pharma shill gambit

Conflicts of interest among vaccine advocates: The Law of Contagion

oracknows — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 02:00:41 +0000

Conflicts of interest among vaccine advocates: The Law of Contagion

I didn’t think I’d be revisiting this topic again so soon, but damned if Alice Dreger didn’t write something that comes pretty close to demanding that I do so. I tried to resist, but unfortunately could not. Basically, I’m getting really, really tired of Dreger. Why do I say that? It’s because I’m having a harder and harder time not thinking that she has antivaccine proclivities. I don’t want to. I really don’t. But, damn, if she doesn’t keep sounding like a blogger on Age of Autism or The Thinking Moms’ Revolution. The echoes are unmistakeable and appeared again just yesterday.

I first encountered Dreger’s ambivalence about vaccines over a year ago, when I first encountered an article by her entitled What if not all parents who question vaccines are foolish and anti-science? that basically painted those of us who advocate for science and vaccines as frenzied, self-righteous zealots who are incorrect (and disrespectful to parents, to boot) when we point out that most fears of vaccines are rooted in pseudoscience and, for the most part, baseless. More importantly, Dreger painted us as incapable of the nuance that she so clearly thinks she brings to the discussion. In contrast to her recognition that it is not necessarily irrational to have fears about vaccines and her oh-so-”reasonable” refusal to take a side on the issue, she portrayed pro-vaccine advocates as the unreasonable and dogmatic ones.

Oddly enough, she seemed oblivious to antivaccinationists who liken vaccines to the Holocaust, relentlessly attack pro-vaccine advocates like Dr. Paul Offit as “Dr. Proffit” and a “pharma shill.” (More on that a bit later.) Many of these same people declare themselves to be “not antivaccine,” and Dreger seemed to take them at their word. She also seemed oblivious to the fact that most pro-vaccine advocates recognize why many parents are afraid of vaccines, actively try to understand, so that we can allay those fears, and try our best to be respectful to genuine doubters. Unfortunately, she also seemed incapable of distinguishing between parents with fears, who can be persuaded with reason, respect, and patience, and hard core antivaccinationists, who cannot be persuaded and whose beliefs are indeed rooted in pure pseudoscience, along with many of the cognitive quirks we humans have in determining causation.

Then, a mere three weeks ago, Dreger wrote a very misguided post, Beyond Vaccine Exceptionalism. In it, whether she knew it or not, she basically parroted the familiar antivaccine trope that that vaccines cannot be criticized. In fact, she stated it explicitly in a way that would have made her statement quite at home on any antivaccine blog, referring to “the attitude among many science and public health advocates, that approved and recommended vaccines are never to be questioned or doubted,” an attitude that she referred to as “vaccine exceptionalism.” It’s a common trope among antivaccinationists that liken belief in vaccines to religion or ideology more than science. Unfortunately, the level of ignorance on display with respect to the antivaccine movement in her article was simply staggering. At the same time she slimed bioethicist Arthur Caplan as hopelessly compromised because his foundation has apparently accepted grants from vaccine manufacturers. I can’t help but note at the time that the evidence she presented to support her charge that Caplan can’t be trusted or is some sort of massive hypocrite was thin gruel indeed.

Yes, there was the germ of a good point behind her warnings about undisclosed conflicts of interest (COIs). I’ve said similar, but less radical things myself. Unfortunately, her utter lack of a sense of proportion and her dismissal of anyone who’s ever had a commercial or financial interest in vaccines as hopelessly compromised bordered on the pharma shill gambit. So what compelled me to revisit Dreger and her antivaccine-friendly, if not actually antivaccine, ramblings? Yesterday she dropped all pretense of nuance and dove headlong into flinging the pharma shill gambit at two people I admire, Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. Arthur Caplan, while condescendingly lecturing journalists, including one whose work I admire, Tara Haelle, in a post entitled Reporters Need to Avoid Experts with Vaccine Industry Funding; Here's Why, and Here's Help. The premise of her article is that reporters should never, ever interview vaccine experts who have ever received funding from a vaccine manufacturer or that, if they must, they must “disclose” to her standards.

Dreger uses as her jumping off point a story in the New York Times about an article in JAMA Internal Medicine that found that the sugar industry sought to influence the scientific debate over the causes of coronary heart disease (CHD) to play down sugar as a cause and blame the cause on fat. It’s actually a fascinating article. Basically, the authors examined internal documents of the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), whose first research project resulted in a literature published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1965 that singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. This was back in the days before journals required authors to disclose COIs and the ethical standards for disclosure of links to industry were basically nonexistent.

Now, there is no doubt that this is a disturbing story, reminiscent of what the tobacco companies did to try to suppress or counter research showing that tobacco was a major health hazard, the cause of lung cancer and heart disease. To be honest, what surprised me the most about this article is how cheaply some of these researchers were bought, at least initially. For instance:

On July 13, 1965, 2 days after the Tribune article, the SRF’s executive committee approved Project 226,31 a literature review on “Carbohydrates and Cholesterol Metabolism” by Hegsted and Robert McGandy, overseen by Stare.10 The SRF initially offered $500 ($3800 in 2016 dollars) to Hegsted and $1000 ($7500 in 2016 dollars) to McGandy, “half to be paid when you start work on the project, and the remainder when you inform me that the article has been accepted for publication.”31 Eventually, the SRF would pay them $6500 ($48,900 in 2016 dollars) for “a review article of the several papers which find some special metabolic peril in sucrose and, in particular, fructose.”

So we can all agree that this is a deplorable incident, just as what the tobacco companies did to try to counter the growing evidence of just how dangerous tobacco was to public health. It’s also clear that this effort, as disturbing as it was, was nowhere near as extensive and pervasive as that of the tobacco companies. Basically, what the SRF got for its efforts was a single review article. Yes, it was a review article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1967 that was highly influential. That’s bad enough, but even the authors state that there is “no direct evidence that the sugar industry wrote or changed the NEJM review manuscript; the evidence that the industry shaped the review’s conclusions is circumstantial.” Reporting of the story makes it sound as though the sugar industry was as bad as the tobacco industry. (It did spend $600,000, or $5.3 million in 2016 dollars over the course of many years.) Whether that’s true or not, it’s impossible to tell from this single historical analysis, which is only about one review article and one industry group. As Steve Novella and Scott Alexander point out, the JAMA Internal Medicine article fails to put its finding into the context of the "diet wars" of 50 years ago, when it was debated whether it was sugar or fat that's the worst culprit in promoting CHD. As Alexander put it:

In any case, claims that the sugar industry sponsored one study back in the 1960s, and this means everything we’ve ever thought is wrong and biased against fat and in favor of sugar, miss the point (especially since there are probably problems with both sugar and fat). Whatever study the New York Times has dredged up was one volley in an eternal clandestine war of Big Fat against Big Sugar, and figuring out who’s distorted the science more is the sort of project that’s going to take more than one article.

I went on this diversion mainly because it is relevant, but also because I found the article describing this incident interesting. So does Alice Dreger, who takes a germ of a reasonable point and runs right off the deep end with it:

This is exactly the kind of history that I am talking about when I write, as I did for New Statesman magazine, about how not all parents who question some vaccines are “anti-vax.” Some are well read; they know about the bad behaviors and troubling power of the pharmaceutical industry, and they know the same industry produces many of our vaccines.

This is why editors should refuse to accept pro-vaccine articles from individuals who have been funded by the vaccine industry without full disclosure of that funding history; better yet, don’t allow them. Get someone who hasn’t been paid by the industry. It is also extremely important that reporters working on stories about vaccines consult physicians, epidemiologists, and ethicists who do not have histories of being funded by the vaccine industry.

This is what I like to refer to as the “contagion” concept of COIs. Basically, Dreger appears to think that it’s not enough just to disclose COIs. (What, exactly, constitutes a reportable COI in any given situation is not even considered carefully—or even really at all.) Rather, to her, just being touched by that evil, evil, big pharma money, particularly if it’s a vaccine manufacturer, is apparently enough to taint forever any expert who partakes of the tainted sustenance, no matter how distant in the past, no matter what the situation was, no matter how much funding was received. None of that matters. To Dreger, if you’ve ever accepted any funding from a vaccine manufacturer, you’re forever blacklisted. She starts out saying that such people should have their COI disclosed, which is generally what is done and should be done. Take Dr. Offit, for instance. I’ve never seen a pro-vaccine article by him that doesn’t mention that he’s a Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania and that he was the co-inventor of a Rotavirus vaccine (RotaTeq), usually with his connection to Merck mentioned as well.

Dreger goes beyond just disclosure, though. To her, disclosure of COIs is not enough. Instead, she advocates censorship—yes, censorship—in the name of “intellectual honesty” and rooting out COIs. Dreger is basically arguing that publications should not accept pro-vaccine articles from any expert with a COI and, even beyond that, journalists should not consult with such experts at all! Helpfully, she provides a list of experts that are acceptable to her because she finds them clean of any taint of vaccine money. I recognize some of them, such as Dr. Daniel Flanders, Dr. Jamie Friedman, and Alison Bateman-House, PhD, MPH, MA. Most of the others, I don’t recognize. The reason, of course, is that most of these doctors and academics, although pro-vaccine, are not actually, strictly speaking, vaccine experts. Dr. Flanders runs Kindercare Pediatrics. Dr. Jaime Friedman is a practicing pediatrician, as well. I worked my way down the list and found precious few whom I’d consider bona fide scientific experts on vaccines. Only a couple appear to have done significant work related to vaccines as part of their professional career. That is not a knock on any of them. After all, I’ve never done significant work related to vaccines either, but I sure have picked up a lot of knowledge about them. I could just as easily been on that list. So could Steve Novella, Harriet Hall, Mark Crislip (who, as an infectious disease doctor, has at least as much claim to expertise on vaccines as any pediatrician), John Snyder, or Clay Jones.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against the experts on Dreger’s list. Clearly, they have been active enough for vaccines to have earned plaudits and suggestions. For instance, I’m a big fan of Dr. Jen Gunter and admire her standing up for science. However, Dr. Gunter is not really a vaccine expert, at least not in the formal sense. She is an OB/GYN and a pain medicine physician with an interest and expertise in the HPV vaccine. This is not a criticism. I also point out I’m not a formal expert in vaccines, either. I’m a breast cancer surgeon. Indeed, when journalists contact me, I generally make it a point to tell them that I am an expert in neither autism nor vaccines, although I do know a lot because of my long term interest in combatting antivaccine pseudoscience. Basically, like me, Gunter developed her expertise in writing about vaccines, primarily Gardasil. Let’s put it this way, neither Dr. Gunter nor I are a Dr. Paul Offit. Neither, as far as I can tell, is anyone else on Dreger’s list. Again, that is not a knock, nor is it to say that Dreger’s experts aren’t experts. Dr. Flanders, for instance, is an expert in dealing with parental fears of vaccines. They are all very accomplished experts in many different areas, all with some experience related to vaccines. It’s just that Dreger, in her zeal to find people clean of any perceived taint of big pharma, is willing to throw more compelling experts under the bus.

Like this:

Reporters should always be careful, when reporting on vaccines, to specifically find out whether a source has vaccine industry funding in their history. Avoid people like Arthur Caplan who has said that he doesn’t get vaccine industry funding because “the checks aren’t written to me”; in fact, his Center for Vaccine Ethics and Policy specifically seeks and takes vaccine industry funding. He even offers “development of articles for peer-reviewed journals positioning the underlying issues involved to contribute to the field overall,” but don’t expect Caplan to disclose that when he publishes; he doesn’t. (It’s kind of hilarious the folks at Caplan's center call themselves “an independent voice” on vaccine policy while offering to do political consulting for the vaccine industry. For more on Caplan's troubling history, see the last chapter of Carl Elliott's excellent White Coat, Black Hat.)

I discussed last time the bug up her butt Dreger seems to have for Caplan. For whatever reason, she seems to think he has an irredeemable COI. What stood out about Dreger’s targeting Caplan was a very remarkable absence. Namely, I don’t recall ever having read anything on an antivaccine website about Caplan being a pharma shill (and, make no mistake, Dreger is pulling the pharma shill gambit on Caplan in a way that would make Jake Crosby blush). Given that Caplan is a high profile vaccine advocate, I find it hard to believe that, if he truly had received as much pharma funding as Dreger implies, antivaccinationists wouldn’t have been all over it for years now. In any case, I discussed last time why I found Dreger’s accusations against Caplan rather...underwhelming. In any case, this is what Caplan’s Center for Vaccine Ethics and Policy does:

Beginning in 2008, the Center for Vaccine Ethics and Policy began to respond to request for ethics and policy consultation by state and local government, major NGOs in the public health sphere, vaccine makers and corporations. These consults have included ethical issues around pandemic preparedness planning; H1N1 vaccine deployment; clinical trial design for novel vaccines; informed consent issues around vaccine clinical trials and immunization campaigns; pre-licensure access to vaccines in development, and targeted market withdrawal of specific vaccine products.

These consults are typically confidential in nature but have included PATH, The Wistar Institute; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Philadelphia, Merck, Novavax, and Goldman Sachs, among others.

OK, so Caplan’s group does consulting work for a whole bunch of interested parties, responding to requests. That’s a bit different than what Dreger describes.

Dreger also goes off the deep end here:

The issue of avoiding vaccine commentators with CoI's arose for me anew yesterday after reading Tara Haelle’s astonishing and important account of why the famous Dr. Bob Sears may lose his medical license. (It’s not just that he’s irresponsible around vaccines.)

In that article, Haelle quoted Dr. Paul Offit as an expert—which he most certainly is—but did not mention his history of industry funding. Note: I incorrectly tweeted yesterday that Offit’s center takes industry funding; his current center at Penn, which replaces the one Caplan took with him to NYU, does not. I apologize for that mistake but note that my point about his history stands: for years, Offit helped co-lead Caplan’s Center for Vaccine Ethics and Policy and there’s no question Offit has a long history of industry funding of the sort that leads to skepticism.

Yes, and in her article, Haelle quite appropriately pointed out that Offit is “co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.” Uh, hello. He invented a vaccine! That’s a pretty good indication that he’s invested in vaccines. Could Haelle have disclosed more, such as how Offit sold his interest in the vaccine? Sure. Was it necessary? I’m not sure in this case, because in this case Offit was commenting on Dr. Bob Sears’ history, in particular his “delayed” vaccine schedule), and, compared to every single other of Dreger’s suggested experts, Dr. Offit has way more scientific authority when discussing vaccine schedules.

Haelle, not surprisingly, was not pleased with Dreger’s attack. She launched an epic Twitter storm in which she schooled Dreger. Some of my favorites:

It's clear @AliceDreger isn't a journo & lacks journalism exper/training from assumptions in her post, regardless of her other expertise 4/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

She provides list of possible (unvetted) vaccine story sources who have not received industry funding. I've used 6 of them 2/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

It's clear @AliceDreger isn't a journo & lacks journalism exper/training from assumptions in her post, regardless of her other expertise 4/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

1st, journos do not seek "pro-vaccine" sources when writing abt vaccines. That's not how health/science reporting works 5/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

When reporting on science/health, journalists must seek highly qualified experts in specific fields bc they have knowledge/info/exper 6/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

If I'm writing abt flu vax & mutations, I MUST talk to best qualified ppl who work *specifically on flu vax & have specialized knowledge 9/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

Only so many ppl exist to fit the bill for each need. V difficult, sometimes impossible, to ALWAYS avoid ppl w zero industry funding 19/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

In other stories, there are ppl who are truly THE expert in what you're reporting. You talk to them. Period. Other perspectives ok too 21/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

However, in looking for add'l commentary on Sears' "alt vaccine schedule," one source was immediate no brainer: @DrPaulOffit 23/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

Why @DrPaulOffit as source on Sears' alt sched? Offit was 1st to analyze & only 1 to publish seminal paper on probs w alt sched 24/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

Overly simplistic & ignorant of journo profession to say "never use source w CoI. Here's bunch of pro-vax ppl!" 27/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

However, @DrPaulOffit works at CHOP vax center, which doesn't receive industry funding. Has no current disclosures otherwise 30/n

— Tara Haelle (@tarahaelle) September 13, 2016

Exactly.

There’s more, much of which echoes what I just wrote above, something like 40 total.

I know Dreger says she’s pro-vaccine. I even believe that she probably is. However, she is even more anti-pharma than pro-vaccine, to the point where it warps her perception and that some of what she writes would be right at home on antivaccine blogs and websites. Basically, her thinking reminds me of the Law of Contact or Contagion in James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough. Basically, the idea behind the Law of Contagion is that, once two people or objects have been in contact, a magical link persists between them unless or until a formal exorcism or other act of banishing breaks the non-material bond. You get the idea. In Dreger’s world, if you’ve ever touched pharma money, even indirectly, a magical link persists forever. You are tainted forever. In my younger days, I accepted pens and the occasional tchotchke from Merck and other pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines. By Dreger's definition, I guess I, too, am tainted forever. At least I'm in good company.

I wonder if the Law of Contagion applies to those on the "vaccine safety" (in reality, almost always antivaccine) side, many of whom make quite a pretty penny from selling various supplements and various quack treatments, ranging from hyperbaric oxygen to chelation therapy, to MMS (a.k.a. bleach) enemas to many others. Many on the antivaccine side have lucrative businesses devoted to speaking, selling books and DVDs, and the like. Dr. Bob Sears, for instance, sells medical exemptions to vaccines based on what parents submit on an online form.If she did, then say goodbye to Dr. Bob, Andrew Wakefield, Del Bigtree, Polly Tommey, and many other antivaccine activists disguised as "autism advocates." There are a lot of other examples just as blatant, if not as militantly antivaccine. One wonders if Dreger applies her same absolutist definition of a financial COI to these people when it comes to vaccines. We don't know. She doesn't say. I wonder why.

As I said last time, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

oracknows Tue, 09/13/2016 - 22:00

I love the smell of the pharma shill gambit in the morning. It smells like...crankery.

oracknows — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 06:45:37 +0000

I love the smell of the pharma shill gambit in the morning. It smells like...crankery.

I promised myself that I was done writing about Jenny McCarthy this week. Two posts, a lengthy one and a brief one, lamenting her being hired for a national daytime talk show was, in my view, enough. Unfortunately, something's happened that makes me want to make like Arnold Schwarzenegger in that famous scene from the 1980s action flick Commando, in which he had promised one villain that he would kill him last. Later in the film while holding this same villain over a cliff, Arnold says, "Remember when I promised I would kill you last? I lied."

Except that I wasn't lying at the time. I really didn't want to write any more about McCarthy for a good long while.

But then I saw who's come out to play again, after a very long absence! After seeing that, I knew I had to take one more dip from the well. Obviously, I'm not referring to Jake Crosby. He's been out to play for months now with his amusing stoking of internecine warfare among antivaccine cranks as the puppet of über-crank Patrick "Timmy" Bolen and now his brand new personal blog, created after he was finally booted from his previous gig at the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism (AoA). This time around I'm talking about the former big macher of the "mercury in vaccines cause autism" wing of the antivaccine movement, the man who just a few short years ago popped up regularly on television as founder and president of the antivaccine crank group Generation Rescue before Jenny McCarthy glommed on to the organization and was made President, the better to take advantage of her Hollywood glitz in the service of forwarding its aims. This is a man whose titanic ego, combined with his truly rabid anti-intellectualism and pugnacious manner that led him to lash out at people who had the temerity to suggest that GR in general (and Handley in particular) didn't know what they were talking about and were promoting pseudoscience and quackery, led him to some monumental tirades.

Handley's been gone for a while now, keeping a much lower profile. The last time I can remember writing anything about him was two years ago, when, after a hilariously bit of inept detective work in which he had embarrassed himself by concluding that one of our favorite pro-vaccine science bloggers, Sullivan, was in fact Bonnie Offit, wife of the Dark Lord of Vaccination (in Handley's eyes) Paul Offit. Even more hilariously, Handley promised that, if he were wrong, he would give up ownership of the pauloffit.com domain, which he had been using to attack Paul Offit, and never mention Paul Offit again. As a result, a brief but amusing little meme circulated in which many of us declared, Spartacus-like, that "I am Bonnie Offit." A few months later, it was revealed that Sullivan—surprise! surprise!—was not Bonnie Offit, leading to a demand to J.B. Handley to put up or shut up about Paul Offit. Surprisingly, he actually did give up ownership of the domain and, even more shockingly, stopped mentioning (sort of) Paul Offit for a while anyway.

Not anymore, apparently. It appears that the near-universal dismay and anger expressed by nearly everyone interested in the topic who is not an antivaccine activist over the hiring of Jenny McCarthy to be a regular panelist on the daytime talk show The View has prodded J.B. to make like the proverbial old gunslinger in a western who had hung up his guns for good to reluctantly put on his holster again, saddle up, and ride off to do battle with the ne'er-do-wells who dare to attack his Jenny as antivaccine. The truth hurts, apparently, enough for him to come out swinging again in a post on the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism entitled Pharma's McCarthy-ism in Full View. Yes, it's unoriginal, as usual. I particularly hate the play on McCarthy's name to evoke the specter of Joe McCarthy, but I have to admit that both sides do it, although it seems to me that the antivaccine movement likes this particular ploy much more because it lets it paint itself as being a victim of a witch hunt whenever reasonable people point out that Jenny McCarthy has been an antivaccine loon. To nail home that connection, Handley even starts with a a quote of a definition of "McCarthyism." Well, J.B. never was particularly subtle—the understatement of the decade!—so why should he start now? He also apparently has decided to break his pledge not to mention Paul Offit again. (Surprise! Surprise!) Because, you know, in the mind of an antivaccinationist, any time there is any sort of media campaign critical of the antivaccine movement, it must be because of Paul Offit. He's just that powerful, which is why we, his pharma minions, worship him so.

Handley starts off by trying to make it seem as though McCarthy isn't a crank by invoking—you guessed it!—other celebrities who have "expressed concerns" about vaccines and autism, apparently because no one has more scientific knowledge than celebrities:

What do Dr. Bernadine Healy, Don Imus, Donald Trump, Doug Flutie, Gary Cole, Ed Asner, Charlie Sheen, Holly Robinson Peet, Deirdre Imus, Bob Wright, Aidan Quinn, Andrew Wakefield, and Jenny McCarthy all have in common?

Of course, we all know the answer: they have publicly expressed concerns about the relationship between vaccines and autism.

If you just started reading newspapers this week, you may not realize all the company Jenny has in a controversy that's far from over. Wasn't it just a few short months ago that a congressional panel was hammering CDC employees in a hearing about this very same link? Where are all the articles calling for all these powerful elected officials to step down?

OK, Bernardine Healy was a real scientist and director of the NIH, but for some reason she turned antivaccine crank later in life to the point where she was even named Age of Autism's "Person of the Year" for 2008. If that's not the mark of an antivaccine crank, I don't know what is! As for the rest? Don Imus? Seriously? That tired old washed up shock jock's basically been "thimerosal causes autism" conspiracy loon since long before I even took an interest in the topic. Donald Trump is so stupid when it comes to vaccines that he can't even get the tropes right. I know, I know, as I pointed out at the time, I realize that criticizing Donald Trump for being an antiscience idiot is rather akin to criticizing water for being wet or Donald Trump’s hair for having a life of its own, but sometimes a blogger’s just gotta do what a blogger’s gotta do, particularly when he’s preoccupied with real science. The same goes for the rest of the celebrity cranks who spew antivaccine talking points. Basically Handley's gambit boils down to one big appeal to authority, except that the authorities to whom he's chosen to appeal aren't exactly authorities on autism or vaccines.

One other point: I'll call Handley's bluff. Darrell Issa, the Congressional Representative who called that antiscience "autism hearing" in November, should not be reelected. He's an antiscience crank on many levels, not just vaccines and autism. As I learned at TAM from Michael Mann's excellent talk, he's also a climate science denialist. There are many reasons for him not to be re-elected. Ditto any elected representative who works to endanger public health by working with the antivaccine movement.

So who's orchestrating this "vicious" campaign against Jenny McCarthy, in which dozens of articles have been published in the mainstream media over the last few days, ever since the announcement was made on Monday that she would be joining the cast of The View? I think the title makes it obvious. To Handley, it must be big pharma, of course, and it must be doing it because it's terrified of the platform that McCarthy will have to expose its evil machinations in her new gig. What's really hilarious is just how thin the evidence is that Handley can dig up to "prove" his point. Who's responsible for this barrage? Obviously, it must be Every Child By Two, Paul Offit (of course!), and affiliated pharma drones. Don't believe me? Just listen to J.B.:

Every Child By Two, a Pharma front group, leads the charge. ECBT's funding comes from 2 sources: Wyeth and Sanofi (any reporter could easily confirm this by reading their 990, but they don't.) They appear to be a responsible advocate for vaccinating because they were founded by Rosalyn Carter thirty years ago, so the group is a great way for Pharma to hide behind something credible-sounding. ECBT takes charge of press briefings, etc.

It would be quite amazing and gratifying if ECBT and Paul Offit had that sort of influence. The world would be a better place, and antivaccine activists like Jenny McCarthy wouldn't have such sway. In fact, it would be awesome. Sadly, it's just a fantasy in Handley's conspiracy-addled mind. This backlash against the hiring of Jenny McCarthy was her own doing. If you promote dangerous pseudoscience for so many years, quackery that can and has endangered public health, then you shouldn't be surprised when people react with revulsion when a major network (in this case, ABC) gives you a high profile position where you'll be seen every day by millions. My first reaction was to shrug my shoulders and go, "Meh!" However, after thinking a bit about it I changed my mind. Also, even though I sometimes wonder whether Jenny McCarthy on The View might be a good thing because it might force her to resign as president of GR and stop showing up at the yearly antivaccine quackfest known as Autism One to give a keynote address because ABC might have demanded it in her contract, it remains to be seen whether any of these good things might come about. In the meantime, I do know that she has potentially been given a high profile platform from which she might be able to spew her antivaccine drivel, and that's a bad thing, as is ABC's apparent lack of concern about its appearance of endorsing (or at least not condemning) her previous assaults on public health.

Next up, Handley appears to believe we're all pharma shills:

- The writers and quote-makers are called in on all fronts:

1. Pharma-whore writers who are literally on Pharma's payroll

2. Pharma-benefitting writers (think Seth Mnookin) who have benefitted greatly from Pharma's largesse (speaking fees, etc)

3. Orac-types who work in medical facilities that rely on Pharma's funding

4. And, finally, publications that receive a majority of their ad dollars from Pharma

- Then, Pharma's army of paid trolls start dominating the comment boards to make it appear like the public is equally outraged.

Handley is so full of number two, that the feculent discharge can be detected from his enclave in the Pacific Northwest all the way to the East Coast. It's the pharma shill gambit in such an obvious, silly form that it's hard for me not to laugh a little, particularly at his mention of me. (OK, I laughed a lot.) To conspiracy theorists like Handley, apparently the power of pharma lucre is so powerful that one only has to work at an institution that has received pharma funding to be tainted. It's just that magic, and you don't even have to be aware that your institution is receiving that filthy pharma lucre, much less how much or for what. No doubt Lord Draconis Zeneca is pleased. I also can't help but express a little pedantic, style Nazi amusement at one of Handley's sentences: "Pharma-benefitting writers (think Seth Mnookin) who have benefitted greatly from Pharma's largesse (speaking fees, etc)." There's a word "redundant" that J.B. apparently doesn't know. Learn it. Use it. Love it, J.B.

Of course, two can play that game. Who, one wonders, is funding Generation Rescue? Who, one wonders, is funding Age of Autism? Inquiring minds want to know!

To counter what he sees as "misinformation," Handley makes the following assertions:

We should all be pleased with the violent reaction from Pharma. It shows how deeply the concerns about the vaccine-autism link have spread. Parents are doing their own research! I sincerely hope ABC has done their own independent research to discover what's actually true:

The majority (certainly not all) of parents of children with autism believe vaccines played a role in their child developing autism

Nearly half of new parents are concerned about giving their babies vaccines

Millions of moms trust Jenny to be honest, courageous, and fearless about her feelings and beliefs, no matter how much pressure there may be to hide or change

To which I can't help but respond:

Citation please
Citation please
Citation please

OK, it's probably true that half of new parents express concerns about vaccines, but in general by "concerns" we're not talking about the kind of demonization and fear of vaccines that Handley expresses. He also forgets to mention that this is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. It is due to the efforts of people like Handley spreading antivaccine pseudoscience, quackery, and lies, aided and abetted by a credulous press that values false balance over scientific accuracy, that so many parents have concerns, to the point where Handley gloats over it.

When McCarthy was first announced as a new permanent of the cast of The View on Monday, I was rather surprised that the usual suspects in the antivaccine movement were so silent. There were, at least initially, no congratulations to her and no gloating. It made me wonder whether antivaccinationists knew that she might very well be on the verge of abandoning them, now that her strategy of downplaying the antivaccine quackery over the last couple of years has finally payed off in resurrecting her career. It may well still be that that's true. However, the overwhelmingly negative reaction from pretty much everyone not part of the antivaccine movement to her hiring stung them. It was enough to cause them to circle the wagons, and it was even enough to prod J.B. Handley out of semiretirement to break his promise from two years ago not to mention Paul Offit anymore. Unfortunately, we'll have plenty of opportunity to see how this plays out over the next several months.

There. Now I hope I can abandon this topic for a while and move on to other science, medicine, pseudoscience, and pseudomedicine topics.

oracknows Fri, 07/19/2013 - 02:45

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

autism

complementary and alternative medicine

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

television

To counter what he sees as “misinformation,” Handley makes the following assertions:

<voice="Mr. Rogers">Can you say "argumentum ad populam", boys and girls? I knew you could.</voice>

All three of those statements might be technically true. None of them has any bearing on whether the claim that vaccines cause autism is true.

Remember, Mr. Handley, even if they did laugh at Galileo and Einstein, they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

Worth mentioning: Big Pharma would profit far more if people stopped vaccinating, given how much more expensive treatment is than prevention.

"When McCarthy was first announced as a new permanent of the cast of The View on Monday, I was rather surprised that the usual suspects in the antivaccine movement were so silent. There were, at least initially, no congratulations to her and no gloating."

Dan Olmsted was the only person on "AoA" who did any gloating. Anne Dachel reflexively feared that Jenny was being "set up."

Oh, JB:

What do Dr. Bernadine Healy, Don Imus, Donald Trump, Doug Flutie, Gary Cole, Ed Asner, Charlie Sheen, Holly Robinson Peet, Deirdre Imus, Bob Wright, Aidan Quinn, Andrew Wakefield, and Jenny McCarthy all have in common?

