The second feature is that anti-vaccine activists, lacking facts on their side, regularly engage in personal attacks.

(There is documentation of personal attacks by antivaccine advocates on Facebook, in the form of screenshots and a closed Facebook page that collects said attacks.)

[Th]ose of us engaged in this debate regularly face personal abuse. (On Facebook and on websites outside of Facebook.

The Anti-Vax Wall of Shame (AVWoS) does two things in this context: it allows us to call out the behavior, both the misinformation and the abuse - to publicly criticize and point out the problems, alerting people to it. And it allows those engaged in this fight, facing constant abuse, to vent their frustrations and cry out. This enables them to keep fighting.

To prevent the critique from becoming harassment, AVWoS page rules require removal of names and pictures, except when discussing a public figure. This makes the critique not personal - and not harassment.

Do individual commentators sometimes step over the line and into harassment? Possible. But that does not make the page a hate group or a focus of harassment. Its role does make it a target of anti-vaccine activists, unhappy with being criticized. But that is not a reason to remove it, and their unhappiness is not something Facebook should be a part of."

Anybody have any other suggestions?

I am planning to bail out of Facebook entirely. I have always found it to be an unrewarding way to have any serious exchange, because the interface is designed to foster the trivial and discourage the thoughtful. The clunky GUI, relentless and intrusive ads, and Facebook's business model of vacuuming and repackaging my personal information don't help. One might think that Facebook is at least blameless in the present fiasco because AVWoS members were not maltreated consciously and maliciously. But no -- the fact that Facebook automates its harassment policy enforcement is emblematic of everything that is harmful and wrong about this particular social network. I have come to detest Facebook. Next week I think I'll announce that I'm leaving, save anything worth saving and give it a few days for comments (as if anyone will care), then close my account.

the fact that Facebook automates its harassment policy enforcement is emblematic of everything that is harmful and wrong about this particular social network

With 1.2 billion users, some measure of automation is to be expected. The question becomes whether AVWoS should have chosen a different publishing platform.

@Liz Ditz

Would getting some members of the media interested in Facebook's crappy algorithms and policies be worth it?

I'll post about this later, but Facebook is working on revising its algorithm, and as Skeptical Raptor explained, undid the ban of the Anti-Vax Wall of Shame, explaining the initial ban was a "reviewer error" and apologizing.

With 1.2 billion users, some measure of automation is to be expected.

My point exactly. With only 5,800 human beings to oversee 1,200,000,000 other human beings, it is not reasonable to expect Facebook to create and nurture a meeting place for rich intellectual exchange. Instead, we get exactly what we should expect -- a rigid, constricted parody of the public forum, governed only by whatever algorithms are simple and fast enough to run on the server farm, optimized to pipe our suitably rendered profiles to the advertiser. Sure -- I've used Facebook in the same ways and for the same reasons most of us do. I've also eaten my share of Big Macs. But I'm not particularly proud of either, and this episode has made me think hard about my information diet.

@Dorit: Looking forward to your post. I did read, however, that although they undid the band of the group, they left the ban on the admins? Or was that recinded also?

Minions! Get set for this great event!

Shillify 2014
Three Days of Shilling!
23 - 25 June 2014, Bilderberg Hotel
Come join your fellow pharma shills and we share our experiences lying to the anti-vaccers about the true horrors of vaccines and medicine.

http://conference.sageofautism.com/

Dawn - so far the bans stand, which is a little unclear, if the initial removal was in error.

Update: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/facebooks-policy-banning-and-anti-vaccin…

A little off-topic but: are there any legitimate autism groups that are not anti-vaccine? I've been burnt so many times that I'm now gun-shy. Would love to know if there are autism groups out there which are pro-science and not just full of zealot anti-vacc fools. Thanks!

DD: try The Thinking Person's Guide to Autism. https://www.facebook.com/thinkingpersonsguidetoautism; http://www.thinkingautismguide.com.

Also, try the Autism Blogs Directory. There are a great many bloggers there who are pro vax.

The Takedown Of A Novel's Page By Facebook Bullies

gregladen — Fri, 31 May 2013 06:31:44 +0000

The Takedown Of A Novel's Page By Facebook Bullies

A friend of mine, Gareth Renowden, wrote a novel called The Aviator (The Burning World). It is a post-climate change story, set in the future, and it is a good one. I highly recommend it. Gareth is also an activist who puts considerable effort into climate change. Some time in the last few hours, the Facebook page Gareth had created to promote his novel was taken down by Facebook. From Gareth's blog post on the matter:

Yesterday The Aviator‘s Facebook page disappeared. When I logged in to check the page I was greeted by a message that said the page was being removed because it had been identified as carrying material related to bullying. There was a button labelled “appeal”, so I pressed it. That’s all. No contact information, no detail of the complaint. Nothing. Except that I was also prevented from posting or sharing anything on Facebook for 12 hours. The page no longer exists, and I am annoyed.

So: why did this happen?

Gareth is well known to the science denialist community, and I strongly suspect that climate change denialists are behind this. This is what they do. They bully people. There are a lot of bullies on the Internet and they know no constraint and have no sense of ethics or responsibility to the Internet community. An overlapping and similar set of bullies attacked my my book as well which was meant to be a fundraiser for the Secular Student Alliance. And, they were successful. The attacks on me and my book were not especially effective and the bullies did not accomplish anything, but the level of support I saw from my own secular community when I was under attack was anemic at best, and made me realize that being part of a community of activists who don't know how to activate was a waste of time. (This is why I now spend most of my activist time in the climate science area, and regional progressive politics.)

