Steve Novella

No, there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's disease

oracknows — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 04:45:47 +0000

No, there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's disease

Remember Vox Day?

Vox Day is the pseudonym used by a truly vile man named Theodore Beale. I first encountered him 11 years ago on the precursor to this blog, thanks to his antivaccine stylings and outright misogyny. Later, I learned the depths of his wingnuttery, such as his accepting pseudoscientific claims that vaccines cause sudden infant death syndrome, and several others. Hilariously, his anti-science rants are inevitably accompanied by smug posturing about how scientists are arrogant (pot, kettle, black) and how science is a corrupt system that is ideologically driven (talk about projection). Basically, he seizes on any criticism of how science is practiced as an excuse to attack science itself. That doesn’t even take into account his odious suggestion, ten years before Donald Trump made it, that we should forcibly eject 11 million immigrants here illegally, because, hey, it worked for Hitler. It was a “classic” that briefly made Vox too much of a wingnut for WorldNetDaily. Sadly, the Overton window appears to have shifted, such that Vox would no longer be too much of a wingnut for many publications.

It’s not surprising, then, that Vox is a Donald Trump supporter.

Also, given his history of accepting any crank science or medicine that fits into his preconceived world view, that Vox has also jumped onto the “Hillary is unfit to serve” bandwagon. Three weeks ago, I noted two very unhelpful and bordering on despicable misuses of medicine, both involving armchair diagnoses of political candidates. First, there was the tendency of those on the left to assign psychiatric diagnoses to Donald Trump. That was bad enough, but what Trump supporters were doing was arguably worse, namely insinuating all sorts of dark conspiracies to hide serious illness in Hillary Clinton. The “evidence” used upon which the various “diagnoses” assigned to Clinton has been risibly lean, but that didn’t stop wingnuts like Dr. Jane Orient and Dr. Gerard Gianoli, both of the crank doctors’ organization the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). Basically, based on pure speculation, they did some fine JAQing off and asked if Clinton had post-concussive syndrome from a concussion and a cerebral venous thrombosis suffered after falling when she was ill with the flu in 2012 and from which she appears to have made a full recovery. There have also been insinuations that she has Parkinson’s disease, based on...basically nothing.

I guess it should come as no surprise that Vox is totally down with that observation because...”experts.” It’s hilarious to me how Vox castigates legitimate experts who point out that his beliefs are nonsense, but says this about people who support his beliefs, like Dr. Ted Noel, an anesthesiologist who has concluded through a fair amount of contortions of logic, that Hillary Clinton “probably” has Parkinson’s disease:

That is the conclusion of a a board-certified Anesthesiologist with 36 years of experience, backed up by the observations of a) a victim of Parkinson's Disease and b) a registered nurse who cares for patients with Parkinson's Disease.

First off, being a “board-certified anesthesiologist” has little or nothing to do with expertise in neurology or Parkinson’s disease. Yet, note how Vox emphasizes that he has 36 years of experience, presumably at anesthesia. I’m sure he’s a perfectly capable anesthesiologist, but he’s no more qualified to diagnose Parkinson’s disease than any other non-neurologist, probably less, given his high degree of specialization. Yet, none of that stops him from posting a ridiculous video:

And an equally ridiculous article to go with it:

Noel is hilarious. He claims that he does “exactly what the CIA” does and looks at publicly available records to determine if there is a story that fits the observations. Here’s the problem. He gets the method backwards in that what he does is to start with the story he wants to tell and then cherry picks bits of information and video to weave together to tell that story, namely that Clinton has Parkinson’s disease. He begins with the standard conspiracy theories, going back to 2005 when Clinton fainted onstage. Particularly silly is one point where Noel recounts an episode where Clinton fell down and struck her head, noting that to strike your head falling requires a “complete loss of protective reflexes” and that dehydration from an illness isn’t enough to do it:

It explains every one of the items listed above. Further, since it is a diagnosis primarily made by observation, the video record is sufficient to create a high degree of certainty.

The 2009 fall where HRC broke her elbow suggests that she had working protective reflexes, and her arm took the brunt of the fall. But three years later, she had a catastrophic fall where her reflexes were unable to help her. It is notable that this fall took place at home, where she would have been unstressed and in a familiar setting. Failing reflexes are common in PD. Poor balance is also common in PD, and a fall without working protective reflexes is a prescription for head injury. Her subsequent concerns with transverse sinus thrombosis are plausibly related to the fall. Her need for fresnel lens glasses also fits with post-concussion syndrome.

Uh, no. It happens all the time. People fall and hit their heads. Noel is really stretching here. There were a total of three falls, and Noel stretches to claim that the first one was due to early Parkinson’s, the second one due to a Parkinson’s freeze. Noel keeps going on and on about how “I am not her treating physician” but that Parkinson’s is the most likely explanation for Clinton’s behavior and that she is a politician who “lies about everything.”

His next bit of speculation is that a month after Clinton’s concussion she was experiencing occasional confusion, which he at least concedes is not uncommon after a concussion, but then he goes full on conspiracy wingnut. For instance, he shows video of Clinton nodding her head, pointing to that as evidence of Parkinson’s disease. Never mind that it’s something she’s done for a very long time, going back to the 1990s. To Noel, this isn’t just an odd tic; it’s a Parkinson’s tremor. Now, I’ve seen Parkinson’s tremors. Not surprisingly, Noel pulls up the video of Hillary with an exaggerated startle response, which Noel attributes to levodopa-induced dyskinesia. No, it’s not. I find it quite telling that nowhere in the video does Noel show video of actual Parkinson’s disease tremors or levodopa-induced dyskinesia to compare with Hillary Clinton’s movements. If he did, it would become obvious that Clinton’s behaviors are neither of these things.

Then there’s this:

PD is a chronic disease with a downhill prognosis. HRC’s instability and frequent cough suggest that her PD is advanced. This is not a good outlook for someone running for the Presidency. The office of the President is one of the highest stress jobs in the world. Stress sets off PD episodes, which render the sufferer incapable of proper response.

At this point, a bit of speculation seems appropriate. HRC talks about her yoga sessions. But no one we know of has ever documented one. It is possible that this is cover for sessions designed to teach her coping mechanisms for PD or for rest breaks. Exhaustion makes PD worse.

HRC’s coughing suggests that her swallowing disorder is advanced, placing her closer to an aspiration pneumonia that would disable or kill her. That’s bad enough, but PD has one more, even more dangerous step in its progression.

As PD continues, cognitive problems can develop. In time, they become full-blown dementia. The United States cannot survive if its President is mentally impaired.

Yes, the cough thing. Since I last wrote about this, conspiracy theorists have started to point out that Hillary Clinton coughs a lot. That’s prompted me to point out that I, too, cough a lot, because I have seasonal allergies and frequently get bronchitis in the wintertime and have for as long as I can remember. People who have seen me give talks certain times of the year probably noted that I usually had at least a low grade cough. Now think of it this way. Clinton has been on the campaign trail for over a year and a half, giving as many as several talks a day and, when not giving speeches, is forced to speak with campaign staff, donors, and others. So what if she has a cough? I bet if you looked hard enough you could find video of Donald Trump coughing or, going to past elections, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney coughing. Constant public speaking can do that.

No one seems to be asking if Newt Gingrich has Parkinson's, even though he coughed as he wondered if Clinton's coughing meant she was seriously ill.

Parkinson’s disease is indeed a serious, progressive, degenerative neurologic disease. Perhaps the best indication that Clinton almost certainly does not have Parkinson’s disease is how carefully Noel and the peddlers of this particular conspiracy theory had to cherry pick video of Clinton to find brief snippets that they could point to as Parkinson’s-associated tremors, “brain freeze,” and levodopa-induced dyskinesia. As Steve Novella, a board-certified neurologist, pointed out when I was on The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe three weeks ago, the exaggerated startle response pointed to by Noel is not a Parkinsonian freeze, nor was it dystonia or a seizure. As Novella points out, Parkinson’s is an “across the room” diagnosis that is easy for a trained neurologist to recognize, particularly if it is advanced, which, remember, is what Noel is claiming.

Ever wonder why none of these videos shows actual patients with Parkinson’s disease with dyskinesia or resting tremors for comparison? (And, no, a static photo of Michael J. Fox looking “bug-eyed” doesn’t count.) Ever wonder why, out of literally thousands of hours of video of Hillary Clinton taken over the last two years and then before, when she was Secretary of State, that these few snippets of video that can be tortured to sort of look like Parkinson’s disease symptoms are the best that Dr. Noel (and before him, Martin Shkreli and Dr. Jane Orient) could come up with? Did you ever wonder why not a single board-certified neurologist has stepped forward and say, “Yeah, that looks like Parkinson’s”? The reason is simple. It doesn’t. Those startled looks are not dyskinesia, and that head bob is probably a nervous tic, not resting tremor. Seriously. Advanced Parkinson’s disease is not something you can hide when you’re on video hundreds, if not thousands, of hours a year. It’s just not. the very fact that these few snippets of video are the best that the conspiracy mongers can come up with is excellent evidence that Hillary Clinton does not have Parkinson’s disease. If she had Parkinson’s disease, it would have been noticed long ago by someone other than a greedy pharmaceutical entrepreneur, the CEO of a crank physician organization, or an anesthesiologist with a political agenda who asks near the end of his video about who would run the country if Hillary Clinton were incapacitated and then shows a photo like this:

Yep, he insinuates. It’ll be Bill Clinton running the country again. Of course, the Constitution declares the line of succession, and if Hillary Clinton were elected and were to become incapacitated, her Vice President, Tim Kaine, would assume the duties of the Presidency, Dr. Noel's insinuation that if he were to do so the Clintons would "lose their juice," not withstanding or his "question" wondering whether Clinton had a "freeze" during the Benghazi attack and that's why it was such a disaster. (I just knew he'd manage to work Benghazi in there somewhere.)

Insinuations about the health of political candidates and leaders is nothing new. However, these conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health from the fever swamps of Alex Jones territory take it to a level I do not recall ever having seen before. No wonder Vox Day eats them up. As brilliant as he thinks he is, he is the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect and the arrogance of ignorance.

oracknows Wed, 09/07/2016 - 00:45

Categories

Brain and Behavior

He asks the question at the video, while apparently never realizing that the Constitution has already provided the answer.
He also claimed that having a POTUS with dementia would be fatal to the nation, yet we somehow managed to survive Reagan.

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, every physician who wants to diagnose a candidate from online videos and even television videos in a diagnosis that's far afield of their specialty should have their state board take a shredder to their license.
For one, they're trying to diagnose something outside of their field of expertise, based upon low resolution video clips. That shows a mind boggling lack of good judgement.

My response:

Dear Dr Noel - I'm so embarassed that you apparently spout off all this nonsense not realizing that the Constitution has already stated how issues of succession are to be managed. Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but no, Mr Clinton would not take over if Mrs Clinton becomes incapacitated. The Vice President would. (Surely you are old enough to remember Nixon's resignation - Gerald Ford, who was VP, was sworn in, not Pat Nixon).

And diagnosing someone without having them as your patient is very unprofessional. Or else, that means I can diagnose you with delusions of grandeur and possible flights of fancy, maybe from exposure to too many anesthesia drugs.

Lay off the nitrous, doc, and do your job. Let Hillary's actual personal physician do their job.

Well, nitrous oxide does deplete vitamin B12, which can cause psychiatric issues... ;)

Seems like every year the White House releases the results of the current Presidents annual physical exam (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/08/us/politics/document-pres… ) .

Is this a requirement that the President have an annual physical and that the results be publicly disclosed? And (somewhat cynically) would what is disclosed necessarily be complete and accurate given the concern that enemies of the US might try and exploit a medical diagnosis of the President if disclosed?

I too have been annoyed at the armchair diagnosis of Trump for two reasons. It gives him an out to explain his behavior and vilifies people with similar diagnoses. Trump is an evil, racist bigot without a shred of human decency. His ability to convince others to agree with him is far more worrying than finding a root cause.

From an insurance company website: "More than 662,000 of adults who suffered from falls in 2010 [in the USA] were hospitalized due to non-fatal fall injuries."
People tumble at their homes like bowling pins all the time, but Clinton's accident was because of Parkinson's... Makes sense.

Obviously, looking at her birth certificate did not work this time.

#6, my wife took a spill in the house a week ago. Maybe we should show case reports and a hashtag, #NotParkinsons.
For her, it's herniated discs, a misstep and a poorly placed treat jar.
A couple of weeks before, I took a spill, as the cat was overjoyed to see me and knocked my cane out of my hand as I was just ready to put weight on it. #NotParkonsons.
The cat took a spill, when misjudging the distance to the chair. #NotParkinsons
A Carolina Anole was climbing up our sunroom window and lost his footing, #NotParkinsons.

Falls are rather common and rarely due to one single medical condition.

@ MI Dawn
I am quite disappointed to learn that Monica would not take over if both Mr and Mrs Clinton become incapacitated.

Orac got it wrong.

This doctor who has diagnosed HRC's hidden illness is a "board-certified Anesthesiologist with 36 years of experience"

Now if he wasn't board-certified I might doubt she has Parkinson's, but you can't argue with board certification. I also know of a tree specialist certified by the International Board of Arboriculture who has come to the same conclusion.

Dangerous @8 -- You had me going there for a while.

Here's a vulgar and very humorous take on all this, from a site that has developed what amounts to its own rhetorical universe of stylized snark:

http://wonkette.com/605279/what-is-hillary-clinton-dying-from-today

I’d take a Clinton with poor health (even if such were true) over the little-fingered One.

There are also much worse things than Clinton filling in for Clinton in spite of how silly this is--as pointed out above. It would make more sense than Melania filling in for He who has not really given us ANY health-related information.

As a board-certified anesthesiologist, I can state quite confidently that the American Board of Anesthesiology frowns upon any of its diplomates diagnosing a patient without doing a comprehensive history and physical examination. Moreover, I suspect that my board would agree that diagnosing a patient with Parkinson's Disease is outside our scope of practice.

That's very likely true, but if you have an MD, state laws don't really restrict your license to practice. If an anesthesiologist wanted to start treating Parkinson's patients, he could, although it's unlikely insurance companies would pay him for it or hospitals would accredit him to do that.

@DB

Don't forget to emphasize the 36 years of experience. That's the same argument Dr. Jay uses to back up his fact-free assertions, and we all know he's spot on.

I'm reminded of another conspiracy theory bandied about: that Clinton pays off her doctors to report a clean bill of health, and anyone who might disclose anything to the contrary is killed. There are whole websites devoted to the alleged "trail of bodies" left behind by the Clintons.

Well, yes. 36 years of experience as an anesthesiologist apparently "Trumps" everything else. :-)

You are being willfully blind and it makes a blog called "scienceblogs" look exactly the opposite.
It took all but an hour to thoroughly research Parkinsons symptoms and review all the photos and videos of Hillary acting strangely. Although a diagnosis cannot be made, there is ample evidence that she has Parkinsons. She even uses known coping mechanisms. The symptoms line up extremely well.

At the very least the public deserves a real medical report, and a recent one. I wager she will never ever release this because she doesnt in fact have Parkinsons. No one can look at that head bobbing video and with a straight face tell me there is nothing seriously wrong with her.

That last thing in the world I want to see is Trump elected, but if Hillary is being power hungry and selfish, doesnt step aside in time, is discovered and Trump wins im going to be pissed. If she stepped aside now, Sanders would win in a landslide. She could give this race to the Republicans by hiding her disease until its too late.

If she starts head bobbing and freezing like a moron when Trump viciously attacks her during the debates, its all over. If she has Parkinsons and is having a bad day, debating Trump is a nightmare scenario for her. It would trigger tremors, etc. Probably why she has been avoiding news conferences like the plague.

You are being willfully blind and it makes a blog called “scienceblogs” look exactly the opposite.
It took all but an hour to thoroughly research Parkinsons symptoms and review all the photos and videos of Hillary acting strangely. Although a diagnosis cannot be made, there is ample evidence that she has Parkinsons. She even uses known coping mechanisms. The symptoms line up extremely well.

No, they don't. Ever wonder why none of these videos shows actual Parkinson's disease patients in action for comparison? (And, no, a static photo of Michael J. Fox looking "bug-eyed" doesn't count.) Ever wonder why, out of literally thousands of hours of video of Hillary Clinton taken over the last two years and then before, when she was Secretary of State, that these few snippets of video that can be tortured to sort of look like Parkinson's disease symptoms are the best that Dr. Noel (and before him, Martin Shkreli and Dr. Jane Orient) could come up with? Did you ever wonder why not a single board-certified neurologist has stepped forward and say, "Yeah, that looks like Parkinson's"? The reason is simple. It doesn't. Those startled looks are not dyskinesia, and that head bob is probably a nervous tic, not resting tremor. Seriously. Advanced Parkinson's disease is not something you can hide when you're on video hundreds, if not thousands, of hours a year. It's just not. the very fact that these few snippets of video are the best that the conspiracy mongers can come up with is excellent evidence that Hillary Clinton does not have Parkinson's disease.

In reference to the "avoiding press conferences", her last press conference was 1.7 days ago.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/31/donald-t…

Your internet research skills stink about as badly as your medical diagnosis skills, as you have just contradicted a whole bunch of physicians on this site.
New hashtag to add, #NotADoctor

Remember twenty years ago when everyone was insinuating that it was Hilary running the White House.

Eric: your argument appears to boil down to "I think she has Parkinsons, so you're all idiots." Would you kindly go tell Steven Novella that? He's a neurologist, the discipline that actually and in fact diagnoses people with Parkinson's, as opposed to an anesthesiologist, the discipline that keeps people comfortable and alive during surgery.

MI Dawn:
"Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but no, Mr Clinton would not take over if Mrs Clinton becomes incapacitated. The Vice President would."

To give him the absolute barest thinnest benefit of the doubt, he might be remembering FDR. He was in very bad shape towards the end of his presidency, due to post-polio syndrome, and his wife Eleanor quietly handled a lot of business for him. This was kept out of the public eye just as much as his illness was, to avoid people losing confidence in the President during wartime.

Except I suspect that if Noel is anything like Vox Day, this is not the case. Vox Day is a notorious misogynist; he does not believe it possible for a woman to run the country, therefore she must be a front for a man. (And, of course, he takes pains to reference his philandering too. Because we don't want a philanderer in office. We should vote in a serial monogamist who surrounds himself with beautiful women other than his wives, and who publicly lusts after his own daughter instead, I guess, because surely that man isn't a philanderer. Or something.)

GiJoel -- yeah, that thought occurred to me to. It's rather amusing irony. ;-)

No one can look at that head bobbing video and with a straight face tell me there is nothing seriously wrong with her.

If you look at the video, especially individual frames, one can see any number of people with distorted looks on their faces. Does everyone have some kind of neurological disorder? These attempts to diagnose politicians they don't like is asinine. I don't know who's worse, numpty laypeople like Eric S here or physicians using their non-expert credentials.

I'm surprised there aren't more diagnoses for Clinton based on the countless hours of video evidence available to the public. You know, for the important stuff like secretly practicing satanism, being born in Kenya, or actually being a lizard person or whatever the current conspiracy fads might be. With enough cherry picking, anything is possible.

Lizard person, really? I'd have pegged her as a grey alien. ;)

Wait. Weird movements on one side, bizarre hair on the other, cunning conspiracies all over and everyone secretly being aliens... that's it! Clinton is secretly Trump! It all makes sense! They're really the same person, and the entire presidential election is nothing more than one grand conspiracy to put Clintrump in the oval office no matter who wins! Rise up, people of the United States! Rise up and safeguard our democracy!

Hey, that explains the short fingers! ;)
He's really a she or she's a he or something.
Yeah, or something. ;) *

*When I close with "Or something", see that wheelbarrow full of hyperbole over there. ;)
Or something.

The quickest way to determine whether this is nonsense - or not - is to shoot and post video of a clinical test where Hillary is subjected to strobe lights.

Ah, but doesn't a press conference quite resemble a strobe light test?
Especially for Trump, for the lights start flashing whenever he says something outrageous, which is... Always.

Oh, USAToday had a series of interviews in solid red voting counties, with plenty of disgust from the voters. A choice between Trump (yack!) and Clinton (no way!) and "I don't know what I'll do, but not Trump".

In other disturbing news, a teen wants to refuse further treatment of her terminal condition, as she's constantly in pain and only one end in sight, alas, special interest groups are fighting (complete with CPS calls) and an autistic child was murdered by his mother, while she was intoxicated on Meth. Once she sobered up, she admitted to the crime and expressed extreme horror and disgust in her own actions.

And diagnosing someone without having them as your patient is very unprofessional.

But sadly, not unprecedented, including the part about using such a diagnosis for political purposes. Recall that about ten years ago, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, MD, was making a ludicrously incorrect diagnosis of Terry Schiavo from video being shown on the Senate floor. (I would have used "hilariously" there, but the Schiavo case was no laughing matter.)