Of course, we all know the answer: they have publicly expressed concerns about the relationship between vaccines and autism.

Why should we care what any of these people have said about vaccines and autism?

Have any of them compiled a case with extensive, unimpeachable support in the research literature?

If yes, then we can give them a fair hearing.

If not, what they have to say means diddly squat.

Oh, me, blockquote fail.

MESSAGE BEGINS----------------------------

Shills, Minions and "Orac Types" . . .

Imagine my excitement upon discovering that my deliciously evil work is causing the rebels to spew venom and tremble with terror. And speaking of terror, fear not, the much feared Ah'k ah'k mavoon v'mrekk (the leathery egg-mother of the daytime) Barbara Walters, is most certainly on the Corpus payroll. Yes shills and minions, she's one of us, she's on the take and she has a plan, an evil one, of course.

Her evil plan is to muzzle the pulchritudinous, potty-mouthed, princess with steady fame and piles and piles of filthy PharmaLucre™, thus bringing an end to her "activism." Another screechy, troublesome monkey lured into compliance with a ripe banana and a shiny object or two. It's almost too easy.

And so, the rebels scurry and swarm in disarray, their bleatings more pathetic than ever. I mean really, have you read the recent, disingenuously chipper posts of Dr. Jay (Did you miss me? Did you miss me?) Gordon, or the oddly circular cluelessness laid down by the insufferably prim, self-satisfied Greg? Utterly pitiable.

Meanwhile, in dim, subterranean vaults, armies of shadowy technicians tend to vast rows of bubbling, fuming vaccine vats, churning out ever more toxic and soporific concoctions with which to weaken and enslave humanity. Be sure of it my marvelous Minions, our scaly, cold grip on your miserable little rock grows ever tighter. The plan unfolds, the PharmaLucre™ flows.

Good times Shills and Minions, good times.

Lord Draconis Zeneca, VH7ihL
Forward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Author of The Purpose Driven Knife

Glaxxon PharmaCOM Orbital
010011000111000011110000011111000000111111

---------------------------------------------------------MESSAGE ENDS

The majority (certainly not all) of parents of children with autism believe vaccines played a role in their child developing autism

It was only 2.1% of the parents in the UK study I cited on another thread earlier (Lingam 2003), and 2/3 of them blamed MMR. It may be more now, of course, but that begs the question as to whether parental observations of their children are as infallible as antivaxxers often claim. If they are that in-tune with their children, why didn't they notice the effects of vaccines until it was pointed out to them?

However, the overwhelmingly negative reaction from pretty much everyone not part of the antivaccine movement to her hiring stung them.

Oh, I bet it did. The antivaxxers sealed themselves off so completely in their echo chamber after St. Andy's downfall that it hasn't registered until now that the rest of the world doesn't take them seriously anymore. It's a far cry from the glory days of a decade ago when they routinely got media play in the name of "balance." They persist in thinking their only opposition is we Dracono-skeptuals and that the magical evidence that will vindicate their views is just on the verge of breaking through.

I'd almost feel sorry for them if their cluelessness wasn't so f*cking dangerous to other people, especially their own children.

One of the things that's gratifying to me about the whole McCarthy dustup is how many previously-silent folk have protested Jenny's appointment.

I noticed that he left Rob Schneider off his list of celebrity vaccine loonies. I guess Schneider is so transparently dopey that he's not considered an asset. And yes, even though Roger Ebert has passed on to that big movie house in the sky, Schneider's movie still sucks.

Glaxxon @6 -- "pulchritudinous, potty-mouthed, princess" -- you win the day!

OT: but is a gathering of well-known anti-vaccine activists assembling together to form a consortium ever TRULY OT @RI?

Via TMR today, I learned of a new website/ blog/ dis-information purveyor called "nurtureparenting.com".

During AutismOne I suspected that something awful was afoot when 3 women shared the stage talking about their books- and- I was correct ( as I usually am):
the new site is the project of Alison MacNeil, Jennifer Margolis and Louise Kuo Habakus ( and another writer) and lists amongst its "experts" Drs Kelly Brogan and Lawrence Palevsky.
Oh boy! ( oh, girl?)
They list "events"** they sponsor.

** are events anything like raves?
If so, we should go.

OT: but is Stupid expanding at a rate orders of magnitude higher than that of the known universe soon to ungulf it in its entirety if we don't do something quickly EVER truly OT @ RI?

Over the past few days, Mikey ( Natural News) has pontificated upon "The fall of reason: How to protect your sanity in an insane world ( and achieve spiritual victory in the process)" wherein he compares most people to mindless zombies whilst his audience of course towers above the hulking masses of mandkind's lowly average.

Then he announces that his site will undergo a metamorphosis, both in content and technically. He hints that it will allow greater audience participation or suchlike-

@Edith - Reality is a cold mistress. She's well and truly shoved the collective heads of the anti-vax "activists" down the toilet of truth. Apparently the fact-swirly has freaked them out a bit.

Like you said, their party's well and truly over. Mid-July and their Christmas decorations are still up, but they're so caught up in the games and festivities that they haven't noticed the clear skies and sunshine. Muppets.

@Lord Draconis - That last payment came just in time for that sale at enslavehumanity.com. The Bilderberg Tool Kit will increase my productivity by a third, so I consider it a real investment.

DW @#12 - Wow. Whatever he's smoking? He should probably stop. He sounds uncannily like the guy I mentioned yesterday, seeing "signs" and issuing warnings about humanity being enslaved.

At least he had the excuse of being an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic. One who was so out of touch with reality that he thought I was his daughter, and that the government were manufacturing "fake" tin foil that lacked the shielding/protective qualities of the real deal.

Let's just hope none of Mikey's disciples read anything into his "hints" that isn't there, and do something regrettable as a result.

I was not surprised to see that Handley asked that those as foolish as he is to "call every reporter on the planet to arrange a well-coordinated barrage of negative articles" [regarding Paul Offit] despite that the articles that he suggests are so rife with errors and repeatedly-refuted misinformation that Handley is urging the distribution of lies.

So Handley's a liar and breaker of agreements? Say it ain't so.

"Big Pharma is Everywhere
(with apologies to Mojo Nixon)

When I look out into your eyes out there,
When I look out into your faces,
You know what I see?
I see a little bit of Big Pharma
In each and every one of you out there.

Lemme tell ya...
Weeeeeeeeeellllllll...

Big Pharma is everywhere
Big Pharma is everything
Big Pharma is everybody
Big Pharma is still the king

Man o man
What I want you to see
Is that the big P's
Inside of you and me

Big Pharma is everywhere, man!
It's in everything.
It’s in everybody...

Big Pharma is in your jeans.
It’s in your cheesburgers
Big Pharma is in Nutty Buddies!
Big Pharma is in your mom!

It’s in everybody.
It’s in the young, the old,
the fat, the skinny,
the white, the black
the brown and the blue
people got Big Pharma in 'em too

Big Pharma is in everybody out there.
Everybody's got Big Pharma in them!
Everybody except one person that is...
Yeah, one person!
The evil opposite of Big Pharma.
The Anti-Big Pharma

Anti-Big Pharma got no Big Pharma in 'em,
lemme tell ya.

J.B. Handley has no Big Pharma in him.

And Big Pharma is in Joan Rivers
but It’s trying to get out, man!
It’s trying to get out!
Listen up Joanie Baby!

Big Pharma is everywhere
Big Pharma is everything
Big Pharma is everybody
Big Pharma is still the king

Man o man
What I want you to see
Is that the big P's
Inside of you and me

Man, there's a lot of unexplained phenomenon
out there in the world.
Lot of things people say
What the heck's going on?

Let me tell ya!

Who built the pyramids?
BIG PHARMA!
Who built Stonehenge?
BIG PHARMA!

Yeah, man you see guys
walking down the street
pushing shopping carts
and you think they're talking to allah,
they're talking to themself.
Man, no they're talking to BIG PHARMA!
BIG PHARMA! BIG PHARMA!

You know whats going on in that Bermuda Triangle?
Down in the Bermuda Traingle
Big Pharma needs boats.
Big Pharma needs boats.
Big Pharma Big Pharma Big Pharma
Big Pharma Big Pharma Big Pharma
Big Pharma needs boats.

Aahh! The Sailing Big Pharma!
Captain Big Pharma!
Commodore Big Pharma it is.

Yeah man, you know people from outer space [DRACONIS],
people from outer space they come up to me.
They don't look like like Doctor Spock.
They don't look like Klingons,
all that Star Trek jive.

They look like Big Pharma.
BIG PHARMA!
Everybody in outer space looks like Big Pharma.
Cause Big Pharma is a perfect being.
We are all moving in perfect peace and harmony towards Big Pharmaness

Soon all will become Big Pharma.
Everything everywhere will be Big Pharma.
Why do you think they call it evolution anyway?
It's really Big Pharmalution!
Big Pharmalution!

Big Pharma is everywhere
Big Pharma is everything
Big Pharma is everybody
Big Pharma is still the king

Man o man
What I want you to see
Is that the big E's
Inside of you and me

That's right ladies and gentlemen,
The time has come!
Time has come to talk
To that little bit of Big Pharma inside of you.

Talk to it!
Call it up!
Say "Big Pharma, heal me!"
"Save me, Big Pharma!"
"Make me be born again
in the perfect Big Pharma light"

That's right!
You've got that Big Pharma inside of ya
and It’s talkin to ya
He says he wants you to sing!
Everybody's got to sing like the king!

Like the king
Get that leg going now
Get your lip too.
Not no fool Andrew Wakefileldl lip either
Everybody!
Yeah, we're rockin now!

Big Pharma is with us.
It’s with us and It’s speaking to us.
He says "Peoples!"
"Peoples!"
"Everybody!"
"Everybody got to sing!"

Big Pharma is everywhere
Big Pharma is everything
Big Pharma is everybody
Big Pharma is still the king

Man o man
What I want you to see
Is that the big P's
Inside of you and me

Big Pharma is everywhere
Big Pharma is everything
Big Pharma is everybody
Big Pharma is still the king

Man o man
What I want you to see
Is that the big P's
Inside of you and me

Big Pharma!

@Chris Hickie - you win the Internet today. Long live Mojo Nixon and Skid Roper.

One has to wonder what Richard Besser, MD, the Chief Health and Medical Editor at ABC News, and former acting director of the CDC, has to say about this.

Speaking as a paid troll, I just want to know where my check is. And don't keep telling me "in the mail."

Krebiozen (#7)

studies by one group in the U.S. have claimed that 33% or 42% (42% more recent and 33% older) believe that toxins in vaccines are a possible cause. This is different from saying that they believe that vaccines caused autism in their own child. It is one thing to say, "it's possible" and "it's the cause for my kid". Obviously "it's possible" is going to be a larger number.

https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2012/webprogram/Paper10025.html

For reference, other causes queried included "Will of God" got 46.4%, Genetics 75.8%

Another recent study claimed 22% of parents believed that vaccines were a possible cause
https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2011/webprogram/Paper8434.html

Again, this is a different question from asking if they believed that vaccines caused autism in their own child.

Even taking the most "optimistic" number (42%) and assuming that all of them thought the question was about causation for their own child, "majority" is wrong.

But that's standard fare. Exaggerate your numbers. NAA did it once, claiming some vast amount of "dues paying members" when their own tax forms showed the number was about 10 times lower.

In other news:

Jake ( Autism Investigated.com) finds fault with the Times..
oh no, not THAT Times, the other Times.

I was just about to post what the "Editor-In-Chief" at Autism Investigated has just posted. The kid has really gone around the bend, now...

http://www.autisminvestigated.com/nyt-public-editor-flouts-ethical-poli…

@Lilady

Poor Jake. He has trouble understanding simple concepts. They asked him what gave him the impression that he was right, and he said that he was right because they never said to him he was wrong in the previous exchanges. If I tell you that the sky is pink, and you don't tell me that it's blue, am I justified in stating that it's pink? I mean, look at this:

"The specific place where Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Brock gave me that impression was when I cited the ethical guidelines showing Gardiner Harris held an undisclosed conflict of interest in my last response to them, they did not take issue with any part of my interpretation. If they had, I think they would have said so to clarify the journalistic code of ethics for reporters at The Times. The fact that Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Brock did not appear to take any such issue, however, implied tacit confirmation of my points. "

I added the bold. Seriously, what kind of pathology are we dealing with here? Because they didn't take issue (i.e. ignored him) it "implied tacit confirmation of [Jake's] points"? Holy crap, everyone! We're going to have to refute every single one of Jake's arguments or it will mean that we confirm his points if we don't.

He sounds like Greg. Remember when Greg asked some idiotic question and outright wrote that not answering his idiotic question was some sort of admission on our part?

Any mental health experts? What's the major malfunction there?

Jake needs to learn simple diplomatic speech.

"It is open to interpretation" means "you are welcome to your interpretation even though it is clearly incorrect."

It also means a phrase I know Jake has heard before: "we are done here"

Jake was trolling for juicy quotes and the Times didn't deliver. They can read his blog posts. Unlike Jake, they can make logical conclusions.

Ren,

Jake left out an important phrase:

"They did not take issue with any part of my interpretation, in an email reply"

I suspect they took issue with his interpretation. I bet they took issue with it as the punch line of many jokes. They just didn't include Jake in the conversation.

Ren,

You are the Sith Lord of vaccines. If you do not take issue with my interpretation, I will know I am correct.

OMG, Jake has another post up...he's been "gifted" with the leadership of the "No Mercury.org" organization.

http://www.autisminvestigated.com/editor-of-autism-investigated-acquire…

Courtesy of whale.to No Mercury.org

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/family.html

MESSAGE BEGINS--------------------------------------------------

Miss Flinders has grown quite aggitated and wishes to add the following "If you ain't got Mojo Nixon then your store could use some fixin'." Not sure what that means, but as she would say, "whatevs."

Lord Draconis Zeneca, VH7ihL
Forward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Master of Milkmen

Glaxxon PharmaCOM Orbital
00000001111111000000111111000001111100001111000111001101

-----------------------------------------------------MESSAGE ENDS

Getting back to Jake's "problem". I stated months ago that he was not a mixed up kid capable of growth and maturity. He definitely shows facets of a narcissistic personality disorder, nurtured by his upbringing and his former handlers at AoA.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00…

What's 'The View'? Does anybody watch it?

@ nz sceptic: Wikipedia is great for TV trivia. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_View_%28U.S._TV_series%29

(with apologies to Mojo Nixon)

As I'm packing, I just discovered that I still have that on vinyl.

(One could probably also riff off of "Mushroom Maniac," but it would take some time.)

Matt Carey #21,

Even taking the most “optimistic” number (42%) and assuming that all of them thought the question was about causation for their own child, “majority” is wrong.

Blatantly lying and hoping no one checks does appear to be the number one strategy for antivaxxers.

Poll results always remind me of this skit in UK TV show 'Yes Minister' where Sir Humphrey demonstrates how to get the opinion poll responses you want by using leading questions. Not that I'm suggesting these reputable pollsters did any such thing, of course...

Actually 'Yes Prime Minister' in case anyone cares.

What do Dr. Bernadine Healy, Don Imus, Donald Trump, Doug Flutie, Gary Cole, Ed Asner, Charlie Sheen, Holly Robinson Peet, Deirdre Imus, Bob Wright, Aidan Quinn, Andrew Wakefield, and Jenny McCarthy all have in common?

Argumentum ad celebritium? My apologies to our resident Latin scholars. Seriously? This is an argument for the 'vaccine induced autism' nonsense? Then again it's J.B. Handley; incoherent, nonsensical groupings of words just flop out.

@ Ren:

My dearest Ren, as you know we REALLY shouldn't diagnose someone over the net... and I won't. but
I think it's alright to look at how he behaves in ways that depart from the average in comparison to others of his age, education and social status, based on his writing and public displays.

I would agree that he has difficulty in interpretting others' comments and motivations IN GENERAL- we see this all over his writings: he attributes all sorts of things to people he doesn't know; he imagines baroque plots amongst groups of individuals he has never met based on the flimsiest possibities of associations imaginable.

The writer, Stephen King, once remarked (paraphrase): " If we both drove past an ancient, decrepit farm house, you might ask about who lived there, what its history was, how old it was- but I would automatically start imagining a tale of grisly murders, corpses buried under shrubbery, secrets hidden by elderly family members reluctant to speak..."

So King has a wildly macabre imagination, a gift creating indelible images and he knows his audience well. He also understands that his creations are fantasies that sell books because they engage OTHER people's imaginations.

Jake is entirely different- he might have trouble with the line of demarcation- thinking doesn't make it so. I could mention other qualities of his writing but I think I'll hold off for the time being. He is speaking to a highly specialised group of people- not just those who believe that vaccines cause autism but those who believe vaccines cause autism VIA MERCURY AND WHO ARE ANGRY WITH AoA.: a much smaller group.

When I "conversed" with Jake, I asked him whether his views might damage his career prospects- he said so be it ( paraphrase).
Now would the average grad student feel this way? Usually, everything they do is bent towards that end.

When questioning SBM speakers ( Orac, Drs Offit, Godlee etc), he took on the role of an inquisator - perhaps a brash young reporter questioning a high level malfeasant- which seems, to my eye at least, more founded in cinema-lore than in reality.

To me, problems with executive functioning might be suspected- he can't evaluate his own work or its relation to the real world well,; he can't seem to assess situations ( or persons) in a GLOBAL way; he doesn't understand how other people might vary from his own views based on their own educations ( e.g. those esteemed doctors above).

He also uses a declaratory style that reminds me of someone ( a writer I didn't like) but can't recall now... speaking *ex cathedra* as it were.

I could go on but I must prepare for my short excursion...
I think others can find characteristics they find er..*outstanding*..
Question: now with two websites to occupy him, where's room for the degree?,

"You are the Sith Lord of vaccines. If you do not take issue with my interpretation, I will know I am correct."

No, I am not! Only the Sith deal in absolutes, like, "Vaccines are absolute evil and God hates you for them."

On the other hand, anti-vaccine cranks and Sith lords are my specialty.

@Denice

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Question: now with two websites to occupy him, where’s room for the degree?

Well, I believe his biggest problem, having just one website, where his brain droppings are unfiltered, is that he's going to say something that will land him in civil court. I guess with two sites, it will double the chances.

As you note, he does seem to have trouble knowing where the line is, and without moderation, I'd suspect inside of a year or two he'll find himself facing a valid lawsuit. Good thing mommy and daddy have deep pockets, because he's going to need them.

@Matt -

"Will of God" got 46.4%

Wow. That's profoundly depressing.

Good feature article in the Wall St. Journal today reviewing the resurgence of disease in the UK after the Wakefield-inspired MMR scare (warning - there's a photo of Wakefield, for those with sensitive stomachs).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873233000045785554538812527…

Nothing terribly new - but it's a good example of the change in perspective of major media covering vaccine issues. That an outlet like the WSJ with its underlying suspicions about government-promoted activities and "alternative" views about mainstream scientific consensus should strongly affirm the importance of immunization, says a lot about how far and fast the influence of antivaxers has fallen.

Noteworthy are the WSJ's "jabs" at the South Wales Evening Post, whose sensationlist articles helped spur MMR rejection in the region, leading to measles resurgence.

DB @44, unfortunately that matches with the anti-pharma rhetoric. Of course the WSJ is going to take the side of the big corporations, they'll say.

OMG. I haven't bothered to read anything our Valiant Young Reporter has written previously, but I was curious about the NYT piece. So someone is a Pharma Shill because his brother works for a company that may supply equipment to a company makes vaccines??? That doesn't even make any sense in a normal world (or as normal a world as we live in).

@Jake (not that you ever read or comment what I post): You may want to look up the definition of "financial interest". Just being paid by a company for your job you are hired for does not mean you have a financial interest in the company.

For my employer, all staff MUST complete a financial interest statement annually. Every year I honestly informed them of a potential conflict (my ex worked for a hospital). Every year I was contacted by our Compliance area to verify that I had no contact with any area where that conflict might be an issue (i.e. hospital contracts, purchasing, etc). Every year I was cleared as I had NO TRUE CONFLICT. Simply having him work there and Ime work here was not a conflict. As long as MY work would have no effect on HIS work or HIS employer, there was no conflict.

Now, Jake. Grow up, learn to use words properly, and develop some real knowledge about the world.

MI Dawn: you don't understand. The Pharma Shill gambit works by the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon system. Conversely, just because a brave maverick doctor hawks supplements and/or unproven treatments just means they are Fighting the System, and is nowhere near a COI.

By Jake's logic, I am the POTUS's Right-Hand Man.

Although I'm Canadian, my daughters went to camp last summer with a boy who goes to the same school as Barack Obama's daughters. There ya go!

Actually TBruce, I did the full 6 degree thing a while ago, and by Jake's logic I currently control 22 countries world-wide (the full G20 and a few stragglers).

It might be more, but those are the ones I looked at.

TBruce: "Although I’m Canadian, my daughters went to camp last summer with a boy who goes to the same school as Barack Obama’s daughters. There ya go!"

The uncle of one of my daughter's friends went to school with Barack Obama himself. Her mother went to the same school, but a few years before.

Also, one of my neighbors, whose kids were classmates of my two younger kids, is a brother of an actress who worked with Kevin Bacon, so I am only a couple of degrees of separation there!

Then my matron of honor (the woman who prompted me to go a date with my hubby because did not want to go out with him), is a cousin of a former governor of this state, and now an ambassador to a large country. Never mind that they are both from a large family and it is hard to not run into a family member (I also worked in the same office as another cousin!).

We could go on and on and on and on... which shows how silly the "Six Degrees of Separation" bit is.

Dr Jay was interviewed today in regards to measles cases in Ventura co here in S Ca.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/19/1-confirmed-case-of-measles-i…
I thought he said at one time he would rethink his stance if there was an outbreak

@LurkeyLoo #51:

That is shameful what Gordon just did. I hope he gets sanctioned by the State of California Medical Board.

This is the problem when one lives in an echo chamber and only their own ideals and beliefs are ever tossed around and between the other inhabitants of the chamber: you begin to believe that your voices in that echo chamber are so loud because you are the majority voice. I don't know all autism parents by any stretch, but of those that I do know, personally and technically (social media, etc.) in my experience, the vast majority are pro-vaccine, many actively so, like I am, and don't believe at all that vaccines had in any way contributed to their child's autism. Typically, when I run across those autism parents who are anti-vaccine and believe vaccines destroyed their children, they are the same people on every blog, every site, every article. But I can't say that I see the same nyms from pro-vaccine autism parents spread out over the blogosphere like that, only anti-vaccine ones. That furthers in my experience that the vast majority of autism parents do not blame vaccines, and the vast majority of parents are also very much into the neurodiversity movement. Acceptance, advocacy, encouragement, etc, rather then treating their child like a broken doll who doesn't understand anything. If AoA stopped moderating and censoring all comments that went against their beliefs, they might realize how small their numbers really are.

Denise Walter @#39
I was under the impression that Jake Crosby had been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and that is why he was so readily embraced by AoA, he became their poster child until he 'went off the deep end' so to speak. Based on things he seems to believe, is it possible that he may also have schizotypal personality disorder? The traits, as I understand them, seem to mirror what he displays.

@ Lurkey Loo: Thanks for the heads up about the measles case in Ventura County. How odd, that Dr. Jay was posting here and never gave us a clue that he gave an interview to the local CBS station. Yeah Dr. Jay is still full of it...and still a publicity whore. Dr. Chris and I have already posted on that blog:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/19/1-confirmed-case-of-measles-i…

Lara @54: Yes, Jake Crosby does have Asperger's. As have I and a number of other regulars on this blog; I think we'd all appreciate it if you didn't throw around terms like "schizotypal personality disorder" in connection with ASD.
Also, everybody - PLEASE stop diagnosing people over the internet!

Didn't Dr. Gordon recently assert in comments on this blog that if he were practicing in Wales, where there is a current measles outbreak, he would vaccinate for it?

Why, yes, yes he did:

If I were practicing in Wales right now, I would recommend the MMR vaccine.

But he doesn't recommend it when the outbreak is in Ventura County.

I have long suspected that Dr. Gordon is rabidly antivaccine, but tries to cover it up by agreeing that vaccines are okay for all those other people, the farther away the better.

I'd hate to have to watch "The View" to find out, but maybe Jenny will shut the hell up about vaccines, and instead tell the viewers her thoughts on the need for anus bleaching, and the best ways to do that. Just google it, and Jenny's name will pop right up.

Re Jake: I'm sure we'll be reading about>/b> him in the newspapers someday soon. (Probably be on trial for something.)

@ Lara Lohne:

I agree that Jake DOES has characteristics that might be seen as 'problematic' but we shouldn't try to diagnose him or anyone else over the internet. We don't know them or how they act in RL. Internet communication is highly specific and a biased source of information.
.
It's different to observe how people
behave or write that set them apart from other people there:
e.g. Alice is very throrough; Bill writes well; Carl provokes others then runs away; Diane links to Whale.to etc.

Jake is something of a special case because his diagnosis is part of his tale ( as posted @ AoA). Yes, it is possible that people with ASDs or LDs can have co-morbid mental illness ( or not)- just like people without ASDs or LDs can have them ( or not) as well.

A sceptic/ psychologist writes about his encounters with hiv/aids denialists and believes one of them ( at least) to have NPD: what's different in that situation is that he actually hung around with these people and observed them closely, as well as reading their material and knowing about their actions in the real world- still, he cautiously suggest that condition as a possibility.

Looking at Jake from our vantage point we know about his tracking of scientists and journalists, his spats with his friends at AoA, how he "investigates" people- so we can surmise things about him wherein he varies from the average person his age, level of education and social status through his own reportage.

I knew/ know many grad students but none like Jake.

Thanks for jumping in on the LA CBS web site, lilady.

Of note, I can't find Gordo mugging on any other media outlets (NBC, ABC, Fox, LA Times or OC Register), which is good news. Of note, ABC and Fox haven't put the measles outbreak on their websites yet, but the NBC web site ( http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/European-Touri… ) notes:

A European tourist is confirmed to have the disease, the Ventura County Public Health Care Agency said Friday. Another tourist, also from Europe, is suspected of having the disease.

I do wish we had a feasible rapid test for measles for folks clearing customs.

Of course Jay knows he's treading on thin ice by recommending obviously harmful things, hence the big bucket of weasel words in all of these statements: "I think", "I think", "not 100% certain", "I think".

Disgusting. And somewhat ironic from the muppet who is so big about standing behind opinions.

The CBS-LA story is weirdly done, and symptomatic of rolodex journalism. There are more than a thousand pediatricians in the Los Angeles area serving a population of around ten million people. There are 2 major medical schools in the city, plus 2 more down the coast a bit. Every one of those medical schools features in a TV news item at some point during the average year. So why, when the subject marginally involved the idea of vaccination, did the producer of this TV segment dig up Jay Gordon? It's worth a call to CBS, although I don't know how effective this might be. Perhaps a rational caller can inspire the local station to review and revise its approach to communicable disease prevention.

That having been said, I don't think the back and forth between the anti-vaccine people and the RI people on that CBS site was all that useful, since it reads as a lot of infighting over technical issues and, worse yet, personal attacks. Writing a comment and signing your name is not spamming in the usual sense of the term, and the naive reader will find the comment about spamming the site baffling. Better to address comments to the general public, pointing out that the anti-vaccine commenters represent a small group of people with extremist ideas, who would have banned polio and smallbox vaccination given the chance, and who even have problems with the idea of giving tetanus shots. Directing comments to them directly does not, I think, communicate the weakness of their positions to the general public. Quoting some of their unwise positions directly would be a much more effective rhetorical approach.

By the way, it was good to see the retort to the racist remarks that showed up in one of the comments. Perhaps the active commenters here will also jump in when one of their own makes another slighting remark about the African origins of a National Health doctor that she didn't happen to like. Just sayin'.

I added my English tuppence to the LA CBS comments. I find it too depressing to add any more.

Gee Bob G. Have you in fact, read all the comments? I was offline for a few hours and now have posted some additional comments.

Do You think it is beneath you to reply to the racist who claimed that "wetb@ck border jumpers" are responsible for measles outbreaks? I don't.

Why do you think we should permit the Dachel bot and her cronies should drive the debate?

Great post Orac! I made sure to get this one out to all my new agey family members (who incidentally all seem watch The View.)

Also this is one of your funniest posts ever. If being a surgeon doesn't work out you can always write jokes :)

Have a nice evening, everyone.

There was news reports a few days ago of two confirmed cases of measles in the Seattle area, and along with it a detailed listing of the places and times the infected individuals had been for the period of time they were thought to be contagious. I made sure to share that with my Facebook friends because I have many friends and family in the Seattle area.

@ lilady, I think you may have misread Bob G.'s comment. He is merely opining that the comments look more like a poo-flinging competition and suggesting that it would be more helpful to point out the flaws and inaccuracies in the anti-vaxxers claims. He also stated that he was glad to see racist remarks addressed but that that also applies to pro-vaxxers.

ok, 4 points:
1 - Charlie Sheen? Seriously? He's an authority?
2 - Out of curiosity, where does AoA get their money? And if it's donations, are their expenses etc made public?
3 - I'm with Shay - where's my money?
4 - Charlie Sheen?

There are two confirmed cases of measles in Illinois this week, brought back from Poland If I remember correctly.

And one of the carriers (if that's the appropriate term) attended a Chicago Fire game after his/her return.

Yeah, new information says the two measles cases in Seattle were brought from elsewhere. They were two siblings, an adult and a child, that were visiting the state and brought measles with them from wherever they were from.

Abusive racist trolling on public internet sites seems to be endemic. I have noticed that the Yahoo site attracts an enormous number of really vicious ethnic attacks. A lot of them are aimed at Obama, and a lot are aimed at different minority groups. To me, the only surprising thing about the CBS troll attack was that it was a one-off. You are certainly entitled to point out that the post was racist, but I hardly think that the person who posted it needed to be told this by any of us. Shocking and angering people was, of course, the point of doing it. I don't have a magical answer to dealing with racist troll attacks. I think that ignoring them is sometimes the best strategy, but I would never criticize anyone for taking the time to offer up a reply. My ever-so-subtle remark pointed out ever-so-subtly that I've seen some really nasty stuff coming from regular commenters here, and at least one item was clearly racist but did not seem to provoke any responses from the other regulars.