Anyway, Gareth is not at all certain as to what really happened to his facebook page. He suggests it might be a matter of Facebook being bad at what it does, but leaves open the possibility that this was a coordinated (and apparently successful) attack by science deniers on a piece of literature ... a sort of vigil ante book burning ... using Facebook as an unwitting pawn.

If that is the case, there is a lesson here. Never give Facebook any money. If this is how a "client" (a free unpaid user) is treated, is there any guarantee that a paid user, someone who buys facebook ads, would be treated any differently? Once again, Facebook has shown itself to be ineffective at what it does. Effort spent on Facebook, and money spent on Facebook, is effort and money at risk of being tossed aside because Facebook is unable to tell the difference between a page promoting a novel and a page that bullies, when actual bullies come along and lie.

I'm not sure what can be done about this at the present time. If Gareth comes up with a strategy other than ignoring Facebook henceforth (which is what I would recommend) I'll let you know. In the mean time, show the bullies who burned this particular book that they can't win, and get yourself a copy of The Aviator! It really is a good book.

Also, in the mean time, I've got something else for you to read. I'm working on a piece of fiction that is set in a post-apocalyptic utopian world, in which everything is fine, and that's a huge problem. It is a climate change novel, so if you are one of the denialist bullies, this will be a future target for you, piece of literature you can burn along with your precious fossil fuels. Below, I've got a passage from an early draft to give you a flavor and hopefully amuse you a little. The scene takes place about 150 miles north of what is now Laramie Wyoming, in the Spring, in the year 2546. Enjoy.

______________________________

The group was easy to locate from some distance owing to the toddler who frequently cried or screamed, and otherwise, was very loud. If there was an animal out there that habitually ate people, all the people would be eaten, Bale thought, owing to these toddlers. Bale approached the group the long way, allowing her to put several patches of vegetation between them, and watched for a while. The toddler was being taken care of by an older brother, just a few years older but acting very responsibly and trying to keep the little one from harming himself more than necessary on sharp rocks and thorny bushes. Then there were three girls, one half way in age between the toddler an the toddler’s caretaker, one older, just coming of age, and one full grown but young woman, and that is who Bale had come for.

Bale placed one of her arrows across the bow, and pulled enough to test the string and determine that she could fire the arrow full strength. With the arrow half cocked in this manner, she moved from her hiding place behind some bushes to the next clump of vegetation, a small mound of soil with a cowlick of tall grass on top of it. In order to not be seen, Bale had to push herself into the dirt and line her body up to be invisible from the direction of the people. She watched for a full ten minutes, and again, tested her arrow against the bow.

At one unlikely moment, all five of the people she was watching were preoccupied, although each with totally different thing. The toddler was sitting on the ground screaming with his eyes closed. The boy was looking for something to amuse the toddler with, facing away form Bale. The younger girl kid was hiding her face as part of a game she was playing with the teenager who was now looking in the opposite direction, and the young woman was taking a nap half in the shade of a creosote bush. Bale took the moment to move like a snake to the next place where she had cover, and now there was one large clump of vegetation between her and the woman under the creosote bush. Again, she tested her bow and arrow. She looked at the young sleeping woman, and she looked at her arrow, and decided to change ammo. She slipped this arrow between her belt and the small of her back where it would be handy and drew a different arrow out of a quiver, and tried that one. Good. Straighter, the fletching was in better shape. She would not miss with this one.

Then, Bale aimed. She took a careful bead and drew the arrow as tightly as it could be drawn and then held perfectly steady. She waited a full minute to make sure that everything was lined up right, her body still invisible to the group, her arrow, her quarry. Then, without moving a muscle in her body she let out a very loud shout.

“Zeta!!!”

And this caused the young woman to suddenly sit up underneath the creosote bush, striking her head on the thorny branch and getting her hair stuck. Cursing, rare among Gem Deva, ensued, and she pounded the ground with her foot. Suddenly, owing to the loud raucous coming from the creosote bush, a young peccary that had been hiding in that last clump of vegetation started, and began to take flight. But just as quickly as the peccary stood to run, it was impaled by Bale’s first arrow, and just as the Peccary started to turn its direction out of fear, Bale’s second arrow had it in the throat and it went down in the dust.

Zeta, the girl in the bush, had extracted herself from the killer vegetation and sat, still somewhat stunned by hearing her name coming from a direction in which there seemed to be no person. At this point, Bale stood, and shouldered her bow. She walked briskly towards Zeta, and half way there bent down to pick up her prey by it’s hind feet, and dragged it the rest of the way to where Zeta sat. By this time the two of them were grinning from ear to ear.

“This is for your father,” Bale told the young woman. “I hope your siblings can carry it to his camp, so you and I can take a walk.”

In Gem Devan culture, “taking a walk” was a euphemism. In a society where everyone slept in a minimalistic hut within a few feet of the next hut, certain things were done not so much at home, but … well, while taking a walk.