For the last 25 years one of the best ways to gain insight into what Republicans are up to is to look at what they are accusing Democrats of. So I will venture to guess that Donald Trump is concealing something about his medical condition. Since I am not an MD, I will refrain from speculating about what exactly that might be. I'll just note that Trump is so vain, he probably thinks the old Carly Simon song is about him.

Yep. Both sides do it. They did it with John McCain in 2008 and his history of melanoma, for instance. This year, it's primarily Trump supporters doing it. I do notice that, for the most part, Hillary Clinton supporters seem to have toned down the psychiatric armchair diagnoses since the criticism reached a certain level.

Off topic, but I mentioned above. 14 year old girl with type 2 spinal muscular atrophy wants to go into hospice. Various groups fighting her. Agony is OK, hospice isn't.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/09/06/teens-plan-die-has…

Mom on meth kills her blind, autistic son.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/06/police-mom-adm…

Y'know, I don't specifically know if Clinton has Parkinson's or some other disorder or not, but just saying I knew someone who fell once, and they didn't have Parkinson's really is just sticking one's head in the sand.

The real issue at hand is how creepily extreme the bias in favor of Clinton is. It's not just the usual liberal media bias. The shilling CNN and others are doing for Clinton is way scary over the top. Don't any of you liberals wonder what's/who's ultimately behind that at all? Do you really think it's a bunch of enlightened visionaries fighting for the common man? Seriously, has that been your experience?

No, John, we realize that people slip on slick steps.
My wife falls quite frequently, it goes with damage from a disc compressing her spinal cord.
I've had my own spills, one not all that long ago when the cat knocked my cane out of my hand just as I was setting it in mid-stride to place my weight on it.
Neither my wife or I have any sign of parkinsonism. Just fouled up backs.
Is Ms Clinton's quite a bit older than we are, we'd expect a few missteps.
Of course, if Trump did the same, anyone capturing the event on video or still photo would be stuck in court and stuck with a gag order.

Now, here's the fun thing. Our Constitution has no health clause at all. Period. Nobody made a thing about FDR's health and he was quite frail in some ways. Hell, he died of a stroke so severe that people thought he was shot in the head!
We had over a half dozen other POTUS's that were extremely ill, not a biggie.
A woman runs for POTUS, everyone wets their pants.
Well, on the right, anyway.
Get some depends if it's that bad. I would.

Our judges would be very shocked to hear healthy people don't fall on their head. They've been dealing with cases of that kind for many years. Maybe some damage awards need to be refunded.

Well, my wife has been falling a lot more of late. Worse, she has several healed vertebral fractures and two new ones. Plus various other bones showing healed small fractures.
While I was reviewing the diagnostic imagery, I commented to my wife, "Wow! I'm amazed that they didn't think that I was beating you!". Apparently, they did ask while I was out for lunch and coffee.
Good for them!
No, just advanced osteoarthritis.

Although, back when we only had a full sized bed, it could almost seem that way when rolling over.*

*That's OK, the few times that she got my forearm crashing down on her were paid back with interest after her carpal tunnel surgery and she had a cast. I was sporting two black eyes, to some mutual embarrassment and laughter.
I'm still quite the active sleeper, flopping this way and that, but as we have a king sized bed, the only thing that happens is my knocking the fitted sheet off of my corner of the bed, to be replaced when I arise.
Occasionally, to find my head encased in said corner, when the elastic snaps it over me...

Seriously, they're going on and on about three falls in what, eleven years? I've sprained my ankle and gone down more frequently than that (and have done since age 10), and that's only a subset of the falling I do.

I've also seen plenty of perfectly healthy folks (teenagers, even!) pass out on stage just from locking their knees during choral concerts. It doesn't take much.

Oddly, I'm one infamous for locking knees and never passing out. Likely, a side effect of hypermobility.

Meanwhile, both of our daughters have laxity in joints, clinically notable laxity.
I have a suspicion, however, I'm not a physician.
I've nearly always deferred to a physician, when I didn't, said physician's management or supervisor overruled him or her.
That said, such an event was rare, only statistically significant.

Or in short, I don't challenge someone that's an SME until I'm damned sure that they're wrong. Then, all bets are off.
I've not lost that bet yet. But, I also recognize my educational and experiential level delta.

I was watching news with a live feed of HRC the other day when she couldn't start her talk due to having a coughing fit. It was so painful, thinking about what the unfit-to-serve folks would make of it, I turned it off.

If you wanted a long-distance armchair diagnosis of that coughing, I wouldn't go with Parkinson's but GERD, (since that's what gave ME similar coughing fits and laryngitis tied to trying to speak in public) and have Hilary checked for Barrett's.

@sadmar, full empathy. I have GERD in spades. I forgot, for only two days, my proton pump inhibitor. I currently feel like I thankfully drank battery acid.
For those not in the know, we're talking the lower esophagus being burned by rebound and propensity driven excesses of stomach acids, sloshing up the esophagus.
Having forgotten on day three, but remembering in the "morning", I took my proton pump inhibitor, went to work and literally drank three gallons of water to dilute the excess until I could heal.
Many, many, many bathroom visits later, I returned home, ate a few acid neutralizer tablets.
At this point, I'm nearly feeling somewhat, erm, normal (well, for me).
That means, in this condition, which I have well documented, it's a one in three chance that I'll projectile vomit, with minimal warning.
Said vomiting usually takes between ten and thirty seconds to occur with proton pump inhibitors and is largely mucus driven.

So... It's complicated.
My wife fares more poorly. She has reflux at night, coughs up a mouthful and erodes her face - literally.

Yep. I once fainted in the kitchen of the house I was renting with four other students when I was 21. Vasovagal, for no apparent reason other than perhaps burning the candle at both ends in the run up to exams.

If you wanted a long-distance armchair diagnosis of that coughing, I wouldn’t go with Parkinson’s but GERD, (since that’s what gave ME similar coughing fits and laryngitis tied to trying to speak in public) and have Hilary checked for Barrett’s.

GERD and undiagnosed asthma are two common causes of chronic coughs.

She could have caught her Parkinson's off Janet Reno during some sweaty Waco consult --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Xq-f-nd_0

Tim Cook just coughed during the Apple Event! He must have Parksinsons. Sell your Apple Stock!

Yeah, and that Huma b****, when she wrote "She's often confused." They jumped all over that, too. And they never asked how in the hell Huma would know this, as if she has a lot of access to Hillary. What a joke.

Forget Hillary, a vote for her is a vote for George Soros. A man far more evil than Trump!!!

Hey, dimbulb, Parkinson's isn't contagious. Go troll Reddit,with your fellow jerkface, MRA, gun-fetishist joint smoking friends.

The longer this election goes on, the more I wish the baby-boomers would just go away. It's funny, once upon a time they dreamed of making the world better, but all they did was make it massively worse. If the 1950s had been cut straight out of history, or if we'd had to spend it rebuilding like Europe did, we'd be a sight better off now.

@PGP, while we're trailing edge baby boomers, you'll greatly miss us when we're gone. :)
That said, our mutual predecessors did massively foul up.
Assigning blame while the fire is ongoing isn't how one addresses the fire. It's how one lets everything burn down, while investigating.
Not the most optimal solution.

Still, just a suggestion. :)

Hogwash. If your mother was having coughing fits like Hillary you wouldn't take her to the dr.....right? "Sorry to hear about your coughing fits mom...how's your lawn?"

Politics

Sonny, let me explain a few things, in as gentlemanly a fashion as I can.
First, my mother had chronic bronchitis and coughed a lot. Especially in spring, during allergy season.
And in late fall, when mold went up and the house was closed up
She also didn't have to yak on like a politician. At all, thankfully.

As for "how's your lawn", I'd love to read on how you expound on that mythical lawn.

If your a Trump supporter the video makes sense.

If your a Clinton supporter not so much.

But health looks like it could be an issue , there has been peculiar moments for Hillary if your honest and can get by your bias.

Erm, when you can speak in a literate sense, come back.
There's your and you're.
Mixing the two befuddles any point that you're trying to make, beyond the top of your already empty head.

For others reading, this is a precautionary note. Defective usage of a condom can and will create such deficient creatures, for the best part of that individual stays inside of the rubber.

I'm not a doctor. And I wouldn't attempt to diagnose her health. But it does make me really uneasy when I watch her head bob around, see her react to sudden stimulation and watch her cough without stopping for four plus minutes. And it isn't like the coughing has been constrained to one episode. Neither have her pretty bad falls. A busted elbow, a bad concussion, etc. Hell, she even had an aide stabilize her during a recent rally. We can't expect her to be in perfect health. She's 68. We can expect her to disclose her health records though. Ditto for him as he is even older. It's a serious job afterall.

You should have stopped at, "I'm not a doctor. And I wouldn’t attempt to diagnose her health."

One notes, as I pointed out, that the head bobbing was cherry picked from many thousands of hours with no head bobbing. Ditto the coughing.

On second thought, you should have stopped at, "I'm not a doctor."

No, John, we realize that people slip on slick steps.

Including US presidents. There was a famous incident in the 1970s when then-President Gerald Ford, alighting from Air Force One, slipped and fell to the bottom of the air stairs. That incident helped seal his reputation as a klutz. But nobody to my knowledge claimed that Ford had Parkinson's, either then or in the three decades between that incident and his death.

For that matter, I had a slip and fall earlier this year that, to an onlooker, would have seemed completely out of the blue. Do I have Parkinson's or some other neurological disorder that caused the fall? No, it turned out that the light coating of snow on the sidewalk concealed a patch of ice. No need to assume that anything was physically or neurologically wrong with me prior to the incident (I did sustain a hand injury in the fall).

So no, falling is not evidence of Parkinson's. Even if Parkinson's could cause someone to fall, that isn't the way to bet.

PGP@43: Please adjust your snark meter.

@Eric Lund, currently and admittedly, recently, I've been forced to walk with a cane.
Well, it's that or randomly be dumped flat on my face, when one leg randomly collapses.
So, having dad's old cane around, I use it. It retains a tip that I purchased for him. Flip the little metal bit around, there's a half centimeter steel tip to dig into ice.
Which was its purpose in life, grab into ice, not slip and drop dad to the ground.
That said, I still have plenty of wiggle room to fall. The cat knocked said cane out from under me when I got home for work once. *Just* as I was setting it down and shifting weight to rest upon it.
While, I didn't have enough time to prepare a martial arts guided landing, I did just go solidly down onto both knees and one elbow.

Obviously, that's parkinsonism, to idiots. For anyone with a mind, a history of disc disease suggests that bilateral collapse after injury might be potentially disc driven symptoms.
Well, for anyone, save an insurance company...

First, here's a link worth looking at:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/aug/04/dont-dia…
Now the most pointed example of a spouse taking over was Edith Galt Wilson after her husband's stroke. She allowed very few people to see him but claimed to be his intermediary. It is widely supposed that she was actually running the country herself. That couldn't happen today.
I find Trump's pretended concern for Clinton's health hypocritical, coming as it does from someone who looks like a jack o'lantern left out on the porch all winter.
Falls? When I hyperextend my neck I occlude one or both vertebrobasilar arteries, and if there's nothing in front of me to grab onto, I lose all motor control and I quite literally fall on my face - dirt on my nose and glasses, a sharply pointed branch scraping my face just millimeters from my eye, and so forth.
Now, John Jacobs, I don't know where you see a leftward bias in the media. I see false equivalency. Trump tells a huge lie about Mexicans = Clinton's email. Trump insults a war hero = Clinton's email. Trump goes racist on a judge = Clinton's email. Trump & his entourage repeatedly retweet Nazis and white supremacists = Clinton's email. Trump pays off state officials to steer them away form investigating Trump University = Clinton's email. And on and on it goes. Meanwhile, no matter how despicable, deceitful, or corrupt Trump gets, no matter how he lies about his own recorded statements, the bulk of the media pass on the ludicrous defenses made by and for him as if it were holy writ instead of Pravda-like falsehood.
I hoped electoral politics could be kept out of Orac's blog, but it's here, leading me to say that Donald Trump is the worst choice for President since Richard Nixon or Strom Thurmond and for more reasons than there's room to tell here.

I just got over 2 weeks of horrible coughing due, it turns out, to bronchitis. Never had that before (and I being a dumb male type person) I naturally ignored it as long as I could. Eventually after being unable to breath at times the coughing was so bad, I went to the doctor's office. A z-pack and some codeine cough syrup and fixed it all up.

While codeine is nice, I'm a bigger fan of promethazine. It's excellent at cough suppressing action, diarrhea, even antihistamine activity and more. It's a Swiss Army Knife of drugs, one can even use it as an adjunct for anesthesia. Great drug in the right hands, in the wrong hands, it's like any other powerful drug, potentially dangerous.
But, it was one of the elective drugs that I carried in my downrange treatment kit.

@PgP #46
"Hey, dimbulb, Parkinson’s isn’t contagious."

How do you know?

“The (human) brain diseases caused by prions include Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease), and other disorders known as frontotemporal dementias,” said Nobel Laureate Stanley Prusiner, who earned a Nobel Prize in Physiology in 1997 for discovering deadly prions.

http://alzheimerdisease.tv/parkinsons-transmissible-disease/

Let's just say that, if our plane crashed in the Alps, I'd feel a little extra trepidatious about eating her.

Erm, Gil, there's precisely zero evidence, in real world evidence, that parkinsonism is prion related.
Period.
A one-off, after a major tragedy? Seriously?
Dude, I've just lost a lot of respect for you.
Which is actually saying a lot.
Car talk was cool, you're willing to learn, but you really need to re-address your boundaries for accepting input.
We've got a pretty good handle on prion disease, it's transmissible via specific methods. Parkinsonism, just not happening. The latter is either prior brain damage that decompensates with age related loss or autoimmune, doing the same.
Seriously, we're talking brains, meat! Not rocket science!*

*Remember the hyperbole wheelbarrow? This is a double wide, triple load model, with sarcasm by the supertanker.
Albeit, in this instance, rightfully delivered.
Or, perhaps, he's right. Boxing gloves magically deliver a prion, injected, by magic, into the opponent.
Assuming, of course, that magic suddenly came to exist.

The cause of neuronal death in Parkinson’s disease is still unknown, but a new study proposes that neurons may be mistaken for foreign invaders and killed by the person’s own immune system ...

The results raise the possibility that Parkinson’s is partly an autoimmune disease, Dr. Sulzer says, but more research is needed to confirm the idea.

“Right now, we’ve showed that certain neurons display antigens and that T cells can recognize these antigens and kill neurons,” Dr. Sulzer says, “but we still need to determine whether this is actually happening in people.

http://newsroom.cumc.columbia.edu/blog/2014/04/17/parkinsons-autoimmune…
def. one-off: done or happening only once.

^^ What do you mean by that?

Wzrd1: while we’re trailing edge baby boomers, you’ll greatly miss us when we’re gone.
I will miss a number of members from the boomer generation, but not the generation itself. (the dimbulb is a prime example of his generation, for example.)
Wzrd1: Assigning blame while the fire is ongoing isn’t how one addresses the fire. It’s how one lets everything burn down, while investigating.

At this point, letting it all burn down seems like the only option. As I've said before, a lot of things need a rethink, including the idea of fifty states, and possibly closing all national parks to visitors.

Dimmy: Because we've done a metric fuck-ton of research on prions since they were discovered and guess where they aren't? They're not in Alzheimers' patients, or ALS patients or Parkinson's patients. Alzheimer's patients have *proteins* unravelling in the brain, but proteins aren't the same as prions.

Go get a new brain, yours is clearly not working. And people say pot is completely harmless.Maybe the Reagans were actually right about something for once.

#61

<blockquoteThe cause of neuronal death in Parkinson’s disease is still unknown, but a new study proposes that neurons may be mistaken for foreign invaders and killed by the person’s own immune system …

In other words, NOT a communicable disease. NOT a disease caused by prions.

Apologies for the block quote fail.

It is, of course, OK to post about something Theodore Beale has said -- it may even be an obligation if that thing has actually gained credibility somewhere. But it is usually OK to ignore him completely. Teddy Beale is in that category of stupid, evil people whose stupidity tends to make a lot of the evil ineffective. He only has a soapbox because his father, tax protester and arch-wingnut Robert Beale, is on the board of WND. As noted elsewhere, he is so crazy and vicious he even gets edited at that odious fishwrapper. He should be ignored.

@Wzrd1
"Erm, Gil, there’s precisely zero evidence, in real world evidence, that parkinsonism is prion related."
Have you ever heard of synuclein?

ORAC - It is no more unreasonable for me to be concerned by her many instances of odd behaviors, falls, coughing, etc. than it is for someone to proclaim there is nothing wrong. Both candidates should submit to physical exams by a team of physicians and allow the results to be made public. The job is too important. Acting smug about it won't change that fact. The job is too important for the public not to understand the health of two candidates who are way past the age for AARP membership.

Except that there is no evidence that Clinton has has "many" instances of odd behaviors, falls, and coughing. It's clearly all cherry picked by her political opponents. Diagnosing Clinton from a distance is just as dumb as diagnosing Donald Trump with psychiatric disorders from a distance.

Consider this. If it were Donald Trump showing identical behaviors to Hillary Clinton, would you think he was sick and be demanding he release his medical records? I highly doubt it.

Let’s just say that, if our plane crashed in the Alps, I’d feel a little extra trepidatious about eating her.

Me too. We all know that as a mammal ages, protein crosslinking makes the muscles tougher.

Only wussies are afraid of prions.

Can someone explain what the medical difference is between past and way past?
I guess I missed that in my coursework on documentation, but can start notating it in my patient charting.

Yeah but what if Dr. Noel is right, then what? I certainly don't have any "medical credit ability" except having been a nurse for 47 years and having a family member with Parkinson's disease. I think I deserve the truth but then again hiding the truth seems to be her biggest illness.

Why did Mrs. Clinton have some of her staff research Parkinson's Disease drugs which has been confirmed. Her symptoms are obvious. She can't climb a set of stairs without exerting much effort and help. She has uncontrollable head movements and the deer in headlights look that she can't control. Parkinson's or some other neurological disorder, the woman is not well.
As for the comment that "we survived" President Reagan's dementia. First, it is debatable whether Reagan was suffering from the disease while still in office. What is not debatable is that Reagan's policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs according to the Joint Economic Committee in 2000.

"...that the head bobbing was cherry picked from many thousands of hours with no head bobbing...."
No it wasn't. Neither were the uncontrollable hand movements, falls and incessant spit-choking.

Yes they were. And there aren't any uncontrollable hand movements, just a misinterpretation by a biased anesthesiologist. I have a board certified neurologist telling me this after having seen the video and telling me he saw nothing obviously abnormal and certainly no obvious movements characteristic of Parkinson's.

I wonder how long it would take someone to make up a video of Trump using selected pieces of his speeches to suggest he's suffering from severe dementia. Probably not very:
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-sentence/

I declare Trump unfit because his obvious "disability" of never being able to tell the truth.....

@Jim

Well, we do have that pesky HIPAA law that would prevent anything like you propose, barring the candidates themselves disclosing the information. That said, the results of any physical examination wouldn't be anyone's business. The most that anyone could legitimately argue is for a fit/unfit results to be disclosed, but no details.

Of course, "no details" would not satisfy people opposed to the candidate, as they would simply claim that the doctors had been paid off (which is already being done).

And, quite frankly, while people might want to know if the person they elect is physically or mentally fit to govern, there is no legal requirement for such a test to be made.

That incident helped seal his reputation as a klutz.

Chevy Chase didn't hurt, either.

jre @65: Now that Vox Day has also totally failed in his attempt to "destroy" the Hugo awards (Science Fiction awards) it really is time for the internet to turn its collective back on his blathering.
What a loser.

Look, it's obviously mild cognitive impairment subsequent to chronic Lyme disease. High-dose antibiotics administered by a Lyme-literate doctor would clear it up in a few months to a year.

Regarding the Parkinson's/Prion debate - this is an actual hypothesis you can find in the literature, so plz don't bash on someone for mentioning it. I will say that's it's very premature to present it as a fact, but that's really a problem with Gilbert's source rather than with Gilbert.

Parkinson's has been linked to mutations in synuclein. The synuclein protein seems like it may form prions in the related disease multiple system atrophy (MSA), but no evidence for such prions has yet been found for Parkinsons (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/38/E5308).

Since I know there are a bunch of nerds here, does this "Hillary has Parkinson's" remind anyone of the Tenth Doctor and his "Don't you think she looks tired?" comment about the prime minister, which ended up with her being ousted from office?

(For non-Doctor Who nerds, eh, it would take forever to explain, but the episode is The Christmas Invasion.)

Ok so the Dr is not a Hillary supporter, but the author points out she's been political blogging going 10 yrs back.

Also interesting- her "take down" of the Vox day points to 2006 discussion of deporting "12 million" illegal aliens. 10 years later, the "accepted" illegal population is 11 million. ??
PEW Research estimates the illegal population grows by 500k per year.

So who exactly is lying about Amnesty for illegals? Bear Sterns estimated 20 million back in 2008. 20 million? 30 million? Add the population of Texas? Add the population of Canada, or more accurately in terms of voting habits, Venezuela?