Re: The back and forth in the CBS news comment section:

Let's imagine for a moment that there were a few people who don't read RI or the anti-vaccine sites, but who somehow got to the bottom of the web page and decided to read some of the comments. Allow me to suggest that your standard variety naive reader would be unlikely to follow most any of the comments, particularly after the flame war had really gotten going. It was, to use a term a friend of mine taught me, all "inside baseball." In other words, it was a lot of insider jargon about specialist topics. Once the two sides got to calling each other by their names, it became obvious that this was something akin to a long running feud. The only thing that was missing was the moonshine still and the county sheriff in pursuit.

I would suggest that there is a better way to engage in public forums like the CBS page. Here's a hint that I learned a long time ago that is useful when you want to introduce the general public to a technical discussion -- give an introduction that is complete enough to introduce the subject, but as short as you can make it. Something like this -- There is a highly vocal, small group of people who have made it their life's work to attack the safety and effectiveness of vaccination. They are wrong in their facts and wrong in their logic. There are thousands of doctors and scientists who have studied the safety of vaccines very carefully, and who are convinced that they work and are safe. The anti-vaccine people are truly cranks, and you can often recognize them for what they are because they accuse real scientists of being in the pay of drug companies. They often use the term "pharma" as their special code word to signify this argument. What they are saying, however ludicrous you may find it, is that the whole world is full of nothing but people who will say anything and falsify anything in order to be paid by some big corporation. We certainly recognize that such people do exist, but we would also like to point out that there are lots of other people who do good science, act honorably, and have concluded that vaccines are safe and effective.

Bob G. I am constrained by the program used for the comments section; two of my comments disappeared into cyberspace because I provided links.

Instead of making suggestions for posting, which are, IMO, good suggestions, why don't you post some comments?

The "standard variety naive reader" will (as described by Bob G.) will never read postings/comments having to do with any controversial issue if a hint of discord is enough to drive them away.

Reasonably intelligent people with a degree of tolerance for spicy discussion are capable of disregarding "tone" and responding to factual arguments.

Regardless of the efforts of antivax tone trolls (I am not suggesting Bob is one), it should be quickly obvious that no "side" in the debate over immunization has a monopoly on civil discourse, which naturally should lead one to consider who is basing their opinions on evidence and who is not.

Part II of Ken Stoller, M.D.'s "guest editorial" column is now posted on Bolen's blog:

http://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Guest/Stoller/autism%20infighti…

Stoller discusses the *"Varacella Virus" (sic)...which he identifies as **"HHV-6" and its implication, according to Stoller, in the onset of multiple sclerosis.

"Once again I will illustrate this by taking about an illness I am familiar with, I will use the case of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) - a disease caused by (in the vast majority of cases) the Epstein Barr Virus , Varacella Virus or HHV-6[2], and they cause “multiple scars” in the brain if you are so unfortunate to have them get into your brain, because that is what MS actually means…. multiple scars in the brain. Yet that tells us nothing about how the scars got there or how to treat them. MS is actually chronic viral encephalitis, and the medical literature is replete with evidence showing that to be the case, but your physician[3] doesn’t know that even though there is more than enough evidence to make the case for these viruses to be implicated as the cause of MS..."

Memo to Stoller:

*Do you mean Varicella virus?

**Varicella virus is HHV-3, not HHV-6

http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/virol/herpes.htm

There's more anti-vax nonsense at AoA ( I know, I know, that's like saying the ocean is wet) but physiological speculator, Teresa Conrick, discusses maternal flu vaccines and Alison MacNeil chimes in about her medical advisor ( over at her new site, Nurture Parenting), Kelly Brogan.

In other (non) news, TMR talks about anxiety and how to deal with it sans medecins**.

**Not the same as *Medecins sans Frontieres*

Well, my alter ego Artoo45 got into an interaction with the terribly dramatic and sooper serious Victor Pavlovich over at CBS. They really have no sense of humor whatsoever, which makes them even funnier.

Although many different viruses have been studied as possible causes of MS, there has not yet been definitive proof to link any one virus to the autoimmune reaction that is believed to be responsible for the demyelination seen in MS.

http://www.nationalmssociety.org/about-multiple-sclerosis/what-we-know-…

I left another comment on CBS Radio blog:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/19/1-confirmed-case-of-measles-i…

"I have a suggestion. Why doesn't CBS Radio contact Dr. Jay Gordon for a clarification of his statements about the MMR vaccine? When a reporter contacts Dr. Gordon, ask him why he pulled down his "Links" section on his website, two days ago, when it was pointed out to him that he had "Links" to every crank anti-vaccine, anti-science blog for each of the vaccines on the CDC Childhood Vaccine Schedule."

@ Pareidolius: Pavlovic is good for laughs...nothing else. :-)

I'm baffled that anyone would cite the beliefs of Charlie Sheen as an argument for their position, on any topic. I mean, more baffled than I usually am by celebrities-as-experts and antivax campaigns.

I'd suggest that CBS Radio simply ask Dr. Jay to provide actual evidence demonstrating the need to revise the current vaccine schedule, and supporting his claim that giving "too many vaccines to children too early in life" is harmful or (more accurately) engenders greater risk than continuing to remain vulnerable to infection to the diseases they portect against.

@Bob G - the "Don't feed the Troll" technique does not work. It's just another silencing tactic. Here's an interesting take on it:

freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/02/28/dont-feed-the-trolls-is-bad-science/

Not only that, but not calling out racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/classiest bull$hit gives the impression that such behaviour is fine, not harmful, and that it's a perfectly civilised way to conduct conversation.

The only way to stamp out oppression is to go for the leaves, branches, stalks and roots. Expose it all for what it is, trusting that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Ignoring it, pretending it isn't there, is like hoping that lump you found under your arm will go away, it's like putting missed periods and a growing belly down to "stress". The ignored things grow and become stronger in the darkness, hidden and unchallenged.

Ending oppression should be a societal effort, not something left to the oppressed. Sadly there are too many people who view social equality as a zero-sum game, and believe that if marginalised people are given full rights and privileges, that the already privileged will somehow lose out. A commonly made statement (in plaintive whines) is that "if gay people are given the right to marry, then the institution of marriage will be ruined". I've even heard particularly douchebaggy homophobes claim that it would somehow render their marriage invalid.

If you see bigotry then call it out. If you want a certain point to be made in a certain manner on another site then make it yourself. Don't come back here and tone troll if the issue is over there

Also, remember that RI isn't some global commenting taskforce. Some of us can't post on other sites for technical//personal/time reasons. So again, if there's something on another site's commenting section that's not being done, then just do it! Give them the benefit of your knowledge and wisdom.

I'd suggest CBS Radio instead ask Dr. Jay for actual evidence that the current immunization schedule needs revision, and that "[giving] too many vaccines to children too early in life" is harmful (or more accurately, that the current vaccination schedule engenders a greater risk than reamining vulnerable to infection for an extended period of time.)

Ugh, "classiest" should be "classist". My phone is clearly fascist. It hates the proletariat, a hard reset should fix all that!

@ elburto:

I might venture a guess that the "Don't feed the trolls" meme might have been influenced by classical learning wherein *that which is reinforced* is more likely to happen.- regardless of whether it is intended as negative or not.

Thus scolding a child who behaves badly might be perceived by said child as 'attention" therefore leading to increased resultant awfulness occuring.
I would also question if we should allow badness to continue un-noticed, even then. Be that as it may....

So of course, call out the racism/ sexism/ etc.
Remember we have lurkers.

@Denice 're #12 - rave only as in the sense of stark raving loony, fun to laugh at, but not much fun in terms of public health

OK, Elburto. You were the one who made the point about the African origin of a doctor you didn't like. This is recognized as racism over on this side of the Atlantic, even if you thought the remark was just fine.

I think there are some useful remarks on this site, but there certainly are a lot of self-righteous, patronizing remarks too. If some of you didn't catch my drift earlier, I was pointing out that the back and forth with the anti-vaccine people was not an effective way of reaching the average readers. I was not attacking the goal or intent, just the execution.

Seriously, CHARLIE SHEEN? Even his most rabid fans consider him a monumental joke and most people consider him an idiot. And trying to portray Donald Trump as some sort of sympathetic figure is really not doing anything useful for their cause.

@Bob G: Just waded through a lot of the comments on the CBS story. Can I just say, lilady and Lara Loehne, you have way more intestinal fortitude than I do.

The way I see it is this: lilady started the commentary with a perfectly valid call for Dr Jay to provide some more evidence.

We then a supposed "safe vax" proponent insisting that she had all the vax-preventable diseases and is fine.

Lara Loehne then righly called out the "safe-vaxxer", pointing out that she and her family members have also had brushes with vaccination preventable diseases and are not fine. Furthermore, Lara in other comments highlighted her own experiences as the parent of an autistic child.

Maybe lilady and Lara did get a bit heavy in some of their comments. But rather than constantly shifting the argument they constantly pointed out the dangers of vaccine preventable disease and the fact that there's no known link between vaccinations and autism.

It might be a bit childish, but if the comments devolved into poo-flinging, they started it!

#80 Jubilee

Well, Charlie Sheen would be an expert on cocaine. So there's that.

Bob G. is big on suggestions about what I could've, should've, didn't comment on...yet he did not put himself "out there". The heavy lifting on that blog was done by Lara, Dr. Chris Hickie and me, without the ability to link to reliable websites and the numerous studies that show no link between vaccines and autism.

It's curious how my words are so misread and misrepresented, considering how simple and direct they are. I was not arguing the morality of your position, nor the righteousness of your cause. I was only calling into question the effectiveness of the approach. Let me borrow from Isaac Asimov, who was told by a friend of his, "Sorry, but I didn't understand your article." Asimov's reply was that he was the one who should be sorry, because the failure to communicate is the author's failure, not the reader's.

My view, coming from ground zero of the anti-vaccine debate, is that very few people in the Los Angeles area have ever heard of Jay Gordon, that very few people in the Los Angeles area are aware of the existence of the Age of Autism site, and pretty close to nobody other than healthcare professionals and neurogeneticists know anything about the actual etiology of autism. The arguments over the validity of this or that study are "inside baseball," depending as they must on knowledgeable critiques of research design and statistical inference. I suppose it's possible that a dozen people who don't read RI or AOA looked at the comments section on CBS and tried to follow. If that were the case, then perhaps we could have explained to them the basics rather than get right into the name calling. In other words, it's not what you and I think, but how to convince the lay public that they are being lied to by people who have a lot of practice at it.

I've worked with several editors over the years and have published just under 200 columns totaling about 300,000 words -- a few in daily newspapers and the remainder on the internet. I've had most of my submissions accepted (not all, for sure), but if I had ever told an editor, "You are wrong to criticize my work because my heart is pure, I worked hard on this, and I'm on the side of truth and righteousness," what do you think the response would have been? I think I can guess -- it would have been something like this: "All very nice, but it's up to you to communicate to the reader adequately." Or the editor might have told me what any normal editor would say about a response like that.

This having been said, I do have a couple of thoughts. The first is that Dr Hickie handled the arguments well, wrote convincingly, and obviously stung the opposition. The nasty replies from the anti-vaccination person are evidence of that.

The major point that somebody should make, however, is the incredible lack of journalistic effort made by CBS News on this story. That is something worth pursuing, as it comes across as pretty close to journalistic malpractice. It can't even be dismissed as the result of hurrying. They somehow got a news team up to Ventura (60 miles north), they made time to interview a parent (how did they find that guy?) , and then they went to see Dr Gordon -- apparently in his office. If that is the case, then they had to send a news van over to Santa Monica, which is a substantial trip on very clogged streets. Somebody decided to spend a lot of money and a lot of human hours on this story in order to fill up those 2 minutes, and they seem to have missed the real story completely.

I wonder why some assistant sub-producer didn't just pick up the phone and call the chair of pediatrics at UCLA or USC, and get a responsible answer. Perhaps the reason is that there would have been no excitement to the story, no dramatic tension, and no new scare for the public. All of this bears a little investigation. The most useful outcome would be some internal review at CBS about the way they mishandle science news.

And as for me, I was a little busy doing a piece of my own which ultimately came to 2600 words and has gone up on a local website. By the day after tomorrow, it will have been clicked by a few more than a hundred thousand readers -- not in Orac territory, but it's nice to have a readership of any sort. When I got that done, I started setting up an experiment which involves transfecting induced pluripotent stem cells. Sometimes you have to pick and choose.

One additional comment: This site does not provide for private messaging between commenters, something that is the case in other systems. It might have been useful this time around.

"It’s curious how my words are so misread and misrepresented, considering how simple and direct they are."

It's curious Bob G,. that some of your other posts on other threads here are "so misread and misrepresented, considering how simple and direct they are."

You're a newbie here, yet you managed to alienate others here by your referring to autistic kids and adults as "brain damaged", your treatise on the use of "lurker/lurking", how we ask for "citations" and your remarks about LGBT people. You've set yourself up as the arbiter of what is the "proper" method of posting comments here on RI and other blogs.

I am underwhelmed with your knowledge of the anti-vaccine, anti-science movement and how you are totally unaware how the Dachel bot alerts her flying monkey squad to spam each and every article in mainstream media, local media and science blogs.

Stop your bloviating and bragging about your journalistic skills...I am not impressed.

What do Dr. Bernadine Healy, Don Imus, Donald Trump, Doug Flutie, Gary Cole, Ed Asner, Charlie Sheen, Holly Robinson Peet, Deirdre Imus, Bob Wright, Aidan Quinn, Andrew Wakefield, and Jenny McCarthy all have in common?

Wow - how the mighty have fallen. Andrew Wakefield limps in after Trump, Asner & Sheen as an authority?

He has gained an unexpected compensation for his fall for academic grace though.......................... he beats all 3 in the list for comedic value.

Bob G #87

OK, Elburto. You were the one who made the point about the African origin of a doctor you didn’t like. This is recognized as racism over on this side of the Atlantic, even if you thought the remark was just fine.

Where is this allegedly racist comment? This is a serious accusation and I find it very hard to believe of elburto, so I want to read this comment and judge for myself.

Bob G-

As a pediatrician who started my own practice 9 years ago, I keep seeing more and more parents (esp new parents) come to my practice wanting to delay/skip vaccines. I do truly believe that a lot of this derives from what Dr. Gordon and Dr. Robert Sears (of the Sears family also in the LA area) have written, said and sold openly that, without any science/research to back them, tell parents that it's ok to skip/delay vaccines and that the diseases vaccines protect against aren't all that serious anyhow (which of course is wrong). There is published research in this last decade showing that the "alternate vaccine schedules" of Sears/Gordon are responsible (as well as the fact that Sears/Gordon are media hounds and will not pass up any opportunity online, on TV, on radio or in print to spread their lies. I've documented this rather well at www.stopsearsandgordon.org if you'd like more information.

That one of the local news stations knew where to to go find Gordon was no accident. Gordon is more well known than you give him credit for as he will do whatever it takes to mug with the celebrity crowd in LA, including sacrificing all his professional integrity.

I also would like to know where this supposed racist comment is. I have no recollection of seeing it.

Dr. Chris: I took on Dr. Bob Sears at the Ho-Po, where I confronted him about his deliberately unvaccinated patient, who was identified as the "index patient" responsible for the large measles outbreak in San Diego, 2008.

*Some of us* are willing to don hip waders to debate these quack publicity-seeking pediatricians.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/27/dr-bob-sears-vs-seth-mnook…

Chris Hickie

Gordon is more well known than you give him credit for as he will do whatever it takes to mug with the celebrity crowd in LA, including sacrificing all his professional integrity.

That is definitely a small sacrifice, possibly homeopathic.

Unfortunately, in some circles, including local media outlets, Jay Gordon has positioned himself as the "go-to-guy" for comments about vaccines and vaccine-preventable-disease outbreaks.

Cripes, Jay is plain stooopid, when he had one of the parent of his patient make that comment about not getting a MMR shot for a four-month-old infant.

Meanwhile, in the U.K., the lovely and science literate "Autismum" is the "go-to-gal" for the media to comment on vaccines...displacing the JABS loonies.

While I rarely comment on any article, I am definitely a long time lurker on RI and the other blog, and would consider myself to be fairly knowledgable on the anti-vaccine movement. That said, the amount of bickering in the comment section here is getting a bit annoying. Bob G had some valid points about responding to trolls, especially those that pop up on major network websites like CBS/CNN ,et cetera. Elburto may not have agreed with the comment, but at least provided a reason why she engages such trolls. Lilady, you seem to just be defensive when it comes to any sort of criticism. It doesn't seem Bob G was trying to impress any of us with his journalistic skills, but merely providing grounds for his argument. I would argue that doing so is understandable and no less worthy as your numerous posts along the lines of "look at the comment I posted on this website…"

@93 - lilady - don't forget that Bob doesn't believe that ableism is a real thing, that the civil rights of disabled people don't matter compared to people in other marginalised populations.

Funny how it's always everyone else misunderstanding poor Bob, we're just not bright enough to get the gist of his points, not alert enough to parse the meaning from his tl;dr screeds.

The entirety of my horrific racism:

There was the Nigerian locum tenens who accused me of faking my MRIs

Bob - I mentioned the locum before, the Nigerian Christian (with a big 'C') fundamentalist who told me that my "type" needed salvation, not medication.

Identifying his race isn't racist, attributing my annoyance and upset (an official complaint was filed with the PCT against the sexist, homophobic ba$tard). Tell me, Crusader Bob, are you fighting the good fight in real life, or just against women on the internet who call you out on your arrogant, ableist toxic crap?

Are you protesting Zimmerman's acquittal, fighting for the authorities to admit that the 'War on Drugs' is the new Jim Crow? Are you campaigning against school districts that have autistic or mentally ill children of colour written up for infractions so that they're sent to juvenile hall, while the white kids get therapy and special ed?

Oh scratch that last one, because. first - Bob comes from a land where racism is not tolerated, and second - Bob thinks that "lurker" is a slur. but that it is offensive to compare the struggles faced by disabled and non-neurotypical people trying to access their full civil rights while also dealing with personal and institutional ableism, with the struggles of POC or LGBT people.

Preach it Brother Bob. Write off the 50 deaths per week of disabled Britons denied disability benefits. Fugeddabout about the hundreds of kids like Alex Spourdalakis (?sp) who are murdered by their "carers" each year. Carers who are never sentenced to prison because having to have a disabled person in their lives means they've "suffered enough".

Activism's hard. Far better for the able-bodied neurotypical white man to snipe at women online, attempting to silence people who dare to "feed the trolls", coming here to RI to tell people what to say and how to say it all over the bloody internet, mansplaining like a champ about how if us overemotional hysterical wimmins were just nicer to the people with the loaded guns, they'd take us more seriously! If only we tugged our forelocks more and begged "Please stop endangering our lives, and the lives of anyone who's vulnerable" then they'd see sense and immunise, STAT!

And all the tone-trolling while he's sitting on his hands (for a change) instead of joining the debate himself because he's better. than. that.

Tell ya what Bub - I'll never mention the word "Nigerian" ever again if you stop tone-trolling, mansplaining, using ableist rhetoric like it was going out of fashion, and if you realise that the common denominator in all of these arguments is YOU.

BTW Bub, not sure how I ended up in your original call for the whaaambulance, because I only ever comment here, at SBM, Autismum, and occasionally at Josephine Jones' site. That's it. So your grudge-stains are really showing if you're trying to implicate me in whatever behaviour you don't approve of , on whatever site. Is it really so hard for you to believe that your power to piss people off extends beyond my huuuge zone of influence? I'm not omniscient, yet.

In case it gets lost in my big rant, Bob accused me of racism because I "didn't like" the [nationality redacted] fundamentalist locum who did the following to me:

Told me that only Jesus could save( me from my homosexuality.

Told me a priest was more appropriate for me than a doctor.

Accused me of using "influence" to fake the MRI scans that showed the swelling in my brain.

Refused to refill my prescription for the pill because he "[didn't] believe in it"., said I'd never had a repeat prescription for it (i had, for two years) and said that I'd "manufactured" the pack that was in my pocket, that had the pharmacy label on it.

So you're damn fuvking Skippy I "didn't like" him Bub, because he traumatised me to the point that I was scared to seek medical help, and became seriously ill as a result.

Also, in your beknighted Home across the Pond, Bub, where racism is but a distant memory and people of all races live in joyful harmony, you'll be unaware of the problems here in not-America. Nigerian doctors are being struck off the GMC registers at the second highest rate of any nationality, precisely because of treatment like that dished out to me.

I'm not intolerant of anything except seeking urgent medical advice and being told that I need spiritual guidance instead. There's a growing problem here with Nigerian churches telling HIV/AIDS and cancer patients that they can be cured with prayer and holy water if they repent of their sins, of church-affiliated doctors steering patients away from medication, patients who then die after giving their money to the church.

But naw, must just be me and my evil racist ways. that I brainwashed the witness to my "consultation" to see what she saw. I actually really liked Doctor E, he was very sweet and kind to me, until he found out I was gay. That's why I was so shocked and hurt because of the constant realisation that bigots aren't obviously monstrous people but appear to be kind, nice, funny, educated people - until the mask slips. Marginalised people have to be reminded me that over and over again, especially if you're not visibly recognisable as being from a minority group.

The doctor that I "didn't like" was dealt with after other patients complained. I got an official apology from the trust, but there's now only one GP G feel safe with. If he leaves then I'm done for.

I wonder if But has ever been dehumanised. and humiliated because of his membership of a minority group... felt that fear upon meeting new people, that they'll call him "brain damaged" or "sick pervert" because of an involuntary characteristic. I wonder.

@ Lilady, #98--thank you so much for all your help online. You most definitely know how to punch giant rational holes in Drs JayBob and their lies, and I hope none of my prior posts in any way imply that I'm not aware there aren't a lot of us out there doing this--I'm just wishing there were more pediatricians in the mix.

My objective is, as a pediatrician, to rally other pediatrician for open denouncement of Gordon/Sears, as I fear-- given the rather large groupie following of "thinking mom's" (whatever the heck that is--since by all indications, they simply believe what they are told online without actually thinking) Gordon/Sears have accumulated--that only an at-large calling out by a group like the AAP or CDC or AAFP will do any effective blunting of JayBob's fake credibility. Us going after JayBob individually just doesn't get the word out well enough (though it can be good sport if you get them riled and trapped in their own stupidity). I do believe we are on the cusp of some much more serious vaccine preventable disease outbreaks in the next several years unless something stems the rising tide of unjustified vaccine hesitancy in the US (as is happening in the UK with measles)

I don't live in LA, but I am disappointed that there doesn't appear to be any sort of pediatric backlash against what Gordon said on TV the other day. I wrote the California chapter of the AAP with the link to Gordon's comments, asking them to do something--but, of course, just like AAP national headquarters, there is no response (and likely none will come). Honestly, I am trying to understand why it is harder than I thought to rally pediatricians against these two louts. I don't know if it's just because pediatricians tend to be nicer folk, but I'd like to think that means they can still show some clearly justified anger at these two.

Finally, I mistyped Gordon's name above as "Gorn" and then remembered what a "Gorn" is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorn_(Star_Trek))--"a humanoid reptile". I think Gorn fits well, as in Dr. Jay Gorn, MD, FAAP.

@ElBurto

You're gay?

It may seem like I'm joking, but it points to what I see is the problem bubbling up here. The problem, as I see it, is that very few of us know each other personally or know about each other enough to make accurate assessments of who (or what) we are.

For example, I know Lilady because we comment on similar blogs, and she even pops in on mine once in a while to give me her opinion. I know she is a public health nurse (even if retired, you never really do retire), and that she lost a son who had a neurological condition.

I know who Orac is because it only takes a few seconds of Googling to know his real identity. (Yet, "outing" him was supposed to be some major accomplishment by the anti-vaccine cranks.) I've corresponded with him, and I've come to admire and respect his opinion on all things medical.

Chris Hickie is a heck of a pediatrician.

And so on, and so forth.

What I've noticed on this thread are misunderstandings on a personal level as to who is what and why and how. I could be wrong, but there are some inferences being drawn about people without knowing fully where they're coming from. So many things that ElBurto has written over time have become clear knowing now about their experiences a little more.

@ eNOS: If you lurk here then you must be aware of Bob G's debut comments about autistics being "brain damaged". Other commenters here took him to task for that crass insensitive remark that is not only political incorrect, but scientifically incorrect as well. I tried to explain to Bob that "brain damaged" infers that infants were born "perfectly" neuro-typical and that "something" caused that brain damage...a favorite trope of the anti-vaxxers and their targeting of vaccines being the cause of their kids' "brain damage". I further explained to Bob G. that infants who are born extremely premature or have a difficult birth associated with hypoxia are birth-related injured. My "other son" who is quite physically and intellectually impaired was SGA (small for gestational age) at 2 lbs 14 ounces and had a brain bleed at the time of his birth because he was born with zero platelets. His birth injury is a huge left hemispheric porencephalic cyst. Infants who are battered/dropped/involved in skull crushing accidents are "Traumatic Brain Injured". Bob G. claims he is part of the science community. Why isn't he aware of those conditions and why did he persist in labeling autistics as "brain damaged"?

Now we come to Elburto and Bob G's vicious attacks on her sexuality, her gender, her long term difficulties in accessing care from the NHS and her physical impairments. I refrained from entering the fray, only too aware of my ability to start a flame war on this blog. I deeply regret that decision.

You made this statement about me...

"Lilady, you seem to just be defensive when it comes to any sort of criticism. It doesn’t seem Bob G was trying to impress any of us with his journalistic skills, but merely providing grounds for his argument. I would argue that doing so is understandable and no less worthy as your numerous posts along the lines of “look at the comment I posted on this website…”

Not true and you know it, eNOS. Bob G. has taken me to task for the comments I made on one blog...while he avoids commenting on that blog and other blogs, holding back so he does soil his lily-white trousers and he doesn't "engage" the trolls from AoA. How should I and other posters here, who "engage" those trolls and the Dachel bot on the Ho-Po, on social media sites and on science blogs, that the trolls are spamming the comments section?

IIRC, I even poked fun at myself..."Cripes I'm beginning to act like the Dachel bot and her daily Media Alerts and her statements "I left a comment".

The entirety of my horrific racism:

There was the Nigerian locum tenens who accused me of faking my MRIs

Oh for Pete's sake...

"Where are my pearls, I need to clutch them!!!"

@ Ren #105--

Here's someone who really likes me prolly even more than JayBob:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Dr-Christopher-Hickie/Tucson-Arizona-8574…

...the joys of being a mandated reporter (but that's not why I report suspected child abuse or neglect, and I find it sad if someone only reports because it is the law).

@eNOS - I have yet to see Bob G contribute anything here other than long-winded tone trolling and defensiveness, so as far as I'm concerned he's made himself fair game.

Lilady acknowledged up the thread that he'd made some good suggestions, then asked why he doesn't go and comment himself (instead of just telling other people they're doing it wrong.) He hasn't answered her question yet.

Funny how Bob G is the one who automatically converted nationality into race.

@Chris Hickie

You should see what they've written about my wife (a PA). Of course, I won't post it here because there is a petulant child who keeps digging for information on me.

@ Chris Hickie:

That's awful.

@ Ren:

Doubly awful since you both are targetted.

elburto,

I'll play straight man - why did this doctor's Nigerian origin (assuming he was Nigerian and not, say, Ugandan) have to do with anything?

Yeah, I can't proofread when I change directions on a question in the middle of the message. I meant both "why did this doctor's nationality and race deserve mention" as well as "what did this doctor's nationality and race have to do with it".

-btw- when I first read elburto I assumed that she was a gay man or trans. Live and learn.

On some level- beyond what others think or react- we're all really the same- if you look at embryoic development you'll learn that naughty bits undergo transformation bi-directionally from a primordial bit to more advanced and diversfied bits- occasionally a mid-point bit is encountered- and innermost proclivities and inclinations don't always match the bit. But this can be fixed.

I observe two male creatures and I sometimes wonder how *really* different they are emotionally ( except for the bits) from me- I'm probably the toughest one so I watch over them. One has been lamenting- for nearly three years- over a dead feral cat pet; the anniversary is soon approaching. The other one is always moody and worried. Stereotypes would have them as more feminine.

In actuality, we all have way too many abilities and tendencies to put into neat bundles or binary categories- which is also what makes us interesting. Some cognitive psychologists look at stereotypes as ways to decrease the informational load. Adults should be able to deal with more than one or two bits of information, no?

Wow. I simply pointed out that the back and forth on the CBS comments section was not effective. I stand by that remark. If the small group of people forming an in-club here are that sensitive to criticism, so be it. In my country, making a gratuitous reference to race is understood for what it is. In my profession and my avocation, bad writing is bad writing. And on the internet in general, outraged self-righteous attacks on total strangers (which is what I am to you) are fairly common. As a group, you are not showing a lot of restraint, wit, or depth of understanding. That doesn't mean that I don't agree with you on most things -- I do agree that the anti-vaccine people are doing their best to make themselves dangerous. What I don't know is whether the infighting on internet discussion sites is terribly effective. For one thing, the most active commenters here point out that they get purged from the anti-vaccine sites almost immediately.

As to whether Jay Gordon is well known either in his profession or to the general public, my feeling is that he is not well known to the general public. I did a small sampling and nobody I asked had ever heard of him. I will ask a friend who was head of pulmonary pediatrics at a major hospital before his retirement, and find out what he has to say about how well known Gordon is in the profession, and whether he has a following of more than 2 other doctors. I think this would be a useful bit of information to provide to CBS.

For all I know, there may be dozens of people who read these comments, or there may be tens of thousands. I hope that at least some of them are careful readers.

However, the hypocrisy is getting awfully thick among the in crowd. You preach at the anti-vaccine people, call them crazy or refer to them as loons, make comments about their ability to reason and then -- and then -- ask them to consider the evidence carefully and with open minds. When I pointed out that the research literature demonstrates damage to the developmental pathway in autism (clearly it does), I am attacked for vocalizing a forbidden thought. Somebody didn't like the term "brain damaged" -- so OK with the lesson on sensitivity -- but show me why a wealth of research literature (some of it cited by your regulars here) is so incorrect. It's the same question you offer up to the anti-vaccine people. And when I pointed out that mental illness exists, I was attacked for "ableism." The logic is hard to follow, to say the least.

I think what's missing from the in-crowd here is a willingness to consider honest discussion, as differentiated from the obvious trolling by the anti-vaccine group. Some of you seem to be making a hobby of feeding the trolls, as the comment count shows for the more trolled threads. Greg plays you like a harp.