The two boys and two girls were also grinning, and each of them came over to Bale and gave her a long and strong hug, and exchanged words of greeting. Except the toddler, he was busy eating some ants.

“I love you, brothers and sisters,” Bale told them, as they turned, sharing the job of carrying the peccary, to deliver the gift to Zeta’s father. She looked at Zeta. Like An Yon, Zeta was the same age as Bale. Unlike An Yon, she was Devan. In fact, the one time prior that Zeta accompanied Bale to West Village, she was mistaken for Bale a number of times. They were the same height, build, had the same overall looks, but really, Zeta was less muscular and had a thinner face and her hair was a shade darker. Or perhaps dirtier.

In fact, at the moment, Bale was the one that was inappropriately dressed and not properly adorned. She was wearing shorts, a skirt, a waistcoat and tunic, all made for her by Lizzie. She wore her old billed hat and googles and two belts, one low over her hips one tight on her waist. She also donned a bandoleer, a small backpack, and several utility satchels attached to these various leather straps and belts.

Zeta, on the other hand, was mostly just wearing her smile. Well, as modest as the next Devan, she wore a loin cloth. But she was covered by a layer of brown dirt and bear grease, which was mostly winter wear but these early summer days had been cool so many of the Deva were wearing the grease-dirt mixture. Underneath, her skin would be very light. Once summer got going, Deva browned nicely and never burned in the sun, and their skin was not affected by the ravages of sunlight as one might expect, considering that they were pale people who lived outdoors and wore little clothing. This could have been partly because the skies were usually cloudy in this region, and partly because of the bear grease and dirt, but was probably just because they had been living in this setting for enough generations to adjust.

Bale took Zeta’s hand and they took a walk. For real. Bale did not tell Zeta at this point what she had come for, but filled her in on the other important things in her life. Zeta did the same, enumerating which cousins were living in their camp now, and which cousins were staying elsewhere, relating who had died recently (no one Bale knew well) and listing off the new babies. The Gem Deva were thinly dispersed on the landscape and often on the move, but in fact, they used the same exact camping spots again and again, and every feature of the landscape they lived on had a name every one knew. So, as Zeta related the recent comings and goings, she referred repeatedly to places that Bale would know, and if a location was mentioned that did not seem familiar to Bale, Zeta would fill in the blank.

“Uncle’s rock? You know, that big rock sticking out of the ground where Zim, my mother’s sister’s son, left that mess after butchering the dead deer he found that nobody could eat because it was too rotten, about a half day’s walk beyond…”

“Oh, right, that rock, just south of Rattler’s Gully.”

“Right. Anyway, that’s were Cousin Zoe-Lan and her family are staying now…”

And so on and so forth for an hour until everybody was caught up with everything.

And by this time they had come to a place where they could sit and watch the sunset, and hold each other to stay warm against the chilling night air, and restore their intimacy. They had not seen each other in two years. They were not betrothed, or a couple in any way. They were just occasional lovers, and had been so since the very day they met many miles east of this spot when they ran into each other on a bounty hunt. Zeta, like Bale, was a hunter. In fact, there were many things they both liked. There were things they both liked to do, and there were things they both liked to have done. So as the red sun slid below the horizon, and the shadows lengthened and softened and finally became one with the night, they did. Those things. A few times.

The walk back to the camp was quiet and comfortable, and lit by a full moon two hours up. Their welcome by the cousins was warm and loving. The peccary was excellent, served with a half a dozen other food items brought into the camp during the day. This group had just moved to this camp, and Zeta should have built a hut for herself and her sister that afternoon, but distracted by Bale’s arrival she never did, so her sister stayed with the toddler and his mom, the toddler’s brother and his two friends who shared a young man’s hut went off to the bush to sleep under the stars, and so the cousins gave Bale and Zeta a hut to share, a fire already built at its entrance and a couple of blankets tossed inside.

“Tomorrow morning,” Bale said to Zeta before they fell asleep. “I’m going to ask you to do something you won’t want to do.”

“That’s OK, sister,” Zeta replied. This was actually a standard Devan way of saying good night, and Zeta gave the standard response. “I hope you let me touch you with my gift.”

“I hope so too,” Bale added, which was not part of the standard good night ritual. “Because I’m actually going to ask you to do something you won’t want to do.” But she said this too quietly for Zeta to hear. Really, she just said it in her own mind. But it was true.

gregladen Fri, 05/31/2013 - 02:31

Tags

I second Greg's praise for the Aviator. It is a good read.

You're off to a good start there Greg

Greg, have you considered the possibility that you are paranoid? Seriously this column is right up there with those written by militia members who believe that the black helicopters will be coming for them any day.

Windy, both Gareth and I leave open the possibility that this was just some error by facebook. Having said that, both of us get regular junk mail, death threats (which I assume are generally bogus, but still...) and so on and so forth all the time from the gaggle of winged monkeys organized by various anti-climate science groups. The idea of a dozen or so of them clicking the "this is a bullying site" button on that facebook's page is not even close to a paranoid idea. It is a reasonable conclusion, though certainly not proven.

So, to answer your question, yes I've considered that I might be paranoid and decided I'm not.

Have you considered that you are a condescending asshat?

Wow, not sure how I got here but this site is EPIC on the moron scale. Byeeeee......