The high ground on matters of national importance whether candidates health or who constitutes the voting population always seems to shift, per needs of the moment.

Justatech: Ugh, don't get me started on the Hugos. I'm ready to get up a petition to shut them down because of the incessent whining of the untalented puppies. If they want to win they need to stop whining and learn to write. Although it does help to keep my reading list trim, as I ax off writer after writer as the catastrophe continues. I'm beginning to be convinced that many science fiction writers want the fandom to be solely comprised of white 14-year-old boys.

Whether Orac is correct or not, his criticism of Dr Ted Noel being incapable of making a diagnosis of Parkinson's because he's a "First off, being a “board-certified anesthesiologist” has little or nothing to do with expertise in neurology or Parkinson’s disease. Yet, note how Vox emphasizes that he has 36 years of experience, presumably at anesthesia. I’m sure he’s a perfectly capable anesthesiologist, but he’s no more qualified to diagnose Parkinson’s disease than any other non-neurologist, probably less, given his high degree of specialization."

Of course Dr Gorski is an oncologist dealing with cancer. His criticism of Dr Noel would also apply to him. He has no business deducing anything about HRC either. See the quote below.

"It's hard to imagine two diseases more different than Parkinson's and cancer. Parkinson's disease, a progressive neurological disease that causes tremors, muscular rigidity, and loss of motor function, happens when neurons that release the neurotransmitter dopamine die in the tiny substantia nigra region of the brain.Mar 9, 2010

Parkinson's Disease and Cancer: The Unexplored Connection
jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/6/371Journal of the National Cancer Institute"

Orac is an oncologist, yes—and he's not diagnosing Clinton with anything. For the conclusion that Clinton doesn't have Parkinson's, he cited Steve Novella, who is a neurologist.

When someone waves irrelevant credentials around, I tend to conclude that this is because they have neither relevant credentials, nor an argument that would stand on its own without the dubiously claimed authority.

In referring to the anestheseologist, the author mistakenly referred to Ted Noel, the anestheologist as "Vox", wno is Ted Beal.
An understandable mistake given that Vox quotes Noel

Actually, no. Vox emphasizes that Dr. Noel has 36 years of experience. I pointed that out because Vox normally castigates experts, but when there's one that he likes he emphasizes what an "expert" he is. :-)

This reminds me of the Obama birth certificate issue. It could have been solved immediately but he spent 2 million dollars fighting the release of his birth certificate in court. The fight only seemed to confirm suspicions.

Same here. She could release hospital records and the suspicions would be allayed immediately. She can do more.

The number of former Senators that run for POTUS and were required to show their birth certificate = 1.
For every other candidate in US history, an attestation of a state governor and surgeon general was more than sufficient.
Now, for yet another first, the GOP now wants HIPAA protected documents.

Said to another republican, so long ago, but it bears saying today, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

It could have been solved immediately but [Obama] spent 2 million dollars fighting the release of his birth certificate in court.

Horse Apples.
Horse. Freaking. Apples.
Point me to proof that Obama fought the release of his birth certificate. in fact, if I remember correctly, the State of Hawaii released it to shut the birthers up.

I recall some resistance to releasing the birth certificate, as he'd then be the only candidate in US history to have had to release a document that was already sworn to by a republican governor and state surgeon general.
So, it got to the point where some brain trusts were claiming that Hawaii wasn't really a state (seriously!) and others, that two republican leaders in Hawaii were conspiring to elect a democrat that was an illegal alien or something.

It was embarrassing, internationally and when I thought things couldn't make the world wonder as to our nation's collective sanity, along bumbles Trump.

Hawaii released Obama's long-form birth certificate a long time ago...but the birthers continued their crusade, regardless.

I wonder what will be next?
Proof the candidate is baptised? Or proof the candidate attends the church?
Or perhaps proof the candidate is legally married?
Our premier is single and why should I care?

This Science Blog article is so incredibly politically biased as to destroy any credibility it ever had based on scientific rigor. It's authors are clearly Hillary supporters, making several statements that are patently false -- such as claiming the suggestion that Hillary has Parkinson's Disease is based on "basically nothing" -- except for the dozen or so incidents befalling Hillary that are entirely consistent with Parkinson's Disease. If you are going to call yourselves the "Science Blog" then you need to employ a little integrity and rigor when you diverge into the political arena.

Ah, Hillary related information needs "science", whereas anything else for you requires nothing.
Consider the worse profanity yours to keep, my compliments, my version is worse.
Go away, son, you bother me.

Seriously, that one annoyed me less than an ankle biter.

So. You are annoyed by a demand for political rigor to be taken as seriously as seriously as scientific rigor is taken by real scientists. If you are a leftist, that's typical or Hillary would be locked in a closet somewhere. If you are a realist, OTOH, you would agree the article open this thread is worthless garbage. And yes, I do require equal rigor when it comes to Trump. Applying equal rigor to both of these flawed candidates reveals Hillary to be the end of everything America stands for, beginning with liberty under the Rule of Law Obama has already trashed. And it reveals Trump to the only possibility, however weak it may seem to you, to turn our country around and restore it to its true promise. Not guaranteed, mind you, but the destruction under the Bitch of Benghazi is guaranteed and she has said so, promised so, and is using it as a campaign promise.

#94

I want definitive proof that Trump is not an alien.

Five will get you ten that after all is said and done, Hillary has great expectorations of being featured in Ricola commercials.

Bleh, Gil. My "Expectorations" are greater, I'm a pack a day smoker.
Hell, when ozone is high, I projectile vomit!
And?
Am I incompetent?
I also fall a lot, last week, the cat knocked my cane out from under me and down I went.
Wanna play, I have a pocket full of quarters. Let's play.
I have no love of Hillary, but I do love reality.

If you are going to call yourselves the “Science Blog” then you need to employ a little integrity and rigor when you diverge into the political arena.

The author has stipulated that diagnosing someone via videos, especially those with no training in the requisite areas is as ridiculous for Trump as it is for Clinton. The author writes for a collective called "Science Blogs", he had nothing to do with that name. What are you whingeing about again? I'd be more concerned with your reading comprehension than some perceived liberal bias.

Wonderful forgery, save that the use of language lacked, badly.
Might as well been in Russian.

Things just keep getting hilariouser and hilariouser.

- re the small handed ( orange) one
a television reporter visited NY's Mme Tussaud's which displays a casting of the aforesaid one's hands.
They measure 7 1/4 inches in length - smaller than most men's, similar to most women's ( according to the broadcast).
My hands are a tiny, tiny bit larger than the Donald's.
I am 5'6" tall and have NO penis.
- What is Aleppo, anyway?
- I noticed 2 political commenters coughing like mad the other day in unison- she must be wildly infectious!
- prn.fm's noontime frolic has devolved into a political commentary contra Clinton
We should be happy, he's not instructing followers in the finer points of BS-laden woo.

As a long time observer and commenter upon internet lunacy involving health and ( since 2008) politics -
I must say-
Crap has gone mainstream and come home to roost.

@Denice Walter, your final point is purely and finally valid.
Former points, I'll not discuss my variable penile length, depending upon mood, as it's not germane beyond excitement. ;)
Hand length, erm, I dunno.
But, point strength, dumb donald loses. Always. Sans a clue.

Strange you should say that. Every "dumb thing" Trump has said that the Marxist Mafia left outrages about has turned out to be true upon a little research. OTOH, everything the Marxist Mafia subaltern exhibiting the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease has said has been known to be a lie from the moment she said it. It is so consistently so that you can generally figure if her face flap is flapping, she's lying. She lies about her own actions; she lies about history, she lies about her opponent; she lies about her Clinton Foundation slush fund, and she lies about her lies.

Mr Cline speaks of "little research", therein lies the problem, with little research, he arrives at defective ideas.
Case in point, the "Benghazi bitch", despite a half dozen committees that were hostile to her finding precisely nothing against her performance of her duties when the tragedy in Benghazi occurred. Or for that matter, what the status of forces agreement permitted in Libya. Or general reality.
Just foaming at the mouth hyperbole.

At least when I use hyperbole, it's clear that I'm using it in a humorous context, not a closely held, albeit erroneous belief.
For, a little research can be as bad as no research at all if one does not uncover the facts of a matter of interest.

Do you think for one New York Second V. I. Lenin's depredations in the Ukraine in 1924, or Josef Stalin's murderous holocaust in that country, would have been exposed by an investigation into his crimes by his own equivalent to our "Department of Justice"? (See http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm for more information.) If not, why on God's green Earth would you expect the beneficiary and titular head of the biggest criminal regime on the planet to be challenged by our Department of Justice for giving aid and comfort to our enemies in Libya? Your comment reveals a total ignorance of just how complete the Marxist Mafia takeover of our federal government is. They don't play nice, Wrzd1. Approximately 90 people with evidence against the Clintons have already been murdered, four or five in the last couple of months. Eric Holder got out hoping he would be next. Rahm Immanuel got out, hoping he wouldn't be next. Jeff Comey refused to call for an indictment against Hillary hoping he wouldn't be next, and knowing that Loretta Lynch wouldn't have allowed it in any event. You have no idea how totally corrupt our rogue occupation government has become, Wzrd1.

Approximately 90 people with evidence against the Clintons have already been murdered, four or five in the last couple of months. Eric Holder got out hoping he would be next. Rahm Immanuel got out, hoping he wouldn’t be next. Jeff Comey refused to call for an indictment against Hillary hoping he wouldn’t be next, and knowing that Loretta Lynch wouldn’t have allowed it in any event.

All of those dead, powerful people, yet you know "the truth" and are somehow magically alive and protected. Is it the space aliens protecting you or the immortal militia or something?

I'm a private citizen presenting facts and political history anyone can verify for themselves. If I became a witness to specific acts of treason admissible in a court of law, I would definitely become a target.

Most likely she has discoordinated swallowing, resulting in pharyngeal cough fits (for layman - saliva got into the wrong pipe). This swallowing disorder is a part of ongoing (and progressing) pseudobulbar syndrome. Some of her other symptoms, as shown on videos, belong to Pseudobulbar Affect (PBA).
My guess is that her medics are not top notch ones, she could be managed better, but I agree this condition is difficult to fix.
So far there are no signs of PD or use of levodopa type medication.

Why, thank you, pseudo-doc!
I'll forward your pseudodiagnosis to my real physician, who will happily laugh at your non-diagnosis with me.
I'm also infamous for choking on my own spittle, something about cervical discs and all.

What is someone playing for pay again, a common whore, is it?
Save that I'd trust a street prostitute more than you, at least she'd be honest about who and what she does for a living. You're not.
Now, as my Brit friends would say, "Bugger off!".

For the record, I loathe Hillary. I loathe paid whores far more. Tovarich.

@ Lawrence:

I have a birth certificate copy ( my mother lost the original) that looks like she printed it up herself on nearly transparent green tissue paper.

It's funny to see these sites and read all the comments from the un-educated democrats! It's all just childish name calling and unproven garbage. Anyone with a brain can see Clinton has something going on. Even if she is in perfect health she is a dishonest person with little integrity. Certainly not something worthy of the highest office in the land.

@ Denice, my favourite DT hand epithet is still "short-fingered vulgarian", which tears The Donald apart to this day: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/07/469209254/decades-later-spy-magazine-foun….

Somehow I doubt that "Educated Democrat" was ever a Democrat...

@ Science Mom:

One of my gentlemen showed me a picture of twitter ( I forget to whom it belonged) which showed a close up of the Donald's hair which is held in place with hair/ bobby pins.

There's a new epithet just a-waiting

Somehow I doubt that “Educated Democrat” was ever a Democrat…

NEITHER WAS BERNIE!!1!1!!!

L-rd only knows what he has.

^ Rats, blew the blockquote.

ORAC - Yes, I would demand Trump release medical records. I've already stated I think both the candidates need to submit to physical exams. She is 68. He's even older. And, to be very clear, we do have multiple examples of her having odd issues. Getting old sucks. And this job is too important not to have these candidates be examined. What is wrong with calling for them to prove they are of sound mind and body? If there is nothing wrong, as they both claim, then they should have no issue submitting to an exam by impartial physicians.

Trump's doctor has already released his findings; if Trump was any healthier he would be illegal.

@Jim

What is wrong with calling for them to prove they are of sound mind and body?

Define "sound mind and body". Remember, use only objective measures, along with clear descriptions of why someone who does not meet those measures cannot fulfill the function of the office. And what about someone who is borderline? Who determines whether or not they meet the measures?

Remember, the average person is completely unqualified to determine, objectively, what would or would not make a person unfit for the job.

Next, how do you determine whether the physician is impartial? Does that one physician have the requisite knowledge of the candidate's medical history and current condition? Do they examine the candidate just once? Multiple times? How many?

Then, suppose the results are released. How are people to know that the results have not been doctored (no pun intended) in favor of one candidate over the other? Will it prevent armchair diagnoses from running rampant as we see now with both Trump and Clinton? Will each side accept the results of the other side? Will it make an objective difference in the outcome of the election?

Finally, what about HIPAA?

(see also my comment at #77)

"Define “sound mind and body”. Remember, use only objective measures, along with clear descriptions of why someone who does not meet those measures cannot fulfill the function of the office. And what about someone who is borderline? Who determines whether or not they meet the measures?"

We do. And we do so according to our own definition of "sound mind and body" without vetting it through you.

"Remember, the average person is completely unqualified to determine, objectively, what would or would not make a person unfit for the job."

So you say. I say a practicing member of the Marxist Mafia is by definition unfit for the job because he or she does not regard the U.S. Constitution, as written, binding upon his or her decisions and actions. (Witness the current Chicago bathhouse boy illegally infesting our White House.)

"Next, how do you determine whether the physician is impartial? Does that one physician have the requisite knowledge of the candidate’s medical history and current condition? Do they examine the candidate just once? Multiple times? How many?"

Trump's physician has been examining Trump annually for 30 years, and has proclaimed him to be in incredibly good health. You can't be sure of getting anyone impartial, whether physician or president. All you can be sure of is getting someone who is clever.

"Then, suppose the results are released. How are people to know that the results have not been doctored (no pun intended) in favor of one candidate over the other? Will it prevent armchair diagnoses from running rampant as we see now with both Trump and Clinton? Will each side accept the results of the other side? Will it make an objective difference in the outcome of the election?"

Doesn't matter. People will make their own decisions, even if those decisions are based upon the idiocy of voting for a confirmed Marxist or refusing to vote for the one person who can prevent the destruction of our nation. Rarely, if ever, are their votes founded upon the basic common sense God gave a goose.

"Finally, what about HIPAA?"

Does snot prevent any individual from releasing his own records.

@DB, I dunno, Mr Cline may actually be missing the fact that Joe McCarthy isn't around to be a candidate.
That entire "Commies" bit is highly telling and I've actually met more than a few who defectively, but recognizably paraphrased McCarthy.
Such people behave as though their denunciation should carry some sort of weight as well.

And you expect your denunciation of those who oppose Cultural Marxism taking over our nation to carry any weight?

Tell you what: How about you read the transcript of one witness called before McCarthy's House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC): http://www.frdmftr.net/rand.html

Then you can decide if McCarthy was justified or not. (That's the problem with liberty; your enemies use your recognition of liberty as a tool of your destruction. You tell me: How do you preserve your liberties without taking them away from your enemies? Tough question, isn't it?"

Hell, when ozone is high, I projectile vomit!

Would you believe, Wzrd1 #99, that I participated in the 1995 Southern Oxidant Study (SOS)? I advocated taking people into caves many square miles from traffic to show how one is re-sensitized to ozone as it has very limited persistance -- A few hours in the cave and coming back out would take your breath away -- Soil bacteria and plants on a summer day were the major drivers of NoX thus ozone production in sunlight. It well overshadows traffic and even agriculture.

A site recording ozone over a certain level would constitute that city falling under 'non-attainment' status; Forbidding industrial growth and killing the economy in the area. Never mind that most of the gasses responsible for the ozone derived many miles away from the site.

The solution was to destroy vegetation upwind of the sensors -- Many acres were destroyed south of Nashville and Atlanta while trees where planted downtown (lowers local temperature); all to mitigate that arbitrary O3 measuement. Everything was destroyed to satisfy EPA buerocratic stipends.

@Gil, don't get me started on ozone, I projectile vomit easil yat certain levels. Go back into my treated office, not at all. Must be the space aliens or ground or some other batcrap.
Rather than good air treatment.
My car, with the A/C on did the same.

Seriously, ionize oxygen a little, get ozone. Lightning does it. Ultraviolet does it. Humans make it a plenty, hell wires themselves do it at high voltage levels. My care makes it.
See my brain leaked out of my ears, you've added to it and you ain't my kid.

No need for a cave. Anyone bluewater sailing for the nearest foreign port can attest not only to the pollution, but to the loss of immunity from the common cold.

Oh, btw: The existence of the EPA, just like the ATF, the FBI, and numerous other federal agencies, is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States. Can I interest you in mounting an effort to demand that it be enforced as written?

"If there is nothing wrong, as they both claim, then they should have no issue submitting to an exam by impartial physicians."

Fortunately, there is a crack team of impartial medical professionals ready to tackle the job.

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

@DB, I'm pretty sure that those were my brain surgeons!
Maye that explains some modest issues... ;)

Oh wait, that brain leaked out of my ears when our girls were teens.
Nevermind.

Noel reminds me of the conspiracy nuts who still cling to the notion that George Bush knocked down the twin towers and with willful intent killed 3,000 innocent citizens so he could go to war in Iraq. Get a grip people, you have two choices for President....pick one and shut up, please.

@prose #118, while I'm far from thrilled about my choices, I have Trump, (not happening) or Clinton.
So, it comes down to batshit crazy vs a corporate democrat.
Not shutting up, just pissed off that, while I was deployed, you all let our nation devolve into this cloistersmurf!
Believe me, my inner Patton mouth wants to say a *lot* worse!
I was away, you remained home, things turned into this while I was away defending your worthless asses you sat at home and let this get this bad.
My first alarm was, "second amendment remedies", which badly frightened men going out on war patrol, fearing for their families and homes. I'll never forgive that one.
For the tea party or the rest of you for letting that happen.
Sit at home, let a nation turn into fascism, screw the lot of you!
I should've stayed home and let the "commies" take over!

Now, we have one part of the nation armed to the literal teeth, other parts batshit crazy, other parts, confused.
So, thanks for nothing for what we've returned to, you've done a lousy job taking care of the place while I lost very close friends protecting this now nearly worthless place!

If you've failed to notice my contempt, ask me again.

I sense a measure of contempt, there, Wxrd1, but I have to wonder to whom it is directed. I was with you until you claimed you would have allowed the Commies to take over instead of the fascists. Haven't you figured out yet that the Commies are the ones pushing the fascism? The line between the Marxist Mafia on the far left and the micromanaging fascists on the right is not linear; it is a circle: Regardless of the hair-splitting definitions of the political ideologies by university professors with "Piled-higher-and-Deeper" after their names, which they promulgated for the specific purpose of keeping us spinning our wheels in the definitive muck and accomplishing nothing, the fact is at the street level there is no discernible difference between Marxism (communism) and Fascism: Both are tyranny imposed by a system based on the Rule of Man. Our nation was founded to place individual liberty under the Rule of Law superior to the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and neighborhood Marxist/Fascist warlords. You want a free country, stop spinning your wheels and start demanding government obey the U.S. Constitution every time, no exceptions, no excuses. It is the only chance we have left before the Second Bolshevik Revolution is executed later this year.

Bush did not cause the events of 9/11. But his international handlers did, and they didn't tell him about it. They just advised him on how to deal with it.

Humans make it a plenty, hell wires themselves do it at high voltage levels.

You'd hate my Tesla coil which, in an enclosed space, can turn your black shirt grey within the timespan of just a few minutes.

Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless - 9/11 just made it easier.

I was in a Pentagon CENTCOM planning room in April, 2001 which contained large-scale computer maps denoting the intended invasion routes (at the time, it included an advance through Turkey - since at that time, they still expected that Turkey would allow transit through their territory).

Which proves nothing, Lawrence. It is military planning's job to wargame every possible future scenario. Wargaming doesn't prove they are planning to do it; all it proves is they are preparing for all potential future scenarios if any turn out to be appropriate.

Lawrence, what???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

PGP @84: Ah, but that was the great thing this year: The Rabid puppies (lead by VD) were totally trounced and the rules changed to prevent it from happening again. That's probably why VD has turned back to politics; because he can't win at sci/fi.

And I wouldn't ax everyone who ended up on the slates this year: a lot of it was trying to appear to win or tarring with a broad brush. And it introduced the world to Chuck Tingle, who writes hilariously-titled erotica.

Say what you want, snark away, but Hillary is obviously not well.

Now well physically or mentally. Anyone espousing her Marxist crap is either retarded or is a power-hungry narcissist, and that includes her fawning fans.

Lawrence -- I'm not disputing what you saw -- but remember, the DOD has contingency plans for the invasion of everywhere. I can remember working on invasion plans for Iraq (among other places) back in 1985.