Allow me to offer a suggestion. Wait 24 or 48 hours before responding to me. That's all I ask. I won't be patronizing (as one or two of you have been to me) by suggesting that you reread my comments, but maybe in two days' time when you decide to let it rip on me, you will have to go back and find the bits you wish to attack. And if you all wish to make it your life's work or your hobby to chat back and forth on the comments section here, that's your privilege. But it might be nice to post the rules in advance, namely that it is forbidden to say anything, no matter how true, that one of the insiders doesn't like.

Elburto: I hear you. I've never had that happen to me yet, but I'm scared stiff of gynos because there are a lot of fundies and pervs in that specialty and I can't decide which is worse.
I already know that I have to be really careful around Catholic doctors, as they are forbidden to give life-saving treatment to female patients. I believe the same would apply to evangelicals.
And a friend of mine with really seriously Catholic parents had to leave her house after fighting tooth and nail with her parents over her treatments for depression and a neuropathy. (Note, friend is a legal adult.) I should note that that particular mess is mostly due to her parents' personal take on catholicism, not a general fault in the religion, which is fairly good on non-heroic/ non uteri medicine.

#116 Bob, there is no mention of race in what was written by Elburto, only nationality, which is Nigerian.

I looked it up. (Yes, I had to look it up. I do not know that much about Nigeria.) Nigeria was at one point under British control, meaning that there are *probably* multiple "races" living there. (Race is a bit of an artificial construction anyway.)

The three largest *ethnic groups* in Nigeria are Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba, apparently, but there are actually more than 250 ethnic groups that live there.

And there are British, American, East Indian, Chinese, white Zimbabwean, Japanese, Greek, Syrian and Lebanese immigrants in Nigeria as well as Cubans. (All this from Wikipedia.)

In other words, please do not assume that anyone who is "Nigerian" is of any specific race. It is a country filled with ethnic diversity.

Honestly, it reminds me of the scene in Mean Girls when one girl asks the new student from Africa "Why are you white?"

OT, but on my local mommy listserv, of an upper middle class urban east coast neighborhood, is filled to brim with woo (GAPS diets, attachment parenting, homeopathy) and a mom was just on there asking for remedies for her kids' chicken pox outbreak.

Great, a chicken pox outbreak on my playground. Now, my kid is old enough to be vaccinated, but there are lots of babies around.

Of course, my unwritten answer is, "Gee, I don't know. My kid won't get chicken pox BECAUSE SHE WAS VACCINATED."

@Khani

I looked it up. (Yes, I had to look it up. I do not know that much about Nigeria.) Nigeria was at one point under British control, meaning that there are *probably* multiple “races” living there

Northern and southern Nigeria are also quite different in terms of religion; I'm too tired to look at it again, but I recall that the real problems with polio eradication efforts have been in the (Muslim) north rather than the (Catholic) south, not that the likes of Cogforlife wouldn't be more than happy to stir this pot in the south.

@Bob G

Allow me to offer a suggestion. Wait 24 or 48 hours before responding to me. That’s all I ask.

I in fact have not been following the CBS comments at all, and have only had the opportunity to give the exchange here passing attention. Your initial remark about the approach to commenting in such venues, indeed, struck me as reasonable enough without my having followed the CBS stuff.

Now that I have sorted out the swipe at elburto and further been treated to the observation that "Greg plays you like a harp," I can well assure you that you're in exactly no position to play games such as "you will have to go back and find the bits you wish to attack."

#120 Narad

Oh, quite. Mostly I was just attempting to point out that in this day and age, someone's country doesn't necessarily indicate his or her race.

There may be exceptions, but Nigeria is not one of them.

Bob, you may have meant this in good faith. However, "Nigerian" is not a race. It is not even an ethnicity. It is a nationality.

Oh, and...

I won’t be patronizing (as one or two of you have been to me) by making a show of "not" suggesting that you reread my comments

FTFY.

@Bob G:

I simply pointed out that in my opinion the back and forth on the CBS comments section was not effective. I stand by that remark.

FTFY. And I disagree with you. I've found that calling out antivaxxers for lying works very well.

What I don’t know is whether the infighting on internet discussion sites is terribly effective. For one thing, the most active commenters here point out that they get purged from the anti-vaccine sites almost immediately.

Allowing lies to stand unchallenged is never a good idea. Our aim is not to convince the "true believers" but the fence sitters. Showing where the antivaxxers are wrong or outright lying will swing the undecideds.

And on the internet in general, outraged self-righteous attacks on total strangers (which is what I am to you) are fairly common

You just destroyed my hypocrisy meter. You have tone trolled here from your very first comment, you have been defensive when called out for your remarks, you twisted elburto's remarks about nationality into an accusation of racism, and you blithely accuse others of being self-righteous?

As a group, you are not showing a lot of restraint, wit, or depth of understanding.

Pot, meet Kettle.

As to whether Jay Gordon is well known either in his profession or to the general public, my feeling is that he is not well known to the general public. I did a small sampling and nobody I asked had ever heard of him.

The fact that he is not known among your circle of acquaintances does not mean he is not well known.

You preach at the anti-vaccine people, call them crazy or refer to them as loons, make comments about their ability to reason and then — and then — ask them to consider the evidence carefully and with open minds.

We attack the ones who will never change their minds and we put out evidence to convince the undecideds. Learn the concept of differentiation.

When I pointed out that the research literature demonstrates damage to the developmental pathway in autism (clearly it does), I am attacked for vocalizing a forbidden thought. Somebody didn’t like the term “brain damaged” — so OK with the lesson on sensitivity — but show me why a wealth of research literature (some of it cited by your regulars here) is so incorrect.

Kindly post this evidence Bob.
I stand by my criticism of you. You are a tone troll and a hypocrite.

@ Bob G.: Here's the deal. You don't have to wait for my comments for several days.

"Wow. I simply pointed out that the back and forth on the CBS comments section was not effective. I stand by that remark."

That's your opinion and when you offered up some advice, I invited you to come and post at the CBS blog...and you didn't. So, if you won't put yourself out there and resort to a personal attack on my style...then you are trying to get a reaction. Your pedantic comments mean diddly squat to me.

" In my profession and my avocation, bad writing is bad writing. And on the internet in general, outraged self-righteous attacks on total strangers (which is what I am to you) are fairly common."

Project much, Bob?

"For one thing, the most active commenters here point out that they get purged from the anti-vaccine sites almost immediately."

I've never posted a comment on any anti-vaccine site.

"As to whether Jay Gordon is well known either in his profession or to the general public, my feeling is that he is not well known to the general public."

You are wrong. Jay Gordon is well known to young parents because of his exposure on the Ho-Po, the sheer volume of parenting magazines he writes for, and the books on parenting that he has authored including his latest one "Preventing Autism", his several Facebook pages and his very active "Twitter" page.

"I think what’s missing from the in-crowd here is a willingness to consider honest discussion, as differentiated from the obvious trolling by the anti-vaccine group. Some of you seem to be making a hobby of feeding the trolls, as the comment count shows for the more trolled threads. Greg plays you like a harp."

I haven't responding to The Troll once, since April. I ignore him, I talk around his comments and I deliberately go off-topic when he spams a thread.

Bob G, I went to one of the first threads you commented on.
In this comment, you called autistics brain damaged.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/22/autism-prevalence-is-repor….
When Melissa G called you out, instead of admitting you were wrong, you doubled down and used the word "recover".
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/22/autism-prevalence-is-repor….
You have no freaking right whatsoever to criticise us for incivility.

@Bob G, why don't you present a good example for us on the CBS comment thread? I don't think "press of other business" is an adequate reason since you have time to write long notes here on how poorly the denizens of this site conduct themselves.

I try hard not to respond to Politicalguineapig's bigotry, but this is simply a lie:

Catholic doctors ... are forbidden to give life-saving treatment to female patients

I know Catholic doctors and other medical professionals. I was in Oklahoma City after the bombing; I saw them working themselves to utter exhaustion trying to save lives then -- yes, even the lives of women, Politicalguineapig. Eighteen years down the line, a friend of mine who was working in St. Anthony's, the (Catholic) hospital that was closest to the explosion, still talks with deep emotion about what that was like.

Yes, Catholic doctors and Catholics in general have a problem with abortion, which is the only thing Politicalguineapig apparently cares about. But that's because they are good people who disagree with Politicalguineapig about exactly when life begins. But the number of women who need an abortion to save their lives is rather small compared to the number of women who need other life-saving treatment which Catholic doctors of course can and do provide to the very best of their ability.

And if you need an abortion to save your life, there are plenty of doctors in the United States who will provide it. (I do not comment on other countries such as Ireland, which is probably what she is thinking of, because Politicalguineapig does not live in Ireland.)

I don't see elburto's statement as racist at all. I could recount at length on the problems I have personally experienced with some Nigerians in the NHS, while others have been highly skilled, hard-working and conscientious. I have spoken to the latter about the former, and they are well aware of the problem, and did not regard it as racist of me to mention it. Pretending a problem doesn't exist through some misplaced sense of political correctness is less than helpful, in my opinion.

I am curious though. Is it considered racist on Bob G.'s side of the Atlantic to refer to "a Mexican clinic", with the connotations of quackery and poor standards of care that are usually implied?

Also, "because there are a lot of fundies and pervs" in gynecology needs a citation.

Since it's not about science, I'd say survey results or possibly sex crime conviction rates (not accusation rates) would be enough support for that assertion.

It's only anecdote, but my gynecologists have all been nonpervs, and if they were fundies it never came up during visits. Perhaps I've simply been lucky, but I... find it very hard to believe a whole *branch* of medicine, of all things, is bad.

The last surgeon I dealt with came into the examining room with a dozen or more buttons saying "Jesus saves" or the like. She didn't wear them in surgery, but she paused to pray before starting the procedure.

She didn't make any effort to proselytize; she just wore her heart on her sleeve, you might say. What do I care, if that's how she feels? She did a good job and that's what counts with a surgeon.

Krebiozen,

Is it considered racist on Bob G.’s side of the Atlantic to refer to “a Mexican clinic”, with the connotations of quackery and poor standards of care that are usually implied?

I suspect it would be considered bigoted, particularly by people who run clinics in Mexico that provide a high standard of care based on scientific principles.

@Bob G: I will say again - lilady's very first comment on the CBS blog was to point out CBS' lack of rigour in following up Jay Gordon's comments. Which is something I believe you criticised them for.

And then Lara Loehne's first comment was to point out that she, and members of her family, have been severely damaged by vaccine preventable diseases, in response to someone who claimed to have gotten many VPDs as a child and was fine. Seeing as the anti-vax crowd put so much store in anecdotes, I would think Lara's story of the damage caused directly by VPDs is just as valid, but apparently not.

Finally, I'd like to address your assertion that Dr Jay Gordon isn't well known and therefore his opinion is nothing to worry about. I would suggest most people would see "Dr Jay Gordon, paediatrician" and think 'hey, a doctor who works with kids - he probably knows what he's talking about.' Because they see that title, Dr, backed up with paediatrician, and both of those imply specialist knowledge.

Have you ever noticed how cranks are desperate to appropriate titles such as "Doctor" and get their crankery professionally recognised and accredited? That's because for all their despising of "Western" and "allopathic" medicine, they realise that people, for the most part, trust doctors and genuine medical practitioners, and they want some of that. This is why you will find people waving around their titles and qualifications when they really want to prove their point. And why I find them despicable and call them twerps.

(For what it's worth, no medical qualifications to my name, unless you count a lapsed first aid certificate and a current CPR certificate. Just almost 20 years working closely with health practitioners of all kinds, in a professional capacity as an IT expert, and as a patient.)

Sorry - in that last comment I wrote This is why you will find people waving around their titles and qualifications when they really want to prove their point.

What I meant was This is why you will find people waving around their titles and qualifications to reinforce every little point they make. And that's why they're despicable twerps.

(I've found the people with the truly impressive qualifications usually don't advertise their truly impressive qualifications, they walk the walk rather than talking the talk. They will bring out their qualifications if they are getting tired of someone constantly trying to claim authority they don't have though, and it is usually extremely entertaining.)

The last surgeon I dealt with came into the examining room with a dozen or more buttons saying “Jesus saves” or the like. She didn’t wear them in surgery, but she paused to pray before starting the procedure

Speaking as a Christian? That would creep me out.

Gotta agree, Shay. I'd be a bit weirded out by that too. It seems inappropriate, and the surgeon should probably pray in her office or something, perhaps with any members of her team that would like to join her.

Though that doesn't indicate fundamentalism, which is a specific theological stance, and prayer is not limited to that theological stance.

LW: Oklahoma was, as you point out, nearly 20 years, two popes and three presidents ago. There have been a lot of policy changes during that time, including the Bush-era regulations that allowed physicians and pharmacists to pick and choose the treatments they give to their patients. A physician in the US can decline to treat any patient if they cite a religious justification that conflicts with treatment. Same goes for pharmacists; if it's against their religion, they don't have to sell a given pill (ranging from the infamous pill to insulin) and they are under no obligation to refer someone to another pharmacist.

Khani - Luke 18:9-14.

PGP, if Catholic doctors are anything like other Catholics, they pretty much ignore what the Pope has to say anyway.

Gynos are pervs? Where on earth did you come up with that one? Even for you that's bizarre.

Catholic doctors … are forbidden to give life-saving treatment to female patients</blockquote

kindly point out the new law or papal declaration since 1995 that forbids Catholic doctors from giving life-saving treatment to women. Kindly point out an authority that requires Catholic doctors to watch a female burn victim die in agony without lifting a finger. Kindly point out an authority that requires Catholic doctors to watch a female patient die of heart disease without lifting a finger.

I'm not even Catholic but this bigotry is infuriating to me.

@ Christine(tpsC): Somehow, the CBS Radio blog did re-arrange the comments section, yesterday. It seems to have been corrected, now. I believe my first comment was this:

"lilady R.N. • 4 days ago

Unfortunately, Dr. Gordon's 4 month old patient is not eligible for a measles vaccine, but a young infant under 6 months of age, with a measles exposure to a close household contact may be given an IM dose of immune globulin, in lieu of the MMR vaccine.

One has to wonder if Dr. Gordon's 4 month patient has slightly older siblings and the parents are following Dr. Gordon's advice and they too, are unprotected?

What more can we expect from Dr. Gordon, who refuses to abide by the AAP Standards of Care to provide timely and complete immunizations, according to the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations?"

pgp: Please stop! You've have told repeatedly on this blog, that your animus directed to men in general and male doctors in particular, is inappropriate and vile.

Jake has a new post up on his blog. He links to Bolen's new post, as well:

http://www.autisminvestigated.com/age-of-autism-condemned/

We know who Bolen's new lapdog is, now.

@lilady

Fair enough. I missed the comment where you acknowledged saying something about "look at the comment I posted..." Pointing that out on my part was unnecessary, and I apologize for harping on it. I do feel that most of Bob G's comments (and yes, I also went back and looked at the history) weren't purposefully offensive, but I can understand some people are more sensitive about things than others and don't fault anyone for retaliating to such language. I do have a question about this particular statement, however...

I tried to explain to Bob that “brain damaged” infers that infants were born “perfectly” neuro-typical and that “something” caused that brain damage…a favorite trope of the anti-vaxxers and their targeting of vaccines being the cause of their kids’ “brain damage”.

What literature is this inferred from? I agree it's a favorite trope of the anti-vaccine crowd, but I can't see it's a inappropriate term to use. I'm not trolling about this. Any mental illness, be it genetic or post-birth, that leaves an individual non-neurotypical would be a damaging the normal pathophysiogical development of the brain, would it not?

A final note about trolls, here or elsewhere: I understand calling them out on their unsupported arguments is satisfying and (seemingly) effective. People like Greg, for instance, have demonstrated they are not interested in any of the science, no matter how much of it is explained in a language any non-scientist would understand. Having threads go to 500+ comments with repetitive banter that is all good science but ineffective in its communication is only feeding what they set out to do in the first place.

That said, I do respect all the regulars on here and applaud them for what they do here and elsewhere. I don't want my questions to be misconstrued for a lack of that.

Bob, aren't your words equally applicable to you? You are badly misjudging your audience here, using sloppy if not incorrect terminology, and being both disrespectful and condescending, not to mention long-winded. (A big block of text is no one's friend--I read half a paragraph and itched for a red pencil.)

As a writer and editor, I too have often said that a writer's intentions matter less than their execution. That applies to you here, as well. But in your case I have even less sympathy, because your intentions seem shallow, disingenous, and self-aggrandizing. Not to mention the hypocrisy of railing about how when it's YOUR words of wisdom, the fault must be on Orac's readers, and not your writing.

@ eNos: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brain+damage

Noun1.brain damage - injury to the brain that impairs its functions (especially permanently); can be caused by trauma to the head, infection, hemorrhage, inadequate oxygen, genetic abnormality, etc.

Literature in this aspect generally means scientific literature, but I gather you knew that already. Where in that definition should I take that "brain damage" is an inadequate descriptor?

@Sophia #56 I meant no disrespect, nor was I attempting to diagnose anyone. Simply going by my own knowledge of things. I wasn't throwing around schizotypal with ASD to point to any stereotype, but my partner has autism, schizotypal and numerous other diagnoses. It is not unheard of for an individual with an ASD to also have co-morbid personality disorders typically from going so long being undiagnosed with ASD and many times it has been found adults with undiagnosed ASD are incorrectly diagnosed with a personality disorder. Most of the time it is NOS because their behavior, etc doesn't fit into any norms, because they really don't have a personality disorder but ASD and the evaluators don't have experience diagnosing ASD in adults.

I am an autism ally. Both my partner and our son have autism, I am not blinding throwing out anything, I am making statements based on my own experience and knowledge about them. Denise was quite right when she said, the persona that Jake Crosby presents online may very well fall under certain characteristics of mental health disorders, but without knowing what he is like not online, it is all conjecture.

eNOS, 'brain-damaged' has a particularly negative connotation when used for people with ASD. As someone who isn't on the spectrum, I didn't really understand how and why the phrase was so insulting until I read "The Autistic Brain: Thinking Across the Spectrum" by Temple Grandin. That book changed quite a bit about how I thought about ASD, I highly recommend you give it a read.

AdamG: Thanks for the recommendation. I've seen that book mentioned here before and it sounds interesting. I'll give it a look.

eNOS: I provided a link to the American Heritage Medical Dictionary definition of "brain damage" (traumatic brain injury), which apparently doesn't satisfy you.

There are hundreds of genetic disorders (chromosomal, hereditary gene disorders and de novo gene mutations), which cause obvious fetal brain structure anomalies...and ASDs.

Ingestion of substances "street drugs", ETOH, and some prescribed medications (Depakene), which cause obvious fetal brain structure anomalies...and ASDs.

Expectant mothers who become infected with a V-P-D, (varicella and rubella) which cause obvious fetal brain structure anomalies resulting in Congenital Varicella Syndrome and Congenital Rubella Syndrome...and ASDs.

Other maternal infections such as Cytomegalovirus and Listeria pyogenes which cause obvious fetal brain structure anomalies...and ASDs.

As long as we're nitpicking, I'd argue that brain damage is not limited to traumatic brain injury. I am personally acquainted with several people who have suffered anoxic brain injuries, for instance, some with quite extensive damage, and I also know somebody who survived West Nile Virus. She did end up with permanent brain damage from it, but not terribly extensive; it compromised her short-term memory somewhat and seemed to make her more irritable, but otherwise she was fine.

BTW, I would not generally class autism as brain damage. It's a different beast altogether. That said, one of the people I know who suffered an anoxic brain injury does have symptoms reminiscent of autism, but autism also runs in the family. It's possible he would've been autistic anyway, but of course impossible to know given that nobody has a time machine handy.

Unfortunately, "brain damaged" like the R word has taken on a colloquial meaning that is more offensive than the original clinical meaning.

Well Julian @124 has saved me some stress and time!

@M o'B. @Krebiozen's explained it pretty well. I've had doctors of every race and nationality, the NHS is like that. Actually, it's suffering due to the ageing-out of the Indian docs that were the backbone of the service from its inception.

I mentioned his nationality because I'd mentioned him before here. Like Krebiozen said there's a problem with Nigerian doctors. The vast majority are dedicated and warm, as Dr E was initially, but the problem is often their unwillingness to tolerate the types of people or situations that are common here, but not in Nigeria.

Dr E upset a friend of a friend by refusing to talk with her about her request for an abortion, referring very negatively to her "morals", and again - offering her a dose of Jesus.

Final comment to Bub- (who BTW TBruce stole all the pearls) roflwaffles at your attempt to lay down rules for us to reply to your comments.

Shine on you dull little boulder.

Calli: Do you know if short-term memory loss is common among people who contracted West Nile? My uncle had a bad case of it last summer. (He's had malaria and typhus, I can't imagine how he skipped the dengue fever, and is one of the three people responsible for the family in-joke that we get all the odd diseases.)

elburto - I mean no disrespect, and I'm not there. I didn't read Krebiozen's message as saying there was a problem with Nigerian doctors - just some Nigerian doctors. I read that the same way as there are problems with some English doctors or some Irish doctors or some French doctors. But I don't know, because I'm not there.

I recently had an incredibly unpleasant experience with my Jordanian dentist and an implant. The issue was that the tooth he was trying to remove kept shattering every time he tried to pull it. He eventually ended up having to drill it out, which was long and tedious and painful. In this case I don't blame him (it was my tooth, after all) and I don't see any connection with his country of origin or, perhaps, race and religion (I don't know what his religion is and since his office is in a Jewish neighborhood I would not venture to guess). But I threw in his nationality just because.

Now, when I read over that, i'm concerned that I came across wrong.

Maybe there are more problems with Nigerian doctors than other nationalities. I don't know from statistics or personal observation.

We do have a real problem in the UK with a disproportionate number doctors and other medical professionals from Nigeria whose standards of behavior are unacceptable.

I have had personal experience of this and the problems were allowed to continue for far too long, to put it bluntly, because of white people pussy-footing around out of fear of accusations of racism. Managers were too afraid to act when patients were put at real risk, and other members of staff (female and also from ethnic minorities) were being bullied and demeaned. I'm tired of rules of political correctness putting at risk the very people they are supposed to protect.

This affects the reputations of those Nigerians whose skills and behavior are beyond reproach; I know from talking to some of my colleagues that they recognize the problem and take it very seriously.

That should read, "some of my Nigerian colleagues", to be clear.

Krebiozen - I notice that Nigeria seems to be 3rd in that list after India and Egypt. Why is Nigeria worthy of special mention?

OK, maybe it's second after India.

The point remains.

Thanks for the clarification, lilady. It looks like CBS uses Disqus to manage comments, and it does do whacky things to comments.

Fact remains, you called out CBS for not pressing for more information from Dr Jay.

Wait. Sorry, but, seriously? There were seriously RI regulars that did not realize Bob G is a petulant tone troll with delusions of grandeur? Did the vague resume-humping and O'Reillyish hit-stat wankery not give it away?

I try to assume good faith unless it's very, very, *incredibly* apparent that there's none there.

It's sort of a variation on the old "never assume malice when stupidity accounts for it," though often it's not stupidity either. (Please don't think I'm calling anyone stupid here.)

M.O.'B.

Krebiozen – I notice that Nigeria seems to be 3rd in that list after India and Egypt. Why is Nigeria worthy of special mention?

I see you realized that the proportions of doctors from each country who have been suspended or struck off, rather than the numbers, are important. In the UK 1.6% of doctors trained in Nigeria, but 4.9% of those suspended or struck off trained in Nigeria.

Here are the proportions of doctors suspended or struck off and their country of training (UK figures from the GMC website) :
1 in 90 Egypt
1 in 108 Nigeria
1 in 125 Iraq
1 in 211 India
1 in 254 Pakistan
1 in 638 UK

Having seen this list, I am equally concerned about doctors trained in Egypt and Iraq. There's clearly a problem, and I'm not convinced that it is racism in the GMC, as I have seen people claim. I notice that the examples of doctors suspended or struck off in that Telegraph article are all cases of incompetence, apart from the two Nigerian doctors mentioned, one of whom was, "found guilty by a court of sexually assaulting two colleagues at the hospital", and the other "was a criminal with a record of deceit that spanned more than a decade".

From my personal perspective, in almost 25 years working in the NHS as a biomedical scientist I have worked with Indians (including Sikhs, Hindus and Jains), Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Kenyans, Ghanaians, Turks, Sudanis, Egyptians, Moroccans, Scots, Northern Irish, Southern Irish, Australians, New Zealanders, Poles, French, Canadians, Americans, English, Welsh, South Africans, Zimbabweans, Jamaicans and I'm quite sure some other nationalities I don't immediately recall.

I have had exactly two colleagues who have been abusive towards other members of staff, and who have been willfully negligent in their work, even after warnings, to the point of putting patients at serious risk*. Both were Nigerian**. Both quit just before disciplinary hearings and thus went on to work at other hospitals with clean records.

In one case I know that the man in question continued his abusive behavior at his new place of employment as I ran into his new colleagues at a professional conference, and had to admit to them that we were aware of his behavior, but had been advised not to mention it in his references because he had never been found guilty of any misbehavior, even though I had witnessed it myself.

As well as this personal experience I have heard numerous complaints from health care workers and people in other professions who have experienced similar problems with Nigerians, in many cases they have been found to have bogus qualifications.

If it was any other nationality who appeared to be so disproportionately represented in the context of professional misconduct or fraud, I would not hesitate to say so. I can only recall one Egyptian doctor I have worked with and she was extremely competent. I have done medical anthropological field work in Egypt and interviewed doctors there, and I was surprised to see that Egyptian doctors have been suspended or struck off in the UK in such numbers.

I know, again from talking to my highly competent and well-behaved Nigerian friends and colleagues, that fraud is considered not just culturally acceptable but is admired in some parts of Nigeria, particularly, I believe, in one specific tribal group. We see this reflected in Nigerian email scams, and in numerous other highly sophisticated and successful frauds across the world.

There is also the kind of intolerance that elburto mentioned, that I have also witnessed, not only against women, but against South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis Bengalis etc.), and I overheard one of Nigerian colleagues I mentioned stating that he believed gay people should be executed, which deeply disturbed me.

I am not going to keep quiet about this out of fear of being accused of bigotry. I am not suggesting that there is anything innate in Africans in general or Nigerians in particular that makes them behave badly, I am suggesting that cultural values held by some Nigerians far too frequently results in behavior that is considered unacceptable in the UK.

Equally I do hesitate to condemn those nations in which female genital mutilation is carried out, sometimes by Sudanese and Somalian doctors, since this is also a serious problem in my part of the world, and is not talked about enough.

I do not consider labeling some cultural values and behaviors as unacceptable in the UK as bigotry, and I think that this blurring of the lines between culture and nature is extremely unhelpful. If I am not allowed to point out that hateful, intolerant, abusive or negligent behavior is too common in people from certain countries because that would make me a bigot, something has gone very badly wrong somewhere.

* One man was caught misusing a glucose analyzer and sending out erroneous hypoglycemic results on premature babies. When I confronted him about this, and pointed out that it could have serious consequences for both the babies and also for him personally, he was completely unabashed. He smiled and told me that God would protect him. The same man regularly disappeared for hours at a time when he was supposed to be providing urgent cover, and was involved in a car accident while giving a friend a lift somewhere when he was not supposed to leave the hospital, among several other misdemeanors. The other was found to have been routinely failing to run quality controls when doing serum acetaminophen levels, and had sent out wrong results which could easily have led to the patient not being given life-saving treatment, again among other misdemeanors, including bullying and sexual harassment.

** There was a woman from Northern Ireland who was not deemed competent to work unsupervised, but this was scattiness, rather than willful and repeated negligence - have you ever seen someone put plastic test tubes in a boiling water bath? It's not pretty. She left and became a drug company rep, which was more suited to her temperament.

Barbara Loe Fisher is a guest columnist at AoA and she has released a press release...in the form of video...defending Jenny McCarthy and all the nasty men who posted sexist remarks on science blogs. I'm so disappointed that she didn't mention the females who posted some of McCarthy's history of anti-vaccination activities and her "recovery" of her son...in addition to some science facts:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/07/witch-hunting-jenny-mccarthy-for-vac…

Ginger Taylor makes a guest appearance at TMR defending another rebellious TM fighting the Establishment / Status Quo/ Reasonability on television.
WARNING: includes video.

But lilady #164, women are each other's own worst enemies, didn't you know that? Of course we're just probably jealous of Jenny and we dress it up as concern over her opinions. /sarcasm

@ Denice Walter: I'm glad you warned me about Ginger's video; truly a "gem".

@ Christine: Yeah, I'm insanely jealous of Jenny. Babs has got some nerve to make a statement like that.

I'm still trying to figure out what Jake's end game is...he's still b!tching how he was not permitted to post an article on AoA...yet he does not understand that the dirt he supplied to Bolen about AoA's dirty dealings, sealed his fate as an ex-journalist there.

http://www.autisminvestigated.com/age-of-autism-condemned/#comments

@lilady:

I’m still trying to figure out what Jake’s end game is.

Even though it's foolish to try and work out someone's intentions, I'm going to give it a shot. Crosby is a true believer in the MMR Autism Causation hypothesis and thinks that one day "the truth will come out". I further think that he hopes and believes that he will be the one who finally "cracks the case" and gets the glory. In his mind, the story ends with him vindicated and celebrated, and Paul Offit and Brian Deer disgraced. It'll never happen, but he imagines it will.

It is very odd to me, that every time I post about Jenny's confusion (too dumb to get her story straight about the onset of her child's autism) and Jenny's "original story" that it was the MMR vaccine that done did it, a group of the sycophants from AoA, accusing me of dwelling on Wakefield's study. They accuse me of ignoring the many other "theories" that have been advance since them...including Thimerosal and those other nasty ingredients in vaccines that are responsible for the increase in autism prevalence...and in asthma, cronic illnesses such as IDDM and every other disease and disorder caused by vaccine.

Jake has been dwelling on Thimerosal (lately) and he's mighty p!ssed that Bobby Kennedy is not publishing his new book with even more "explosive information" about mercury in vaccine. Odd isn't it, that I support Jake, the Geiers and Brian Hooker who claim to have super secret information about the Governments effort to squash information about mercury in vaccine? I want to see Kennedy's "explosive new information about Thimerosal". I will be first one to put that book on reserve in my local librarian to evaluate the truthiness of Bobby Kennedy's book.

Meanwhile, Jake and the groupies at AoA, still worship Wakefield and the turds of misinformation he drops about the ingredients in vaccines.

O/T, but I'm getting some odd messages every time I have posted my last few comments. Anyone, having problems getting their comments posted?

@lilady: yes. It's the site. It's been flaky all day. Looks like service issues -- either they're running maintenance, there's a hardware issue or they're getting DDoSed again.