NZ you should be careful where you end up on the Internet, you could catch something!

I got the book on your advice many moons ago and enjoyed it a great deal. Can't wait to see your take on the post-climate change future!

I am not sure which is worse: An indifferent facebook or a facebook committed to doing the right thing in the worst possible way. What the hell are they thinking?

Oh never mind, they are just not thinking.

What a shame. Those who deny basic facts, like evolution and climate change, are lacking education. They want to ban anyone with alternate opinions, this is not intelligence; its ignorance. Also, they CAN be a Christian and also believe in climate change. Don't they realize that? Believing in climate change is not incompatible with Christianity at all (I say this because the vast majority of these denialists are Christian).

Patient-led “clinical trials” versus clinical research (2012 edition)

oracknows — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 01:10:58 +0000

Patient-led “clinical trials” versus clinical research (2012 edition)

Dying of cancer can be a horrible way to go, but as a cancer specialist I sometimes forget that there are diseases that are equally, if not more, horrible. One that always comes to mind is amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS), more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease. It is a motor neuron disease whose clinical course is characterized by progressive weakness, muscle atrophy and spasticity, with ultimate progression to respiratory muscles leading to difficulty breathing and speaking (dysarthria) and to the muscles controlling swallowing. The rate of clinical course is variable, often beginning with muscle twitching in an arm or a leg or slurring of speech. Ultimately, however, ALS progresses to the loss of ability to move, speak, eat, or breathe. The most common cause of death is from respiratory failure, usually within three to five years after diagnosis, although there is the occasional outlier with a less malignant form of the disease with a slower course of progression who can live a long time, such as Steven Hawking.

In other words, ALS is a lot like cancer in some ways. For instance, it is a progressive, fatal disease that usually kills within a few years at most. On the other hand, it is different from cancer in that, at least for many cancers we actually do have effective treatments that prolong life, in some cases indefinitely. In contrast the most effective treatment we currently have for ALS is a drug (riluzole) that is not particularly effective—it prolongs life by months—and can be best described as better than nothing, but not by a whole lot. So it is not surprising that ALS patients, like cancer patients, become desperate and willing to try anything. This is completely understandable, but sometimes, as with cancer, this desperation leads to activities that are far more likely to do harm than good. I was reminded of this when I came across a post in the antivaccine propaganda blog, Age of Autism, referring to an article in The Scientist entitled Medical Mavericks. (No, not "brave maverick doctors" but misguided "mavericks" nonetheless.) The fortuitous posting of this story, which was apparently designed to try to show that it's not as crazy as critics have said to be treating autistic children with "Miracle Mineral Solution" (MMS) (which is a bleach) given that the introduction explicitly mentioned Kerri Rivera and the patient described in the article used sodium chlorite to treat his ALS, provided me the opening to discuss a group whose existence and advocacy brings up a complex tangle of issues that boil down to questions of how far patient autonomy should be allowed to go. I'm referring to a company, PatientsLikeMe, which describes itself thusly:

PatientsLikeMe was co-founded in 2004 by three MIT engineers: brothers Benjamin and James Heywood and longtime friend Jeff Cole. Five years earlier, their brother and friend Stephen Heywood was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) at the age of 29. The Heywood family soon began searching the world over for ideas that would extend and improve Stephen’s life. Inspired by Stephen’s experiences, the co-founders and team conceptualized and built a health data-sharing platform that we believe can transform the way patients manage their own conditions, change the way industry conducts research and improve patient care.

What I see PatientsLikeMe as doing is trying to mine a very unreliable source, namely thousands of testimonials. However, one other thing that needs to be kept in mind is that PatientsLikeMe is a for-profit company. Consequently, it's selling a product, and that product is its analyses of the information patients who sign up with the service reveal about their experiences with various medicine and products. It is true that the company has an admirable list of core values, such as putting patients first, promoting transparency, fostering openness, and creating "wow" (i.e., information that "wows" you), but the company is still selling a platform to its partners and using that platform to attract investors. It is described as a platform "where patients can share and learn from real-world, outcome-based health data." In essence, PatientsLikeMe (PLM) is a social media company for patients that mines the reported experience of its patients as, if you believe the hype, thousands of "N of 1" clinical trials. Unbeknownst to PLM, the autism "biomed" blogger who wrote the AoA post has a better analogy for what PLM is.

I first learned about PatientsLikeMe four or five years ago, when I wrote a series of posts about self-experimentation by cancer patients with an unproven, unapproved drug, dichloroacetate (DCA). As regular readers might recall, DCA is a small molecule drug that was used to treat congenital lactic acidosis in children through its inhibition of the enzyme pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase. This inhibition shifts the metabolism of glucose towards oxidative metabolism in the mitochondria and away from glycolysis, the product of which is lactic acid. In January 2007, Dr. Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta had the clever idea of using DCA to target the Warburg effect in tumors and published an article in Cancer Cell describing preclinical experiments in rats in which DCA resulted in marked shrinkage of multiple tumor types. The Warburg effect was first described in 1928 by Otto Warburg and refers to the tendency of many tumors to rely on glycolysis for their energy supply rather than oxidative phosphorylation, even in the presence of oxygen, which in the case of normal cells favors oxidative metabolism. It turns out that DCA showed some promise against glioblastoma in a phase I clinical trial, but it is a long way from being approved.