"Somehow I doubt that “Educated Democrat” was ever a Democrat…"
Somehow I doubt that “Educated Democrat” was ever educated...
He is so behind on the news that he hasn't considered the possibility that the Never-Trumps here might just be wide-awake Republicans.

The "Never-Trumps" here might be "wide awake Republicans, but if they are "Never-Trumpsters" they are incredibly dumb and pursuing an objective that cannot be won -- unless their objective is to elect the head of the global criminal syndicate known as the Marxist Mafia (funded by the Clinton Foundation).

shay simmons: Yes, the Pentagon has all kinds of contingency plans, like every good general staff does (An Israeli intelligence officer once told me that Israel had plans for everything including Arctic warfare. I still don't know if he was kidding.).
But in the case of Bush, we have the testimony of Paul O'Neill, the Shrub's Treasury Secretary, that the invasion was being planned from the first week of the Bush administration, if not earlier.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

I have a close family member who has been suffering from Parkinson's for years. Nothing in what I've seen of Hillary Clinton suggests she's suffering from it, and quite frankly the suggestion serves to trivialize the condition as an insult you can hurl for political gain.

Believe me, if Hillary Clinton had Parkinson's there's no way she'd be able to hide it for very long considering how much time she spends in public.

And she is not hiding it, is she?

You realize that Trump is the best athlete in world? He can dance with both feet firmly in his mouth.

Ya gotta admit that he is more agile than the falling down tripping fainting forgetful opposition, dontcha?

Remember that while FDR was sick and enfeebled when he won a fourth term, for the twelve years before he had an extremely high-pressure job and he did it admirably.
Winston Churchill was Britain's wartime prime minister and minister of war while suffering prostrating bouts of depression and repeated episodes of pneumonia, much more serious then, in the early days of antibiotics.
William H. Taft for most of his adult life weighed between about 280 and 350 lbs. He served as the first American civilian governor of the Philippines, Secretary of War, President, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, all the while morbidly obese.
Defining what state of health a candidate should be in may not be much better than picking one based on arm-wrestling ability.
As an aside, I hate that whole tiny hands thing. It's exactly this kind of pseudo-macho posturing that we need to get away from. Marco Rubio should get his hands slapped for bringing that in to the campaign.

Rich Bly:
...and it's truly amazing that they aren't dislodged when his head is up his ass.

Guess we'll all know soon enough. Julian Assange likley has her medical records, and I'm sure some health concern will be front and center. After all, Assnge's sources hacked the NSA and a number of other government servers, so gainig access to a physician's client files shoud prove childs play.

I am not a believer in conspiracies - in this case, it was obvious from day one that Bush was going to finish what his father started....9/11 was merely a convenient excuse - and if it wasn't 9/11, it was going to be the WMD excuse.

When I was in the briefing room, it was also obvious that this was no mere contingency, it was active planning for an upcoming operation.....

Not to mention Wilson's stroke, which basically left him incapacitated.....

Man, this is pitiful. Perhaps Cline would be better syled as "vwlfghtr."

Really? I'm not sure what you think you are trying to say with your suggestion of a 'better syled" (sic) email name, but am I to understand you disapprove of the fundamental principles that established the first nation on the planet to elevate private individual rights superior to the arbitrary whims of kings, princes, kommissars, and neighborhood warlords? Please explain to the assembled multitudes here what you would like your roll to be in your fantasy dominion.

Mr. Cline, considering the URL in the comment and the oddly erroneous comprehension of our system of government, all rooted upon a lack of comprehension of why we have a Constitution...
If you agree with the concepts on that website, you've wandered down the merry path off of a cliff.
The states were indeed sovereign, bound into a temporary confederacy that was deemed too weak to stand, so a Constitutional convention was held and a Constitution drafted and ratified by the states, which created this nation by erasing parts of sovereignty of each state. Erase parts, they're no longer sovereign, but bound to the Constitution, within boundaries established by that Constitution.

You complained of several federal agencies being unconstitutional, whereas they were created under the interstate commerce authority of Congress, granted to Congress by the Constitution.
Pollution can be considered part of commerce and if any state were to pollute my state with impunity, that would then, without relief, set the stage for a civil war.
Indeed, the Constitution even mentions the public welfare, not once, but twice, once in the preamble, once in an article.
The Constitution may be amended, the process laid out in that Constitution, whereas that website denies that which is as old as our Constitution.

After quite a bit of effort tracking down what URL you are talking about, it appears you are referring to "Freedom Fighter Net at www.frdmftr.net, referenced by Narad. I was confused by your comment until I realized you aren't aware: That's my website. I wrote it, based upon over 40 years of research.
Your error is one of perspective based upon over a hundred years of advancing the theory that the U.S. government is sovereign over the States in all matters whatever when it is not, never was, and the Constitution says so.

The States were, indeed, sovereign, but they were not "bound" by the Articles of Confederation, and they proved it by every State doing whatever it damned well wanted to do, causing Washington to observe, on the eve of the Convention, "We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion."

You fail to understand two principles of compacts in general, and the Constitutional compact in particular: Sovereign States do not "erase" any of their sovereignty by agreeing to allow their creation, their proxy, to conduct certain specific sovereign actions in their name and under their authority. Indeed, it is a fundamental principle of law that should their proxy fail to fulfill its mandate, or exercise power not authorized, it is within the sovereign power of the State to exercise its sovereign power itself. That's the first principle.

The second principle is that the creation of its proxy out of the sole sovereign power of the nation-States in compact is not under any circumstances plenipotentiary: I quote:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X.

You will note that not only does this Amendment establish that the federal government is to do what it is authorized to do and is NOT to do what it is NOT specifically authorized to do, it also confirms that the States created the federal government and own it. The federal government has absolutely zero authority not delegated to it by the States.

In short, the States created the federal government and the States can take it out.

The authority for the creation of federal agencies referenced does not come from the Interstate commerce authority granted to Congress by (Article I Section 8 Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution, which grants authority over COMMERCE between the States. It comes from a Roosevelt-packed rogue Supreme Court illegally ruling that the federal government has authority over private individuals growing wheat on their own land for their own use. See Wickard v. Filburn, (1945). The federal government has no authority whatever over private individuals not delegated to it in Article I Section 8.

I will add that even the federal government authority over commerce between the States does not authorize interference with the exercise of private rights of individuals -- i.e., the federal government cannot use its interstate commerce authority to interfere with the private right to keep and bear arms, for example, or interfere with travel between the States, or oppress the right to free speech between the States, etc., etc. Private individual rights peacefully exercised are beyond the reach of government every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

Lawrence -- just wanted to say you are absolutely correct.

This after reading Cline's posts because I would hate to be suspected of being on his side on anything

Oh, good! Have I found myself in a den of liberal vipers ready to attack the messenger of liberty under the Rule of Law? Or are you willing to discuss the fundamental principles as a decent human being rather than a minion of flame war? In short form, do you have two facts to rub together to support your smarmy comments about my thesis, or are you merely into shallow ad hominem attacks?

@Narad 148
Wow, looking at that makes me really glad my uncle doesn't know how to make a website. And that I have long since refused to discuss politics with him.

Smug liberal airheads always refuse to discuss politics with me. They have no facts upon which to base their side of the discussion, or when they do they derive meanings opposite to what the facts suggest. But I'm willing to discuss politics with y'all if you can do so in a adult manner and not try to turn it into a juvenile food fight.

Hey, Orac, this isn't about you and any correlation between your anecdotal health issues and those of Hillary Clinton. Here's a suggestion: How about Clinton and Trump undergo extensive physical examinations by an INDEPENDENT physician, since both of them are 70 years old, which justifies the public's knowing what kind of shape they're really in.

I would agree with that suggestion, but with the caveat that I seriously doubt an "impartial" physician (I assume that's what you mean by "independent" could be found. Nor do I think the results would make the slightest difference to any obsessives on either side.

Man, this is pitiful. Perhaps Cline would be better syled as “vwlfghtr.”

C'mon the dude has his own quote.

Narad @148.
What a whackaloon - but then the "Clinton is a Marxist" should have been a giveaway.

Hey, MA: Do you have anything of substance to contribute to the date beyond Marxist* juvenile name-calling?
(*A technique developed and taught at the University of Moscow in the 1930's by a -- wait for it -- Marxist -- by the name of Lavrenty Beria, First Deputy Premier of Soviet Russia under Josef Stalin and documented as the most ruthless murder that criminal regime had ever seen.) Do you want to perpetuate his evil legacy, or would you prefer to debate issues like a decent human being?

If there is nothing to see here, then please explain why she is traveling with a board certified neurologist, Dr. Oladotun Okunola. M.D., of Neuroscience Center of Northern New Jersey, who apparently has the power to go on stage with her and shoo off secret service personnel. Is that typical behavior for someone like Wzrd's wife who slips a lot? Do campaigns bring top end neurologists along as campaign staff customarily? Was Dr. Okunola carrying a diazepam auto injector pen while walking along side her? I wait to be educated on by the know-it-alls. I have a good idea they will deny any knowledge, or say they don't know, or that it makes sense a Neurologist would travel with the campaign I guess. It is funny how the know-it-alls know everything until they are asked to provide insight on inconvenient facts and they find themselves shrugging their shoulders.

Well said. And the shrug their shoulders because insight requires facts, and they don't have any. Pesky things, these facts; they keep getting in the way of their agenda.

Oddly, a visible only to you diazepam autoinjector.
Oh, I forgot, magic!
The diazepam autoinjector is a standardized beast, the military refer to it as a CANA injector, it's not palmable at all. But, let's keep on inventing shit.

Just saw in the Facebook "trending" feed that the AAPS says that 71% of it's doctors think Clinton is very sick, or something.

I thought of Orac. Yeah, the AAPS...

I’m willing to discuss politics with y’all if you can do so in a adult manner and not try to turn it into a juvenile food fight.

Why on earth would anyone want to "discuss politics" with you, of all people? For that matter, political subjects are rarely even on topic here, and this entry isn't one of those cases – it's about brain-dead armchair diagnoses.

Mr. Cline, if you want to discuss anything in an adult manner, I highly recommend you not use phrases like "Smug liberal airheads" and "Marxist Mafia subaltern".

Good riposte. Howsomever, I have been dealing with smug liberal airheads and Marxist Mafia subalterns since returning from the culturally-communist nation of Australia in 1974; and their identity factors haven't changed one iota in that period of time. The people on this board, and Zerobama and Killary and Biden and Warren and their ilk have nothing of substance to offer the American people beyond creative hucksterism, so the identity factors still apply. "Political correctness" is nothing but the cultural Marxism insurgency we've endured since COMINTERN in 1925, and I see no reason to not call a spade a spade just because you aren't historically educated enough to know what I am talking about.

Is anyone else having flashbacks to Spiro Agnew?

Why? Are you being investigated for political corruption?

If there is nothing to see here, then please explain why she is traveling with a board certified neurologist, Dr. Oladotun Okunola. M.D., of Neuroscience Center of Northern New Jersey

Time to tighten your colander.

in this case, it was obvious from day one that Bush was going to finish what his father started

They did make it pretty personal, Lawrence #146.

A tile mosaic depicting U.S. President George H.W. Bush with a look of astonishment on his face was installed on the floor of the lobby after the Persian Gulf War. This was intended to force any visitors to walk over his face to enter the hotel (a serious insult in Arab culture). On 17 January 1993, the hotel was damaged in a US missile strike and the attack resulted in civilian casualties. The artist, Layla Al-Attar, who did the mosaic died along with her husband and housekeeper when another stray US missile hit her house. After the invasion in 2003, the mosaic was smashed by U.S. soldiers, who left a portrait of Saddam Hussein behind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Tulip_Al_Rasheed_Hotel#History

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/10/world/baghdad-journal-a-new-graphic-m…

Narad #164: I'd like some context to go with that image, please.

If Mr. Cline insists on spouting insults like a small child, perhaps we should make him stand in the corner for a while.

Citing facts and relevant history is always insulting to a Marxist whore. It destroys their agenda, and they can't tolerate that.

I like standing in the corner. My back is covered, preventing cowardly attacks from the rear, for which commies are famous.

He is a rather uninteresting troll. Such boring, predictable political trolls are why I seldom blog about politics. Even this post wasn't so much about politics but rather conspiracy theories. However, because it's about the election, the political trolls are out in force. I wonder where this link was posted to draw the Trumpies in...

Your definition of "Political Trolls" doesn't meet the test of Occam's Razor. Political trolls are people -- usually the "useful idiots" as V.I. Lenin described his followers -- who go around not contributing to discussions or debates, but doing everything they can to disrupt them. You can't be referring to me, for I am inviting serious debate, in which so far the posters on this forum seem incapable of engaging.

I’d like some context to go with that image, please.

Certainly.

I have been dealing with smug liberal airheads and Marxist Mafia subalterns since returning from the culturally-communist nation of Australia in 1974; and their identity factors haven’t changed one iota in that period of time.

Pish-tosh. Some of us are now Marxist Mafia field-grades.

Don't give yourself airs. So far I haven't seen any Marxist mafia field grades on this pitiful list; I have only seen their useful idiots who are incapable of perceiving contrary facts to their thesis, much less presenting them. The field grades usually come in later when their useful idiots go whining to their handlers complaining "He's kicking our ass!"

The anarcho-syndicalists never get any credit from this lot.

I don't think that Vox Day's goal was to help HRC sort out her health problems via a public admission of Parkinson's disease. The point is to get her, or at least her propagandists, to deny it. From where I sit, it looks like it's working. Dunning-Kruger effect indeed.

Dunning-Kruger effect? Why not just call it what it is? Rampant vindictive narcissism.

"Was Dr. Okunola carrying a diazepam auto injector pen while walking along side her?"

I can think of another candidate who would benefit from such a device when the crazy strikes.

Is there even such a thing as a "diazepam auto injector pen?" Now I'm concerned a pharma company has a monopoly on it and is charging $600 per device.

*Can we be sure, completely sure, that Mike Adams is not lurking in Hillary Clinton's entourage, ready to inject her with a kratom auto-injector pen when her mu opioid receptors need stimulation?

@DB, curious as to the price and existence of the diazepam autoinjector.
It was originally invented for the US Armed Forces as an anticonvulsant to update the older MK I autoinjector kit for nerve agent poisoning.
Cost, $25.00/month.
The DoD repeatedly tried to get the FDA to remove the RX only status, without effect.
https://www.patientslikeme.com/treatments/show/13222-diazepam-autoinjec…
For a photo of the military unit, as originally issued as the "CANA unit".
http://www.meridianmeds.com/products/diazepam

Discussing politics with D. Cline would be like swapping recipes with Jeffrey Dahmer.

Do you have anything to contribute to the debate, or would you rather index your recipes?

TL;DR
But I'm 99% sure she has Parkinson's disease since she requested medication for that. She either has it or is crazy - you have to be crazy to request medication for an illness you don't have. Either way she's unfit to lead on oh so many levels.

How many Communists can you find in this picture? Mr. Cline found twenty!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solid_blue.svg

You're cute, but you're a liar. Besides, I'm not a leftist; I don't conjure up images or motives that aren't there.

Mr. Cline, do you have any evidence that anyone is, in fact, a Marxist? Otherwise, you may as well be saying "reptile-man" instead of "Marxist".

Certainly. And when you read the Communist Manifesto and the resolutions of the COMINTERN, and learn the methods the communist insurgency has been using to infiltrate and subvert the citizens and institutions of the United States of America since 1925 -- and how those methods and efforts have redoubled in every election cycle since Reagan, you will too. There are other researches that are instructive also -- what kind of president, for example, do you think Nixon was? Conservative, Liberal, Communist, Fascist, what? Did you know that for all his seemingly fascist bluster, he was turning over State secrets and pushing programs in the U.S. benefitting the Soviet Union? You folks hold the wildly liberal fantasies about the real world that you hold because you have been lied to since birth. You ought to dig a little deeper and find out who is actually running this country behind the scenes. You might consider, as a starting point, the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a devout communist, FDR was a communist sympathizer, the federal government you mostly think should be micromanaging every aspect of our lives is actually, BY SUPREME LAW, the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States that created it; that Secretaries of State Philander Knox and William Jennings Bryan committed perjury and MUTINY against the sovereign States when they falsely declared the 16th and 17th Amendments ratified, and by doing so the federal government devolved into the rogue occupation government we endure (and you ignorantly rejoice in) today. These are not someone's hare-brained pipe dreams, ladies and gentlemen, these are facts and I can prove them by citations of supreme law and federal records anyone can look up. Discussion, anyone?

I hear his feetloaf is to die for.

Idk, Gray Falcon

Janet Yellen
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Janet+Yellen+QYyYtAw1bDvm.jpg

Slitheen
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/tardis/images/6/68/Slitheen.jpg/rev…

"Do you have anything to contribute to the debate, or would you rather index your recipes?"
Disparaging you *is* a contribution to the discussion.
I wouldn''t call it a debate. It's mostly you rattling on about imaginary Marxists and deep, overarching plots and people here trying to introduce you to such unimportant things such as actual facts.

Really? Actual facts? What actual fact has been introduced to this discussion by you or anyone else on this forum? Not one, I suggest. Ad hominem and juvenile attacks as befits the typical Marxist method, yes, but not facts. And yes, I will agree this is not yet a debate because none of you have presented any facts to debate and I'm not sure you know how if you even have any, which I doubt. Now I just presented some facts in my last post, if you want to debate them, do so. No juvenile name-calling, please -- and if you make an honest attempt to discuss or debate, I will withhold calling you an airheaded liberal doofus or Lenin's "Useful idiot" because airheaded liberal doofusi and useful idiots are incapable of debating. They are terrified of honest discussion and debate because they might find themselves wrong.

I can't believe this is a science blog, This Dr is offering up his conclusion that HRC has Parksion then goes on to offer up ample proof of his claim. Nobody here does what Science does and refute this claim, of coughing fits, head bobbing, falls, bug eyes, needing assistance and a stool to climb into limos, nothing about he paramedic at hand with auto injector military grade,
No you all make stupid jokes and puns and at best you say Oh he is anesthesiologist. Need I remind you in-denial twats that Dr Drew Pinsky lost his HLN show just for question HRC's health. There is so much evidence that this lady is very sick that if it was snake it would bite you on the nose. Nobody on this thread has proven this Dr wrong, all you have done is giving weak excuses for falls, coughing fits, seizures, head bobbing, facial contortions and tics, Nodding up to 400 times.
It is amazing how people will lie to themselves to avoid facing the truth, HRC is a very sick woman.

Mr. Cline, why should we trust you?

Because my answers can be independently verified by your own research.

nothing about he paramedic at hand with auto injector military grade

Behold, tryptic67 has been out-shersoned, or something.

^ Oh:

Need I remind you in-denial twats that Dr Drew Pinsky lost his HLN show just for question HRC’s health.

You might want to be cognizant, going forward, that it's not possible to "remind" anybody of someone they've never heard of in the first place.

Not only is HRC using a Military Grade injector pen, she's covering up her drooling, head-wagging and butt-shaking with food grade hydrogen peroxide.

I have presented the facts, now you must refute them.

Ad hominem and juvenile attacks as befits the typical Marxist method, yes, but not facts.

Are you sure* that you're not confusing Marxism and Stalinism? Hell, perhaps rather than using the former as some sort of blobular-globular word-thing, you could set out what you think it means.

I'd unblock Sadmar for that.

* Heh.

Not at all; both are authoritarian fascism at the street level; hair-splitting differences are emphasized by elitist wonks for the purpose of engaging in useless debates that distract everyone from doing anything about the tyranny. Our founders were smarter than that, and created a form of government that prohibits both, and all other forms of tyranny.

Thank you for showing that you cannot tell the difference between Marxism and Stalinism. You've illustrated your ignorance quite well - repeatedly.

The difference at the street level is nonexistent. Nothing ignorant about that.

Orac @173: he's certainly got the jargon down pat. Do these guys have a stylebook that they all use?

No juvenile name-calling, please — and if you make an honest attempt to discuss or debate, I will withhold calling you an airheaded liberal doofus or Lenin’s “Useful idiot” because airheaded liberal doofusi....

Cool plural, bro.

If Mr. Cline could take a break from the insults, I would like to ask him if he knows what the actual language of the seventeenth amendment contains. 'Cause directly electing senators doesn't seem all that controversial to me. I think he may have confused it with the fourteenth or eighteenth amendments, since he seems like the type who has an extra pair of sheets that he wears on Sunday. And before he dismisses me as a Marxist, I'm actually a monarchist, so there.

Same difference; like Marxists, monarchists believe in the Rule of Man, prohibited in our nation. Our form of government is based on the Rule of Law being superior to the arbitrary whim of monarchs, their subalterns, and their street thugs. Yes, I know exactly what the 17th amendment says and what it does. Are you aware that it is specifically prohibited by Article V unless every State consents to being deprived of its suffrage in the Senate, and more than ten States did not consent? And no, I don't have an extra pair of sheets I wear on Sundays (whatever that means), so there.

the “useful idiots” as V.I. Lenin described his follower

He did? Where?