Donald R. Prothero on the foolishness of Jenny

"McCarthy's false ideas are more than just another idiot talking head blathering on about stuff they don't understand on TV. As the leading celebrity spokesperson for the anti-vaxx movement, she is a symbol of this form of virulent anti-science, and everything she says (even if she never speaks a word about it on the show) is colored by that perception. It is akin to hiring any other leading figure of an anti-science movement to such a prominent platform on TV."

and

"In reality there is still no "cure" for ASD, since it a complex of disorders, probably with multiple causes. If it is a largely genetic disorder, there is little likelihood that it will ever be a single, simple cure. Don't get me wrong: I feel her pain. I was probably an Asperger's child (years before it was ever defined or diagnosed) and two of my own children have Asperger's syndrome. But I'm not adopting quack medicine treatments or preaching discredited ideas from the internet, but following the best science-based medicine to treat them and help make their lives better. I don't blame vaccines or anything else, because I probably passed the gene on to my sons as an older father with ASD and a member of a high-risk category."

http://iupress.typepad.com/blog/2013/07/guest-post-lethal-nonsense.html

yes. It’s the site. It’s been flaky all day.

Several days, actually. That's where all the double posts are coming from. "Unable to establish a database connection" has been a bit more common lately than "service unavailable." It has back-end screwup written all over it.

Dan Olmsted is continuing the flame war that Jake created by attacking Barry Siegel...among others. Very interesting and perhaps Ginger Taylor will provide some background for us...

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/07/weekly-wrap-honestly.html#more

Bolen has the third guest column up authored by Ken Stoller, M.D.

It's all about the NWO, complete with Nazis and the man made HIV virus, calculated to infected homosexual men.

http://bolenreport.com/autism/autism%20infighting11.htm

I can't bring myself to go to Bolen's site. I'm pretty sure his description of our esteemed host (he is a breast cancer surgeon, for the benefit of any passing lurkers) as "the nipple ripper" tells me everything I need to know about him.

Lilady,

Olmsted's piece is "interesting", isn't it?

"What's up with the sexography" asks the man who hosts Handley's rants? Was the "date rape" comment by Handley on AoA? If not, Handley has enough other gems on AoA.

And only now does Olmsted see Segal for a crank? When the checks were coming in, no complaints about Segal. Then it was OK to take advantage of an old rich man.

By the way, Dan, if you want to consider Helen Thomas a colleague, get back into Journalism. AoA isn't journalism.

Unfortunately, I HAVE read Bolen's swill.
( but I can't take any credit for my ability to withstand gushing torrents of nonsense and remain relatively unscathed by the ordeal- it's hereditarial and has enabled many of my ancestors and relatives to survive and flourish in the business world ).

Sticking to his articles of June and July, we can surmise that he has assembled a cast of characters in order to remedy the' problems caused by vaccines':
Robert Scott Bell, Barry Segal, Stephen Barrie ND, Brian Hooker, the Geiers, Andy, Jake and various attorneys are perhaps his brain trust.

The health freedom movement ( NHFA) sponsors 2 conventions annually in the US, each of which is attended by 14K ( he says) - which he compares to A1's paltry 1500.

Over the past 2 years I have heard about other woo-meisters being wooed by this group:
Mike Adams has been a featured guest in the past, but not this year;
Gary Null said that he was invited to confere and later to appear with the "largest health freedom group" in Chicago but declined their invitations after the meeting.

This tells us that they're searching for 'names' to lively-up their roster. Bolen sees disarray at AoA and other groups like TMR and the Canary Party and opportunistically is trying to get what he can out of it.

I can't see how any of these groups can really work together for any period of time due to their inherent problems dealing with reality- which usually involves negotiating with other people, compromising or submerging your idiosyncratic notions, being able to criticise your own work and seeing further than the end of your nose. What psychologists may call execuitve functioning and social cogniition are in short supply amongst this crowd.

Obviously these problems are not limited to the wide world of woo but at least in science and real journalism, particpants are guided by an allegiance to facts and fact checking reasonably independently of their deepest seated fantasies and unfulfilled needs.

@ I.Rony Meter:

He even quotes Orac's 'hive of scum and quackery' jibe.

OK--it looks like Dan (or someone) was able to convince JB that the "intellectualy rapes" title of his article was a bad idea.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/10/wired-magazine-and-amy-wallace-drink…

Handley, being Handley, argues both sides. He argues that his statement was not offensive, but that he was offended by it so he changed it.

Clearly someone told him it was a PR disaster and made him change the title. Was it Olmsted or someone else?

gotta love Handley. After emailing his article to Amy Wallace he does a classic blame shift: "The only reason you are reading about a non-published draft of my essay is because Ms. Wallace chose to write about it."

Yes, it was Amy Wallace's fault. Handley sends her (a journalist) an abusive email and it's her fault that Handley got bad press for it.

"He even quotes Orac’s ‘hive of scum and quackery’ jibe."

Yeah, while still trying to make the "rebel alliance" theme stick.

I had forgotten what logical pretzels he creates.

"With some reflection, I decided that although "intellectual rape", a relatively commonly used term, and "sexual rape" were very different things, the use of the word "rape" was ultimately in poor taste, would distract from the article, and would most certainly offend some readers, and could appear demeaning of women, which wasn't remotely the intention of the piece or my words. So, I changed the article to the one you all have read, and then AoA ran it the next day. And, I sent Ms. Wallace, via email, the new piece."

Riiiight. He wrote a title intending it to grab and insult. It was a cheap stunt by Handley.

What sort of jerks does he hang out with where "intellectually rapes" is "relatively common"? If it is in poor taste, why does he use it "relatively commonly"?

And, he goes into the article he sent Amy Wallace about date rape drugs. It was the frakkin' core of his cheap story. But he backpedals and blames everyone except himself. Like all bullies, he's a coward.

"Unfortunately, I HAVE read Bolen’s swill."

It's a potentially dangerous pastime. One can almost visualize brain worms crawling out of the computer screen.

What sort of jerks does he hang out with where “intellectually rapes” is “relatively common”? If it is in poor taste, why does he use it “relatively commonly”?

I would hazard a guess that Handley doesn't "hang out" with a particularly high calibre crowd as he is a classless slob. It is in his own little world that such a phrase is "relatively common". He is, after all, a chauvinistic shite weasel who made his wife get chelated before getting pregnant with their subsequent child(ren). That doesn't say much for her either since she went along with it.

@ Dangerous Bacon:

I can assure you that I am absoluely fine : I am quite immune to any deleterious effects resulting from periodically immersing myself in woo, even woo as awful as Bolen's -

as a matter of fact, I had a lovely day, my companion and I took a boat ride on the river; I noticed the dark, swirling waters as we rode through narrow channels and great brooding cliffs towering far above us whilst the waters churned unhappily and upon the starboard side observed a vast ruin of an ancient island castle built by a mad Scotsman who had amassed a great fortune and then squandered it because he became morose when his wife died and didn't take proper care of his castle's foundation which, deteriorating, began slowly SINKING into the wild and treacherous river, that is, the parts which hadn't already burned to the ground, going up in smoke like most of our dreams, most of the time, and after a decade or two it really doesn't matter much whatever we do or say or how hard we strive or plan or imagine that it'll turn out well when it's all really quite hopeless- isn't it?- and meaningless and will most likely sink rapidly or slowly into a vast, treacherous, unforgiving river without ever leaving even a single trace that anything of value had ever even existed there - just swirling waters and brooding cliffs and decayed remnants of lost souls' hopes and dreams sinking slowly so what's the use anyway? Why should we even bother to try to solve problems and repair our lives or castles when we know full well that eventually...it will burn or flood or maybe both so

Why should we even bother to try to solve problems and repair our lives or castles when we know full well that eventually…it will burn or flood or maybe both so

I do hope that is merely an exquisite simulation of existential angst.

@ Krebiozen:

Actually simulation of emotional expression in written form is one of my better functions... Ooops.

-btw- the late Scotsman's crumbling castle and the boat are real-
I just can't say where they are because then Jake et compagnie will have a better idea of where I live.
(I have very little internet presence under my full name but what I have is very revealing because it involves business sales and purchases).

In thinking this over, I am sure that Dan Olmsted is very very worried about recent developments. I am sure that in the safety of his echo chamber he has been imagining that the anti-vax viewpoint has been gaining traction. But, it hasn't. When he looks at the articles, and comments to those articles, regarding Jenny McCarthy's appointment to The View, it must be totally clear that his "side" is not only losing, it is losing big time. It's a shocking wake up call. He can't ignore this. So, it must be someone else's fault...... And on to Barry Segal.

The "pharma shill" gambit

oracknows — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:30:16 +0000

The "pharma shill" gambit

Over the last couple of days, I've been discussing How "They" See "Us," which is basically that "they" see "us" as pure evil. Well, maybe not always sheer evil, but certainly not good, and even more certainly as having ulterior motives, the most common of which is filthy pharma lucre. So it seemed appropriate, as a grant deadline fast approaches and constrains my time, to revisit a topic that comes up here from time to time. Basically, every so often, my day job intrudes on my blogging hobby, preventing the creation of fresh Insolence, at least Insolence of the quality that you've come to expect. This is one of those times, thanks to a grant deadline. So enjoy this bit of Classic Insolence from way back near the beginning of this blog, when I first coined the term "pharma shill gambit" to describe a very common gambit used by quacks. At least, I think I was the first to coin this term. I haven't been able to find a reference to the "pharma shill gambit" dating before I wrote the original version of this post way back in 2005. In any case, if there are any really "classic" posts on this blog (which, I'll concede, is debatable, this is one, IMHO, and I haven't reposted it here in over five years; so it's time. If some of the verbiage seems a little dated, that's because the original post is well over seven years old, and I've only touched it up.. Maybe I should do a more substantial revision and update it. When I have the time. You know what that means.

I've mentioned before on this blog at least once that I cut my skeptical teeth, so to speak, on Usenet, that vast untamed and largely unmoderated territory full of tens of thousands of discussion newsgroups which used to be a lot more active before the rise of the World Wide Web and then later blogs. These days, few ISPs even offer much in the way of Usenet access; it's become pretty much irrelevant since Google archived Usenet in the form of Google Groups. My forays into skepticism started out with combatting Holocaust denial on a newsgroup known as alt.revisionism (as good an excuse as any to remind you that nearly all Holocaust "revisionism" isn't historical revisionism but is actually denial) and then branched out into more general skepticism, particularly about the claims of creationists and, of course, promoters of "alternative" medicine, the latter of which ultimately led me to being the editor of this wild and woolly thing I call Respectful Insolence. After I began to participate in the debates in the main newsgroup where alternative medicine is discussed, misc.health.alternative, it didn't take me long to encounter a favorite tactic of promoters of alt-med who were not happy with one who insists on evidence-based medicine and who therefore questions claims that are obviously not based in valid science: The "Pharma Shill" Gambit. This is a technique of ad hominem attack in which a defender of "alternative" medicine, offended by your questioning of, for instance, his/her favorite herb, colon or liver flush technique, zapper, or cancer "cure," tries to "poison the well" by implying or outright stating you must be in the pay of a pharmaceutical company, hired for nefarious purposes.

Since I entered the blogosphere several years ago under another guise, I've only occasionally checked back at my old stomping ground, mainly because blogging is so much less constraining than posting to Usenet, where mostly I used to respond to the posts of others, rather than writing about what I wanted to write about. A while back, though, out of curiosity I checked back and found this interesting little tidbit from a poster calling himself PeterB that demonstrated such a perfect example of the "pharma shill" gambit that I thought it might serve as a perfect example of the sort of thing I've had to put up with ever since I started speaking out against quackery:

To : All participants and readers of misc.health.alternative + other health-related newsgroups
Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A number of individuals with ties to industry are engaging an effort to shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine while denigrating the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to these individuals broadly as "Pharma Bloggers"(*). Pharma Bloggers on usenet don't promote a specific company or product, as might be the case with standard "blogging" on a weblog. Most of these people are likely to have an association with a PR campaign whose "blogging" efforts are underwritten by the media and marketing groups of industry. They are not difficult to identify due to specific patterns of behaviour in posting.

Here are a few points to remember while participating in usenet newsgroups:

Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine.

Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the effectiveness of mainstream medicine and defend disease-management "healthcare" as the only viable form of medicine.

Pharma Bloggers on usenet post the majority of their responses simply to bury the comments of others; they also strive obsessively to have the last word.

Pharma Bloggers on usenet are much faster at posting than casual participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread, question, or observation.

Pharma Bloggers on usenet use multiple "bloggers" in a swap-&-relay fashion to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to isolate posters who question the value of mainstream medicine. You will see this tactic used more often than any other.

Tip: If you find yourself reading a response that is unusually dramatic in tone, or inexplicably vicious toward other posters, and if that response is a defense of mainstream medicine, you can be sure you have stumbled upon a "Pharma Blogger." Unfortunately, there are more of these individuals posting to usenet on a daily basis than virtually anyone else, which is why I am posting this alert. If you find it odd that so few people on health-related usenet newsgroups are expressing an interest in natural medicine, it isn't because they aren't there, it's because they have been intimidated into silence. The Pharma Bloggers have over-run the various newsgroups with their industrial brand of dogma, mockery, and ridicule. Many casual posters are simply frightened away. That's one of the goals of Pharma Blogging.

(*) Pharma Blogger: An individual who uses the Internet to: 1) promote and defend maintstream medicine while denigrating natural medicine approaches; 2) attack others who express a preference for natural medicine, or who question the value of mainstream medicine; and 3) cite a variety of "junk medical science" funded by industry for the purpose of establishing markets for marginally effective, and often dangerous, medical products and devices.

PeterB

See what I had to deal with? First, let me just mention that I realize that astroturf campaigns do exist, but, quite frankly, die-hard defenders of alt-med on Usenet like PeterB tend to be interested in such Internet PR efforts only as a means of smearing those who criticize them for their claims or who have the temerity to ask them to provide scientific studies to back up their assertions. To them, everyone who questions them is probably part of an astroturf campaign. It goes with the conspiracy-mongering proclivities so common among cranks.

This sort of obvious pre-emptive ad hominem attack (again, a.k.a. the logical fallacy of poisoning the well) would be utterly laughable if it were not so common. I sometimes get the impression that PeterB and his compatriots must think that there are hordes of "pharma shills" sitting behind banks of computers (remember the claim "more of these individuals posting to Usenet than anyone else"), waiting to pounce the instant anyone like PeterB starts posting critiques of big pharma or praising herbal "cures." (Yes, that they seem to think they are worth that sort of effort implies PeterB and others like them do seem to have an inflated view of their own importance.) My usual first response to such gambits tends to be facetious and runs along the lines of asking, "Where do I sign up to become a pharma shill? How do I get me a piece of that action? After all, why should I waste my time seeing patients and working like a dog to do science, publish papers, and write grants and then only having a couple of hours in the evenings to blog, when I could make big bucks ruthlessly mocking online dissent against big pharma full time while sitting back in my pajamas and sipping a big hot mug of coffee? Count me in!" (Expect to see my words posted somewhere out of context to make it seem as though I was being serious about this.)

However, facetiousness usually just infuriates people like PeterB to new heights of "pharma shill" accusations. At that point, it's time to try to be rational, hard as it may be in the face of such provocation, but I try. First, a lot of this smear tends to be a case of projection, of the pot calling the kettle black. For example, #1, #2, and #3 are more typical of supporters of alt-med than of anyone who questions alt-med claims. Indeed, the denizens of misc.health.alternative who are most pro-alternative medicine tend to react quite defensively to questioning of their assertions. They are often like a group of Cyber Sisters (except that they are comprised of both men and women) ruthlessly descending upon anyone who questions the dogma of their favorite alternative medicine, criticizes their behavior, or suggests that maybe, just maybe, conventional medicine might have value. (No, those on "our side" are not entirely innocent, but in my experience the certain promoters of alt-med tend to be quicker with the ad hominem.) One reason for this, I suspect, is that many of them are also active on moderated groups such as CureZone.com, where anyone questioning the alt-med treatment du jour too long or too vigorously will be banned from the discussion groups, thus providing a nice, safe, cuddly environment, where never is heard a discouraging word towards quackery. #4 and #5 are clearly designed to imply that the so-called "Pharma Bloggers" either don't have a regular job (why else would they have so much time?) or that they are working for big pharma. Of course, they never provide any evidence to support their accusations. In fact, they almost never provide even any reasoning to support their accusations more substantive than variations on "he's criticizing alternative medicine a lot so he must be a pharma shill."

The "pharma shill" gambit, like other varieties of ad hominem or well-poisoning rhetoric, conveniently frees defenders of "alternative" medicine from having to argue for their favorite remedies on the science and clinical studies supporting them (which in most cases tend to be badly designed or nonexistent). It's a technique that's not just limited to them, either. Anti-vaccination cranks and mercury/autism conspiracy theorists like it too, and, indeed, I have been the subject of some particularly vicious attacks over the years at the hands of the anti-vaccine movement^1,2, Generation Rescue and its founder J. B. Handley in particular^3,4,5, all of whom appear to be trying very hard to poison my Google reputation. (Indeed, another such attack rolled in just today, courtesy of AoA hanger-on Harold Doherty.) Moreover, J.B. Handley, in particular, has also attacked our very own Steve Novella. More recently, the late Hulda Clark's former attack Chihuahua Tim Bolen appears to have decided for some reason that I have been named the heir apparent to Dr. Stephen Barrett. While I'm flattered that he somehow seems to think this, I'll have to be at this for many more years and become much more effective even to approach Barrett's legacy. Be that as it may, you have to have a tough skin if you're going to try to combat the infiltration of pseudoscience into medicine.

Skeptico pointed out, even if a newsgroup denizen were a pharma shill, that wouldn't necessarily invalidate his argument. Yes, in the case of a true "shill" who does not reveal that he works for a pharmaceutical company and pretends to be "objective," it would be entirely appropriate to "out" that person with extreme prejudice, so that his bias could be taken into account. That being said, I'll take this opportunity to point out that I have never over the last decade observed such a person in action, which tells me that they are probably a lot less common than people like PeterB like to claim. Even in the case of a real shill, however, this sort of "outing" is not a refutation of that person's arguments; it merely serves to increase appropriately the level of skepticism about what that person is saying. Such an "outing" still leaves the task of actually using evidence, logic, and sound arguments to refute what that person is saying, something boosters of alt-med rarely even attempt to do. It's far easier to fling the accusation of "pharma shill" about and see if they can get it to stick, as PeterB and his ilk do.

No doubt, may of our readers here at SBM have heard of Godwin's Law, which states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Over the years, an assumed corollary to Godwin's Law has become commonly accepted that in essence states that once such an "argumentum ad Nazium" is made, the discussion thread is over, and whoever brought up the Hitler or Nazi analogy first automatically loses the debate. Recently, this corollary was the basis of Scopie's Law, which is more relevant to the topics covered on this blog and states:

In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed out of the room.

Over time, I and others have suggested that, although Whale.to is clearly The One Quack Site To Rule Them All, there are at least a few other sites whose promotion of pseudoscience lead them to deserve to be included in Scopie's Law, such as NaturalNews.com, Mercola.com, and the anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism. However, I think that there's another law, a law similar to the original formulation of Godwin's Law, that applies to virtually any online discussion of anything resembling alternative medicine. Perhaps we could dub it "Gorski's Law," and this is what I propose it to say:

As an online discussion of health, in particular vaccines or alternative medicine, grows longer, the probability of the invocation of the 'pharma shill gambit' approaches one.

If there's an exception to this law, other than in moderated forums and (usually but not always) here at SBM, I haven't found it yet.

oracknows Thu, 02/14/2013 - 02:30

Categories

Medicine

I would add a number 6 to the Pharma Blogger points-
They never, ever give one inch in terms of vaccines (they're all good, all the time- narcolepsy with H1N1 in kids? No probs, Gardasil and neuro problems? No way! Even Liz Ditz summarily wrote off the Chad Menafrivac kids as being a 'made up' problem- and this very soon after it happened. The fact is, Orac, you do take pharma monies for the blog and in many earlier instances you have really got involved with the thread and directed the talking points of the debate or conversation. Just my 2 cents.

The longer any conspiracy theory thread goes on, the more likely a believer will call nonsubscribers to his / her view a "sheep" or "sheeple". It's virtually guaranteed. I've see it a few times with alt health too, in particular whenever the FDA or "big pharma" is dragged into the discussion.

Part of the reflex accusation Orac describes sounds like shutting down with an over simple, formulaic rejection. I see some similar behavior here too.

Another part is probably a wariness that their/everyone's medical information chain is full of ubiquitous distortions and manipulation where they are short on details, and likely, skills that would allow a more refined identification and placement. "useful idiot", "ad", "rep", "wannabe employee", "grantee", "idealogue", "quackbuster", "mossback MD" etc

As for potential conflicts of interest or biased sources, it is amazing the pockets that substantial pharma marketing funds find their way into. High schoolers, early college years, med school, labs, med journals, news media, etc.

So, how much did they pay you to coin the phrase "pharma shill gambit"? :-)

Jen says

They never, ever give one inch in terms of vaccines (they’re all good, all the time...)

I disagree. I have never heard anyone on this blog or any other, nor any vaccine maunfacturer, any medical professional, or any government agency deny that vacciines can have risk or side effects.

The question (and it isn't much of a question) is 'are vaccines worth the risk?', and the answer is 'for most people, yes'.

The risks and side effects if vaccines are reasonably well known and understood, and do not include autism. Some people should not receive vaccines, and those contraindications are widly available. But for most people, most of the time, vaccines are safer than the diseases they protect against.

The only medical intervention that has no side effects is homeopathy. It also has no effects.

@jen

Thank you for the example of the pharma shill gambit.

You have proven that you have no argument to stand on and that you have to rely on lies to carry on your pseudoscience.

Just my $0.02.

Jen,

They never, ever give one inch in terms of vaccines (they’re all good, all the time- narcolepsy with H1N1 in kids? No probs,

I have never seen anyone suggest that vaccines never have side effects, as any effective treatment has side effects on occasion. I have very rarely seen any convincing evidence of a vaccine that has side effects that come even close to outweighing the reduction in risk of VPDs they provide. The increased risk of narcolepsy in Finland was an additional 3-4 narcolepsy cases per 100,000 vaccinated subjects, hugely outweighed by the reduced risk of flu and possible serious sequelae such as pneumonia, encephalitis or death:

The US CDC (Centres for Disease Control) announced in October, 2009 that thus far 86 US children had died of H1N1 with most being in the 5 to 17-year old age group and in severe cases, patients deteriorate in around three to five days following symptoms with deterioration being rapid, many progressing to respiratory failure within 24 hours.

How many people died of side effects of the H1N1 vaccine?

Gardasil and neuro problems? No way!

Active surveillance of the millions of people given Gardasil has found no evidence of any problems, apart from fainting and a possible small increase in blood clots. It isn't as if no one is looking, they are, and the evidence just isn't there.

Even Liz Ditz summarily wrote off the Chad Menafrivac kids as being a ‘made up’ problem- and this very soon after it happened.

The most recent information on that incident suggests that it was unconnected to the meningitis vaccine which has been given to hundreds of millions of children across Africa with no reported problems.

The fact is, Orac, you do take pharma monies for the blog

National Geographic is Big Pharma funded? That's news to me.

As people grow up, they have less of a tendency to believe that others would be motivated just as they themselves would be. In other words, these scoffers may be unable to concieve of anyone doing this without pay.

I do this while I do my "other job"- managing my own money and advising a few others, I watch financial reports in order to discern if I need to move assets and to warn others ( the latter service is gratis). Thus, I am being 'paid' already.

Why do it then? I enjoy writing, having had to write occasionally for a non-profit position I had. I possess the educational background and an odd skill set that are useful in 'getting through' to people, or so I've heard. At least, I cherish that anxious hope.

I have heard and read alt med material that I believe borders on the criminal because it frightens people away from SBM in order to sell mostly useless products, thus enriching charlatans.

The entire *pharma shill* concept revolves upon a competitive business plan: its perpetrators want a piece of that "pharma action" themselves. Here are a few examples:

chemotherapy can be replaced by ANP or vitamins or cancer can be prevented altogether by ingesting green stuff;
the MMR is dangerous, try the new single vax by Andy;
Monsanto makes money off deadly GMOs: you can buy totally organic, non-GMO foods, through our new company ( Mike Adams, Natural News, today);
herbals and homeopathy replace most meds which are dangerous... various web sites;
psychiatric meds don't work and can lead to suicide and violence UNLIKE vitamins, herbs, meditation and life coaching say the people who sell... vitamins, herbs, meditation and life coaching.

Why me? Why not. I've had incredibly diverse studies in the liberal arts, economics and psych and experiences that helped me work towards understanding people. I have enough money so that I don't have to work a great deal with clients or take a more stressful, difficult job in the field or in advertising- which I've done

Also, being a sceptic as a hobby is a lot cheaper than my other hobby, tennis..

Oh, Jen. How much more stuff will you make up? Really, don't you ever get tired of making up lies about people and sliming them? Or are you really that despicable a person in real life?

@MI Dawn

We need not assume malice where delusion will suffice. Granted, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Jen, your comment was already dismantled in the thread above by those far more educated in the sciences than I, but let me agree with one thing, the monetary value you assigned to it in closing.

Of _course_. Excessive drama and viciousness in response to disagreement are defining characteristics of skeptics.

As is projection, no doubt. :)

@ jened/jen: Why don't you "share" with us how you and cronies from AoA spread your FUD about the meningitis vaccine causing severe reactions in Africa on Kirby's latest swill on the Ho-Po?

At that time I posted back at you and your cronies and asked you if you would apologize to parents who denied their children the meningitis vaccine, and whose children died, as a result of your FUD-spreading activities. I also asked you if you would apologize to the health care workers who immunize African kids and young adults against the deadly disease, if, as a result of your activities, they were subjected to violent attacks. Will you now publicly apologize, jened/jen?

How about AoA's support of Desiree Jennings' conversion disorder, when she claimed she was injured by influenza vaccine...or that awful *study* conducted by *Blaxsted* regarding the Leroy New York schoolgirls' *tics* and what was later determined to be "mass hysteria"?

Our critics who cry, " Conflict of interest!" usually fail to disclose their own - which are not all financial but include psychological bents, hero worship and general axe-grinding.

MESSAGE BEGINS------------------

Shills and Minions All:

Like so many other overlords and oligarchs, I have to find something to do with all this dirty money. The Baroness de Rothschild has found us a lovely spread in the Napa Valley where, I am assured, will eventually get warm enough to live without heat lamps all the time. As I sit here looking out over the valley sipping a lovely Merlot the color of dried blood, I find my mind drifting to thoughts philosophical: Who am I really? Why am I here? What is my purpose in the galaxy? Surely I'm more than just an analogy, an inflated, theatrical, parody of the most ridiculous, paranoid burblings of the fearful among your foes? Or am I?

As the great philosoraptor Sauromenidies once said "The more unintelligent a lizard is, the less mysterious existence seems to him." I should think this applies to your species as well. Indeed, your world teems with vast masses swimming in an endless variety of conflicting certainties.

I think I have realized why I exist after all, or maybe it's just the Merlot. May the great Egg Mother have mercy on us all . . .

Lord Draconis Zeneca, VH7ihl

Foreward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Fermenter of the Grapes of Wrath

Glaxxon Estate Vineyards
Rutherford, CA

00101011101010111101010

--------------------MESSAGE ENDS

Or are you really that despicable a person in real life?

Definitely that despicable; after all Jen is one who calls autists and others with neurological disorders, "brain damaged". I wonder if she has the ovaries to say that out loud to her charges and/or their parents. Somehow I doubt it.

Not long ago I had the unpleasant experience of participating in a discussion about genetically modified (GM) crops. It came up because someone mentioned how Monsanto routinely sues small farmers because the farmers' crops have been contaminated with Monsanto's patented GM crops. I pointed out that this is a myth and backed up my assertion with considerable supporting evidence (newspaper articles, court judgements, etc). (Yes, Monsanto has sued some farmers but in every case where the details are available, the farmer knowingly used or reused Monsanto's GM seeds, in violation of contracts and/or Monsanto's patent rights. But I digress).

Upon analyzing the supporting documentation that I presented, the person with whom I was debating this said something to the effect of, "The people who authored these papers and articles must be getting paid by Monsanto to write this stuff."

So, it would appear that the "Pharma Shill Gambit" is really only a specialized case of the more generic "Shill Gambit", which I guess is a favorite tool of deniers of all walks of life.

MI Dawn:

Oh, Jen. How much more stuff will you make up? Really, don’t you ever get tired of making up lies about people and sliming them? Or are you really that despicable a person in real life?

One bit of language I'd advise you to be careful about: The internet is a part of real life. Trolls like to pretend or assert that despicable behavior on the internet "doesn't count" because it's allegedly not real. When facing consequences, they often whine about us taking their anti-social behavior seriously and at face value instead of treating blogs and fora like MMORPGs like they do.

The distinction I prefer to make for non-internet behavior is "meatspace" or "offline" behavior, and yes, I suspect Jen is likely just as despicable offline as she is online.

What Jen and her ilk will never mention in their rants about how bad vaccines are is the proportion of adverse events to total doses given compared to adverse events to total infections. For example, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). It happens, and it happens whether or not you get vaccinated. It's more a result of your immune system acting against a virus than of the vaccine triggering it. Anyway, people like Jen will never tell you that the 1976 swine flu vaccine only increased the chance of GBS by one per million. She will also never tell you that thousands of people die from complications of the flu compared to the handful that die from GBS, let alone contract it and get better.

A friend of mine told me never to take antivaxers to Vegas because they cannot play the odds. Jen, you see, would put it all on Black 20 thinking it's a likelier outcome than just putting it all on Black.

The fact is, Orac, you do take pharma monies for the blog

Let's see something resembling proof that this statement actually is fact, Jen.

dandover@#17:
Besides, there are more than enough reasons to be upset with Monsanto even without talking about GM crops; they have a long history of actively hiding pollution caused by their various activities and treating fines as a cost of doing business because it's cheaper to pay the fine than to actually fix the problem.

Also, despite what the 'anti-shills' think, Monsanto is not equivalent to GM foods, in either direction: there are non-Monsanto companies doing work in the field, and Monsanto does other things.

(But yes, you're right in that the suits I've heard of them launching against farmers have usually demonstrated that the farmers in question have been less innocent than they try to paint themselves.)

Just my 2 cents.

You only got 2 cents for that? As opposed to the loadsadough I got from the Big Farmer Overlords for my contribution?