Because DCA is a small molecule and relatively easy to synthesize, a man named Jim Tassano decided that he would sell "pet DCA" to treat cancer in pets. Tassano fooled no one, of course; people were not buying DCA to treat their dogs. His real purpose was to take advantage of desperate cancer patients, some of whom flocked to his BuyDCA.com website to purchase what he claimed to be pharmaceutical grade DCA. It also led to what I saw as a most disturbing phenomenon, namely self-experimentation by cancer patients with DCA and discussion among patients on online forums, which was even likened to "clinical trials," complete with reports of success based on magical thinking more than anything else. You will see echoes of this same story and the issue it raises in the article referenced by AoA.

This brings us to the link between MMS and PatientsLikeMe. MMS, as you recall, is being touted as a "miracle cure" for conditions as disparate as cancer and autism. It is nothing more than a 28% solution of sodium chlorite, a chemical widely used for water purification. A couple of months ago at that yearly quackfest of the "autism biomed" movement, Autism One, Terri Rivera gave a talk in which she advocated using MMS to treat autism. Her method of delivery included oral, bathing in it, and per rectum, as in MMS enemas. Yes, we're talking bleach enemas to treat autism. Administered orally according to Rivera's protocol, the amount of chlorine dioxide (the active chemical liberated when sodium chlorite is mixed into aqueous solution) is more than 120 times the amount that a child could expect to consume drinking tap water.

It turns out that the story being touted by AoA is about a man named Eric Valor who is taking sodium chlorite to treat his ALS:

In June 2010, he learned of an experimental ALS drug called NP001, being developed by Palo Alto–based Neuraltus Pharmaceuticals. Then just beginning Phase I trials, the drug targets ALS patients’ overactive immune cells, attempting to reduce the chronic neuroinflammation associated with the disease. It seemed promising to Valor, but unfortunately, his disease was too advanced for him to qualify for the trial. “I made various attempts to get [enrolled], but failed,” says Valor, who responded to The Scientist via e-mail because his ventilator limits his speech.

If he couldn’t participate in the trial, maybe he could get the drug another way, Valor reasoned. After an exhaustive literature search on PubMed, he identified the drug’s “cruder” precursor as WF10, which is available for purchase abroad. But he quickly learned that importing it from Thailand would cost more than $12,000 for a year’s supply. He then set out to see if he could get his hands on what he suspected—based on a literature search and a 2006 patent tracked down by fellow ALS patient and friend Rob Tison—was the active ingredient of NP001: sodium chlorite, which is used in water-purification kits for campers and in municipal water treatment.

This is an interesting story on many levels, not the least of which is the apparent finding that sodium chlorite might have an actual therapeutic use. But what is NP001? Due to its proprietary nature, it is not straightforward to figure out just what NP001 is from online sources. For instance, I found what was purported to be the structure of NP001 at the ALS Therapy Development Institute. Notice that there's no chlorine atom anywhere in chemical structure, making it incredibly unlikely that this molecule would generate chlorite as its active compound. However, more searching around the web made me question whether this is the actual structure of NP001, starting with this press release from the company describing promising results for the drug in a phase I study. Unfortunately, the trial appears not to have been published yet (PubMed searches using the usual suspects, such as "NP001," "Neuraltus Pharmaceuticals," and the study's principal investigator Robert G. Miller, among other strategies, failed to turn up anything); so I went to patent searches and found that Neuraltus Pharmaceuticals has patents for various buffered release systems for sodium chlorite, for example, this one, although searching using the term "NP001" didn't turn up anything related to ALS. Elsewhere, it is stated that NP001 is a modified form of WF10, which is basically sodium chlorite and has been tested with varying results as an immune modulator for various conditions. In brief, WF10 is a stabilized chlorite matrix that appears to have immunosuppressive effects, although it also appears to stimulate natural killer cell cytotoxicity and decrease macrophage activity. This patent describes the claims for WF10.

To sum it all up, NP001 appears to be some form of sodium chlorite in a matrix designed to control its release, perhaps with another compound. Certainly, this FDA application for orphan drug status by Neuraltus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for sodium chlorite pretty much cemented in my mind that that's what NP001 is, as did the information on this discussion forum, which described how WF10 and NP001 relate to the drug from Thailand referenced in The Scientist article. Moreover, NP001 was granted not only orphan drug status but fast track status as well.

Now here's the problem with the sort of "do it yourself"-style "N of 1" clinical trials advocated by PatientsLikeMe:

Last June, Valor began taking oral doses of the chemical, which is not approved for the treatment of any disease. And he thinks it’s working. “I have improved breathing, which makes transfers [off his ventilator] much more comfortable,” Valor says. “My voice is louder and speech somewhat clearer. I am able to flex muscles that were previously still (though not enough for useful movement).”

So, basically Valor is taking MMS for his ALS. We don't know the concentration or the dose that he's taking. The key phrase above is that Valor thinks it's working; we have no idea whether there is any objectively measured improvement in his motor function. There are well-established rating scales for severity of ALS symptoms, and it would be much more useful to know whether these patients have any measurable improvement in concrete, objective measures of motor neuron and muscle function. I've looked, and I haven't been able to find any. Valor's impression could be the result of expectation bias, confusing correlation with causation (i.e., waxing and waning of symptoms correlating with drug administration by random chance alone), or other cognitive quirks to which humans are prone that lead to a mistaken impression of causation.