Quoted by Saul Alinsky in "Rules for Radicals." Ask him when you get to Hell.

I’m actually a monarchist

A philosopher-king, or what?

I’m actually a monarchist

You're hoping for a philosopher-king, or what?

C’mon the dude has his own quote.

Do you mean the hilarious use of himself as the source of an epigraph?

Is there a mathematician in the house?
,
I've been trying to figure out the Venn diagram which illustrates the overlap between two sets: reality and Mr Cline's ability to discern it.
.
How DOES one represent the conjunction of an infinite set and a null set?

One stops trying to pretend he has a "Piled-Higher-and-Deeper" after his name and does some useful work in defense of our liberties.

How DOES one represent the conjunction of an infinite set and a null set?

Easy enough, divide by zero.

Donald L. Cline @188: So you don't like the federal income tax, I can see why people might not like that. But what's wrong with directly electing senators? It's so much more democratic!

And while we're at it, how do you feel about the 19th amendment? Or the 13th amendment?

Democratic? Your brainwashing is showing. The founders were adamantly opposed to a democracy, describing it as follows, after describing its historical results: "A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." –James Madison, Federalist No. 10
The founders did not create a democracy. They created a Constitutional Republic with democratically-chosen representation. They were also specifically opposed to voter initiatives due to their vulnerability to manipulated factionalism, and subversive Michael Bloomberg is currently taking great advantage of those States foolish enough to have established voter initiatives in their Constitutions.

Facts, Mr. D. Cline? Every one of your so-called facts has been debunked as paranoid ramblings.
Here's a fact for you: calling me a Marxist or nearly any other kind of -ist is so far off the mark that it's ludicrous. You are about as accurate in identifying my politics as you are making a medical diagnosis from Fox News.
Since this blog and it's comments are pretty much intended to discuss nonsense masquerading as medicine, you are wasting our time and yours. No one but you believes or cares what you think about William Jennings Brian or Philander Knox.
Incidentally, I have read the Communist Manifesto more than once, and the US Constitution many times more than once. The former is a quaint little book that's about as relevant to this century as an 18th Century travel guide to Canada. The latter is very much alive and relevant, and your viewpoint on the relation of the states to the government was considered and decisively rejected while Alexander Hamilton lived on Earth. Most remaining doubts were quelled by the War of Southern Sedition. Further, even if you were right (which I firmly believe you are not), doing anything to overturn that view now would make landing an oil tanker in a kiddie pool look simple by comparison.

Never debunked at all. Illegally ignored by the rogue powers that be to our eternal detriment, but never debunked. To debunk them would require debunking the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Documents Illustrative of the formation of the Union of the American States. To the extent the federal government erroneously believes they are debunked, and acts upon that belief in a manner violative of the aforementioned documents, the federal government has not escaped their authority but has simply abdicated its lawful authority to govern and that authority is restored to the sovereign-nation States that created it and ratified it, and to the people inhabiting them. See the Tenth Amendment, Dave, for starters. Alexander Hamilton had no authority to debunk Constitutional principles and in fact did not, though he tried. What you call "The War of Southern Sedition" was a put up job by British operatives still trying to restore control over their colonies, and Abraham Lincoln violated every principle of the Constitution in his prosecution of that war and established the illegal precedent that presidents and government does not have to obey the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the other aforementioned documents. Words mean things, Dave, and nothing you have listed changes the meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution one iota. To the extent government violates that document, government has abdicated its lawful authority to govern, and it is time the States do not secede as the South tried to do, but rather declare the 16th and 17th Amendments null and void for lack of ratification pursuant to Article V, recall their imposter senators, choose new ones as the Constitution requires, and send them to Washington to represent them in the Senate. Even one State could do that and the rest would follow in an avalanche. The federal government is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign nation-States that created and ratified it, and nothing the federal government has ever done or will ever do can change that.

JP: No, I just think that constituitional monarchy works out pretty well in practice. It's certainly better than what we have now.

Bulldust. A Constitutional monarchy does not limit the monarchy and does not protect the rights and liberties of the people. Never has and never will. It's like reading the Constitution of the USSR, which lists dozens of rights of the people, none of which are protected by government because government issued those rights. They are not rights; they are privileges. Our Constitution Republic is founded on the theory that individual rights and liberties are a matter of birthright and beyond the reach of government. We have appellate and supreme court rulings (back when the Supreme still had some integrity) pointing out specifically that individual rights are flatly beyond the reach of government. Government has nothing to say about their exercise. A monarchy, founded upon a constitutional pretense or not. functions under the Rule of Man. Our liberties are under the Rule of Law no man or collection of men (or women), government thugs or not, has/have the authority to abridge. Why do you want a form of government that takes your right to choose your own path away from you?

ORD@209 - I would upvote you just for the reference to the War of Southern Sedition if I could.

As a card-carrying [ ;-) ] anarcho-syndicalist, I can say we don't get much credit from anybody.

And an anarcho-syndicalist doesn't deserve any from anybody. Anarcho-syndicalists do not recognize any authority higher than their syndicate, and the society they create is remarkably similar to Somalian warlords.

I once made a joke at work about us having to take a loyalty oath before being allowed to use a piece of equipment. You know, the one that starts "I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist party."
Except that most of my co-workers were adult immigrants from China and Ukraine.
Oops.

If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here. Same with what the media calls "radical" Islam, which is not radical to the creed of Islam at all.

Wouldn’t prohibiting “Marxism” actually be a form of tyranny?

If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here.

So, you advocate tyranny when it suits you, but when it doesn't, you don't. Gotya.
Marxism, which you've been unable to define, is OK, but loyalty oaths should be allowed, the very first amendment be damned.

So, what other parts of the Constitution do you consider optional or only to mean some Orwellian version of what they actually say? What other superseded documents are you going to reference, as you've referenced a declaration of war and a document that lost power when the Constitution was ratified?

Indeed, you cite Bloomberg starting a myth that we're a representative democracy, which requires him to have a time machine, as Jefferson himself acknowledged that which we are!

Oh, for the record, calling people Commies and whores isn't debating, it's pathetic ad hominem attacks with zero evidence, zero debating, just name calling like a brat in a schoolyard.

Your "Gotya" is premature and presumptuous at best.

You are reversing the order of posts in an effort to create an impression of culpability that suits you. I said "If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here." I also added a caveat that the laws the oath swears to uphold have to be legitimate constitutional laws, not illegal government fiats.

THEN you (or someone) asked "Wouldn't prohibiting "Marxism" actually be a form of tyranny?" And I replied "Depends on whether they have declared war or not." (Or words to that effect.)

For your information, Wzrd1, as I have stated before, Marxism is already prohibited in this country by our Constitution, just as liberty we take for granted is prohibited in communist China, North Korea, etc.

You, I, everyone else, whether citizen or immigrant (legal or illegal) are subject to our law. You can practice Marxism in your own life if you want to, so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others, but it is a violation of the rights of others for it to be imposed upon them by the force of law. (That's how it is supposed to be, but our government is illegally giving quite a few illegal immigrants a pass on our law, and that is illegal. To the extent any of those illegal immigrants are enemy combatants, it is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our nation, and that is the definition of Treason.

I have a U.S. Constitution open in front of me, Please advise where in the 1st Amendment an oath of allegiance to the United States of America, or simply an oath agreeing to uphold and defend legitimate U.S. and State law is prohibited.

If you think standing up for the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law and publicly saying so is a violation of your rights under the 1st Amendment, then you must be either a Democrat or an enemy agent, and in most cases I'm not sure there is any difference.

No part of the U.S. Constitution (which, btw, was to put into effect the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence among other reasons) is optional for any officer or agent of the United States government, State government, or local government. All such are sworn to uphold and defend it. All of it.

Now, you make an assertion I never made: You claim, "Indeed, you cite Bloomberg starting a myth that we're a representative democracy, which requires him to have a time machine, as Jefferson himself acknowledged that which we are!" HUH? I don't believe I ever said anything remotely like that sentence. I did say we are not a democracy (and I quoted James Madison who said so) and I pointed out that we are a Constitutional Republic, and that we choose our representatives democratically. I also decried the voter initiative process some States have foolishly added to their Constitutions, and pointed out that subversive Bloomberg is using that as a tool to sucker citizens into giving up their rights under the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments (which, btw, we have already been doing under the illegal Brady Act forcing us to ask permission of government to exercise our right to keep and bear arms and waiving the aforementioned rights to get that permission). That being said, your reference to a "time machine" and the rest of that sentence makes no sense at all.

Try not to put words in my mouth, Wrzd1. Ask and I will try to answer honestly.

Your last sentence: Oh. I should call commie whores and Marxist Mafia apparatchiks and their "useful idiots" who have been conducting an illegal insurgency against the supreme law of the land since before 1925 "just nice people who have our best interests at heart"? Bulldust, Wrzd1. I'm not going to give them that credit and neither should you if you have a shred of respect for what America stands for. Their agenda is evil and because of it we are right on the precipice of destruction as a free country. Trump is our last chance and frankly that last chance is incredibly thin, given the number of murder victims already racked up who have been prepared to testify against the culprits.

For oaths, the only oaths required under the Constitution are for legislators, officers of the executive or judicial branch and only to swear to support the Constitution of the United States of America.
That's Article Six.
Requiring people outside of that narrow grouping to swear any oath is inventing a section of the Constitution out of whole cloth and not permitted.

"For your information, Wzrd1, as I have stated before, Marxism is already prohibited in this country by our Constitution..."
Erm, Marxism is a political and economic system, the Constitution defines neither, only duties, rights and responsibilities, as well as limitations of each branch of government and the several states. Again, inventing Constitutional things out of whole cloth.
Declaring illegal aliens as unlawful combatants adds, yet again, out of whole cloth, that which has never been a part of our Constitution and indeed, is unlawful under ratified treaties, which are granted the force of law by our Constitution. Criminals are not by nature enemies of the state in a military sense, which is what you seek to define, I'm guessing that you yearn for martial law.

"If you think standing up for the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law and publicly saying so is a violation of your rights under the 1st Amendment, then you must be either a Democrat or an enemy agent, and in most cases I’m not sure there is any difference."

So, now you'd prohibit an entire political party! That's fine, the second amendment protects my rights, as well as the courts, the US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps and US Air Force, as well as every law enforcement agency in the land, you'll not usurp my rights very easily and oh, I have my own copy of the Constitution with me at all times as well.
Forcing oaths, selecting authorized religions and prohibiting political parties are all using the first amendment as toilet paper.

"No part of the U.S. Constitution (which, btw, was to put into effect the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence among other reasons) is optional for any officer or agent of the United States government, State government, or local government. All such are sworn to uphold and defend it. All of it."

Bullshit. Again. Inventing entire Constitutional entries out of whole cloth. The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war, just as the declaration of war against Japan and Germany were, we don't add those to our Constitution, nor did the Declaration of Independence suddenly gain standing in preference to the Constitution. Itexpired when the Constitution was ratified, as did the Articles of Confederation.

The only way that Bloomberg could make a fiction that we're a representative democracy would be for him to go back and tell Jefferson and the rest of the founders that "fiction", as everyone who didn't subscribe to the federalist papers disagreed with them. That wasn't the only opinion then at all, as is reflected in our Constitution.
Interestingly, I haven't had to petition anyone to purchase and own firearms. At all. Ever. The same is true for ammunition. I don't need permission of the federal government to go to a range, fire on my private property or the permission of any government to hunt on my own property. More inventions of a fevered mind, painted out of whole cloth.

Do see the Snopes article on the Clintons and how their "murder spree" (or whatever you want to call it) never happened, was entirely contrived and invented. The same is true of essentially every other claim of yours and honestly, you border on sedition in some of your statements. I haven't done any such thing.
Of course, when it comes to having each of our words weighed in a court of law, it's your fevered dreams and near-sedition vs my word, that of a cleared person and trusted agent of our government.
Why, I've even been trusted to handle nuclear weapons, I'm quite certain that you'd never be permitted anywhere near them.

Regardless, I have no more time to waste on you, it's bedtime.

Wzrd1: "For oaths, the only oaths required under the Constitution are for legislators, officers of the executive or judicial branch and only to swear to support the Constitution of the United States of America.
"That’s Article Six."
True.
"Requiring people outside of that narrow grouping to swear any oath is inventing a section of the Constitution out of whole cloth and not permitted. "
Not true. Oaths are also required by the 4th Amendment and Article I Section 3 Clause 6, and by Vattel's Law of Nations, which was well-settled law at the time of our nation's founding, which the founders were said to have constantly at their side during their deliberations, and which was incorporated by reference in the U.S. Constitution at Article I Section 8 Clause 10. (This is the same encyclopedia of international law accepted by all the civilized nations at the time of our founding, and which defines "Natural-Born Citizen" as one born on the soil of the country of parents who are both citizens of the country, making Zerobama (aka Barry Soetoro) ineligible to the Office of POTUS.)
"Erm, Marxism is a political and economic system, the Constitution defines neither, only duties, rights and responsibilities, as well as limitations of each branch of government and the several states."
The political and economic system of which violates the Constitution of the United States in multiple ways (as, btw, does Sharia Law.) It is therefore legal to profess a belief in it, but illegal to impose it by force, and when it comes to national security it is perfectly legal to compel an oath denying it as a precondition to engaging in work or activities of a sensitive (to national security) nature. No one is compelled to swear or affirm the oath. Neither does anyone have a "right" to be employed without meeting the requirements of the employer.

I did not declare illegal aliens as enemy combatants any more than Donald Trump declared illegal aliens a rapists, murderers, or drug pushers. I said, open borders allows enemy combatants to enter. Donald Trump said illegal immigration includes rapists, murderers, and drug pushers, and various atrocities committed around the country by illegal aliens proves him correct.
You clearly oppose a wall at the border to keep illegal aliens out. If I point out to you I don't like the idea of a wall at the border either because it can be used by our rogue occupation government to keep people in, will you change your accusation against me from "paranoid over illegal aliens" to "paranoid over illegal government?"
See what I don't like about apologists for tyranny? People like you would kick if you were being hung with a new rope.
If that political party seeks to destroy our Rule of Law, you are damned right I would prohibit an entire political party, or at least enforce the Constitutional prohibitions against its proposed laws, and so should you. The prohibitions are not currently being imposed against that party and its First Enemy Agent, and that is outrageous. If you believed in the liberties under the Rule of Law our nation was founded to preserve and protect, you would be outraged too.

I had to laugh out loud when I reached the place in your message in which you invoke the Constitution and your right to keep and bear arms and the military, yada yada yada to justify your right to advocate the destruction of all those institutions, and I shake my head wondering what you think you are accomplishing. Here's a test: Based on what you have said before, and what you say here about your rights, tell me: Does all that sanguinity about the rights of illegal aliens and enemy agents extend to supporters of ISIS? Are you prepared to allow ISIS soldiers onto U.S. soil without impediment of any kind? If you do, please forgive me for asking this, but what the hell kind of an idiot are you?

No one said anything about "forcing oaths." JustaTech described being required to swear he is not now nor has ever been a member of the Communist Party. He's not being "forced;" he is being given a choice: Swear the oath, and mean it, or collect your pink slip. Neither one is a violation of his rights.

No one said anything about "selecting authorized religions" Islam is not a religion; it is a political ideology and complete civilian infrastructure based the superiority of naked force, and it is masquerading as a 'religion' in an attempt to justify its "Divine Right to Govern." Even if you insist it is a religion, demanding adherence to the 1st Amendment in this regard is suicide. Islam will kill you as soon as it has the superior numbers to do so. "When they are in the minority, Muslims are obsessed with 'minority rights.' When they become the majority, there ARE NO minority rights." Turn on the news and watch what is happening in Europe right now because of their IDIOTIC open border policies and naiveté about "religious freedom."

Oh, boy. Wzrd1, you can do what you want and believe what you want, but I recommend you set yourself down and read the Declaration of Independence again. It was most certainly NOT a "declaration of war." It was a declaration of independence founded upon a litany of tyrannies imposed by the king and an assertion of right to self-government. It did not say "Declaration of War Against Great Britain;" it set forth the causes of the separation from Great Britain and left the arrogant little twerp of a king the choice of accepting it or throwing a tantrum. The fact they knew what the king would do doesn't change the reality, Wzrd1.

It is absolutely astonishing to me that anyone could think the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence ceased to exist when the Constitution was ratified. Every principle asserted in that document is established in the Constitution as a principle of governance. To claim otherwise is to claim the restoration of feudal government and the Rule of Man.

I'm almost as astonished by your next incredible claim as I am confused by how you came up with it: "The only way Bloomberg could make a fiction that we're a representative democracy ..." For a start, Bloomberg isn't "making that fiction;" he is abusing the DIRECT democracy some States have written into their Constitutions. "A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY is a form of government where the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole nation." (1 Bouv. Inst. n. 31.) Synonym: "INdirect democracy." That is what we have, Wrzd1, an INDIRECT Democracy in which the people do not vote directly on issues; rather, they vote to elect representatives to vote on issues and those representatives are sworn to uphold and defend the United States Constitution every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

The U.S. Senate is supposed to represent the States as a separate entity from the people with different interests, and who created the federal government in the first place or ratified it in the case of late-comers. That was the case until the Secretary of State illegally declared the 17th Amendment ratified in direct and egregious violation of Article V: A mutiny against the States.

Then I take it you have never purchased a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer since 1993? Because if you have, you had to complete an interrogation (which is a search) in violation of your right to be secure from search in the absence of probable cause of wrongdoing; you had to waive your right to due process by a Court of Law before your right to keep and bear arms could be permitted; you had to waive your right to be secure from having to give up any right in order to be allowed to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, and you had to waive your right to be secure from federal exercise of authority not delegated to the federal government. And after 1998, you had to endure a NICS search of government records in your name, which is also a 4th Amendment search in violation of your right to be secure from search in the absence of probable cause of wrongdoing.

None of the above is within the lawful delegated powers of the federal government, Wzrd1. What rights do you have left when the federal government revokes its permission it has granted you to keep and bear arms? (If you bought any from a licensed firearm dealer.)

If subversive Bloomberg wins to his prize of requiring the above of each of you every time you hand a firearm to a friend to marvel over and every time he hands it back, AS HE ALREADY HAS IN COLORADO, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON, then we have all (he thinks) lost the above rights at the State level as well. (He's wrong, because neither the federal government or State government or voter initiative has the authority to scam the people out of their rights either, but it is going to be a dust-up of magnificent proportions.)

Ah. Your second to the last paragraph says it all: "... my word, that of a trusted agent of our government. Why, I've even been trusted to handle nuclear weapons."

I'm sure glad not all government agents are as willing as you are to throw your weight around in confrontation with the Constitutional Rule of Law, but unfortunately too many are. They need -- and you need -- to read the U.S. Constitution from the point of view of a servant of the people, not a warlord in charge of the people. With the exception of Article I Section 8 Clause 3, government agents have precious little authority over private citizens, and virtually none within the borders of any State. The fact that government ignores its Constitutional limitations does not make it legal.

Sleep well. Dream of being powerless against the rights of the people.

Comedy gold here. I'm tellin' ya, ya can't make stuff like this up. (At least I can't.) Donald Trump is going to be on The Dr. Oz Show next week and reveal his health regimen:

http://www.joemygod.com/2016/09/09/instead-of-releasing-his-medical-rec…

Other than the fact that Trump doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, what does he do? I recall reading an article that revealed that Trump really, really loves fast food and while on the campaign trail frequently sends aides out to McDonald's to get him grub.

Why do I think that Trump's health regimen will sound like the script from "The effects of gamma rays on man-in-the moon marigolds"?

I just think that constituitional monarchy works out pretty well in practice.

Well all hail to princess Fuzzybutt.

That works. That's what Princess Fuzzybutts do. Anyone owned by one or more cats knows what I am talking about.

Your definition of "Political Trolls" doesn't meet the test of Occam's Razor. Political trolls are people -- usually the "useful idiots" as V.I. Lenin described his followers -- who go around not contributing to discussions or debates, but doing everything they can to disrupt them.

Another irony meter destroyed. Damn, I need to buy some backups.

You can’t be referring to me, for I am inviting serious debate, in which so far the posters on this forum seem incapable of engaging.

If your labeling people who disagree with you "Commies" or "Marxists" is "serious debate," you have a very different definition of the term "serious debate" than I do—and pretty much everyone else does.

Wars are not won by being nice, and we are at war. Communists and communist sympathizers -- whores, one and all -- have declared war on our nation and our liberties and have been conducting an insurgency to that end since 1925. I do not apologize for calling those who support that ideology, which is totally devoid of moral principle, integrity, or decency, whores. I also admit to using the term to wake up those who support it ignorantly, hoping they will defend themselves and be forced to examine their perspective. They must we awakened to the reality; we are on the very precipice of losing our Rule of Law permanently; we have already lost it temporarily.