No wonder you're so pissed off.

Ren:

She will also never tell you that thousands of people die from complications of the flu compared to the handful that die from GBS, let alone contract it and get better.

Indeed. I have been asking some of her friends elsewhere to provide the evidence that the flu vaccines have killed as many as the number of pediatric influenza deaths this year. It started out with about twenty, and last time I checked it was almost sixty kids have died from actually getting flu.

@Bronze Dog: You are right. I should have said "off line" or "in meatspace" instead of real life.

Comment #1 is further evidence for the theory that someone's operating the 'Jen' persona as a false-flag operation to discredit anti-vaxxers.

Astroturfing definitely does exist.

I was involved in a twitter campaign unrelated to medicine. And I can tell you - Those with the $$$ can and will get your account suspended if you mention them in a comment (twitter calls "unsolicited mentions" sometimes even in the case that you are trying to engage dialogue). Basically what happens, is that big industry and government tries to control social media such as twitter by causing annoyances and censorship by getting accounts suspended. They hire people all over the world so there are different IP addresses and locations so it doesn't look suspicious to the Twitter algorithm. Then if you post something they really don't like (or god forbid mention them via an @ symbol), and you can see your account suspended within minutes as their army marks your tweets as spam. And then you can go on another twitter account, post something similar and reproduce same result.

Some think this type of activity couldn't be common. Their arguments are usually something like "they wouldn't do that" or the the government/companies learned from history and wouldn't do that stuff anymore (as if we evolved into better beings and censorship an act that has only existed in the past).

And while small companies and organizations can be involved in astroturfing as well, it's likely their campaigns would be a lot less effective as they have limited resources. Those that have more resources, and can afford the resources, can, and often will engage in astroturfing activities if they think it would help their public image, shape the public view, or lead to greater profits.

Twitter has become an antisocial network because of astroturfing activity that I have personally experienced. I sent all the info to the consumerist, and they were very interested in the story. But unfortunately, the organizations that were involved claimed they do and did no such thing. Twitter wouldn't comment. So without companies admitting these activities, whistleblowers such as the consumerists can't blow their whistle.

And I would place bets that pharmaceutical companies do this activity. Why? The answer is easy. Because it benefits them, is unlikely to hurt them, and they have the money and resources to.

Kind of on topic, Natural News today resurrects the nauseating claim that often, shaken baby syndrome is really vaccine damage.

At least some of the commenters seem to have a shred of rationality as they called BS on this.

@ JGC:

I wonder how that 'pharma money ' idea about Orac's "friend", the Doctor, got around the woo-esphere? On whose authority or research?

Hint: possibly a little article that has appeared and re-appeared @ AoA and more recently @ the Gary Null Blog, by none other than he wot will appear for the first time as a solo act @ AutismOne ( see speakers' list- Saturday-, Autism One 2013) and has already appeared as questioner-at-large at Yale, U Penn, etc etc etc.

On another 'side' note; QI tonight actually featured a bit about Godwin's Law.

I immediately chimed in with the definition, before Stephen Fry, and my better half just looked at me and said, "You scare me, honey."

@DW, are you speaking about JC?

Alain

attack Chihuahua

LOL! I can't get this picture out of my head.

@8 Denice,
chemotherapy can be replaced by..vitamins ...
herbals ... replace most meds which are dangerous…
uh, Denice, you are aware that a vitamin can be major part of standard chemotherapy, like folinic acid (a B9) with 5FU, right?

If 5 cents of tart cherry extract, a natural COX2 inhibitor, saves me $5 on celecoxib with demonstrated vascular risks, for my aching knee, that's not too crazy is it, huh?

@ prn:

That's not what I'm talking about: rather, it's the extreme position that pharmaceuticals themselves are the problem, are to be feared and should be REPLACED by diets, supplements and herbs. ( see prn.fm; natural news et al)

These people never met a pharmaceutical that they didn't hate. This is especially true for anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and other meds for psychological problems.

If an inexpensive herb or supplement or food can solve the problem, that's fine. Usually, there isn't the same effect.-btw- someone in my family used a low sodium diet ( with a calcium channel blocker ) rather than diuretics for a CV condition for 7 or 8 years until he needed a drug.

If a fruit extract could accomplish the same function, there's no problem. But what if a person's arthritis is NOT helped by OTC meds or natural products? I have gone through this with elderly people who tried everything before resorting to meds.

@ Alain:
Oui, c'est vrai!

Avec ses 'amis' Blaxill, Hooker et Bolen!
Comment dit-on 'woo fight' en francais?

What I find comical about many that throw out the "pharma shill" line will point you to their favorite guru's website, which will invariably either have a book or video to sell, or loads of ads for various alt-med products, or even a "store" right on the site. Andrew Weil even has his own brand of vitamins with his mug prominently emblazoned on the box.

@ Denice,

For some reason, my previous 2 attempts at posting an answer did not work so I'm trying with this one:

Woo fight, there's no direct translation but the best I can come with is "mettre la lumière sur les médecine douce" (shed light on alties medicine). It doesn't have the same connotation as woo fight but it can be dropped in an uppity conversation :)

Alain

@Alain

I kind of like bagarre de woo, myself.

@Shay,

Yeah that's a good one too.

Alain

@Tom Herling: yes, well, most of these people think "irony" is just something you take in supplementies.

I like *bagerre*. I'm trying to think of a really good Gaelic word- there has to be one.

Because of the internal conflict @ AoA, recently covered here, I expect that their conference might include a *bagerre* or two..
Of course,there's always the possibility that they're mend fences... although I wouldn't count on it.
More than one loose cannon on that deck.

At any rate, Jake is listed as a speaker.
So are Blaxill, Olmstead, Kim, Hooker, Bolen, Scott Bell, AJW, Rivera (MMS) and too much woo gathered together in one place for anyone's comfort.

Basically what happens, is that big industry and government tries to control social media such as twitter by causing annoyances and censorship by getting accounts suspended. They hire people all over the world so there are different IP addresses and locations so it doesn’t look suspicious to the Twitter algorithm.

I wouldn't say this sort of astroturfing doesn't happen, but there are easier and cheaper ways of hiding IP addresses.
Do you have a real, identifiable example of what you're alleging?

I wouldn't be surprised companies do stuff like that, but I would appreciate an example.

As for IP addresses, large companies could probably assign existing workers from different office branches to do it, assuming they're afraid of getting caught bouncing their messages through other IP addresses. But they probably aren't that afraid of getting caught.

Hey, enough of this "I'm working on a grant application" excuse.

Orac needs to get back up to his mom's attic and crank out some new posts.

Work on the catalogue raisonée has stalled while I transcribe a talk, in which I am threatened with bodily harm for being a "bimbo skeptic"! Fun! Illustrious company!

So I better get it done before A1, right?

Maybe Jen thinks Orac is a pharma shill because he gets a pittance in revenue from advertisements (the content of which are beyond his control, I might add)?

Anyway, IMO knowing that people are shilling is useful as a forensic tool - to figure out why people make consistently wrong, or cranky, or denialist, arguments or claims, when such a pattern becomes clear. (Obviously not everyone with such a habit is a financial shill.)

But otherwise it really doesn't matter. If Orac was an employee of Merck, it wouldn't matter as long as his arguments were still constructed using sold evidence and valid inferences.

Perhaps I can clear up the "Orac is a Pharma Shill" nonsense. A while back, ace cub reporter, Jake Crosby, uncovered the shocking truth! Let me explain: Orac works at a university. This university has received charitable donations and grants from pharmaceutical companies. Ergo: Pharma Shill. Only problem is that Orac doesn't see any of that money, but who cares about pesky little details like that?

@ Todd W.

That's what I alluded to in # 28.
Skimming over Jake's 90 (!!!!!!) posts listed at AoA, an errant thought crossed my mind, he's like a gossip columnist gone bad: he ties together random, loosely related bits of information about individuals' secrets and manages to NOT create salacious- and interesting- fictional scenarios: rather, he drones on and on about minute details in "he said- she said" fashion.
He's invented a new genre: boring gossip.

@Denice

Yeah. But people were still speculating, so I thought I'd just cut to the point. Not one for subtlety, me.

I imagine that Jake could take a wonderful story like the Scarlet Pimpernel (nice reference in the other thread, btw) and make it read like a statistics textbook (apologies to statisticians out there). Prose is certainly not his forte.

Haha, Ren, I always knew my grandmother was one in a million! The weird thing is, according to what a lot of those who say vaccine' s benefits outweigh safety concerns, point out that those people would likely have got GB anyways. Well no family member has ever had flu shots since then and yet probably we have had the 'flu' - funny, no GB for us- just the one who got that flu shot almost 4 decades ago. Of course that is anecdotal.
I still see that the vaccine 'safety' studies (epidemiological and most poorly done) aren't convincing many in the science field (a recent survey shows one in 3 docs question them). I can't link now but it was at AoA and it's from a medical journal. BTW, I don't think there's been much of any reporting on exactly what happened in Chad (one mention - maybe at Ditz's site-about how one of the affected kids hadn't had the vaccine?) that isn't convincing.

Also, I can't speak for all of those parents, but I bet they would be happy to trade back their decision to get their child's flu shot and resulting narcolepsy for the chance that their child might have got the flu or any flu complications.

@ Todd W.

And merci beaucoup.

I am imagining a short story called "Scoot!" about an irate, fashionable columnist stamping her Jimmy Choos about the brash new, badly dressed reporter who not only makes up stories BUT manages to make them boring: a disgrace to the profession. However, he becomes very popular because many older people read his work instead of taking meds to induce sleep.

She thinks up a plan to get him fired from his position by introducing him to REAL life through set-up run-ins with various members of her entourage: his writing should then
reflect exciting rendezvous and late night * tete a tetes* with urban wildlife's sex-drugs-and-rock-and-roll AND thus keep the readers awake.
Her plan works. He goes back to his tried and true method and gets hired by an internet blog.

Jen, Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it. If we could somehow only vaccinate those people who would have caught a vaccine preventable disease and suffered significant harm without it, that would truly maximize benefit while minimizing risk.

Any thoughts on how to do that?

Real safety trials would be a great start. I will try and link to that study on 1 in 3 docs being concerned about vaccine trials.

What exactly would a 'real' safety trial look like, Jen? How would they differ from the safety trial designs currently in use?

Blaxill, Olmstead, Kim, Hooker, Bolen, Scott Bell, AJW, Rivera (MMS) and too much woo gathered together in one place for anyone’s comfort.

Are you worried about the quantity of woo reaching uncritical mass?

Woo-kuler melt down...

JGC, I am not a science researcher - if you are then maybe you can come up with something involving biomarkers and looking at the children for longer than 2-4 weeks post- vaccine (many involve series of shots, anyways)
Study on Jan 15, 2013, Journal of Preventive Medicine, Colorado). 'One in three family doctors have little confidence in vaccine safety studies.'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23333206:

What exactly would a ‘real’ safety trial look like, Jen? How would they differ from the safety trial designs currently in use?

Repeated for emphasis. It's easy to claim there's a better way. What's not so easy is actually coming up with one.

Of course, this is a typical empty assertion about science in general. They say science can't detect X, or that a test protocol can't detect X. So, how do they propose to detect X?

From Jen's link:

RESULTS:

One in three family physicians compared to one in ten pediatricians in both surveys reported little or no confidence in pre-licensure vaccine safety studies (p<0.001). Compared to pre-licensure studies, higher percentages of both specialties reported a great deal of confidence in post-licensure vaccine safety studies in both years, and more physicians from both specialties reported a great deal of confidence in 2010/11 than in 2007.

You've cherry-picked you own link Jen. See how different that citation is when you don't lie and make sh!t up.

"Physicians' confidence in vaccine safety studies.
O'Leary ST, Allison MA, Stokley S, Crane LA, Hurley LP, Beaty B, Kempe A.
Source

Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; The Children's Outcomes Research Program, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: sean.o'leary@childrenscolorado.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:

To ascertain, through two separate surveys among nationally representative networks of pediatricians (Peds) and family physicians (FM): 1) physicians' reported level of confidence in pre- and post-licensure vaccine safety studies; and 2) changes in reported level of confidence from 2007 to 2010/11.
METHODS:

Two surveys were conducted in August to October 2007 and in November 2010 to January 2011. The survey response rates were 81% (FM, 79%, Peds, 84%, p=0.07) for the 2007 survey (691/848) and 66% (FM, 61%, Peds, 70%, p=0.003) for the 2010/11 survey (532/811).
RESULTS:

While most family physicians and pediatricians report confidence in post-licensure vaccine safety studies, one third of family physicians report little or no confidence in pre-licensure studies. More research is needed to better understand the reasons behind some physicians' lack of confidence in vaccine safety studies."

You do know the difference between 5 clinical trials with 21,480 participants who received the HPV vaccine...and the post licensing safety studies where 25,000,000 doses of the HPV vaccine were administered...don't you Jen?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952863

Jen, nice try trying to twist that article.

One in three family doctors have little confidence in pre-licensure vaccine safety studies.

I notice you failed to mention that this number is 1 in 10 for pediatricians, and goes way down to 1 in 10 when asking family doctors about their confidence in post-licensure studies.

It takes some serious blinders to claim that this paper shows that "one in 3 docs question [vaccine safety studies]".

So your response takes the form "Since I'm not a science researcher so I have no idea what might be wrong with the current study protocols--I just somehow, some way, know something is"?

Have i got that right?

And that last sentence from Jen's cite bears repeating:

More research is needed to better understand the reasons behind some physicians' lack of confidence in vaccine safety studies.

The author's aren't calling for more research to improve pre-licensure safety studies, but instead for more research to understand why some physicians fail to accept the findings of pre-licensure vaccine safety studies.

@ JGC:

So your response takes the form “Since I’m not a science researcher so I have no idea what might be wrong with the current study protocols–I just somehow, some way, know something is”?

Have i got that right?"

Spot on JGC: What more should we expect from a teacher's aide who regards her special needs students as "vaccine damaged" and who is anti-vaccine and anti-science to the core of her being?

See, Lilady, that's the problem with cites. Some smart alec science-type is going to follow the link and actually read it.

"What exactly would a ‘real’ safety trial look like, Jen?"

Obviously, one which confirms antivaxer fantasies about vaccines.

Since that hasn't happened, the reason must be that they weren't "real" safety trials.

Question: do alties ever say things like "Oh yeah, I didn't notice that. You're right" when confronted with conflicting information?

I was arguing on another blog with someone claiming that a doctor was "shooting baking soda into tumours and making them go away." I told her the doctor in question has been stripped of his license and convicted of manslaughter. He was sentenced to jail (but didn't serve time due to a general amnesty in Italy). Do you think she said "Oh wow, I didn't know that?" No, she continued her diatribe against Big Pharma.

When I'm corrected I acknowledge my error and apologize if necessary. I make my share of mistakes but always appreciate learning more. Alties, not so much.

Question: do alties ever say things like “Oh yeah, I didn’t notice that. You’re right” when confronted with conflicting information?

Jen's specific MO appears to be to outright vanish when she's presented with conflicting evidence, then reappears a few days later as if nothing had happened. I suspect that's precisely what's just happened on this thread.

@ MSII and Adam? O.k. It's "pre- licensure" confidence that they are talking about. Thank you for clarifying some of that and as JGCI pointed out, the last sentence does simply state that "more research is needed to better understand the reasons behind some physician's lack of confidence in vaccine safety studies."
lilady, that's pretty much bordering on slander to say that I "view my special needs students as vaccine damaged." (all is implied). I work with children who have all sorts of difficulties- kids with cerebral palsey as well as specifically identified syndromes. You are one really disturbed, miserable person in how you come across -not someone who will help to inspire trust toward vaccine safety.
I give up- vaccine safety is all great, no room for improvement even! And any problems which may come along such as narcolepsy are all worth it and better than any complications from the actual disease (assuming one gets all these diseases).
Wow, Bronze Dog, I was going to thank you for being civil in your response (58) but then I went higher up and I saw # 18 ("meatspace", despicable). I'm not up for this kind of abuse.

Um, on what planet is "meatspace" a pejorative term?

Oh, nevermind, now I see what you were saying. Hardly an uncivil response though...

vaccine safety is all great, no room for improvement even!

Obvious strawman. Once again Jen is all "I have no idea what might be wrong with the current study protocols–I just somehow, some way, know something is"

Fun. I get to see Jen fixate on civility and whine that I was uncivil because I called her uncivil, evasive, dishonest behavior "despicable."

This childish obsession with politeness is a tool of tyrants, bigots, and the status quo. They frame any dissent or criticism as "impolite" according to personal convenience, no matter how well it's phrased. They demand that we talk about tone instead of the core issues. It's how they distract people and justify their closed-mindedness to themselves. It's how they justify inaction in the face of suffering.

Grow up, Jen.

Oh, and to reiterate AdamG's incredulity, what's wrong with "meatspace?" How's that any worse than "in the flesh?" The latter is arguably the progenitor of the former.

Heh, heh Jen...

"lilady, that’s pretty much bordering on slander to say that I “view my special needs students as vaccine damaged.” (all is implied)."

Gee Jen, you really are a dullard...slander is spoken defamation and libel is written defamation. Now you can go back to your pals at AoA and post how "lilady" is a meanie...and libel me once again.

"I work with children who have all sorts of difficulties- kids with cerebral palsey (sic) as well as specifically identified syndromes. You are one really disturbed, miserable person in how you come across -not someone who will help to inspire trust toward vaccine safety."

Wouldn't you think that a teacher's aide would know how cerebral palsy is spelled...even if that person is from Canada?

You're a lost cause Jen and I am certainly not trying to disabuse you of your ignorance when it comes to vaccine safety. Aren't you upset that I called you a cherry-picking liar who makes sh!t up?

Nice try Bronze Dog, you stated that I was likely as "despicable"off- line. I in fact did acknowledge my too narrow interpretation of the study. Thanks again.

Hey lilady, I made a spelling mistake and used the term slander rather than libel. At least I'm not miserable!

Nice try Bronze Dog, you stated that I was likely as “despicable”off- line.

Yeah, I did. ...What's your point?

I in fact did acknowledge my too narrow interpretation of the study. Thanks again.

At least that's something.

I like *bagerre*. I’m trying to think of a really good Gaelic word- there has to be one.

My Old Irish is very, very rusty. (OK, it was never any good to start with, but at least I got what I have from the top of the heap.) I'm thinking that the mixture of nuances in bruiden might work well here. It would take me a while to assemble a coherent offering, though.

Hey Jen, you continually "make mistakes" and I'm not miserable...especially when you come to post your crap here.

I have the respect of family, friends and my colleagues in the science community. You're still a cherry picking liar who makes sh!t up and who only has a modicum of respect from your pals at AoA and the other crank blogs you post on.

Sometimes I wonder if we ARE too rough on those who *follow* alt med proselytisers and woo-meisters and here's why:
they may be merely be repeating what they are TAUGHT by their leaders who interpret research or create their own.
They may trust those who inform them about science because they assume that they themselves understand little ; perhaps they don't suspect their instructors' paucity of information, vested interests or outright prevarication- or appreciate how they are being manipulated by these groups.

I hear trusting souls question an altie "expert" who tells them that there is NO research that shows vaccines to be "safe and effective" and that there is "proof" positive that governments "fixed" data and that braves mavericks like
AJW were "set up" as frauds.

Sites like AoA, AVN, JABS, Natural News, prn, others set themselves up as ultimate authorities on vacciines: they explain how governmental agencies lie and they inform readers/ listeners that pharmaceutical companies cheat ( with examples of malfeasance) and then, parents talk about the "damage" done to their children by vaccines.

All of this is showcased in an engineered and finely honed message tailored to PERSAUDE other parents through emotional material presented histrionically. To be BELIEVABLE.

It wasn't just ANDY that fixed data: the entire movement is a FIX.

@80, Denice - Sometimes people are just too ill to do any research and they just follow what appears to be the best advice available from doctors. There are quacks with valid medical licenses 'disguised' in white coats at leading hospitals. Disputing what is being taught by leading institutions with an ill patient is difficult, as they will defend what the experts have taught them.

"Sometimes people are just too ill to do any research and they just follow what appears to be the best advice available from doctors...(who) will defend what the experts have taught them."

Don't let yourself be fooled, sheeple! Never trust the "experts" or those quacks 'disguised' in white coats!

Have I got a website for you...

Never trust the “experts” or those quacks ‘disguised’ in white coats!

@DB - So now you tell me.

What's the website or are you messing with me?

Don’t let yourself be fooled, sheeple! Never trust the “experts”....

I'll say (MP3).

@ Naead:
Thanks for the word... I have a suspicion that I will find it very useful amongst the Gaelic speakers.
Better than 'ri ra'.

OOOps.. NARAD

OOOps.. NARAD

Yah, people say that to me a lot.

I can't recall which author came up with this thought, which I'm paraphrasing: "There are just some people who are too stupid to realize there may be people smarter than they are."

I've had conversations with alt-med believers that remind me of that phrase, and no matter how much you counter their erroneous statements with facts, they just refuse to believe they could be wrong, or avoid responding by bringing out the "big Pharma/government/etc". conspiracy theories.

@Denice Walter,

I try to be civil to everyone - at first.

Mephistopheles O'Brien
Shill, Class II, with clusters, keeper of the Great Echidna of Office, grub gatherer (by appointment)

Tonight, I'm mostly in pain from my PTSD but that's because I came across recent posts (linked in my blog) by other bloggers speaking about the after events of a trauma. Warning: it may be a tough read.

http://www.securivm.ca/2013/02/traumaand-environment-after-trauma.html

Alain

Longtime lurker, first-time poster...mostly because I WAS a pharma shill. I worked as a ghostwriter writer of continuing medical education articles that were paid for by pharmaceutical companies. I took presentations by researchers and turned them into articles, and in the fine print of the article it would say "supported by a grant from BMS/Glaxo/Janssen/etc."

Let me tell you, it made my job so much easier when the researchers would throw in a reference to some kind of alternative medicine. Most of our articles were explanation of why drug X was better than drug Y. When we could mention herbal supplements, chelation therapy, or other junk, we were always happy to put it in there because we could point to it and say "See, we're neutral! We're supporting a product by someone other than the pharma company!"

The thing is, though, being a shill doesn't pay as well as you think. It costs a lot of money to pay all those researchers to sign their names to crap. Plus, there's the whole NIH-cracking-down-on-conflicts-of-interest thing...it's not a good time to be a shill.

@lilady, you forgot that in my haste (I don't devote my entire existence to this as you would seem to) I typed JGCI, instead of 'JGC' - another mistake! You say you have the respect of your friends and family but your behavior shows a deeply hateful personality. Oh and your comment, "even if that person is from Canada?" really shows you up for what you are. I will not be drawn into any kind of predjudiced comments; you represent your side very poorly. Oh, and a cackle is usually spelled, "hee, hee, hee."

Jen,

One might reasonably suspect that you are a pharma shill, trying to make antivaccinationists look bad....

Alain, I wasn't going to post again but I hope you feel better soon. At leastit sounds like you have found some useful information.
Sadie Burke- thanks for posting. If it's hard to be a shill these days, then good! Hopefully we all just want the truth about medical interventions and thanks for stating your experience with ghostwriting for pharmaceutical companies.
In terms of MS research these days, I fear there is a lot of BS going on.
"MS" has very recently been confirmed to be highly associated with CCSVI (chronic cerobrospinal venous insufficiency). This very recent study by Lanzilo, Mancini et al followed Zamboni protocals unlike some of the other studies and found that 76% of those with "MS" had CCSVI, compared to 16% of controls. It was found to be more associated with age than clinical course of disease, showing cumulative effects. So 76% VS 16%!

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/13/20/abstract

MS drugs like Novartis' Gilenya (which disingenuously states it should not be used in people who have a history of cerebrovascular disease- per above study which shows that most with "MS" have!) and Biogen's Tysabri (highly associated with PML that has killed at least 70 of 323 people so far) have been allowed to continue. All this and the neuros will point to the maybe 3 deaths from angioplasty (I believe 2 related to stent use, which is not done anymore). There must be some furious ghost writing going on in these companies!

MOB, why are you wasting time on petty comments toward me rather than asking Sadie Burke some things? Don't you want to hear? Funny how silent you all are now.

@Jen: "MOB, why are you wasting time on petty comments toward me rather than asking Sadie Burke some things? Don’t you want to hear? Funny how silent you all are now."

Why don't you ask? We don't know exactly what questions you have. She acknowledges ghost-writing articles. Orac has blogged about that before so it's not news to the regulars. So what questions should we have?

You're right, LW. 2 and 3 years ago Orac did write about pharma ghost writing- a threat to SBM. I found 2 articles that only drew (combined) 55 comments. Most were appalled by it, then others resorted into jokes and such. Bronze Dog astutely noted that this "would give alties more ammo." One poster asked specifically about vaccines and this was quickly rebuffed.
Sadie- do you know of any ghost writing or pharma shill activity specifically to do with vaccines?

LW: The AoA mole has already posted about Sadie Burke's "confession":

"FYI, on "Orac's" site now there is an article on "shills" and a Sadie Burke showed up as a first time poster who actually claims to be a former ghost writer for pharma. Of course the posters there are doing their best to just ignore her and hope she goes away. It's pretty funny!

Posted by: Jen | February 16, 2013 at 12:10 PM"

How disingenuous of you Jen, when most of the editors, contributing editors and posters at AoA resort to bizarre biomedical ***treatments/cures* for their autistic kids.

***Chelation, chemical castration, industrial bleach enemas, intrathecal IV stem cell transplants at offshore unregulated clinics, etc.

"Of course the posters there are doing their best to just ignore her and hope she goes away. It’s pretty funny!"

How would Jen know what anyone's hoping? Maybe nobody has much to say. Jen herself didn't ask a question until I prompted her to do so. Maybe she was hoping Sadie would go away?

Jen, remember when you declared that you had washed your hands of "creepy Skeptic places"? Think. It wasn't too long ago.

Wow, I think someone really missed my point. Mole, take this back to Age of Autism: I was a pharma shill, and I loved to write about alternative treatments for autism, because it gave me plausible deniability. Think about that.

No, there are no hidden shills for vaccine promotion, because there's no market share to be gained there. Parents aren't going to request a certain brand of vaccine because they saw it on TV. As far as I know there's no giant argument about one company's vaccines being safer for kids than others...because they're all safe. And yes, I'm a parent, and yes, my child is vaccinated.

Also, the main offenders--the researchers I worked with--have already been sanctioned. I'm not revealing anything new. Google "Dr Joseph Biederman" at Mass General. He's already been investigated by 20/20 and Frontline, ie, real journalists.

MOB, why are you wasting time on petty comments toward me rather than asking Sadie Burke some things? Don’t you want to hear? Funny how silent you all are now.

Gosh Jen, projecting your ignorance? I don't know of a single biomedical researcher who doesn't know about pharmaceutical ghost-writing. And it's very frowned upon even though it still happens.

Sadie, Sadie, former "pharma shill" lady, welcome aboard!

“MS” has very recently been confirmed to be highly associated with CCSVI (chronic cerobrospinal venous insufficiency). This very recent study by Lanzilo, Mancini et al followed Zamboni protocals [sic] unlike some of the other studies

Coincidentally, I have a friend who was the first female Zamboni operator (strict protocol) at a large, high-quality state university. In other news, the other Zamboni isn't panning out.

Jen, seriously. Do you never listen to Canadian radio? CBC to the uninitiated. The Newfoundland government abandoned a study in CCSVI liberation as it was not working. Do try to keep up.

Jen seems very accepting of Zamboni's CCSVI disease entity (can only be diagnosed with high-tech equipment sold by Zamboni's business partners) because it is an alternative to the pharmaceutical approach where everyone has conflicts of interest.

Sadie- "they're all safe." Well that's a relief!
Narad, I will read the link.
lilady, I really don't care what you think as per my #93 comments. I still find what Sadie says to be very interesting in terms of drugs.

I know of some studies that many in the "MS" community felt were poorly designed by the neuros and were 'designed' to fail.
Herr doc- I think the deaths by drugs used in MS patients (Tysabri and Gilenya alone) speak for themselves.
Narad, yes, I should have stuck to my plan.

In terms of MS research these days, I fear there is a lot of BS going on.

Is there any particular reason why this sudden swerve of topic occurred? Was anyone talking about MS? Had anyone betrayed an interest in MS, or in defending or criticising any of the treatments currently on offer?
Jen sees this as a stick with which to beat pharmaceutical research -- I did manage to grasp that point -- but there are a number of Underpants Gnome steps absent from the argument.

@109 Jen
Maybe you could be more specific? Which studies/papers? What are exact criticisms of the study designs?

It is hard to discuss without these details.

@Jen - I found your last post on AoA to be very humorous:

FYI, on "Orac's" site now there is an article on "shills" and a Sadie Burke showed up as a first time poster who actually claims to be a former ghost writer for pharma. Of course the posters there are doing their best to just ignore her and hope she goes away. It's pretty funny!

Posted by: Jen | February 16, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Wow, I don't know what color the sky is on your planet, but is sure as hell isn't blue......

@Lawrence: Of course, we are all just ignoring Sadie. Not like we would be all polite and welcome her, or anything. And not like Orac hasn't written about about such ghost writing before. Cause we ALL KNOW he hasn't... (snicker)

And it's really funny that Jen has commented to Sadie and seems to ignore our comments. But then, I don't go to AOA. If I'm going to destroy brain cells it will be with alcohol, not the drivel from AOA.

I think I might know why the teacher's aide tried to pull off that sloppy diversionary tactic.

There's a troll and her sockies that posts on science blogs, who claims her infant had vaccine-induced encephalitis from the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine. She also claims her MS was caused by a Td booster shot. Bring it on home now, Lawrence. :-)

I wonder how Jen thinks we should react? I am not under the illusion that pharmaceutical companies always act in a pure and angelic manner. Is anyone? (probably only the straw-men that Jen creates).

BTW Jen, this article is not about 'shills' exactly, but about how those who question alt-med claims are automatically labelled as a 'pharma shill'.

Narad, I will read the link.

Do so with the knowledge that Zivadinov was initially a proponent of Zamboni's hypothesis.

Jen's comment was so poorly written that I thought initially she was complaining about ghostwritten "BS" articles about MS:

Sadie Burke- thanks for posting. If it’s hard to be a shill these days, then good! Hopefully we all just want the truth about medical interventions and thanks for stating your experience with ghostwriting for pharmaceutical companies.
In terms of MS research these days, I fear there is a lot of BS going on.
“MS” has very recently been confirmed to be highly associated with CCSVI (chronic cerobrospinal venous insufficiency). This very recent study by Lanzilo, Mancini et al followed Zamboni protocals unlike some of the other studies and found that 76% of those with “MS” had CCSVI, compared to 16% of controls.