In addition, in The Scientist article, there is the story of Ben Harris, an ALS patient who was enrolled in the phase II clinical trial of NP001 last year:

At first, Valor didn’t tell other ALS patients about his experimentation, hoping to first establish that it was safe, “but by September, it had leaked,” he says. Medical physicist and ALS patient Ben Harris, who was enrolled in the NP001 trial, was the one to get the ball rolling. NP001 had improved his strength, speech, breathing, and ability to swallow, and he wanted to keep taking the drug after his participation in the trial ended. “The more I learned about [sodium chlorite], the more excited I got, and I felt it was too important to keep a secret,” says Harris, who also responded to questions via e-mail due to limitations associated with his disease. So he started a discussion thread on the website of Cambridge, Massachusetts-based biotech ALS Therapy Development Institute (ALS TDI), sparking widespread interest that helped launch the do-it-yourself (DIY) trial. Now more than two dozen other ALS patients are taking oral sodium chlorite, and recording their results on the social networking site PatientsLikeMe.

Here is Harris' phase II trial report, as posted on PatientsLikeMe, along with others. Note that most of the patient evaluations for NP001 or sodium chlorite can only be viewed if you have a PatientsLikeMe account. However, the two reports that are publicly available list the drug as having "major effectiveness," and have a lot of subjective accounts of symptomatic improvement with precious few objective measures (one, actually). At one point, Harris reports a large increase in the grip strength of his hands (the only objective measurement), but by the end of his participation in the trial in November 2011 his impression was this:

I just received my very last infusion of NP001. I think overall if I have declined during this study period it has been at a small fraction of the rate before starting the study. The only thing I can say that is worse is that I am more frequently wiping my lips. I think my lip muscles have atrophied but my tongue has not, neither have my left arm or leg. My left arm was getting weaker just before I started the study but it has held strong since. Along with the decrease in strength on my lips has been a very slight decline in my speech. I have been recording my speech weekly since August and it is very difficult to detect a change so the difference is very small. I believe overall NP001 has drastically slowed my progression if it hasn't stopped it. Overall, I am better than I was when I started the study.

However, elsewhere, he wrote:

The one way I think I may have declined is in drooling. I seem to have to wipe my lips more often than before and I noticed night time drooling for the first time about one month after starting the study. But the difference is very very small compared to what it was like about 9 months ago. I think perhaps my tongue is stronger but my lips are a little weaker. It is difficult to decide whether I am improving or declining, which in itself is a good thing. Before starting the study I would notice differences in my state every month and they were obvious to me. Right now I am struggling to decide whether there are changes in my state from 4 months ago.

Another thing that you should note: There is a 50-50 chance that Mr. Harris received the placebo. He even acknowledges this elsewhere by telling a reporter that he always tells patients to whom he speaks of this possibility. Yet he wrote his PatientsLikeMe diary as though he knew he was receiving the experimental drug. He seemed to assume that he was in the experimental group and, when the NP001 trial was over, decided to do what Eric Valor has been doing and start taking sodium hypochlorite on his own, as described in this Wall Street Journal story back in April:

Although no patient knows whether or not he received the drug or a placebo, Mr. Harris says he experienced dramatic improvement in his ability to swallow after his first infusion of NP001. After he finished with the infusions on the Neuraltus trial, he wanted to continue. He worried that swallowing sodium chlorite wouldn't be effective because it would be neutralized in the stomach, so in January, he started injecting it every three weeks. He says he feels no side effects. Mr. Harris says he didn't inform Neuraltus about what he is doing, but feels that it shouldn't have bearing on the formal trial since he didn't start infusing himself until after the NP001 infusions were completed.

Mr. Harris isn't sure he is benefiting but said last week that he gave himself an infusion and by evening, his swallowing had improved. The real proof, he says, will come when the participants do an analysis of the data collected online. Mr. Harris says he knows that the results will never compare to what Neuraltus is doing.

Eventually, the blinding will be lifted, and Mr. Harris will know. However, he could well be mistaken when he says that his use of sodium chlorite after his treatment as part of the trial was done has no bearing on the trial. If there are late measurements of motor neuron function and survival (and I assume there are), his use of what he believes to be NP001 could skew the trial data.

Unfortunately, this PatientsLikeMe "trial" is not a proper clinical trial at all, and it is highly unlikely that the "analysis" of the patient reports and data collected online will show any sort of conclusive evidence of benefit or lack thereof. The reason, of course, is that this is no more than a collection of anecdotes without a control group, without a standardized protocol covering dosage and administration of the drug, and without even a standardized source of the drug. That's not to say that analyzing the data might not be useful for examining patients' perceived side effects and for comparing perceived benefit to actual benefit measured objectively, but in reality what PatientsLikeMe is doing is more likely than not pretty close to useless for determining actual efficacy.