Don't give yourself airs. So far I haven't seen any Marxist mafia field grades on this pitiful list; I have only seen their useful idiots who are incapable of perceiving contrary facts to their thesis, much less presenting them. The field grades usually come in later when their useful idiots go whining to their handlers complaining "He's kicking our ass!"

Apparently Mr. Cline considers this "inviting serious debate."

It was a serious answer to an attempt to dissemble. This is not a game and I am not here to get my jollies off. I'm here to advocate the restoration of the principles our nation was founded to preserve and protect. Except for Old Rock Dave (thank you for the substance in spite of your elitist contempt), nothing I've seen here from anyone rises to the level of a serious discussion, let alone debate. Anyone want to discuss or debate the repair of the first nation in the history of the planet to be founded on the principle that YOUR individual rights trumps the arbitrary whim of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords every time, no exceptions, no excuses?

You’re cute, but you’re a liar.

Another example of Mr. Cline's "serious debate."

Wasn't a debate; it was a statement of fact -- he or she was trying to be cute and claimed something about me that was clearly untrue.

I have a simple test for any wing-nut claiming any knowledge of Marx: Without looking it up, name the topic of Chapter 1 of Capital. None of the frothing doofusi* have passed yet.

* 'Doofusi' is indeed a cool plural, in the sense that using it for 'more than one doofus' (as opposed to the dictionary-proper 'doofuses') typically indicates a cool, ironic mock-erudition. Since our visitor is anything but cool, I suspect he doesn't get the ironic self-mocking connotation and is attempting-and-failing actual erudition.

Which "Capital"? And you are using obfuscation to analyze erudition; typical of a sophomore.

Dimbulb: I wasn't nominating myself. Maybe the time has come for the US to ask Britain to take us back.

Orac: Trump doesn't drink? How is that possible if he lives in New York?

Correct. He claims never to have drunk a drop of booze in his life, although I have a hard time believing that, given how ubiquitous alcoholic beverages are and how almost everyone has at least tried beer or wine by they time they're in college. I do believe that he doesn't drink and hasn't since he was a young man:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/donald-trump-touts-lifes…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2011/03/11/donald-trump-and-nine…

His older brother Fred struggled with alcoholism for many years and ultimately died of it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/us/politics/for-donald-trump-lessons-…

I have a hard time believing that because it's Trump. Also, since the 1920s, drinking has practically been a requirement for membership in New York's upper class. (I think, of the populous cities at the time, New York and San Francisco were totally non-compliant during Prohibition.)
Telling the truth is nearly impossible for Trump, but the whole not drinking thing explains a lot. Every time a teetotaller gets into office they manage to be disastrous.

Strange that you think telling the truth is nearly impossible for Trump; most everything he has said that has driven the left into apoplexy upon sober investigation has turned out to be either true or highly justified.

And please list the teetotalers in the White House history that have proven to be disastrous and in what way were they disastrous. Was it because they took the job seriously and paid attention to it like competent professionals?

It seems that Trump has had some memory problems for a while now. Perhaps dementia has set in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/donald-trump-…

And you give credit to a smarmy leftist rag like the Post?

His older brother Fred struggled with alcoholism for many years and ultimately died of it

Am I the only one who is unable to locate an actual cause of death? He was 43. By contrast, Pigpen's medical history is rather well documented.

Maybe it's something inherited.

The world is considerably different than it was in the 2nd decade of the 20th. Century. Was this idiot thinking that if Hilary were incapacitated, Bill Clinton would - or would be allowed - to speak and act for her as Edlith Wilson did after Woodrow Wilson's (IIRC) stroke? Not possible in these days of, among other things, media saturation. To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"

Anything is possible if the American media is carrying the water for the traitor in chief. This has been proven every day for the last seven and a half years.

Oops. Didn't read entire thread of responses. I see someone already mentioned Mrs. Wilson.

No, I just think that constituitional monarchy works out pretty well in practice. It’s certainly better than what we have now.

I'm not sure what difference having a figurehead with little actual power makes, but whatever floats your boat.

Glad you clarified, though, because I have actually encountered died-in-the-wool Tsarists. I sh!t you not.

^There was also the Orthodox priest who, when somebody said that "democracy is the worst system of government in the world, except for all the other kinds," replied, "well, except for a godly monarch."

Okay...

The Orthodox priest was wrong. There is very little to recommend a theocracy, whether it is based on a religious foundation, or based upon an erroneous secular foundation, like the cultural Marxism nonsense that no prayer must ever be uttered in school. Is everyone aware that "the words "separation of church and States" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, and that the Washington DC capital buildings were used for religious services on Sundays for many years after the founding of our nation?

Our founders were smarter than that, and created a form of government that prohibits both, and all other forms of tyranny.

Our founders created a form of government that prohibits Marxism? There is a Communist Party USA, after all.

Wouldn't prohibiting "Marxism" actually be a form of tyranny?

Depends upon whether they are engaging in an insurgency or overt combat to overthrow our form of government or not. Ditto Islam.

It would certainly bollox dating opportunities for penumbral Sparts.

The Orthodox priest was wrong.

Sweet G-d, I wasn't suggesting that he was right. His comment had nothing to do with a theocracy, though; he was another one who was literally a Tsarist, inasmuch as he was in love with Nicholas the Second, who would have been lovely tending roses in Somerset.

But it isn't entirely clear that you're really responding to anybody at all here except yourself.

I certainly had not considered the possibility that you were a reflection of myself.

I see that dnldlcln's "location" has changed from (The Sovereign State Of) Arizona to, ah, "American."

The writing is on the wall. The darkness is at noon. Dress appropriately.

If the founders prohibited fascism, how do you explain Trump and Cline?

While the Constitution doesn't prohibit Marxism de jure, eminent early 20th Century historian Charles Beard did argue it was a counter-revolutionary move to secure power for the capital-holding elite, and undermine "the radical democratic tendencies unleashed by the Revolution among the common people, especially farmers and debtors." Maybe that's why, when Thomas Paine returned to America from France in 1802, "Federalists attacked him for his ideas of government stated in Common Sense, George Washington abandoned him, he was denied the right to vote as the Governor of New York "did not recognize him as an American", and only six mourners (two of them black) came to his funeral. (all quotes are from Wikepedia)

Calling yourself a radical-lefty is OK, but actually acting like one got you executed by robber barons (Homestead strikers), executed by the local Law (the Haymarket martyrs; Joe Hill; Harlan County War; Fred Hampton), executed by redneck goons (Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner; Greensboro), executed by the National Guard (Pullmann strike; Kent State), beaten-arrested-imprisoned-deported by the Feds (the Palmer raids), blacklisted (HUAC)...

So, yeah, for the de facto government stance on marxism, 'tyranny' might be an understatement.

As for the founders creating a form of government that prohibits all forms of tyranny that protects the individual from the whims of oligarchs and warlords "every time, no exceptions," I think Nat Turner and Taoyateduta would beg to disagree on the de jure point...

You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between the Rule of Law and outlawry. You seem to think if government (or the people) violate the law or the principle of the Rule of Law, then the law has been changed or is clearly defeated. That sort of view is the result of thinking that the Rule of Man is superior to the Rule of Law. Fundamentally, that is a false, fraudulent, and in many cases self-serving philosophy. If you wish to understand what I am saying, it would be better to adopt the position that the Rule of Law is our foundation of government and start demanding it be enforced rather than trying to claim it is irrelevant because rogue government and criminals (I repeat myself) violate it.

If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here.

I'll join you in ignoring any mention of it being a joke about the oath. These are serious issues nobody should be allowed to jest about.

Guilt by association? How's that for individual's inalienable rights...

But given how you seem to believe even former membership would or should be grounds for exile (assuming your here meant the country), what' are your views on personal growth or ideological conversion?

Not to mention how little the Chinese "communist" party has resembled or even been related to marxism or communist ideology in decades.

Same with what the media calls “radical” Islam, which is not radical to the creed of Islam at all.

How would your muslim-free America work with personal freedom triumphing government enforcement? This is a serious question and I'm eagerly awaiting your educated insights; I assume the "go to hell" in your previous reply to me was merely a unthoughtful knee jerk reaction flowing from private feelings of insecurity, and not spite directed at me for asking a simple question.*

* There's no evidence that Lenin used the term "useful idiots", especially to refer to his followers, regardless of countless attributions (all without first hand sources).

In the order listed:

"Guilt by association?" Nothing I said advocates guilt by association. If they are foreign citizens on U.S. soil, they are subject to U.S. law regardless of their personal creed. If they cannot submit to our law then they shouldn't be here. If a citizen of our country cannot submit to our law then they should be legally sanctioned. OTOH, if either is willing to submit to our law then an oath to do so should not be impossible for them. (By 'law,' of course, I'm not referring to any fiat government decides to impose; I am referring to Constitutional law government is authorized to legislate and enforce and adjudicate.

Re "personal growth and ideological conversion": I believe in both, and I believe they can go either way -- i.e., to an appreciation for the principles of liberty under the Rule of Law our nation was founded to preserve and protect or to a hatred of it. Though I would not call the latter "personal growth," but that is merely an opinion.

Re "Chinese 'communist' party": Irrelevant. While the hair-splitting indicators of "true" Marxism may have become blurred as its leadership realizes the ideology is failing economically and in every other way, it remains an authoritarian tyranny at all levels, with neighborhood party apparatchiks holding the power of life and death over their "subjects." A couple of years ago villagers in a Chinese province became incensed over the local apparatchiks confiscating the property of villagers to sell to developers for their own profit, and started raising hell demanding to be "heard" by the Party. Finally the Party came in with force and promised to "listen" but "no more disruption on pain of death!" Okay, so they listened, saw what was going on, made a big show of "firing" the local apparatchiks (read "transferred them to another province after confiscating most of their ill-gotten gains, leaving them the balance as a bonus for good work"), and promising the locals that it would not happen again. A few weeks later the ringleaders of the demonstrations were quietly "disappeared" or found to be the victims of "unfortunate accidents." Whether it meets the precise definitions of "Marxism" or "Fascism" established by the Piled Higher and Deeper crowd or not, it is totalitarianism on steroids and once established can never be abolished.

Re "Muslim-free America." A few years ago my wife was advancing the corporate ladder as a purchasing agent. She had a string of successive positions in different companies, primarily due to the fact that she was treated like s--t by her corporate superiors, and seemed to have no recourse. She was talked down to, required to work overtime without overtime pay (being salaried), skipped over for raises and promotions, insulted, and generally mistreated. After six companies, the very first supervisor to treat her with respect, who rewarded her good work, who touted her qualities to upper management, who got her raises, who gave her excellent reviews, etc., etc., was a self-professed devout Muslim with a Master's in business administration from Egypt. I don't know his immigrations status, whether he was naturalized or not. This was, however, before ISIS, before Al Qaida, etc. Knowing what I know now about Islam, about the fact their Qu'ran REQUIRES them to lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever is necessary to gain dominance over the infidel, would I trust him? No, but neither would I restrict him absent hostile indications. But today we are at war. I don't think we were right to intern Japanese during WWII, and I don't think we should intern Muslim today. But we sure as hell don't need to admit any more without very careful vetting (which is impossible in many cases) and absolute prohibition against the rise of Sharia Law. If they want to live here they are subject to our law.

Re "go to hell": I don't tell people to "go to hell;" it does not lead to constructive dialogue. I therefore reject your quote.

Re Lenin's "useful idiot" quote. See the discussion at http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=135140

Democratic? Your brainwashing is showing. The founders were adamantly opposed to a democracy, describing it as follows, after describing its historical results: "A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." –James Madison,

Funny how much that sounds like what fueled the rise of Donald Trump.

By "funny" I presume you mean "strange."

But there is nothing funny or strange about it. Fundamental principles is exactly what has fueled the rise of Donald Trump.

Wars are not won by being nice, and we are at war. Communists and communist sympathizers — whores, one and all — have declared war on our nation and our liberties and have been conducting an insurgency to that end since 1925. I do not apologize for calling those who support that ideology, which is totally devoid of moral principle, integrity, or decency, whores. I also admit to using the term to wake up those who support it ignorantly, hoping they will defend themselves and be forced to examine their perspective. They must we awakened to the reality; we are on the very precipice of losing our Rule of Law permanently; we have already lost it temporarily.

Hmmm. Your words sound familiar:

Germany is today the next great war aim of Bolshevism. It requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent, and to stop the inner contamination of our blood, in order that the forces of the nation thus set free can be thrown in to safeguard our nationality, and thus can prevent a repetition of the recent catastrophes down to the most distant future.

If we pursue this aim, it is sheer lunacy to ally ourselves with a power whose master is the mortal enemy of our future. How can we expect to free our own people from the fetters of this poisonous embrace if we walk right into it? How shall we explain Bolshevism to the German worker as an accursed crime against humanity if we ally ourselves with the organizations of this spawn of hell, thus recognizing it in the larger sense?

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924.

I see little or no comparison between the two either in purpose on in straight text. Given what is clearly going on in Europe because of their incredibly naïve and stupid open borders to Muslims, are you seriously suggesting America should suffer the same fate lest we sound like Hitler?

Except for Old Rock Dave (thank you for the substance in spite of your elitist contempt), nothing I've seen here from anyone rises to the level of a serious discussion, let alone debate.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Seriously, though. I'm laughing my posterior off at you. You whine about there not being "serious" discussion and debate here, and yet you call people whores, Commies, and all manner of other names. You, sir, are a flaming hypocrite unworthy of serious engagement.

In the words on one famous fantasy princess, "Laugh it up, Furball."

So prove me wrong. Prove to me those I am calling Commie whores, Marxist Mafia, etc., are not freaking whores selling out our nation for their own aggrandizement and power trip. You accuse me of "whining" about you not engaging in serious debate, and yet all you can do is whine about me calling our nation's internal enemies exactly what they are. Yet, contrary to your empty assertion; I am not whining: I am challenging. I expect this from you and some others on this board because that's what leftists have trained you to do since birth -- don't challenge what you are told; listen to authority, don't make people feel uncomfortable, government knows what's best for you, "I'm from the government; I'm here to help you." And when the entire infrastructure falls apart because of these adam henries, you are taught to blame not those who are leading you down the garden path; you are taught to blame those who are calling these rogue occupation government whores what they are. Yes, I am calling for a serious discussion. Are you up to it?

Which “Capital”? And you are using obfuscation to analyze erudition; typical of a sophomore.

Sadmar nailed it. :-)

Quoted by Saul Alinsky in "Rules for Radicals." Ask him when you get to Hell.

More of Mr. Cline's "serious debate," I believe.

Mr. Cline is definitely a troll, and what do we do with trolls? One thing we do not do is to feed them. I succumbed to the temptation just now. Sorry.

As for Mr. Cline's flooding the thread with numerous annoying comments, if it persists I might have to put him on the slow moderate filter. His comments will get through, but only when I get around to approving them, which could be anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours to overnight if he posts right before my bedtime. :-)

Your call. I wouldn't be surprised; that's what the Marxist mafia's 'useful idiots' always do when they can't debate the issues or face the discomfort of finding out they and their parents, grandparents, great grandparents -- however many back to at least Abraham Lincoln -- have been lied to since birth. It is the Marxist/Fascist/totalitarian way: If your thesis is challenged, shut off the challenger. And when they win, the challengers are not merely shut off; they are always locked up and most catch a bullet in the back of the head and a mass grave. Before you filter me out, do a little research and find out how many genocides have occurred in the world in the last one hundred years because the ideologies I'm fighting won, and how many innocent people have been murdered. Then you might want to decide if you want to help it happen again on our own soil.

I just knew an allusion to Alinsky had to appear, sooner or later (there is an offshoot of the Woo Order that loves to complain about "Alinsky tactics" whenever it is getting its rhetorical butt kicked).

Mr. Cline is probably disappointed that Lyndon Larouche isn't being discussed as a serious Presidential candidate this time around. :(

That's what the Alinsky model does, rhetorically -- i.e., without a shred of substance -- kick the butt of the opposition. Do I need to point out that Hillary Clinton's political science thesis paper was a swoon for Saul Alinsky, with the caveat that she didn't think he was willing to use naked force enough?
And btw, calling people who oppose political tyranny the "Woo Order" and other pejorative names does not limit the political tyranny they oppose; rather, it facilitates it. Using that technique marks you as a supporter of political tyranny.

Donny: What, did you pull a Rip Van Winkle from 2000 to 2008? Bush the younger was easily one of the worst presidents we ever had. Other dishonorable mentions include Warren G Harding, who spent his time in office cheating on his wife and ignoring both international politics and domestic scandals- look up teapot dome on Google,William Henry Harrison, who died in office because he decided to give a super long speech on a very cold day, leaving the office to an unprepared vice president, and Millard Fillmore, another president who certainly deserves to be considered as among the worst for his role in the Missouri Compromise which led directly to the Civil War. Sobering up does not make up for the years they spent killing brain cells, and the bizarre ways they compensated for the loss of their vice. In contrast, Ulysses Grant, who was pretty much a functioning alcoholic by today's standards, managed to be a competent, if unmemorable and unskilled president. Most of the post-Revolutionary war presidents would also be considered functioning alcoholics by today's standards, and yet they managed to keep the country together.

JP:I’m not sure what difference having a figurehead with little actual power makes, but whatever floats your boat.
It actually makes a fair amount of difference- look at England from 1900 on, or Japan post World- War 2. Humans are conditioned to want figureheads, and in emergencies, monarchs are good rallying points. In a constitutional monarchy, people are protected from the ruler's whims and the ruler is often perceived to be able to curb reckless politicians, regardless of their actual power. Also, politicians can occasionally influence the selection of an heir- for example, though Prince Charles of England is the first-in line to the British throne, odds are that in the event of the Queen's death, his son will actually inherit, since Charles has made too many enemies in Parliament.
Studying history has made me convinced that straight-up monarchy is a stupid idea, as for every good king or queen, there's ten bad ones. At this point, though, I'm kinda thinking that humans are too stupid to deserve good governance.

I gather you seem to be under the delusion that I support the presidency of George W. or H.W. Bush. I certainly do not; aside from his visible support for the military they were both atrocious presidents, almost as bad as Jimmy Carter but nowhere near as viciously bad as Clinton, who wasn't anywhere near as totally lawless and incompetent (or illegal by reason of lack of natural born citizenship) as ZeroBama (incompetent as a president; brilliant as an enemy agent), who will prove to be a piker compared to the vindictive narcissist destroyer Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I read the rest of your treatise and found nothing to dissuade me that there is one form of government that overcomes your "kinda thinking" that humans are too stupid to deserve good governance: You might be interested to know that in spite of your litany of complaints about presidents of old, the book "1900," published at the turn of the century, pointed out that the American Constitution, with its system of checks and balances, and in particular its monetary system of intrinsic value, had advanced the living standard of the average working man, woman, and child more than it had advanced during the previous 25 centuries. That for the first time in history a nation was able to peacefully transfer power from one leadership to the next without war, without scuffle, without conquest. Then the adam henries we fought of in the War for Independence got their corrupt hooks into us again and we lost State control of the federal government; we lost our right to enjoy the fruits of our labors, and we lost our monetary system of intrinsic value. Today the descendants of the same banking families to whom Great Britain was a wholly-owned subsidiary when we won our independence from them are once again owners of our entire economy. They predicted they would be by the year 1900 when Andrew Jackson kicked them out with extreme prejudice in 1832, but they were 13 years late, executing their economic and political 'coup' in 1913. They also predicted regaining political control in the year 2000. They're about that late again, and they are getting damned impatient.

Good Kings: Elvis, B. B., Carole.
Good Queens: Queen
Good Princes: Prince

As for the rest:

God save the queen / The fascist regime / Made you a moron / Potential H-bomb

God save the queen / She ain't no human being / There is no future In England's dreaming

Don't be told what you want / Don't be told what you need / There's no future, no future, / No future for you

Oh God save history / God save your mad parade / Oh Lord God have mercy / All crimes are paid

When there's no future / How can there be sin / We're the flowers in the dustbin / We're the poison in your human machine / We're the future, your future

God save the queen / We mean it man / There is no future
In England's dreaming

No future, no future, no future for you
No future, no future, no future for me
No future, no future, no future for you
No future
No future
For You!

It seems that Trump has had some memory problems for a while now. Perhaps dementia has set in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/donald-trump-…

And you give credit to a smarmy leftist rag like the Post?

I wasn't talking to you or about you. The subject of this post was the folly of diagnosis without even meeting the person in question. But your confusion is partly my fault - I forgot the sarcasm tags.

The Washington Post left leaning editorial position is well known, and not in dispute. However, it appears that when you are presented with a story you don't like, you think that saying "It's the Washington Compost" is enough of a rebuttal.

So let's do some fact checking -

The article notes Trump saying

Hillary and her top aides told the FBI and others related in the lawsuits that they couldn’t recall or remember -- can't remember anything! ... By the way, if she really can't remember, she can't be president! She doesn't remember anything! She doesn't even remember whether or not she was instructed on how to use emails. 'Were you instructed on how to use?' 'I can't remember.'

Do you deny the accuracy of this quote?

The article goes on the quote Trump's sworn testimony, where several of his answers were basically 'I don't remember'.