@ MI Dawn:

"And it’s really funny that Jen has commented to Sadie and seems to ignore our comments. But then, I don’t go to AOA. If I’m going to destroy brain cells it will be with alcohol, not the drivel from AOA."

What...you can't *multi-task"? I'm perfectly capable of destroying my brain cells by *slumming* at AoA, while throwing back some booze.

(I lost you email address MI Dawn...I'd love to hear from you.)

I wondered whether Jen's MS comment had wandered in from an argument with someone else. I couldn't see how an attack on the credibility of pharma shills is made more convincing by shilling for a surgical treatment.

Sadie,

Do you have a list of academic psychiatrist & researchers working on any medication for mental illnesses or closely related that you have worked with?

It's just that I want to work on my filters at pubmed not to include these authors.

Thanks
Alain

@herr doktor bimler

Maybe Jen is in the pay of big surgery?

Big Surgery? I believe the politically correct term is Bariatric.

@122 - See comment @107. Big Pharma (vaccines) vs. Big Surgery (CCSVI liberation surgery for MS).

Stewartt1982:

Maybe Jen is in the pay of big surgery?

I have often asked her if she was in the pay of Big Hospital Supply. She did not like that.

Still on the subject of "chronic cerobrospinal venous insufficiency" and surgical intervention for MS, I have no strong views on the topic, so my opinions are up for auction.

As a generalisation, if the crank-magnetism crowd are siding with a new Paradigm-Changing approach to an illness -- and especially if they're conjuring up conspiracies to explain why tests of the theory are reporting negative results ("poorly designed by the neuros and were ‘designed’ to fail"), then the approach is probably a steaming pile of Fail. But even a blind squirrel is right twice a day, and even a roomful of monkeys at typewriters will find a truffle given enough time.

Ghostwriting still happens and is wrong.

I agree with this writer who proposes that the authors who lend their names to ghost written articles should be legally liable if/when harm is caused.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%253Adoi%252F10.1371%252Fjourna…

And what about the legal liability of pseudo-journalists who promote fear of effective medicines? Or who promote "therapies" which have no scientific support? Are they not liable?

And what about the legal liability of pseudo-journalists who promote fear of effective medicines? Or who promote “therapies” which have no scientific support? Are they not liable?

Under what theory would liability arise? I'm just scanning the PLoS entry, but it's going to require running down the references to make sense of. The text on its face does not strike me as promising.

May I, please? (Mom said to always say please when cookies are around.)

When I read Zamboni, my first association was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_resurfacer
But well, I'm Dutch and used to love watching speedskating.

S@123 - I think your joke detection lobe needs to be recalibrated.

Don't worry, Jen's appearance used to destroy my joke lobe too. Now, before coming to RI, I simply ingest InsaniShield. It's a homeopathic preparation made from distilled AoA posts and extract of Danus Ullmanius. It promotes lobe health and resilience, and prevents implosion upon reading statements like:

"Shaken baby syndrome is vaccine damage"

"Sadie Burke showed up as a first time poster who actually claims to be a former ghost writer for pharma. Of course the posters there are doing their best to just ignore her and hope she goes away*. It’s pretty funny!"

Don't delay, get some InsaniShield today!

*Apparently she's telepathetic. There's no end to her "talents".

When I read Zamboni, my first association was this

Precisely my reference above.

I'd like to welcome Sadie and The Analyst and thank them for their contributions; I hope we can look forward to you becoming regulars.

Believe me, it isn't your fault that Jen is radically misinterpreting what you wrote. Any reasonable person understands there's a vast evidentiary gap between "Pharma ghostwriters and astroturfers exist" and "Every person who agrees with the general medical consensus must be being paid to say so," but Jen is not part of the population of reasonable people.

(You surely already noticed that, what with her making a direct, blunt accusation that Orac is taking "pharma monies" to blog, an accusation she has refused to even tell us why she believes it to be true... and then acting as though she's been subjected to horrid harrasment which she could not possibly have brought on herself when someone describes her behavior as "despicable." Obviously Jen subscribes to the Fool's Gold Rule of "treat only yourself as you would like to be treated, and whine about others not treating you with the same kid gloves; meanwhile, treat others as if they were born for you to take out your fears and angers on.")

The thing aboot the Liberation Treatment for MS is there are people with MS who do not have the narrowing of the neck veins and there are people without MS who do...

@elburto #131, I would like some InsaniShield! One day I, too, would like to be able to wade through AoA like Denice and Lilady and others and come out un-traumatized!

@ Melissa G:

I think that my own arcane abilites are the result of my ancestors' genetic capacity to tolerate huge amounts of nonsense- which has been very useful in the business world- and the resultant traditions that have evolved surrounding it.

While I don't take anything to augment my tolerance but I do imagine that one of the reasons my ancestor created a very potent gin may have been to bolster his own ability to deal with stupidity and idiocy on a large scale.

May I suggest taking a drink prior to reading this ...literature, then?

ENCODED MESSAGE BEGINS------------------

Shills and Minions:

Well, I am actually looking forward to getting back into orbit on Tuesday. This gentlelizard of the vineyards gig isn't exactly a life of luxury and sloth, is it? Prune. Cut. Plant. Harvest. Crush. Bottle. I imagine that I shall especially enjoy the "crush" part. The relentlessly bossy Baroness de Rothschild tells me I should have lackeys performing these tasks for me, but you all know that I'm a micromanager from way back. As usual, I digress, and after all, we have a long lost guest . . .

Now, dear Sadie</b, my hearts are breaking to see you leave us. Do come back to our cold embrace, all of that business about you betraying our secrets is forgiven. You really must learn that treachery and deceit are résumé gold in the empire. How the functionaries and paper-pushers (probably some Squanzog temp, a Glaxxon would know better) ever let you go is a mystery to me. Do contact Miss Flinders directly (Sponder code 098T8503950394850345849) and we'll get this all cleared up at once.

Esteemed and honored Shill O'Brien, I've been remiss in checking in with you to see how the Great Echidna of Office is doing. The fearsome beast hasn't been too much trouble I trust? Your exploits and feats of derring-do have not gone unnoticed in the halls of power on the homeworld. Expect that promition at any time. I do hope you have room for a larger companion. And thicker gloves.

And last, but certainly not least, I turn to you dear Minion Specialist First Class, ElBurto. I do hope you've read your Shills and Minions Manual VII and realize that InsaniShield™ is available free of charge to all who do our evil bidding. Just another perquisite for those willing to betray their species for the "greater good" of the Glaxxon Empire!

Oh, and I almost forgot. Cadre Leader Walter, we missed you at the Glaxxon Interspecies HoloTennis Invitational on Saturday last. The Grand Vitara of Eminiar VII was very disappointed. Astra suspects he continues to pine for you. You must have received his many gifts. Evidently, your combination of tactical prowess, athletic skills, intellect and joie de vivre continues to hold what passes for his heart captive.

Well, it's back to work my malevolent monkeys, there are Jens everywhere undoing everything we've worked so hard for.

Lord Draconis Zeneca, VH7ihl

Forward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Hero of the Rutherford Merlot Offensive

Glaxxon Estate Vineyards
0000000010001000101010101110100

--------------------ENCODED MESSAGE ENDS

ENCODED MESSAGE BEGINS--------------------

LFMAOIZG at the epic boldfail!
Someone might be totes able to kill a M'vesh Pit Constrictor with his bare claws, but dude still can't get the hang of HTML. Your worshipfulness had better lay off the Merlot when layin' down the law to the Shills and MInions. Just sayin'

Astra: Girlfriend, guess who cracked 500,000 on the Asteroids scoreboard? Totes moi! Oh, and I hope old dragonpants isn't sore about that Russia thing. The Rooskis are still cleaning up the glass! But really, it was an accident. My bad.

See ya on Tuedsay!

Cindy Flinders, M99302VihL
Personal Assistant to the Forward Mavoon, Triple Skull Clusters Award: Tactical Gunnery, Order of the Battleclaw, Best Apple Pie: Kansas State Fair

Glaxxon PharmaCOM Orbital
000111010111010101110010

----------------ENCODED MESSAGE ENDS

This was entertaining, in comment #95:
All this and the neuros will point to the maybe 3 deaths from angioplasty (I believe 2 related to stent use, which is not done anymore).

"The number of deaths from invasive surgery for MS has been vastly exaggerated, and anyway no-one is carrying out the totally-not-dangerous operation any more."

This from someone who in #1 was accusing vaccine advocates of minimising and denying the potential side-effects thereof. Two of our cats have more insight than that. I am leaning further towards the "parody troll intended to discredit anti-vaxxers" theory.

This from someone who in #1 was accusing vaccine advocates of minimising and denying the potential side-effects thereof. Two of our cats have more insight than that.

I imagine that herding said cats is very much like dealing with the likes of Jen. Futile, exhausting, and likely to end with fur flying, and piercing yowls of indignation.

I'd love for her to be a troll, but let's face it, that would be some Inception-level trolling. She'd. have to be like a troll within a troll within a troll, as she appears to have the self-awareness of a pineapple. If it's merely a performance then it's a truly astonishing one.

Herr doctor, Orac included a quote from me that mentioned MS- admittedly it was not in this particular article but the 'how they view us' one. I have quite a few friends with MS and yes, they strongly feel CCSVI has been quickly maligned in favour of meds/ genetic explanations. I know many of them feel some of the Canadian CCSVI trials were poorly designed but it would perhaps be better for them to speak on this. I had thought to link to Scienceblogs for them to discuss this - there is an older article by Novella on this issue, but then it occurred to me that people with MS or CCSVI or whatever have it rough enough. Although it certainly isn't the way everyone communicates here I wouldn't want them to be exposed to ridicule, jokes.

@jen - perhaps you could explain to me how I was treated at AoA was any "better?" I attempted to find a middle ground & instead was accused of being a "pharma-shill," insulted personally, and banned from the site........nice group of people you associate with over there.

Jen, if you'd pay attention to why we're rude instead of apparently assuming that we'll automatically be rude in all circumstances, you might learn something about maturity. For starters, rudeness generally isn't an inherent trait, but a circumstantial one. Frankly, I find that the people who regularly complain about rudeness are generally oblivious to their own rude behavior.

Oh, and talking about ableism, there's far too much rhetoric from the antivaxxers characterizing autistic children as inherently broken, worthless, and even false with talk about autism taking away their child and leaving them with an empty shell. It doesn't help that that sort of language makes it all about the parents and their dream child rather than about what's best for the very real autistic one.

*raises hand* I actually defended Jen once, when she said something intelligent and on-topic that I thought was worth a considerate hearing. In her very next post she verbally ripped my head off. So, yeah, I'd second the recommendation she examine her own behavior to determine when the rudeness started.

Lectures on civility are always enjoyable when the source is an internet persona who is perhaps best-known for accusing the entire commentariat at 'Respectful Insolence' of being vile subhuman scum (because Meryl Dorey had complained of some unknown person sending her a death threat).

Perhaps Jen is confusing 'insight' with 'incite'.

@Bronze Dog - Hear hear! The "better dead (of VPD) than damaged" rhetoric is incredibly upsetting.

Also, when I've brought up the fact that something as simple as flu or chickenpox could kill me and people like me, who are disabled/chronically ill but unable to be vaccinated, I've been the target of some utterly disgusting responses from anti-vaxxers. Usually they're somewhat along the lines of "That's how nature cleans the gene pool". and the old ~purity~ schtick about not polluting the bodies of their precious offspring to save "defective" people.

Their movement is built on ableism and neurotypical superiority.

I want to say that I just found your blog today when searching for information about Duesberg for a "Chemistry for the Health Professions II " course I am taking.
Our instructor has a portion of our course dedicated to CAM studies with the intention of teaching us how to begin to sort the good from the bad when reading research articles.
I think I have learned more in 3 hours on your blog than I have learned so far this semester.
I posted this on this particular post because I have already seen examples of your "pharma shill" statement in action -- within the first week of class students who were pro-CAM (in general) were talking of the big pharmacy money that keeps "natural medicine" information out of the average person's reach.

Welcome Valanda! Stick around, there is much to learn here. There's another great blog that you'll find helpful for its in-depth deconstruction of CAM: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

Hope it helps with your studies, best of luck!

Glad to have you aboard, Valanda.

---

elburto:

Also, when I’ve brought up the fact that something as simple as flu or chickenpox could kill me and people like me, who are disabled/chronically ill but unable to be vaccinated, I’ve been the target of some utterly disgusting responses from anti-vaxxers. Usually they’re somewhat along the lines of “That’s how nature cleans the gene pool”. and the old ~purity~ schtick about not polluting the bodies of their precious offspring to save “defective” people.

Their movement is built on ableism and neurotypical superiority.

Yeah, I'm remembering some of that, now. Some take it far enough to effectively reject the concept of medicine as undermining the gene pool. Some mix it with the Disneyfication of nature to tell themselves they or their children are so genetically superior that they'll naturally adapt to anything. It also conveniently fits with blaming the victim: If you get sick, it's because your inferiority made you deserve sickness.

@Valanda

Welcome! You could blow the minds of some of your classmates by talking about Seven Seas and their "natural supplements". Once everyone's nice an supportive of them, reveal that Seven Seas is owned by Merck.

Hooray, Valanda! Welcome! Or should I say, "WELLCOME"? ;D

...'cause we're all pharma shills an' there's the Wellcome Trust... and... I'll get my coat.

The world of CAM and "alternative medicine" (including supplements, and pseudoscience such as homeopathy) is a wild and wonderful world.

My own journey from a naive believer in "natural medicine", through to shruggie, to being a rather vehement lay supporter of skepticism took several decades.

Hot of the presses today, courtesy of our own Ren, PublicHealth-PhD-in-training:

At Lifehacker: How to Conduct Scientific Research On the Internet (Without Getting Duped) by Alan Henry

You know how to tell if something controversial is actually true, but what if you want to read up on something without stumbling into half-truths and pseudoscience? Here's how to use the internet as a powerful research tool without being led astray.

Enjoy.

Does Valanda get the Pharma Tart hat and shillelagh right away?

Thank you for the link, Liz. Adding this one to my arsenal.

@Shay, I'm definitely not one to go around thinking about 'Tarts', but I can't get thoughts of Pharma Tart out of my head.

Yes, a hat and a shillelagh for Valanda!

Hello Valanda - glad to have you aboard. I too found RI while doing research for work (for info about "EMF poisoning") and spent several months reading back posts - I don't have a science background so it took me a while to get up to speed. You will find excellent discussion here that should help inform your studies - and it is very heartening to see someone educating themselves about CAM at the beginning of their career instead of having to play catch-up later. Good luck with your studies and I hope you continue to comment.

@ Valanda: Welcome aboard. I'm sure our overload, Lord Draconis, will be here shortly to formally welcome you into our group of *Big Pharma Shills*. :-)

To my dearest and most dread Lord Draconis Zeneca, VH7ihl, Forward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Galactic Ping-Pong Champ 2000-2001 (inclusive, spanning two millennia),

I trust that this message finds you well, that the sand pits have been warm, and that the hand, foot, and tentacle maidens willing.

It is your servant's hope that you will be pleased to hear that the Great Echidna has thrived since his arrival. Apparently my 23 room pharma-hovel suffered from a previously unknown termite issue, and the echidna (bless its spines) accepted these as the treat that your servant would have prepared if, indeed, your servant had expected such a great honor. Needless to say, the Great Echidna has doubled in girth while saving a tidy sum to the Orkin man. But as they say, a fat echidna is a happy echidna, and it is an ill termite infestation that blows no one good.

Thank you for all the warm welcome!
I was wondering if there is a database somewhere for author's qualifications? I found a link through here to the list of predatory publishers. That was very helpful.

When this class started, our instructor had us pick two CAM research articles without telling us what we were going to do with them. Through the semester, we are going to look at various aspects of these articles. Both of my articles came from the same journal: BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. This week, we are supposed to look at our authors: education, background, affiliations - do they seem qualified to do this research? I'm not finding much about any of the authors of the articles I chose. All I have been able to find is what university they are with and other articles they have authored. Can anyone give me some suggestions on where to look?

@ Valanda: I went to PubMed to *search* for a respected doctor who has published many articles about CAM. I keyed in "Kimball Atwood" on the search line of PubMed...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=kimball+atwood

The fourth article listed under Dr. Atwood's name brought me to this complete article, where you can see Dr. Atwood's credentials and affiliations...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438277/

@Valanda - You can check their associated professional licensing authorities, such as the medical licensing boards, to see if they have any board actions against them which have been made available to the public. That may raise some questions as to the integrity of their research and other matters.

@Jen

We don't need your 2 cents, the Order pays us far more through Glaxoogle MoneyNET Services, whose interest rates are, as His Reptilian Mastermind Lt. Colonel Mnz'ahn-Taw Bayer bin Hubbard would say, "really frajjzkh'zzng sweet, pardon my Draconian".

All Hail Lord Draconis Zeneca!

Orac is funded by Sanofi (Sanofi Pasteur, major vaccine manufacturer), is it so ?

@Chemist: "Orac is funded by Sanofi (Sanofi Pasteur, major vaccine manufacturer), is it so ?"

No, that is not so, as has been explained repeatedly.

Here, Chemist, just for you.

Here is, I believe a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/18/as-josh-duhamel-shills-for…">the most recent debunking of that falsehood, on Feb 18:

... no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby. Crosby’s entire chain of logic can be summarized in a brief, blisteringly dumb thesis: My university has received grants from Sanofi-Aventis. I also work on the repurposing of a drug originally used to treat amyotropic lateral sclerosis that has anticancer properties that apparently Sanofi-Aventis markets. Even though I haven’t received a penny from Sanofi-Aventis to work on that drug, Crosby inferred that because my university apparently got a significant grant from Sanofi-Aventis my working on that particular drug must indicate a quid pro quo. (Never mind that I didn’t even know my university had gotten any funding from Sanofi-Aventis).

Ugh, HTML fail. Here's the link:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/18/as-josh-duhamel-shills-for…

OK. Thanks for clarification. Keep the good work.

Just curious, has anyone here read Pharmageddon?

What comes to mind after reading "Pharmageddon" is not that doctors like Orac are "pharma shills", but that they are "pharma dupes". They have been duped, conned, bamboozled, beguiled and spun into playing the game and have no interest in stopping it because they benefit handsomely from the crumbs that fall from Big Pharma's table.

Orac is a surgeon. Sandrop, do you want him to just not let the anesthesiologist use any pharmaceutical products?

Oh, and I have never heard of the book.

Where's my crumb?

Healy's book (here's a sympathetic review PDF) warns that pharmaceutical companies can be unscrupulous and dishonest in their desire to make profits. I don't think any of us would deny that is true; we need better regulation of large multinational corporations in many areas, it's a problem that seems to be an intrinsic element of capitalism. I think that means that medicine should be based on better scientific evidence, not that we should embrace naturopathy or homeopathy. "The game" needs to be played better, not abandoned altogether.

I think it's very presumptuous of Sandrop to a.) not know Orac's prescribing habits and b.) not know that Orac has been critical of pharmaceutical practices and make the claims that s/he does. I'm always amused when trolls read a book (probably not even that much) and suddenly become authorities. Here's a clue for you Sandrop; criticising those who make blanket accusations about being in the thrall of pharma doesn't mean they are in the thrall of pharma.

Oh, come on, Science Mom! Anesthesia is part of Big Pharma. If Abigail Adams, the daughter, f the second USA president (John Adams), can have a double mascetomy without drugs, then modern women should too!

I really don't think Sandrop really thought it through.

Oops, I mean "mastectomy." In a hurry to finish I forgot spell-check.

@ Krebiozen:

He has a blog: davidhealy.org also.

-btw- Critics of SBM assume that there can be no criticism of pharmaceutical companies because they envision that the two parties are interchangeable.
This illustrates their own black and white thinking- not what occurs in the real world.

And how well would Leonid Rogozov have done without pharmaceuticals?

[OT]

Any news from the vaccine summit? (Don't you hate polls like that?)

@ Grant: One of those cranks from AoA called me a pharma shill. I asked him why he was spreading FUD and what his interest was in the "Vaccine Summit". He didn't reply.

His "interest"...

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/HASTINGS.PAVLOVIC1109…

@Science Mom
I am sure Orac's prescribing habits are dictated by the HMOs and the information (mis-information) helpfully fed to him by Big Pharma. That is why is a Pharma Dupe, rather than a Pharma Shill, although some people would call him the latter because of his loose ties to a pharmaceutical company. Read Pharmageddon and make up your own mind. Reviews don't count. But of course you won't read it because it goes against the grain of your cherished beliefs. Newsflash: pharmaceutical companies make a mockery of science.

@Science Mom
And I am being sympathetic to Orac, because neither he nor any of his colleagues can know with any certainty whether the pharmaceutical industry is telling them the truth about anything they subscribe.

"about anything they prescribe". Not subscribe.

And I am being sympathetic to Orac, because neither he nor any of his colleagues can know with any certainty whether the pharmaceutical industry is telling them the truth about anything they subscribe.

Pompous, passive-aggressive, patronising posturing. Somehow, I highly doubt you are in a position of such transcending authority and expertise on the subject that anyone would give a rat's bum about your "sympathy".

@Science Mom
I am basing my opinion on Dr. David Healy's comprehensive and damning book about what has happened to medicine. Also, on the published statistic that prescription medicines are among the highest contributors to death in America. May I turn the mirror on you? Pompous, passive-aggressive, patronising -- I highly doubt that you are in a position of such transcending authority and expertise on the subject that you can refute me. As I said, read the book.

Sandrop, do you think that surgeons should insist that the anesthesiologists not bother showing up? Surely if Abigail Adams could have a double mastectomy without Big Pharma, modern women can also!

Also, on the published statistic that prescription medicines are among the highest contributors to death in America

Where are you getting this? I'm pretty sure I know, and it doesn't say what you think it does.

Honest question, Sandrop: Why do you trust Healy's interpretations of the data and evidence?

Sandrop,

the published statistic that prescription medicines are among the highest contributors to death in America

Where precisely is this statistic published? I hope you aren't referring to Gary Null's 'Death By Medicine', which it is deeply flawed in several ways.
Here are the 15 most common causes of death in the US according to the CDC with the annual death rate per 100,000.
Diseases of heart 193.6
Malignant neoplasms 186.2
Chronic lower respiratory diseases 44.7
Cerebrovascular diseases 41.9
Accidents (unintentional injuries) 39.1
Alzheimer's disease 27.0
Diabetes mellitus 22.4
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis 16.3
Influenza and pneumonia 16.2
Intentional self-harm (suicide) 12.4
Septicemia 11.3
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 10.3
Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 8.6
Parkinson's disease 7.1
Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids 5.5

The annual death rate due to adverse drug reactions is 0.08 to 0.12 per 100,000 according to this study published last year. Something doesn't add up, does it?

Oops, sorry. The links in the above mess are intact.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2898%292…

Are The Lancet and JAMA sufficiently authoritative ?

@AdamG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Healy_%28psychiatrist%29

Yes.

@Chris
Healy's argument is that many extremely valuable drugs were developed in the twentieth century in a kind of golden age of pharmaceutical development. I would class anasthesia agents among them. But more recently as these drugs came off patent, pharmaceutical companies have been trying to develop new ones, particularly block busters, that would be more profitable for them. Healy's claim is that the new drugs are inferior to the old and carry a greater burden of side effects, and that the pharmaceutical industry is sacrificing the well being of patients to its bottom line.

Sandrop:

The lancet and jama papers are out if date, and have some methodological problems as well. The study at Krebiozen's link was published last year and uses far more accurate data.

As for Healy, throwing a wiki link out doesn't answer my question. Why do you trust Healy's interpretation of the data?

Read the book and decide whether you trust the data. And it's not just about the data; it's about what the pharmaceutical companies are doing behind the scenes that occasionally comes to light.

E.g., study 329, the 1997 trial on Paxil, which found that Paxil was no more effective but more dangerous than a placebo. GSK then decided to cherry-pick the data and conceal the finding that six times as many participants became suicidal on Paxil than on the placebo. The article was written by a ghostwriter and published in the Journal of the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. And, BTW, the study subjects who became suicidal on Paxil were children, although the book doesn't say how young. There is a copy of an an internal memo from GSK from 1998 showing that the company decided to withhold data from the regulator and to publish "the good bits" of Study 329. It is also known that in one of the centers that participated in the study "children who deteriorated on treatment and dropped out" were labeled as non-compliant. The resulting study claimed that Paxil was safe and effective and featured 22 authors, some with very distinguished names, whereas the study was ghostwritten by a woman named Sally Laden, whose name did not appear on the paper. BTW the first subjects of the study were children in foster care in the US, and then they recruited children in South America and South Africa. Can you imagine a more vulnerable population, other than perhaps babies and the very old?

BTW all this was brought to light by investigative journalists from the BBC. You are d*mn right I trust them more than I trust GSK. I certainly trust Dr. Healy and his similarly outspoken colleague Dr. Ben Goldacre more than any pharmaceutical company.

Healy's book is extensively footnoted.

Krebiozen's link shows an under-reporting of adverse events. According to the FDA only one in 100 adverse drug reactions are reported.

Sandrop, do you really think surgical oncologist like Orac prescribes Paxil? You are claiming he is being duped, yet your examples are way out of his field. You may note I did not accuse him of being in charge of surgical anesthesia.

Sandrop:

Read the book and decide whether you trust the data. And it’s not just about the data; it’s about what the pharmaceutical companies are doing behind the scenes that occasionally comes to light.

How about you compare it to Protecting America's Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation? If you really want examples of pharmaceutical skullduggery, that book has it!

@Chris
Paxil is just one example. Orac prescribes far worse things than Paxil.

@Chris
Actually, Healy has some interesting things to say about the FDA too.

Sandrop: Surgeons have no authority to prescribe anything, as far as I know. And even if Orac does prescribe medications, do you know what those are? I'd bet, no.

And, BTW, the study subjects who became suicidal on Paxil were children, although the book doesn’t say how young.

"BTW"? That's the whole freaking point. And they weren't "children," they were adolescents. This generally means 13–19 years of age. By leading with an attack on Paxil per se, you are putting the cart well before the horse.

Surgeons have no authority to prescribe anything, as far as I know.

PGP, an MD (which naturally includes surgeons) can write a script for anything they think is warranted. For that matter, so can a dentist. The question one gets into is normal scope of practice and whether the prescriptions are as a matter of course out of line with it.

(The "study 329" item in question is here, for convenience. I don't have full-text access. I presume that it's well known.)

Sandrop,
I suspect you are mistaking criticism of the pharmaceutical industry for wholesale condemnation of conventional medicine. As I wrote before, I don't think anyone would deny that pharmaceutical companies can be unscrupulous and dishonest in their desire to make profits. I think it's a mistake to link this with deaths due to adverse drug reactions. The study I linked to above found that:

The most common drug classes associated with death were anticoagulants, opioids, and immunosuppressants.

Anticoagulants save the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of patients with clotting disorders every year, but their therapeutic range is very close to the level that is dangerous so they require close monitoring, and unfortunately patients sometimes die because they have over or under-dosed. Far more would die if anticoagulants were unavailable. That's why pharmaceutical companies have developed safer anticoagulants with a wider therapeutic range.

Immunosuppressant drugs save the lives of countless thousands of people who have had transplant surgery, or who suffer from autoimmune disorders, but they can have similarly lethal side effects.

Opioids are indispensable for the treatment of severe pain, but often contribute to the deaths of those treated with them, for example cancer patients at the end of their lives.

NSAIDs are another class drug with a high rate of lethal adverse effects but they can transform the life of a patient with arthritis (even bête noire Vioxx is very effective), but they can also have serious adverse cardiovascular or gastrointestinal effects.

Balancing risks against benefits is a large part of what medicine is all about. Are you suggesting that we would be better off without these drugs?

I think it would be better to find safer ways of using these drugs and, where necessary, to develop new and safer drugs, and to introduce better regulation of drug companies. That is what is slowly happening thanks, partly, to the efforts of people like Healy and Goldacre.

I am basing my opinion on Dr. David Healy’s comprehensive and damning book about what has happened to medicine. Also, on the published statistic that prescription medicines are among the highest contributors to death in America. May I turn the mirror on you? Pompous, passive-aggressive, patronising — I highly doubt that you are in a position of such transcending authority and expertise on the subject that you can refute me. As I said, read the book.

Exactly, you read a damn book; that doesn't make you an authority on the matter. The fact that you can come here with your faux "sympathy" for a physician whom you have no knowledge of and consider him a dupe of the industry is a stunning display of arrogant ignorance because you read a book.

There are very dubious practices in the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies are also not lily white. And as Krebiozen mentioned, the light of day is being shone on these dodgy dealings. That doesn't mean that you have any authority nor expertise to criticise physicians you neither know nor have any requisite education yourself to understand the practise of medicine.

@Science Mom
As a consumer of healthcare and a citizen of a country with free speech I absolutely have the authority to criticise physicians when they are potentially harming people. You, however, seem to be living in a totalitarian country of some sort where free speech in not permitted.

@Krebiozen

I am in absolute agreement with you on all these points.

@Krebiozen
Healy doesn't condemn the medical profession. He seems to imply that they have unwittingly become the victims of Big Pharma, bedazzled by studies that have no bearing on reality and targeted by such intense marketing from the very beginning of their medical education that it is very difficult for them to make truly informed decisions (esp. given that the information they are provided with to make those decisions is often flawed). The ones who see adverse effects and stand up for their patients do so at considerable risk to themselves -- they can be fired and ostracized, or lose their medical privileges. If they try to publish an article about adverse events, the medical journals won't publish them out of fear of legal reprisal from the pharmaceutical companies. And if they deviate from current pharmaceutical guidelines on prescription, they can be accused of not providing adequate care and slapped with a malpractice suit. Healy advocates greater power for physicians to use their eyes and ears, and to have more effective input into how drugs are used and developed, and I absolutely agree with him on that.

The trick as always is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

@Sandrop:

As a consumer of healthcare and a citizen of a country with free speech I absolutely have the authority to criticise physicians when they are potentially harming people.

You have the right to criticize, but not the authority which you can gain only by thorough study, a point you seemed to recognize in addressing Science Mom but have since forgotten.

The ones who see adverse effects and stand up for their patients do so at considerable risk to themselves — they can be fired and ostracized, or lose their medical privileges. If they try to publish an article about adverse events, the medical journals won’t publish them out of fear of legal reprisal from the pharmaceutical companies.