The Scientist article mentions a previous PatientsLikeMe trial looking at lithium as a treatment for ALS. It was this trial, as it turns out, that brought PatientsLikeMe to my attention in the first place, leading me to discuss the trial in depth using story from 2008 about ALS patients trying lithium to treat their ALS based on one promising study. Just as Tassano sparked "wild experimentation" of patients using DCA to treat cancer with little or no medical supervision based on a single study using rat tumor models, patient experimentation with lithium to treat ALS appears to have been sparked by an Italian study that reported a significant slowing of the progression of ALS. This study looked at both a mouse model and reported the results of a small randomized trial of lithium plus riluzole versus riluzole alone. As a result of this study, ALS patients started taking lithium off-label. Meanwhile, PatientsLikeMe proclaimed:

Together, with all the patients involved, we will run the first real-time, real-world, open and non-blinded, patient-driven trial. We believe we will have the power, within months, to begin answering the question of how much lithium modifies the progression of ALS. Unlike a blind placebo control trial, we are watching the use of this drug in the real world, and because of the number of patients and our system's sophisticated data modeling, we can determine the significance of each reported change in each patient as he/she deviates from his/her predicted course. There are many risks to our approach, patient optimism, the placebo effect, uncertain quality, and many other variables will compromise our data. Despite these, and many other challenges, we remain committed to solving this problem.

As I pointed out before, this "problem," as it was described, probably cannot be solved because it was inherent in the very design of this study, which was neither randomized nor blinded. There were no valid controls, only in essence historical controls (i.e., the "predicted course"). What's even more puzzling is that the organizers of this trial even seemed to recognize these problems, acknowledging that the placebo effect, patient optimism, and many other variables may compromise the data. Yet they nonetheless expressed optimism that their "sophisticated data modeling" could overcome these problems.

As it turns out, lithium doesn't improve survival or neurologic function in patients with ALS. Ironically, PatientsLikeMe published its observations several months before the official phase IIb clinical trial in a Nature Biotechnology paper and trumpeted on its blog that it had "refuted a published clinical trial," specifically, the original clinical trial in PNAS that suggested that lithium might be useful in ALS, stating:

PatientsLikeMe developed a novel algorithm designed to match patients who reported taking lithium with a number of other ALS patients that had similar disease courses. By using a matched control group, PatientsLikeMe was able to reduce biases associated with evaluating the effects of treatments in open label, real world situations and improve the statistical power of the study making each patients contribution more meaningful.

Maybe. More likely, it was nothing more than wishful thinking to believe that this novel algorithm, whatever it is, does an adequate job of controlling for the enormous number and quantity of biases that exist in anecdotal reports from patients. Indeed, I can't help but think that it is a rather apt comparison when AoA equates PatientsLikeMe "to many of the autism biomed boards." The main difference is that in the case of PatientsLikeMe there is a company asking members of its website to take polls about the effectiveness of whatever they are trying at the moment and then trying to analyze the anecdotes in order to sell the results to its business partners. In fact, when you come right down to it, PatientsLikeMe is a lot like another social networking site, namely Facebook. Like Facebook PatientsLikeMe has members communicating online. Also like Facebook, its business model is to sell the results of its analyses of the data these members provide. Facebook sells to advertisers; PatientsLikeMe sells to its business partners. In all fairness, to be sure, PatientsLikeMe appears to be a lot more transparent than Facebook. It also doesn't sell its members' personal information to advertisers and marketers. Even so, its business model is not that different from that of Facebook. Certainly, there is a lot of marketing going on.

ALS is a horrible disease. I know I've already said that, but it is something that bears repeating. Consequently, I can't blame a single patient for wanting to get his hands on NP001, even to the point of being willing to mix up some home-brewed sodium chlorite or buy non-pharmaceutical grade chemical from whatever supplier he can find. I get it. They don't have the time to wait for drugs to wend their painfully slow way through the FDA approval process any more than patients with advanced cancer do. Like Derek Lowe, I can't even say that I wouldn't be sorely tempted to do the same thing myself, particularly with chemicals that are small molecules that can be purchased elsewhere or synthesized in my laboratory. I can even somewhat understand the motivation behind PatientsLikeMe. No doubt the founders of the company think they are somehow accelerating drug discovery while doing good. Unfortunately, they have yet to show that they are accelerating anything. If you look at their publications, none of them demonstrate positive efficacy, and most of them (for instance, the latest three) are about patient attitudes and validation of ratings scales. Nowhere is there any example of a study that has shown anything about the efficacy of a new treatment that adds anything to what conventional clinical trials show. For example, in the case of the lithium trial, no one's going to believe the results of and Internet survey (which is what, in essence, the lithium trial was); they're going to wait for the results of a real clinical trial.

PatientsLikeMe has always promoted a rather radical idea, namely that it is possible to tell whether a drug works by analyzing, in essence, a bunch of testimonials from a group of self-selected patients self-medicating with therapies in an unblinded fashion with no proper control group. I suppose it's worth seeing if it is possible to glean any useful information out of the morass of stories that constitute the database utilized by PatientsLikeMe, but I've never had much confidence that the company would be successful at it, and I've seen no publications yet that suggest to me that my original assessment was wrong. From what I've seen thus far, from a scientific and drug development standpoint PatientsLikeMe appears to have failed, even as it has been wildly successful as a social network for patients. Unfortunately, with this most recent foray into reporting on home-brewed NP001-lookalike drugs (a.k.a. sodium chlorite), PatientsLikeMe is entering dangerous territory that it has eschewed in the past. Remember DCA? PatientsLikeMe could have done then for DCA what it's doing now for sodium chlorite, but at the time it did not—and rightly so, I might add. Indeed, from a strictly analytic standpoint, DCA would have been a better test case because the DCA patients were using was chemically identical to DCA that showed promising results in the original rodent studies. In contrast, we have no idea whether the sodium chlorite patients reporting to PatientsLikeMe are using is chemically identical to NP001. Very likely it is not.