Do you deny the accuracy of the quoted portion of the transcripts? Do you think that Trump was lying about his ability to remember?

In short, can you point to a statement of fact in the article that is wrong, and back up that assertion with anything other than 'It's the Post, so they can't be trusted'?

I do not deny the accuracy of the first quote. (I heard him say it myself.)

I cannot testify as to the accuracy and inaccuracy of the second quote, and because of the Post's well-known left-leaning editorial stance I am suspicious of both its accuracy and of their intent in bringing it up. They support the Clinton criminal regime, and for that reason I am skeptical of anything they say and of the reasons they say it.

FWIW, I am also concerned about a Trump presidency. But I am terrified for my country at the prospect of a Hillary presidency regardless of whether she has Parkinson's or not. She's a freaking vindictive narcissist monster, and my only hope if she is elected is that she go off the rails so far and so fast that she is put in a padded cell somewhere before she can do much damage.

D'oh!

Stupid lack of preview...

Comedy gold here. I’m tellin’ ya, ya can’t make stuff like this up.

Yup, the very idea is already an auto-joke, and one can only imagine the unintentional absurdist joke that the actual show will deliver.

Friday evening, when Rachel Maddow reported that Trump will reveal his "health regimen" on The Doctor Oz Show, laughter erupted from off-camera when she said "Oz", and she did a sort of 'Yeah, I know. Oz take to the camera in response.

Perhaps The Donald will be announcing the creation of Trump Hospital on-line seminars, and a branded line of dietary 'Trumplements' to share his health secrets with the rubes masses, all endorsed by the great Oz, natch.

@Narad #177

"Hillary Clinton's handler is clealy not Dr. Oladotun Okunola" because he is really one touchy-feely secret service agent named Todd Madison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8yF4ckv92g

@ Lawrence:

Oh my. You have actually revealed your *other* career-
I've always suspected as much.

“personal growth and ideological conversion”: I believe in both,

So do I. Therefore I think the whole McCarthyist hunt for the Communist boogeyman, especially the "nor have I ever been..." part is stupid, fruitless and contrary to the great American values. I'd refuse to swear that oath - not because I'm a communist (I'm not, not that it matters) but because of it's witch-huntiness.

Which is the oath JustaTech made the joke about - I'm also making the wild assumption here that it was considerably later than the 40s and 50s (hence the joke - I doubt it was funny at the time).

Apologies to JustaTech for explaining the joke.

Re Lenin’s “useful idiot” quote. See the discussion at http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=135140

This is turning into mountain-out-of-a-mole-hill type of thing, but irregardless...

My estimation still stands; No first-hand evidence exists, only a tradition of attribution that is usually without source, or refers to other n:th-hand attributions. Could he have said it? Sure, but it's not in anything he has written, and to my knowledge no person has come forward as claiming they heard him say it. So I personally avoid quoting him saying it, and occasionally point this out when somebody does. Haven't read the History and Impact of Marxist-Leninist Organizational Theory mentioned in your link, and unless a copy conveniently appears before me, I probably won't - I have far too many unread books I actually want to read for that.

The term (or rather, "useful fools") was supposedly in use before Lenin was born, by Polish agents to describe nihilists before and during the January uprising of 1864.

Re “go to hell”: I don’t tell people to “go to hell;” it does not lead to constructive dialogue. I therefore reject your quote.

Your words: Ask him when you get to Hell.

For sure, go implies the journey, get the destination, but I still think that was an unnecessary addition hampering the chances of constructive dialogue.

Without adding to the 'mountain out of a molehill' you mention, I would like to correct a misapprehension on your part. I didn't intend my remark to be regarded as an admonition to "go to hell," though I can see now how you might have thought that. I was referring more to my certainty that Saul Alinsky is cooking there, and that failure to arise in opposition to tyranny and oppression will lead others there to meet him.

January Uprising of 1863 for those keeping count.

-btw-
As an active observer, I must note that woo-world has become thoroughly political, anti-Hillary propaganda whilst applauding the Orange One and/ or Third/ Fourth Party unlikely winners.

My own speculation ( see Natural News/ hear prn.fm) is that these guys are frightened of powerful women in charge and/ or HIGHER TAXES for high earners like themselves. Both would get a tax cut if Trump wins.. Increased taxes if she wins.

So right, our astute political freedom fighters are basically greedy - wanting to cling to their ill-gotten gains.

Well, that's an epic fail of gargantuan proportions.

First, I am certainly not in fear of powerful women in charge; I have always encouraged women to take command of their environment.

Secondly, why do you call "keeping the fruits of your labors" to be "ill-gotten gains"? And in the instant case, if you are including me in your perception of greedy producers who add to the gross national product, for your information I am retired on less than $15K a year. When you've been fighting illegal government in the courts and in the media as long as I have you can't afford to put anything away for retirement: Government will confiscate it. I don't think I'm being "greedy" to object to having to pay taxes on MY money that was illegally robbed from me by a socialist government program and is slowly doled back to me monthly in the Ponzi scheme known as "social Security." And I don't think I'm being greedy when I object to Keynesian economics designed, according to John Maynard Keynes' own words "to siphon off the wealth of a nation in a manner not one man in a million can detect."

It's bad enough to have a rogue occupation government; to have one that is itself but mere puppets of an international banking cartel is adding insult to injury.

I should note that if we do go with Mr. Cline's method of security, a group of troublemakers could simply spread rumors that firefighters, policemen, air traffic controllers, surgeons, and baristas are all Commie Mutant Traitors (TM), and let paranoia do the rest of the work.

Like the Democrats, you don't think much of the average American's powers of discernment, do you? On second thought, it appears to me we already have that level of bovine excrement in a communist-inspired movement called "Black Lives Matter." And almost none of the Americans I associate with give their B.E. the time of day.

@Denice:

I think the reason why the quacks and the woo crowd like Donald Trump so much is that they recognize him as one of their own, just as much a believer in ridiculous conspiracy theories as they are.

What "ridiculous conspiracy theories" are those? And when you list them, please recite chapter and verse why you believe each "conspiracy theory" is "ridiculous." Facts, now, not knee-jerk "conventional wisdom," which has never been conventional and has never been wisdom.

OK, Here's one (of many): Donald Trump believes that vaccines cause autism and there's a cover-up by pharma and government to hide that "fact." That Trump believes this pseudoscientific conspiracy theory is beyond a doubt. If you don't believe me, I can easily provide many quotes by The Donald himself posted on Twitter and quoted in news stories dating back at least to 2007 in which he says just that. Given how often Trump changes his position on so many other matters, I sometimes joke that the belief that vaccines cause autism is perhaps the only position that Trump isn't taken both sides of at one time or another.

I haven't heard him say that, so perhaps he has been informed that the study claiming that has been thoroughly debunked in peer review and has been withdrawn by its author.

I agree with P. J. O'Rourke:

"I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.

He also wrote:

Better the devil you know than the Lord of the Flies on his own 757. Flying to and fro in the earth, with gold-plated seatbelt buckles, talking nativist, isolationist, mercantilist, bigoted, rude, and vulgar crap.

Another commentator addicted to the Kool-Aid. (And his "normal parameters" are so far out in left field you can't see him for the haze.)

And if a few minutes of edited video are proof of Parkinson's, can we agree that the various times that The Donald has forgotten his positions and come up with new ones indicates his dementia?

And not the good Dr. Demento kind.

No agreement there on either point.

This is not a game and I am not here to get my jollies off [sic]. I’m here to advocate the restoration of the principles our nation was founded to preserve and protect.

Yes, random threadjacking will most assuredly save the nation. You're here for attention, pure and simple.

Here for the attention to the issues, for sure.

the woo crowd like Donald Trump

Well I loathe him. Much to my chagrin, Infowars has become the Trump channel these past many months -- It is, after all, a driving force.

I don't like his wall talk; I don't like his 'law and order' police get tough talk. Prison populations exploded under and after the Clintons {omnibus crime bill} -- mostly pot smokers. I don't like Gary Johnson either. There simply is no palatible choice this cycle; It's all the same guff.

I will predict a rapid move to forced microchipping of the population under Clinton as that was the buzz following from her health care suggestions back in the '90s. -- Hell, they'll probably call it Hillary Chip just to rub it in.... that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. -- Revelation 13:17

Fair statement. Here is another, and it is not opinion; it is fact: Vote for Trump or you will get Hillary and probably her micro-chip plan, among others. Simple fact: Vote for anyone else or don't vote at all, and you get Hillarybeast.

Gilbert would get along great with the conspiracy theory guy from the psych ward, right down to the Biblical quotes.

( see Natural News/ hear prn.fm)

I'm tempted, but I don't know that it would be good for my mental health.

Oh, deer. Reading Mr. Cline is like listening to my almost 90 year old dad. It is bad enough my dad has Fox News blaring during every waking moment, I am just very glad he does not have a computer, nor desire to go on the internet.

Everything my dad does not like is "commie this" or "commie that." I cut him off short one time when I told hm that is was an economic model. It was exactly the same economic model we lived when we lived on base when he was an Army officer. You have your assigned housing, you shop in the PX/commissary and get to where certain clothing.

How did that cut him off? Your analogy is exactly correct. The difference is, under a commie government you don't have any choice about it. And Socialism is nothing but communism where the Kommissars haven't yet drawn their weapons. (In our case it's because they haven't yet conned us into giving up ours.)

"And you give credit to a smarmy leftist rag like the Post?"

The newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos, who tilts libertarian? That is hilarious.

Jeff Bezos only bought the Post nine days ago; that's hardly enough time for the Post's evil reputation to wear off.

Correction: Jeff Bezos bought the Post in 2013, and he is a Clinton Foundation donor. So much for "tilts libertarian."

So much for "tilts libertarian:" Correction: Bezos bought the Post in 2013, and he is a Clinton Foundation donor.

It's DADDY, sh!thead, and where's my grain water and alcohol?

^grain alcohol and water!!1!1!!, although I guess "grain water" is my new euphemism for beer.

^ Which I shouldn't drink, but am no longer legally prohibited from drinking, so there, expired LRA.

Mr. Cline: "Jeff Bezos only bought the Post nine days ago; that’s hardly enough time for the Post’s evil reputation to wear off."

Bah ha ha ha... Let's dance the time warp again! You obviously don't know that the blue letters are links. It is an article.

Here is a little song for you, since you are full of joy and laughter:

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Rawhide!
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Though the threads are swollen
Keep them comments trollin',
Rawhide!

Move 'em on
(Head em' up!)
Head em' up
(Move 'em on!)
Move 'em on
(Head em' up!)
Rawhide!
Cut 'em out
(Paste 'em in!)
Paste'em in
(Cut em' out!)
Cut 'em out
Paste 'em in,
Rawhide!
Keep trollin', trollin', trollin'
Though they're disaprovin'
Keep them comments trollin'',
Rawhide
Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope, laugh, and ignore 'em
Soon we'll be discussin' bright without 'em

You obviously don’t know that the blue letters are links.

Oh, I think he does at least know what blue letters are; green ink, I'm not so sure.

I do wonder if he thinks my lifetime ban on firearm ownership due to SMI is legitimate or not, or if he thinks crazies like me should be allowed to own guns.

(I really shouldn't start something like this.)

Let's discuss it. I don't know what "SMI" is, but as a general philosophy, if you are not a proven threat to society, you have the right to keep and bear arms. And if you are a proven threat to society and a firearm is your weapon of choice, you are going to get one anyway, so what's the point of a ban? In the latter case, the way to deal with the offender is to lock him up, not deprive everyone of their 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights in the forlorn hope of keeping a thug from getting a gun.

Ah! So, you *are* aware of the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution.
One that undermines the notion that the states are sovereign by its very wording. What sovereignty that remains is because of that amendment.
Howinhell a person gives up that right because convicted felons are denied access to a firearm is a lot beyond me, not to mention the other oddly listed amendments.
Or are you advocating for ignoring the Constitutional prohibition of indefinite detainment without charge or ignoring sentencing limitations, again, to hell with what the Constitution says?

Of course I am aware of the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. I just wish government was, and would honor it. It is our fault, the people, for not requiring it.
It certainly does not undermine the notion that the States are sovereign by its very wording; The States wrote it and demanded it (and the other ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which was originally all one amendment) before they would agree to ratify the Constitution.
Here is an example of duplicitous governance, Wzrd1: The States demand the Bill of Rights, but right from the beginning the theory of government was that the Constitution only restricted the federal government; it did not restrict the State governments. In other words, the States were terrified that the federal government would become too powerful (and it certainly has!) yet they wanted to be total dictatorships themselves. This theory of government lasted right up until the 14th Amendment.
The problem is, the theory was bogus right from the git-go, and here is why: The theory was based on James Madison's claim, written before the Bill of Rights, and before the Constitution was even ratified, in an effort to get it ratified, that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." (James Madison, Federalist No. 45.)

This was a marketing effort to get the Constitution ratified. But Madison ALSO wrote, in the Constitution itself, the following (in pertinent part): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Article VI Clause 2.) Thus the Constitution as amended has ALWAYS applied to the States as much as the feds, and the States ratified it with that wording.
Rights cannot be taken without due process of law (Amendment V), but unfortunately it has been assumed that rights may be taken WITH due process of law, and permanently, too, which I consider to be wrong. A person convicted of a criminal law should have his rights restored upon satisfactory completion of his sentence, and if his crime was so violent as to indicate an ongoing danger to society, then the solution is to keep him locked up, not let him out where he can ignore the weapon prohibition and wreak havoc.
You mention "indefinite detainment without charge," which is clearly not a felony conviction, and is illegal under the Fifth. I can't give you legal advice on how to proceed, but I strongly recommend a lawyer. OTOH, it sounded earlier like this was a previous circumstance, so if it was a felony, have you investigated getting your rights restored? Don't answer, none of this is anyone's business but yours; I'm just bringing it up for your consideration. Depending on circumstances, felons have on occasion gotten their rights back.

Anybody else remember a right wing doctor making a totally wrong diagnosis from video? If not let me remind you of Tennessee's former US Senator Bill Frist. He is a very well qualified doctor. He graduated from Princeton and then Harvard Medical School. He is a cardiothoracic surgeon. He has trained and practiced at some of the best hospitals in the world (Massachusetts General, Southampton General (England), Stanford University and Vanderbilt). Anybody questioning his ability as a cardiothoracic surgeon would be crazy.

That still did not qualify him to make a diagnosis that should have been made by a neurologist that actually saw the patient. He blew the Terri Schiavo diagnosis big time. He let his political and religious beliefs get in the way of his intelligence and common sense. He disagreed with Terri Schiavo's doctors after studying video of her. As expected by any clearly thinking person, he was proved wrong by her autopsy results. Medical ethicist at the time criticized him for making the diagnosis because he was not a neurologist and he had not examined the patient. Doctor Ted Noel should suffer the same criticizems for doing the same thing.

JP: "(I really shouldn’t start something like this.)"

No. Because it leads to what public services should allow those that are autistic, like my oldest, and those who have other disabilities (physical, mental, etc) to function in society.

If the fool wants to it make a matter of "choice", well newsflash: if we had to choose we would not choose the very real issues that impact our lives. The request is not special treatment, but accommodations to function and resources that actually help.

By the way, I have no intention of any direct interaction with him. He is a troll.

Too late. By calling me a "troll,' you are interacting with me, or trying to. But aside from that, my sympathies to you and your oldest for the autism. My grandson is on that spectrum as well, so I sympathize.

By the way, I have no intention of any direct interaction with him. He is a troll.

You're right, I shouldn't. But the house is clean, there are no oats to make a peach crisp (perks of letting your "adult" daughter stay with you), and the cat is asleep in a box.

BTW, you were right about Apple Health. It beats any insurance I've ever had, including the Cadillac coverage at U of M.

Anybody opposed to the border fence can't be all bad.

Anyone in favor of an open border policy cannot be any good.

Anyone who hates communism so that he goes on at excessive length, even about things utterly unrelated to communism, yet wants a New Berlin Wall at the US Southern border, well, I refer to that as being reality challenged.
Add in engineering and logistical barriers to building such a thing sufficient to cost more than a World War to overcome, fiscal responsibility is also a foreign term.

So how would you keep out illegal aliens? Or do you think we should have open borders, where ISIS is free to walk in unannounced?

This has actually gotten pretty old.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-has-parkinsons-disease/

http://www.snopes.com/clintons-secret-service-agent-holds-diazepam-pen/

There's more evidence in support of Hillary being a space alien than any of the above claims, which means, zero evidence.

I can believe that. :)

JP: "BTW, you were right about Apple Health. It beats any insurance I’ve ever had, including the Cadillac coverage at U of M."

:-)

Happiness is a good safety net.

Hmmm, reading the Cline Clatter reminds me that I need to write my dad. He does not do email (yay!), so in order to communicate to him I must write a snail mail.

I have some lovely stationary, so it is not a chore. I can't wait to tell him about our urban deer.

Gilly: Funny, you and Trump are developmentally the same age- you still think girls have cooties. Why not just join his campaign already? You can use the local office for smoking your brain-killing weed, since no one's there to notice.

Don-don: The 1964 John Birch Society called- they want their book and their platform back. You should really check your sources; I suspect the 1900 book is in the same genre as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion-- another fake history book for dimbulbs. I bet you hate flouride too.

You're hilarious. FYI, since you clearly are educationally-challenged in such matters, at every turn of the century since the invention of the printing press, a book is published (usually by a society formed to celebrate the turn of the century) describing the events, disasters, accomplishments, social and technological advancements, etc., of the previous one hundred years. The John Birch Society has nothing to do with it and nothing to do with me, though I am acquainted with a few of their members. And I use Stannous Fluoride daily. (Might I suggest you learn something before you try the know-it-all gig?)

Well thank goodness Our Little Donald included a quack Miranda warning (TP version*) on his website. Otherwise we might be misled into taking any of his delusions seriously.
.
Trivia question: What does an Arizona TP member yell at the neighborhood kids?
A. "Get off my lawn!"
B. "Get off my astroturf!"
C. "Get off my xeriscape!"
.
* Can stand for either toilet paper or Tea Party. Makes little difference in this context.

Readers may take the above insulting message as a textbook example of the Cultural Marxism method of curtailing dissent. It has worked for many years because most decent people don't care for political conflict, and tend to leave forums where this technique is used, leaving the political apparatchik as the last person standing forth and thus unopposed. However, in later years, having learned who designed this insidious and vicious technique of insurgency and why, people have learned how to deal with it: We deal with it as free men and women refusing to knuckle under to a bunch of thugs by calling them out for it and standing toe-to-toe with them slugging it out on any forum in which it is employed. Sorry, Opus (check that; I'm not sorry) but your game is exposed.

This is not a game and I am not here to get my jollies off [sic]. I’m here to advocate the restoration of the principles our nation was founded to preserve and protect.

Yes, random threadjacking will most assuredly save the nation. You’re here for attention, pure and simple.

Here for the attention to the issues, for sure.

"The issues"? Do you more mean trotting out the ingenious line "the Bitch of Benghazi" or the Bastiat–Birch spit-up? No, you're an attention whore. Not only that, it comes with a prima donna shake-shake-shake the yardstick up your ass routine so that people who never solicited your presence in the first place have to address you properly in order for you to Correct Their Misunderstanding of The Law.

Your rhetorical "high point" seems to be neither more nor less prose so gassy that it could be worked into that metaphor.

It's quite comical. I mean, not only are you apparently the Maurine Meleck of the Payson Roundup, you cherish your righteous little epistles so much that you get asshurt when they're not run.*

Then there's the failure to so much as figure out where you are, so long as the Bell of Onan is tolling, or something:

I just knew an allusion to Alinsky had to appear, sooner or later (there is an offshoot of the Woo Order that loves to complain about “Alinsky tactics” whenever it is getting its rhetorical butt kicked). . . .

[ . . . ]
And btw, calling people who oppose political tyranny the “Woo Order” and other pejorative names does not limit the political tyranny they oppose; rather, it facilitates it. Using that technique marks you as a supporter of political tyranny.

Well played, Mr "Words Have Meanings."

You're also weaselly:

If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that [anticommunist] oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here.

I’ll join you in ignoring any mention of it being a joke about the oath. These are serious issues nobody should be allowed to jest about.

Guilt by association? How’s that for individual’s inalienable rights…

“Guilt by association?” Nothing I said advocates guilt by association. [Hi, I'm a fantast. Allow me to change the subject.] If they are foreign citizens on U.S. soil, they are subject to U.S. law regardless of their personal creed. If they cannot submit to our law then they shouldn’t be here. If a citizen of our country cannot submit to our law then they should be legally sanctioned. OTOH, if either is willing to submit to our law then an oath to do so should not be impossible for them.

What the fυcking hell? Now it's "our law," lowercase? That's what you're whinging about in the first place. Did your shift key break? What is this law that is full of oathy goodness?

You're a low-rent operation even compared with the dental student babbling about praxeology, Cline. Oh, and if you reply, do it using the regular interface, not the broken nested-reply one, because I'm not you. Otherwise, don't hold your breath. Or do, I don't care.