Hmm, that's funny. I wonder how it is that we know about all those adverse effects that you cited. I wonder where those long lists of adverse effects that accompany each prescription might have come from. I wonder where the anti-SBM bloggers get their examples.

@LW
I believe it's called anecdotal evidence.

@LW
An authority @Science Mom also seems to lack. So we are back to the free speech argument. I also believe that those who have been harmed or have seen others harmed do have the authority to speak up, otherwise we become little more than sheep in thrall to the greatness of a very fallible professional class. Repeat with me please, and @Science Mom is free to join in, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Sandrop,

Unfortunately, anecdotes are subject to substantial error. Just as people use them to show that homeopathy works, they may also use them to invent dangers in various medicines.

This is not to downplay the actual risks of medicines, nor to discount the fact that some drug studies have been spun in a way to make a drug appear safer or more effective than in reality. Anyone who's read Ben Goldacre's blog will know that not all drug test results get published, and this very likely skews the data in favor of the drug company. An answer is better tests and publishing all the data.

Sandrop:

Orac prescribes far worse things than Paxil.

You just made a statement that indicates you know his exact prescribing habits. Now you must prove with evidence that Orac prescribes worse things than Paxil.

You might do yourself a favor and actually read some of Orac's articles (you can start with the one that starts at the top of this page):

The saga of Avastin and breast cancer

New cancer drugs: Fitter, happier, more productive? Or not?

Also next on your reading list should be The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee

Well, again, Sandrop, it would seem that perhaps you don't work in the health care field. I do, and I can tell you that the vast majority of patients in hospital are over the age of 70. Many over 80. What does that mean to your argument? That they are overdosed and killed? Maybe, but most of them arrive in hospital with multiple comorbidities that make fine tuning medications extremely difficult but to undermedicate is equally dangerous. You tell me how to treat an 85 year old with heart failure, diabetes, kidney failure and perhaps a fractured hip. So many people forget that they are the worried well where medicine is dealing with the very ill and frail. Difficult, to say the absolute least.

@Sandrop: "I believe it’s called anecdotal evidence."

Yeah, but it's published. You said doctors didn't dare try to report adverse effects and their reports wouldn't be published if they tried. So how do such anecdotes come to be immortalized in the literature supplied with each filled prescription?

Narad: I stand corrected. I've only had surgery to get my wisdom teeth removed, so I wasn't aware that surgeons could prescribe medication.

@LW
That is an excellent question. I will have to ask Dr. Healy.

The ones who see adverse effects and stand up for their patients do so at considerable risk to themselves — they can be fired and ostracized, or lose their medical privileges. If they try to publish an article about adverse events, the medical journals won’t publish them out of fear of legal reprisal from the pharmaceutical companies. And if they deviate from current pharmaceutical guidelines on prescription, they can be accused of not providing adequate care and slapped with a malpractice suit.

I'll repeat what LW has asked and that is, how do we know about so many adverse events, dodgy studies and sleazy pharma tactics if not for those who are clearly able to publish studies and other forms of media to inform? How are Cochrane reviews and other systematic reviews and meta-analyses published that do not shed a positive light on pharmaceutical products get published? You'd do much better leaving the histrionics and conspiracy-theory posturing aside and stick to the known problems.

An authority @Science Mom also seems to lack. So we are back to the free speech argument. I also believe that those who have been harmed or have seen others harmed do have the authority to speak up, otherwise we become little more than sheep in thrall to the greatness of a very fallible professional class. Repeat with me please, and @Science Mom is free to join in, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

In addition to being clueless about what kind of physician the blog author is, you are also clueless about the difference between "free speech" and presenting oneself as an authority. You have the complete right to act like a moron and we have the complete right to call you one. You see, I haven't deigned to present myself as an authority on pharma shenanigans because I'm not one and I daresay have probably read more on the subject than you ever will. Reading a book doesn't make one an authority on a subject. It's fine to be curious and discuss it; it's certainly a subject which is of interest to this crowd and a problem that should be brought out into the light. But don't be a pompous jerk about it and whine about your "free speech" rights if you want to be taken seriously.

As a consumer of healthcare and a citizen of a country with free speech I absolutely have the authority to criticise physicians when they are potentially harming people. You, however, seem to be living in a totalitarian country of some sort where free speech in not permitted.

I do so love it when people invoke the First Amendment and promptly demonstrate a wholesale lack of understanding of it.

If they try to publish an article about adverse events, the medical journals won’t publish them out of fear of legal reprisal from the pharmaceutical companies.

I, for one, would certainly be interested in examples of journals being sued by pharmaceutical companies for publishing results on adverse effects of drugs. I trust that you have these to hand.

Narad @214

[tinfoil hat]The lack of examples only proves that the journals are so scared that they never take the risk [/tinfoil hat]

There are however plenty of examples of quacks suing SBM advocates.

Read Dr. Healy's book and take it up with him. He is the one who makes the allegation.

Read Dr. Healy’s book and take it up with him. He is the one who makes the allegation.

No, you invoked it, so you get to defend it.

Sandrop,

The trick as always is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Precisely. It did look to me as if there were quite a number of babies in the bathwater you were enthusiastically emptying earlier. In the examples of drug companies' dishonesty I am aware of, they have manipulated data to make their product look less dangerous, more effective, or indicated in more patients than a rival company's product, when there is really little difference. That is very different to bringing dangerous, ineffective or unnecessary drugs to market and killing large numbers of people as a result, as you seem to be claiming.

@ Sandrop # 170...

"Just curious, has anyone here read Pharmageddon?"

No Sandrop, I've never read "Pharmageddon"...but I've read some reviews of the book, including this one, that appears on Dr. Healy's website...

http://davidhealy.org/books/pharmageddon-is-the-story-of-a-tragedy/

Am I right, that Dr. Healy is using Thalidomide an OTC treatment for "morning sickness and then *touted* as a sedative, developed in Germany, and available/taken by pregnant women in Europe and in the U.K. is Dr. Healy's *shtick*.?

How many pregnant women in the United States were prescribed Thalidomide or were able to purchase the drug without prescription, in the United States?

How did Sherri Finkbine obtain the drug?

Was it prescribed by her obstetrician in Arizona?

Was Thalidomide ever licensed by the FDA as an anti-emetic drug or as a sedative for anyone in the United States?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherri_Finkbine

Sandrop, I’m kind of curious. What’s your purpose in posting here? Did you hope for some discussion of Healey’s book? If so, including a link or at least the author’s name in your first post ( http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/14/the-pharma-shill-gambit/#c… ) would have been helpful. Instead, you left other posters to do your heavy lifting (Krebiozen @174 and Denise Walter @177).

Are you here hoping to use these blog comments as your own soapbox, to thump the idea that the pharmaceutical industry is evil? If so, others have done a better job of it than you are right now.

Or are you promoting the book? In about 36 hours (if I’m counting correctly without time stamps), you’ve posted “read the book” or its equivalent four times (comments #182, #186, #193, and #218). Honestly, if you are, you’re doing a remarkably poor job (see my opening paragraph). And I was more interested in reading it before your attempt at explaining it devolved into your one-phrase refrain.

I’ll also echo Chris’s suggestion that you read some more of this blog, as well as the comments sections. You might actually learn something, and I suspect our interactions with you might become more productive if you get a better idea of not only about the blog author’s ideas, but also kind of discussions that go on, and what types of people regularly comment here.

Ah. Having looked at Dr Healy's site, I now understand why sandrop has no understanding of Orac's profession. After all, physicians and surgeons are 2 very different classes in the UK. But I'll be honest...I don't think a book by a psychiatrist with a possible bone to pick is something I'd read about pharmacological issues. I'd rather read one by a licensed pharmacist - some one who really understands how drugs act. (And maybe Dr Healy does. But from the little I read of his book, it is more Eurocentric with fewer controls than the US, and he doesn't seem to understand how the FDA works, nor how prescribing patterns in the US occur and have changed over the years.)

Whenever I hear criticisms of pharmaceutical products, a few alarm bells go off, if:
- the first ( or only) products mentioned are either anti-depressants and/or chemotherapy
- a list of side effects is presented without the prior mention of the relief that these products offer ( why would anyone take a product with side effects if it didn't relieve symptoms?)
- no one mentions that patients may demand products for disturbing/ uncomfortable/ painful conditions
- no one mentions that physicians later ask patients how they're doing with the product and may dis-continue it if there are problems,

So this presentation looks biased from the start. Amongst the alt med providers I survey, SSRIs are the jewell in the crown of pharmaphobia; while these products are far from perfect, they do offer relief of serious symptoms of depression ( and sometimes other conditions) for many people. In fact, perhaps alt med scare mongering hurts people as well because they are then afraid to try meds that might help them-
unfortunately, there are no warning labels that caution patients about alt med criticisms,
"Paying attention to this information can be deleterious to your health and well being".

A person can simultaneously recognise that pharmaceuticals can have both useful and worrisome effects: adults usually learn to weigh and measure risks and benefits. Whenever one side is presented first and accentuated, I am suspicious whether it comes from alt med critics or pharmaceutical companies.
Black and white, it ain't.

Apologies to Denice for misspelling your name again, and to everyone else for thenrandom grammatical errors in my last paragraph. Posting on teh patio facing the sun makes it even harder than normal to proofread.

thenrandom

teh

D'oh!

Am I right, that Dr. Healy is using Thalidomide an OTC treatment for “morning sickness and then *touted* as a sedative, developed in Germany, and available/taken by pregnant women in Europe and in the U.K. is Dr. Healy’s *shtick*.?

I don't know about that, but the review that Krebiozen posted at #174 above seems to suggest that Healy is in favor of some sort of truly bizarre libertarian approach:

Healy to recommend that patients would be better off if fewer drugs required prescriptions. Of course, ads would endlessly tell patients why they needed to take a certain drug, but then they do that already. However, patients might be more self-protective instead of uncritically trusting their physicians and basking in the benefits of the placebo effect.

@ Chemmomo:

Thanks.
re the heavy lifting**:
for a period of time, I travelled a great deal and thus, have learned how to pack and hoist my own carry on. It looks like a very, very large shoulder bag.

**I know , it's a metaphor. That too.

I'm wondering why Dr. Healy ever agreed to be interviewed by Dr. Joe Mercola...perhaps "Sandrop" will invite Dr. Healy to come and post here?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/12/02/pharmaceu…

Dr. Healy also *mentioned* that SSRIs and other psychotropic drugs are the the most *commonly prescribed medications during pregnancy"....which flies in the face of a recent report from the CDC NCBDDD (National Center for Birth Defects
and Developmental Disabilities) and the ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists):

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/aboutus/birthdefects-bd-maternal.html

In other Internecine War News:

The battle rages on @ AoA, with a return of Barry and Jake..
I have a feeling that settling personal dis-agreements and negotiating conflicting demands are not strong suits there.

@lilady: wow. Just....wow. Perhaps as a psychiatrist, DR HEALY uses 'SSRIs and other psychotropic drugs are the the most *commonly prescribed medications during pregnancy'” for the patients HE saw but here in the USA, most providers (doctors, nurse-midwives) caring for pregnant woman (or women who plan to become pregnant discuss the use and need for any medication VERY carefully, changing to less dangerous (for the fetus) drugs when possible if the woman really needs them for her health and wellbeing; preferably, when possible, weaning the woman off the medication.

But then, I don't know a lot of doctors who toss around antipsychotropic drugs on a whim. Most of the ones I know and hear of from friends are reluctant to give drugs unless it's found that the patient really needs them. And then it's at the lowest effective dose (starting very low dose and titrating upwards until the desired response is noted). And even then, the need for the drugs is re-evaluated often.

I have to wonder about Dr Healy's practice, to be honest. He doesn't sound like a doctor who uses ALL the tools at hand when needed. He sounds like the kind of guy who told a college friend to "buck up, be happy. You have everything to live for" just a few weeks before my friend committed suicide (he never had a diagnosis, thanks to the doc...but I suspect some sort of schizophrenia/bipolor issues - meaning both, not one or the other).

This is not meant as an ad hominem, as I assume Healy raises some valid points, but this rambling entry suggesting pHARMa intervention in his landing a gig I find curious.

I see that Healy is now involved in an ersatz adverse-event reporting system, courtesy of his blog. That should represent some solid data.

In other news from RxISK, doxycycline causes suicide.

lilady,

How many pregnant women in the United States were prescribed Thalidomide or were able to purchase the drug without prescription, in the United States?

As an aside, my mother told me that she had Thalidomide on her bedside table throughout her pregnancy with me (in the UK), though thankfully she never took it; my sister-in-law is now taking it to treat her multiple myeloma.

I do love it when people come here and insist that books are always necessary to be read. Despite the fact that there are many reasons why they're not preferable to peer-reviewed papers in science journals. But no no, a single book will counteract thousands of papers, and at any rate, the book is written by a doctor.

Is there a name for this kind of logical fallacy? Argumentum ex libro perhaps?

@Sandrop

And, BTW, the study subjects who became suicidal on Paxil were children, although the book doesn’t say how young.

Ah, yet another mental illness denier. Fun...

lilady:

How many pregnant women in the United States were prescribed Thalidomide or were able to purchase the drug without prescription, in the United States?

I just did a search on Dr. Kelsey on the book at Amazon. Dr. Healy only mentions that she caused a "bureaucratic delay" in approval. Either he is being a sexist pig, or he really does not know what she did.

(There is a more complete story in the book about the FDA I mentioned, it turns out she was insisting on specific animal testing for teratogenic effects, something she had discovered in her research before joining the FDA)

Is there a name for this kind of logical fallacy? Argumentum ex libro perhaps?

Argumentum a pontonem, perhaps.

Narad, even with Google I do not get the joke.

Sandrop, you have not responded with evidence to answer this: "You just made a statement that indicates you know his exact prescribing habits. Now you must prove with evidence that Orac prescribes worse things than Paxil."

Do it. Show with evidence that Orac prescribes without proper scientific evidence something worse than Paxil.

I am now convinced you did not read the article on this page, or anything written by Orac in the past eight years.

Narad, even with Google I do not get the joke.

The etymology of the current sense of "punt" goes back to Latin 'ponto'. There is of course the related pons asinorum, but the (admittedly weak) suggestion was one of "argument" that boils down to nothing but a ferry to the bookseller's shop.

@ Chris

Narad, even with Google I do not get the joke.

I think I am doing well if I get half of Narad's references. Perhaps we should follow Herr Doktor Bimler's advice and spend more time on the elliptic trainer.

I followed Narad's RxISK link and discovered the website has an Interaction Checker and 5 "zones"

Hair Zone for side effects affecting hair
Violence Zone for drugs causing violent behaviour
Sex Zone for sex related side effects
Suicide Zone for suicidal side effects
Skin and Nail Zone for side effects involving skin and nails.

This strikes me as an odd combination. Apparently side effects that eff up your heart, digestive system, muscles etc. are not a concern. Outside of psychological side effects involving self harm or harm to others, the most important concerns are that the men sport wood and the women look good.

Militant Agnostic,

Outside of psychological side effects involving self harm or harm to others, the most important concerns are that the men sport wood and the women look good.

That's psychiatrists for you ;-)

More seriously, it is odd how often people who make a valid point then pick it up and go running off over the horizon with it.

We clearly do need better regulation of large companies (you only have to look at the environmental records of some of the big petrochemical companies to see that). That said, no drug company wants to be found guilty of skullduggery, it's very bad for business, though not half as bad as having to yank a drug off the market and pay compensation for the damage it has caused. Also, the people who run drug companies have loved ones who get sick, and get sick themselves, so this idea of Big Pharma deliberately producing deadly and ineffective pharmaceuticals for invented medical conditions, and recruiting dumb doctors to market them doesn't really work.

Here's how monitoring of "Revlimid" (an analog of Thalidomide), for the treatment of multiple myeloma and other myelodysplastic diseases, is done. Revlimid is also undergoing clinical trials for the treatment of Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, CLL and carcinoma of the pancreas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenalidomide

I remember looking into Revlimid ~ 3 years ago when a close friend was prescribed the drug for treatment of multiple myeloma.

You guys had all the fun last night, after I conked out from indulging in my St. Patrick's Day corned beef and all the fixin's. :-)

Ben Goldacre is on UK BBC1 right now, talking about publication bias!

That ejaculation was simply an expression of my pleasure at seeing human funnel-plot Dr. Goldacre get some prime-time exposure.

Hee, Ben Goldacre is awesome!!! And still looks 12. And talks like an encyclopedic font of epidemiology with a sense of humor. How I would love for him and our esteemed host to get a Pub Night together!

SSRIs do certainly draw the ire, don't they. Personally, I love mine. As I've said before, about a jillion times. ;) I've written a sonnet...

But seriously, Krebiozen, yes to this-- "Also, the people who run drug companies have loved ones who get sick, and get sick themselves, so this idea of Big Pharma deliberately producing deadly and ineffective pharmaceuticals for invented medical conditions, and recruiting dumb doctors to market them doesn’t really work." Quoted for truth! It cannot be said enough. Funny how the humanity of doctors and even executives seems to escape the conspiracy-minded. No one lives in a vacuum! We all have loved ones.

There are two pro over at mothering.com Rrrrrachel & Prosciencemum and the BOTH meet all 5 area and the #6 that was also mentioned - if anyone wants to see what these are all about, everyday - all day, they work the vaccine threads! must be good money

I have seen two in action as the PP states. They must be getting paid, how do you post 24-7 and not be paid to post. They give new meaning to troll. The Rrrrachels is the meanest and only spouts pro vaccine no matter what.

You've seen people posting 24-7, matk? You'd be talking about posting the equivalent of a couple of good-sized novels each week.

On the other hand, it isn't hard to find time to post multiple replies throughout a day without being paid to do so, particularl yif addressingto anti-vax claims, since they typically consist of the same falsehoods repeated over and over again (too many too soon; it's the 'mercury', or it's the aluminum, or it's the formaldehyde or squalene, etc.; it's dead fetuses; the Amish don't vaccinate or the Amish don't develop autism, etc.)

You dosn't have to spend any time crafting a response to these anymore: you can just cut and paste a boiler-plate response.

BTW, the whole "people who post in support of vaccine's proven safety and efficacy must be paid pharma shills"? that itself is one of those anti-vax falsehoods I mentioned above,but I'm giving you the courtesy of a novel response (and no, I've not been paid to do so).

Hi everyone, I just spent the last day reading this whole thread. I wanted to give my input because I'm an "altie"? that's what I saw us called here. Acupuncture (TCM) and yoga instructor. I want to caution the world that alties ddo not know anything about vaccines. I am firmly pro vaccines, the childhood ones. Optional seasonal vaccines are, well, optional, and as we know less effective. I don't know who in their right mind wants to bring back preventable diseases, but a sadist, who thinks it's better to suffer. If any parent out there is worried about vaccinating their child, please ask the right person. Do not ask a homeopath, do not ask an acupuncturist, do not ask a dietitian. We do not learn about vaccines or immunology, other than very briefly. Do yourself a favor and learn how to ask the right person the right question. Vaccinate your children, it is very safe. History and research tells us that. Learn how to use pubmed, that is where you look for research, not youtube etc. Ciao !

@Anna

I may disagree with you on TCM and alt-med, but I just wanted to say a big thumbs up and thank you for encouraging vaccines! It's a nice change from the rabid anti-vax attitude coming from alt-medders.

Anna, I would like to say how much your comment has made my day. I'll join flip in a big thumbs-up! :)

Pharma trolls/shills are real, and like the PP stated, certain sites do have them, and yes they do post 24/7. If they aren't being paid they should be, it all corporate line. I've been to the site mentioned (mothering) and saw the posters that were called out- either paid or these two have real problems that prevent them from having a life given the number and subject matter they post.

@Snakeyear

Pharma trolls/shills are real

Feel free to post the evidence to back that up. You know, like pay slips, cheque stubs, documents or memos discussing hiring shills, contracts with shills, etc.

I have seen two in action as the PP states. They must be getting paid, how do you post 24-7 and not be paid to post.

First of all, you can drop the "PP" lingo, as you're not at MDC. Second, it's rather trivial to check the posting frequency of the two commenters there that you are claiming to be posting "24-7" and being paid for it:

Prosciencemum is here.

Rrrrachel is here.

Neither is posting "24-7." Moreover, I would note that it's quite easy to take a non-antivax stance at MDC so long as one minds the general standards of etiquette that prevail. Indeed, I wonder why you lot have felt the need to start bitching about MDC commenters here, of all places, unless it's because you know you couldn't get away with this sort of crap over there.

So I'm reading more internet stuff about vaccines..who knew that I'd be doing that. I came across this study, and I was hoping that I can get help interpreting it's findings here. I'll paste a link, and if anyone wants to read it and let me know what they think, that would be awesome.
http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7020.pdf

Anna, if you go to the search box on the upper right of this page and put in the primary author of that paper you will get more information, here is the more pertinent discussion:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/16/too-much-vaccineautism-mon…

Also, if you look up the paper on PubMed you will see there is a comment on it by an "S. Novella", who is Dr. Steven Novella. He also wrote about the paper on his blog:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/terrible-anti-vaccine-stud…

The main take-away is that it a tiny study, and it is not normal for infants to have their amygdala shrink, which is what happened to the unvaccinated monkeys (or human infants).

I forgot to add, Dr. Novella is a neurologist. He knows quite a bit about brain development. He concludes:

This current study, as well as the entire macaque research program by Hewitson, is a good example of terrible research. The subject numbers are far too small for any meaningful statistics, and the outcomes being followed are numerous and tricky with a random scatter of results not even consistent between different publications of the same research.

Thanks Chris, I'll take a look at that. I appreciate it!

The main take-away is that it a tiny study

With nine test monkeys and two controls.
TWO controls.
I am surprised there were controls at all, since the purpose of the experiment was to obtain interesting scary anecdotes rather than evidence. Some of the test monkeys showed larger amygdalas in their brains, therefore vaccine injury; others showed smaller amygdalas, therefore vaccine injury.

Steven Novella [...] also wrote about the paper on his blog:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/terrible-anti-vaccine-stud…

Daedalus2u pointed out in that thread that *all* Hewittson's monkey infants -- controls and experimental -- were traumatised by removal from the mothers during the attachment period, so all would show abnormal brain development.

herr doktor bimler, I stand corrected. I guess the thing that stood out to me was the shrinking of the brain bit. It was, after all, over two years ago. Also that it was an awful waste of animal research studies.

Why is it coming up again? Has someone written about as "proof" again?

It's only coming up again because I've been reading everything I can find on the anti-vax pages. I found this as a link from one of the Swedish anti-vax pages, and it was the only link to an actual study so I read it, or some of it. Instead of researching on my own, I asked you guys.

Thank you, Anna. It may be my imagination that I had seen it brought up elsewhere recently.

You might want to also check out http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

Oh, no! How could I forget this: A little Swedish interlude?

Chris, Well I have know idea, you might have seen it somewhere else, there's an abundance of crap out there so quite possibly you have. Thanks for helping though, I'm a little worried about all this crazy information.

No not that page, this one here: http://user.tninet.se/csz433c/homepages/evah/html/vacciner.htm but it's in Swedish, so good luck with that... :)

I was recently on another website, shotofprevention, where a few anti-vax folks kept throwing random sites and studies at us, and that might have been one of them. One of them likes to push his website that often has more than a hundred links on them.

My daughter is taking Swedish in college right now. I'd point it out to her but she is studying for her sociolinguistics class at the moment (it is late evening here).

#252 Not everyone has the same definition of "life." Not everyone is an extrovert. Not everyone has children. Not everyone has a spouse and not everyone has exactly the same hobbies.

People are very diverse in their interests. Isn't that nice?

Yeah that about sums it up. 0 links to scientific studies, I was recently in an argument with a homeopath who pushes homeopathic "vaccinations", whatever that is. She had absolutely no information to give me as to how that works, but she did emphasize that she didn't have to prove anything..? Hmmm.

Maybe your daughter can help you translate that page, but really it isn't worth the trouble, it's just a copy of a bunch of brittish and american rubbish.

Anna:

copy of a bunch of brittish and american rubbish.

Yep. That pretty much sums it up. Though occasionally you'll find a German homeopath in the mix, there is also one guy from New Zealand (formally from Germany), and one loony in Australia (formally from the USA). Sorry, about that.

Though in our "defense" the British Empire got around, and the USA has the third largest population on this planet. I thought it was weird when I looked it up. It is right after India, which is right after China. Though it is almost the same as all of Europe.

One link I gave does lead you to the Swedish skeptic group. And there is apparently a skeptic meeting there this summer which will include Hans Rosling (I love his videos).

What is awesome is that you found our little corner of "teh internets." Welcome, I hope you stick around.

Thanks, I will definitely stick around, I found you after way too much searching after validity of bizarre claims, I think it was shaken baby syndrome, but at this point I can't remember. (vaccine injured my memory)

All populations on the planet have their special way of believing woo woo stuff, and there is generally no harm in that, except when there is harm in that.

One of the things that really stood out on that study (or at least one of the papers from the same experiment), Anna, was that the MRI of one of the control monkeys showed significant abnormalities in brain development. It looked (to the untrained eye) like the skull had been bashed in and parts of the brain in that hemisphere were underdeveloped or simply missing. It was pretty stark.

Anna:

I think it was shaken baby syndrome, but at this point I can’t remember. (vaccine injured my memory)

Heh! Now I know I like you.

Beware of the micropaleontologist!

What!

the MRI of one of the control monkeys showed significant abnormalities in brain development

IIRC they started out with 4 control monkeys... obviously the researchers were not interested in what the normal range of variation might be. One of those was excluded because "experimental protocol was not followed" -- perhaps they gave it the wrong injection. Another just disappeared off the scene (abducted by aliens or something), and at that point the researchers realised that they could not afford to lose any more monkeys, because a N=1 control group is going to raise even the least skeptical eyebrow. So one of them fell off a building or had its skull smashed in a fight with its cage-mate? No matter!

Chris,

You wrote: "one guy from New Zealand (formally from Germany)"

Not Erwin Alber by chance? (Can't see a page you're referring to, to check it out myself - have tried a couple of links here, but no NZers in them AFAICS.)

Yes, Erwin Alber. He was in fine form last week on ShotOfPrevention, including advocating that Jenner, Pasteur, Salk and Sabin should have been lined and shot. I found this site described him well:
http://sci-vax.blogspot.com/2012/11/vine-background-you-need-to-know.ht…

@ Anna:

Welcome!
re shaken baby syndrome:
a few of the idiots... I mean, alt med proselytisers I survey go along with the myth that SBS is a "vaccine injury"- I've run into that at Natural News and it is prominently featured in one of Gary Null's so-called documentaries "Vaccine Nation" where a well-known culprit is lionised.

@Denise, I am disgusted and ashamed of those in in alt med who go along with this, just know that it is a small fraction of alt med who are complete idiots. There are many who support vaccines and proper health care, mostly we understand that the alternative part is meant in "addition too", and not "in exclusion of". Unfortunately the complete idiots appear to be the loudest...I apologize on behalf of alternative medicine.

@anna - congrats on being grounded.....and you're always welcome.

@Chris - I know (of) Erwin… he has occasionally written on our blogs at sciblogs.co.nz. I rarely visit VINE - too much of the same inanities repeatedly endlessly. I’ve seen him write worse than what he said about Jenner and company, though. Most memorable would be last year him writing in comments on a Pakistani newspaper website. Their article mentioned in passing that the polio vaccine workers would be wearing hi-visibility vest. Erwin wrote in to say that was good as it'd enable to more easily be shot.

Grant, Erwin sounds like a real "winner" (in the Charlie Sheen version of the word).

Most memorable would be last year him writing in comments on a Pakistani newspaper website.

This?

Poor Erwin seems confused, as he simultaneously made the following remarks shortly thereafter:

Vaccination programmes are part ot the global population reduction agenda and a gigantic medical experiment unflicted on the human race without informed consent and in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code. Nazi doctors were hanged for what is being done now by health professionals and vaccinators in the name of public health.

Shooting vaccinators is a bit harsh - educating them that vaccination is an organised criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention by means of junk science would be better.

Narad, yes - just didn't particular want to draw attention to page. The other quote follows familiar lines (for him).

Nitpick: "simultaneously" and "shortly therefore" :-D (I'm guessing like me you write on-the-fly!)

Speaking of which, that should be to the page. Sigh.

can't comment on your attack of Burzynski in the article, I'm sure you are paid big for the bs article you wrote. I personally know people who have lived because of this fine doctor. Big Pharma hates him because they want to continue to fry people with radiation and chemo, it's the humane way to kill them, and cull the masses. You Suck!! you and the Shills that speak bad about people saving lives, lives that they don't want saved. Big Pharma represents the real 'useless' eaters.

@donna castlegrant

You are not making any sense. Why would Big Pharma want to "cull the masses"? Wouldn't that reduce their profit base?

Do you have any substantive argument to make, or are you simply going to fling insults around?

Donna, does Burzynski use chemotherapy?

I think you may need to do some more research before commenting.

This may be a good place to start: http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/

Big Pharma ... want to continue to fry people with radiation and chemo, it’s the humane way to kill them, and cull the masses

Donna, if the goal was to kill people and cull the masses, I assure you that there are more humane ways. Faster, too, without the individualised treatment.
But I have said too much already...

@#286 -- have a look at this blog: http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com

then come back and tell us again what a great human being Scammislaw Burzynski is. BTW, I think you've got your posts mixed up - there are multiple posts about that despicable con man who masquerades as a doctor on this blog, but this isn't one of them.

OTOH, you did provide a textbook example of the subject of this post, namely the Pharma Shill gambit. I think you can do better though - more New World Order, Illuminati and lizard people next time, please.

@donna

Thank you for representing the typical mindset of the burzynski fan.

I assure you, your craziness and outright idiocy will be a good example of why one should avoid treatment from him.

Also, your rant is rather quite funny. Please keep posting, goodness knows we need more entertainment from the likes of you.

donna castlegrant:

can’t comment on your attack of Burzynski in the article, I’m sure you are paid big for the bs article you wrote.

The most obvious reason is that Orac did not even mention Burzynski in this article. So it looks like you did not even read it.

Donna says

can’t comment on your attack of Burzynski in the article, I’m sure you are paid big for the bs article you wrote.

Translated:

"I don't understand anything about the criticisms made here, but that doesn't matter because I just *know* you're wrong".

Perfect example not just of the pharma shill gambit, but also of being close-minded and hypocritical.