There's a reason why AoA loves PatientsLikeMe, and that's because it cannily sees it as a more sophisticated version of what "autism biomed" proponents have been doing in discussion groups for a long time: Setting up an online place where people trying anything under the sun up to and including the rankest form of quackery can get together and swap anecdotes and testimonials. One wonders how long it will be before members of the "autism biomed" movement starts infiltrating PatientsLikeMe in order to see if the company will examine their assessments of the various interventions to which they subject their autistic children, such as MMS enemas, hyperbaric oxygen chambers, untold varieties of supplements, chelation therapy, and other dubious and sometimes dangerous interventions. Indeed, given that PatientsLikeMe has recently published on its assessment of the efficacy of drugs given for off-label indications, one wonders whether its founders would be willing to examine whether Lupron works for autism. The precedent has been set with sodium chlorite, after all.

I hope that in the future PLM sticks with off-label drug uses and exploring the experiences of patients on existing clinical trials as an adjunct to the actual trial. There, it might actually be able to do some good. It's highly unlikely that anything good can come of "studies" like the one being undertaken to ask patients taking sodium hypochlorite if they think it's working and very likely that bad things will happen.

oracknows Wed, 08/01/2012 - 21:10

Tags

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

amyotropic lateral sclerosis

miracle mineral solution

fb Astronomers

catdynamics — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:53:35 +0000

fb Astronomers

Just a quick heads-up for those who don't know yet: there is closed group "Astronomers" on facebook. It is by invitation only, ie some existing member must add any new member. You must have an fb account to be added.
The group has about 4,000 members, most all professional astronomers from around the world.

There is some interesting discussion going on in that group and some useful info being passed around.

The closed group feature seems to work well for some combination of intensity of topic focus and size - not too small, not too big.
'fraid I wouldn't tell how to monetize the feature though.

catdynamics Wed, 05/23/2012 - 17:53

Tags

astro

Astronomy

facebook

The thread on murdered astronomers was particularly gruesome and interesting.

By the way, your pretty picture on every article seems to be 404 - not found.

http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/files/2012/05/Sigurdsson_Steinn.jpg

yeah, the move is having some shakedown issues

we'll get there eventually

Useful info, eh? Would you say it's useful enough to justify joining Facebook?

Hmm. So the group has a bit of a flavour of an active moderated usenet group. The discussion draws in senior bods who wouldn't be caught dead commenting publicly in other social media, and is quite frank, since readership is pros only.
Little bit of trolling, handled ok so far, might crack badly if someone sends out too many "adds".

In some sense the closed group is achieving what Google+ circles are evidently intended to do, whereas my sense is the circles are failing because of the way they are co-added.

I don't know if it is worth joining fb just to get onto Astronomers, I think the major discussions overflow into other social media; eg AstroBetter is actively working to manage discussion flow like that.
More if you are on fb for non-professional reasons then there is now an interesting professional hook.

The Festival is Fast Approaching!

carlyo — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:00:00 +0000

The Festival is Fast Approaching!

Just in case you haven't heard the Festival dates are set for April 28-29th! The doors are open on Saturday from 10am-6pm and on Sunday from 10am- 4pm. This year the Festival will be held in Washington D.C. at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.

Visit our website for all of the upcoming events leading up to the Festival, to plan your day at the Expo and to browse our exhibits. Best of all- don't miss out on the chance to pre-register for the Expo for an opportunity to win a cool prize! You will automatically be signed up to win a chance to meet Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage of the Mythbusters OR Mayim Bialik of The Big Bang Theory; an iPad 2; a Cool Video Game; Science Books; or 1 of 50 T-shirts!

Also, be sure to become a fan of our facebook page to receive important information regarding the Festival as well as an opportunity to connect with other fans and to view engaging STEM articles and facts!

And just a refresher- the mission of the USA Science and Engineering Festival is to re-invigorate the interest of our nation's youth in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) by producing and presenting the most compelling, exciting, educational and entertaining science festival in the United States.

Thank you for helping us to achieve our mission!

carlyo Tue, 01/17/2012 - 04:00

Tags

Uncategorized

expo

facebook

USA Science & Engineering Expo

Washington D.C.

It is a shame that the Expo is the same weekend as the National Science Bowl, a national competition for high school science students sponsored by the US Dept of Energy. I'm sure DOE would have considered being a sponsor of this event. As a long-time volunteer at the science bowl, I would have liked to volunteer for the expo but I thought it would be held in the Fall. Next time one of these is planned, please consider consulting with major science and engineering organizations to see whether there is a competing event.

Hi Linda,

Thanks for your message. The Science Bowl students will actually be attending our "Sneak Peek Friday" on the 27th. Here is a link with some more information: http://www.usasciencefestival.org/2012festival/schoolprograms/attend-sn…