* This one is fantastically ironic, BTW. Compare with this bit of spasmodic knee jerking:

As for Mr. Cline’s flooding the thread with numerous annoying comments, if it persists I might have to put him on the slow moderate filter. . . .

Your call. I wouldn’t be surprised; that’s what the Marxist mafia’s ‘useful idiots’ always do when they can’t debate the issues or face the discomfort of finding out they and their parents, grandparents, great grandparents — however many back to at least Abraham Lincoln — have been lied to since birth. It is the Marxist/Fascist/totalitarian way: If your thesis is challenged, shut off the challenger. And when they win, the challengers are not merely shut off; they are always locked up and most catch a bullet in the back of the head and a mass grave. Before you filter me out, do a little research and find out how many genocides have occurred in the world in the last one hundred years because the ideologies I’m fighting won, and how many innocent people have been murdered.

Yes, having one's comments on somebody else's site being set to "no instant gratification" is like being shot in the back of the head. Jesus Christ.

Anyway, I find it amusing that Meyer Weinberg has a "KeyWiki" entry. The whole skeleton Komsomol routine is priceless.

My, my! How you do go on! :) Okay, you've vented your terrible head of steam over the challenge to your worldview. Do you feel better now?

Reading my last message to Opus may be instructive to you, since you seem to have a desperate desire for attention yourself. But the difference is, you haven't said one thing that would advance or improve our liberties, our human condition, our protection from tyranny, our understanding of political intrigue or of political history. The only thing you know how to do is erupt in faux outrage at someone who is calling attention to those issues. And your faux outrage is so excessive you can't even put thoughts together that make sense or apply to any of the issues discussed or debated to date.

"shake-shake-shake the yardstick up your ass..." What the hell do you think that means? Sounds like some sophomoric high school drop out trying to be a rap artist.

The incredibly smarmy and intellectually deficient article that headed off this forum "solicited my presence in the first place". It is so typical of the misinformation propaganda crap that is currently infesting social media and the mainstream media these days and it is for the specific purpose of pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people so they don't know what to believe any more and won't stand up for their liberties or their principles. I am here to combat that crap, Narad, and your explosive juvenile outburst proves I am doing some good.

You don't like it when you find out you are no longer in a crowd exclusively made up of gigglefarts who laugh and nod their heads at every clever turn of phrase, do you? But I have to thank you for the link you label "get asshurt." In it I say nothing about getting "asshurt" by not being published, but I do address the same kind of principles I am addressing here. (BTW, it turned out that they weren't being run because they weren't being received: Something was wrong with the Roundup's email system. Once I started hand-carrying letters in, every letter I wrote was published.)

I don't want to challenge your writing ability as you challenge mine, Narad, but what exactly does "'neither more nor less prose so gassy it could be worked into that metaphor."? Especially since you didn't present a metaphor?

Then you call me "weaselly" and quote something I said that was a straightforward statement of principle. You compliment me on my 'words have meanings' assertion and then indicate you don't know what meaning words have.

All right, cutting this down to the chase, you ask one question that is in itself straight forward, though I would expect the answer to be obvious by now: What is this law that is full of oathy goodness?"

The United States Constitution, Narad. Ever heard of it? It is the document that represents the compact between our nation-States that created the federal government out of nothing. It prohibits in so many words practically everything ZeroBama has done and everything Hillary wants to do, and maybe about ten percent of what Trump wants to do. It prohibited a lot of what both Bushes did. It prohibited practically everything Bill Clinton did when he infested our White House. It is the document that conveys to the federal government the ONLY powers the federal government has, and the aforementioned presidents have trashed it and exercised illegal powers far beyond what are authorized.

And every president has, all the way back to the adam henry who started the trend, Abraham Lincoln. The trend, however, ever since has been to expand and refine and entrench the lawlessness and give it the illusion of legitimacy.

I will continue to reply as I have been replying, by clicking on the Reply button in the email notification.

"No instant gratification" is irrelevant, Narad. It would bother you far more than I. I'm here to raise issues of tyranny, not to brag about my exploits and not to freak out when someone challenges my worldview as you have done in this greatly garbled message.

Your last line, like several others, seems totally meaningless. What the heck does Meyer Weinberg having a "KeyWiki" entry have to do with anything? And what does "Komsomol routine" have to do with anything discussed here?

Don't bother to reply unless you feel greatly motivated, but if you do, try to get off of whatever you are taking that seems to render many of your comments nonsensical. Or don't. I believe in free will.

^ "neither more nor less than prose"

BTW, you were right about Apple Health. It beats any insurance I’ve ever had, including the Cadillac coverage at U of M.

I, for one, am not surprised.

Anarcho-syndicalists do not recognize any authority higher than their syndicate, and the society they create is remarkably similar to Somalian warlords.

You don't say. Which simile-enabling instantiations would those be?

Anyway, she is a zionist b...une horreur ! si, si, elle est malade !

It is definately SARS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lyok089gwk

Now that I'm home from work and have access to my references, for future reference on allegations of the Clintons long list of "murders", may I submit a Snopes article that I've reviewed a few times, laughing each time.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

For the rest of the conspiracies (omitting, for some reason, the space alien ones). ;)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/clintons.asp

Snopes has long been recognized as Clinton supporters and their "debunking" of any story casting a negative light on the Clintons has been well known for years. (That being said, the second link you provide is a litany of jokes and other nonsense that is widely understood to be such.)

Also, I have never heard of anyone claiming Bill Clinton is responsible for the deaths that have been occurring among his acquaintances since he was Arkansas Governor and allegedly organizing drug shipments by air into the Mena, AR airport at which two teenaged witnesses were murdered. Bill Clinton's' direct involvement is the thrust of Snopes' debunking effort. The claim has always been the murders were conducted by the Dixie Mafia to support him, and later became international (in the Ron Brown case, in which the ILS beacon for the landing aircraft was moved, causing the crash, and a nurse who survived the crash walked under her own power to the rescue helicopter and conveniently died on the way to the hospital.)

If you want to see a much more rational examination of the deaths of those associates of the Clinton regime, see https://www.truthorfiction.com/clintonfriends/, where the deaths are labeled both Truth! and Fiction! with a caveat you can read for yourself.

BTW, the "list" referenced by TorF is attributed to "Linda Thompson" of the "American Justice Federation." I have had dealings with Ms Thompson in the past, and she announced that I must be a "government agent" because I found some of her announcements about "concentration camps" to be bogus. However, I had the list of deaths, extensively footnoted with documentation, before she had it. It also documented the FBI's investigation into the Clinton's membership in the "--- Policy Institute," which the FBI described as a known terrorist front group sending explosive toys to the Sandinista dustup in Nicaragua to be dropped from helicopters so kids would pick them up and have their hands blown off -- that was Hillary's gig as chairperson of another bogus charity group like the Clinton Foundation. During Bill Clinton's first term, every member of his cabinet was also a former member of that Policy institute, and like Clinton, they resigned when they joined his cabinet. He changed his cabinet during his second term because of the rising furor over it. These are not nice people, folks.

I haven’t heard him say that, so perhaps he has been informed that the study claiming that has been thoroughly debunked in peer review and has been withdrawn by its author.

Uh, no. OK, you forced me to do this.

I've documented Trump's antivaccine ramblings several times over the last decade, going back to at lesst 2007. The guy is a certifiable antivaccine wingnut, complete with the "I'm not antivaccine claim" followed by spewing antivaccine pseudoscience. Here are just three examples of my noting this:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/09/15/the-long-sordid-antivaccin…

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/04/03/donald-trump-versus-vaccin…

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/05/03/the-republican-party-is-on…

And Donald Trump has been informed about the science. Many times. He simply refuses to believe it.

Okay. I didn't "force you" to do anything, but I accept the possibility that he believes that. A lot of people do, right or wrong, and it appears a resurgence of childhood diseases is occurring because of it. Too bad. It doesn't disqualify him, and he probably won't have time to investigate it once he is president.

Donnie said: "Readers may take the above insulting message as a textbook example of the Cultural Marxism method of curtailing dissent."
.
Note how carefully he avoided the point of the post: the disclaimer on his website. Instead, using the techniques taught by Saul Alinsky he has thrown up a smokescreen to disguise his inability to address the issue at hand.
.
Since he apparently has developed Hillarybitch Clintonwhore Memory Failure Syndrome (HBCWMFS) it is reproduced below.
.
"DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer . . . Nothing on this site should be considered legal advice.

Personally, I always wonder what the hell "cultural Marxism" is supposed to mean. Marxism was an economic and political ideology. From my experience, when a right-winger starts ranting about "cultural Marxism," it usually just means "things I don't like or agree with."

Do a Google search on "Cultural Marxism." You will learn a great deal. In the future it will help your understanding of the word if you don't automatically turn off your brain every time you hear someone you perceive to be a "conservative" make a statement. As an example, you might find it surprising to know I am not a "conservative." I am a Constitutionalist. You might also be surprised to learn the founders of our nation were not "conservatives." They were "liberals;" what we today call "classical liberals." The communists in Soviet Russia, what the political ideologists call the "Old guard," were the "conservatives" during the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the rebels were the "liberals." It's an oversimplification, but generally the conservatives want to keep what they consider the tried and true methods of governance, and the "liberals" want to change it.

Put simply, our "classical liberal" founding fathers believed in individual liberty and the conservatives of the time believed in the "Divine right of Kings to Govern" regardless of ability, integrity, respect for human rights, or whatever. We kicked the bastards all the way back to their City of London lair and replaced their bogus "Divine Right" with the Consent of the Governed. Once that was established for about a hundred years or so, the new "liberals" decided we would be better of under the authority of their arbitrary whim again. Ain't gonna happen. I'm trying to give you reasons to make damned sure it ain't gonna happen.

Oh, brother! Anything to cast aspersions. Okay, I'll address it. My website says, clearly, "DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer (though I have played one in court against a U.S. Department of (in)Justice attorney and won). Nothing on this site should be considered legal advice. Take no action and/or omit no action based on what you find here. If you want or need legal advice, consult your own lawdog or legal beagle. Don't believe anything the lawdog says, but get what your legal beagle says in writing. Then you have grounds to act on it even if he's making it up as he goes along."

There has been numerous cases of government thugs suing or even arresting people who address illegal government actions in public, for "giving legal advice."

I'm sure you would be happy, Opus, if I was holding myself out as a lawyer so some government goon could shut me up, but I don't allow that.

Clinton’s stumbled off the curb, her “knees buckled” and she lost a shoe

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/breaking-hillary-clinton-medica…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VnNzZQG2Tc

She's probably just plastered.

Funny, that very thing (sans losing a shoe) happened to me at work last night, when I went outside for a smoke.

At her age, she'd likely have discs starting to fail, just as I have one that has apparently failed.
It's a pity that those discs didn't study for the test of gravity.
Or something.

In other words, "grabbity got her."

This should be VERY simple, considering the "its" history of pathological lying, int'l grifting and attempt to RE-occupy the Dark House at 1600 Transylvania Av with "the rapist" in tow.
All "candidates" FULLY DISCLOSE I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-E-L-Y OR BE G-O-N-E!

I don’t know what “SMI” is, but as a general philosophy, if you are not a proven threat to society, you have the right to keep and bear arms.

Severe mental illness. I'm not a proven danger to society, but I'm a proven danger to myself. (I personally think the legal standard for involuntary commitment should only be danger to others, not danger to self, but whatever.)

I was just wondering how absolute you were in your opposition to background checks, and it seems like you're about where I thought.

I do find it pretty bizarre that you apparently would rather have people locked up for life or something rather than disallow felons for having guns; I mean, what with being a "freedom fighter" and all. I personally have a hard time feeling good about people having to go to prison at all; it's a shame, to be honest, and it seems like there must be a better way to go about things.

Oh, if that's what you wondered, you should have asked that question. I am adamantly opposed to background checks as a precondition to "permitting" the exercise of a right government has no authority to permit or deny.
First, background checks have never in the history of the Brady Act that required them prevented a crime. Not even once. Anyone intending to commit a crime will find a way to do it, and if they need a gun to do it they will find a way to get one. (It has been shown that criminals rarely buy guns; they use one circulating among their criminal friends.)
Additionally, in the case of firearms, background checks are a violation of the 2nd Amendment (because we do not need government permission to exercise a right the peaceful exercise of which infringes on no one else's rights); they are a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be secure from interrogation and search or seizure in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct; they are a violation of our 5th Amendment right to be secure from the loss of any right without due process of law (i.e., criminal prosecution); they are a violation of our 9th Amendment right to be secure from being required to give up a right in order to be allowed to exercise a right; and they are a violation of our 10th Amendment right to be secure from the federal exercise of authority not delegated.
The feds don't even have the authority to license firearm dealers.
Be off for a while; gonna go see "Sully."

I wonder if Donald L. Cline ignores any correspondence that comes with his name printed in ALL CAPS. He does seem to have that weird fixation on capitalization.

I haven't seen any posts with my name all in caps. I am notified by email of any new replies, and I examine all of them to see if any are worse answering.

Oops! WORTH answering, not 'worse' answering. :)

What is this law that is full of oathy goodness?”

The United States Constitution, Narad. Ever heard of it? It is the document that represents the compact between our nation-States that created the federal government out of nothing. It prohibits in so many words practically everything ZeroBama has done and everything Hillary wants to do, and maybe about ten percent of what Trump wants to do. It prohibited a lot of what both Bushes did. It prohibited practically everything Bill Clinton did when he infested our White House.

But it doesn't prohibit kicking out citizens and/or immigrants who would or could not swear the 'McCarthy oath'?

I think that was at least partly what Narad was talking about - that's my reading of it anyway. There was more, probably (it being Narad) but that was also my main point in my last comment you didn't directly answer. So I'll elaborate a little here.

To remind everyone...

JustaTech: "I once made a joke at work about us having to take a loyalty oath before being allowed to use a piece of equipment. You know, the one that starts “I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist party.
Except that most of my co-workers were adult immigrants from China and Ukraine.
Oops."

Donald L. Cline: "If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here. "

How does that stance coincide with your emphasis on personal liberties? And what Constitutional basis there is for enforcing the eviction of oath-refusers, US-born or legally immigrated?

In spite of your smarmy pejorative "McCarthy oath", a nation that cannot control its borders or what non-citizens are allowed to remain is not a sovereign nation. And a refusal to swear or affirm an oath of submission to U.S. (and the appropriate State) law is certainly grounds to eject the alien with prejudice against re-entry. And it is not the only grounds; addiction to drugs, a history of alcoholism, an inability to show a marketable self-supporting skill, etc., are also reasons to refuse entry to an alien or to deport one already here. And if all other criteria is met, illegal entry into our country is grounds for criminal prosecution and deportation with prejudice. We must control our borders or we are not a sovereign nation.

The single, absolutely only, exclusive purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. An alien is a citizen of a foreign country, and his nation has first claim on protecting his rights. While here he is subject to our laws, but without an oath in support of our laws any action we take under our laws could result in an international incident. This is why we have immigration laws and tourist visas and temporary work visas and etc. -- to establish that we have superior lawful authority over the individual while he is here, both for his protection and ours.

The oath required of JustaTech and his co-workers is not an oath of fealty to the U.S. but is recognition of the fact that the Communist Party is inimical to our interests, just as is ISIS, and, strictly speaking, Islam. If an individual belongs to an organization of any kind promulgating a belief in the murder or enslavement of non-believers, then that individual by the strict application of law should not be allowed to be here. Now, the fact that thousands of Muslims have been allowed to remain here is a testament to the fact that we are very reasonable when it comes to that strict application of the law as long as they are taking no overt or covert actions to execute those beliefs. But we do have the sovereign authority to kick their asses all the way back to whatever sandpit they immigrated from if it suits us.

The thing you folks need to understand is that we are a free country because our citizens, most of them, VOLUNTARILY obey the law and obey the social protocols that protect everyone's liberty. When people stop obeying the law voluntarily, liberty goes out the window and that hurts everyone.

I will continue to reply as I have been replying, by clicking on the Reply button in the email notification.

In that case, don't expect them to be read by people who can tell the difference between a blog and what passes for E-mail these days.

Somebody must be reading them; I'm average 35-40 responses a day.

From my experience, when a right-winger starts ranting about “cultural Marxism,” it usually just means “things I don’t like or agree with.”

It started out as a paranoid reaction to the Frankfurt School (one thing I don't miss about grad school is having to read Lukacs) but yeah, that's basically it.

Maybe she was just trying to do the macarena. You know; for old times sake -- 79 degrees with low humidity is not overly 'hot'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yHyvrt7irM

Breaking: Hillary Clinton as decided to take a break from breathing today. Aids said that it will not affect her presidential run --#weekendatHillary's

There was more, probably (it being Narad)

Hey! Anyway, I find it mildly amusing that D. Cline was whining about prose stylings (it wasn't fυcking Kojève, Dee) and then turned around and coughed up an "answer" with a hard upper limit on signal-to-noise ratio of 2.6%. The only surprise is that it didn't contain more semicolons, which I suspect he thinks are very erudite, indeed.

Point of order, Narad: I wasn't "whining about prose stylings" -- I was responding to your whines about prose stylings.

Woa!!! What is going on/what am I missing here???

1st video, passenger side. 2nd video driver side?????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-EAzsGxgQ

I smell psyops.

Donnie said: " I’m sure you would be happy, Opus, if I was holding myself out as a lawyer so some government goon could shut me up, but I don’t allow that."

Not to worry, Donnie!! The odds of anyone who passed Political Science 101 (or the equivalent) mistaking you for an attorney are in the same range as the odds of you being elected President this November. Feel free to continue to misinterpret law and precedent without fear of the black helicopters coming for you.

I intend to continue supporting the United States Constitution as it was written, Opus. Unless you have a personal agenda to the contrary, if you do the research you will come to the same conclusions -- but you have to reject Supreme Court rulings not authorized by the Constitution. In other words, you must have more integrity and precision than they have had.

There was more, probably (it being Narad)

Hey!

You're right. Shouldn't have said probably.

Meant with respect. I'm the first to admit it usually takes me a while to parse the nuances of your comments (Those I manage to pick up, at least).

Opus: "The odds of anyone who passed Political Science 101 (or the equivalent) mistaking you for an attorney are in the same range as the odds of you being elected President this November."

Cline's "facts" are similar the Idiots in Oregon who Occupied a bird sanctuary with their pocket constitutions (their trial starts on Tuesday, it should be very entertaining). He is similar to my dad, also an 80+ living in Arizona, who is so extremely happy that his Tri-Care health insurance (military veteran) was pretty much free of charge, but ObamaCare is bad. Yeah, I love my dad, even if Fox News now has him living on Bizarro Land (aka Htrae).

Funny you should say that; I thought the protesters and occupiers in Oregon were a little too full of themselves after getting away with their fully justified confrontation with the BLM in Nevada. I didn't feel the protest was a good idea at all, in spite of the fact the whole thing was caused by the federal government once again trying to force everyone off the mountain nearby so they could turn the whole area into another 'no-human-beings-allowed' wildlife refuge in accordance with the UN Agenda 21 plan to herd all humans into confined little efficiency communities and turn the rest of the western States into wildlife refuges for re-introduced (half-dog) wolves. The Hammonds were the last hold-outs and there is considerable circumstantial and some eye-witness evidence that the BLM set the fires themselves to blame the Hammonds. But the protest was too much too soon after the success in Nevada, and when you poke the bear in the nose too many times he tends to get annoyed. And before anyone jumps to any conclusions, the death of Finicum was unnecessary because the road block shouldn't have been there, but that being said, Finicums death was suicide by cop.

Hillary Clinton has pneumonia and has been advised to rest, the Democratic presidential nominee’s doctor said on Sunday

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/11/hillary-clinton-leaves-…

People with Parkinson's often mostly die from pneumonia due to aspiration of spittle and lunch.

Troll: "People with Parkinson’s often mostly die from pneumonia due to aspiration of spittle and lunch"

Except she is responding to antibiotics. Antibiotics will do absolutely nothing for aspirated fluids.

True. Which means this will almost certainly happen again.

--"Except she is responding to antibiotics."

On Friday, during follow up evaluation of her prolonged cough, she was diagnosed with pneumonia. She was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule.

I fail to see the 'responding' part here -- given on friday, doin' the trippin' macarena today. I guess the antibiotics themselves could cause such weakness; A weakness that does my misogyny good because she is obviously 'not strong'.

Chris, then she shouldn't be hugging and kissing a child today if it wasn't aspirational pneumonia as she would be virally infectious.

I saw that on the New York Times also.

There are lots of reasons people can get pneumonia and no particular reason to expect Parkinson's.

That article only mentioned her allergies and the concussion 4 years ago.

BREAKING NEWS

This just in from Breitbart.com and World Nut Daily:

CLINTON DEATH WATCH??!!??
Reports indicate that medical staff are concerned that Clinton's blood oxygen level has dropped below 100%. In addition, her carbon dioxide levels are higher on exhalation than on inhalation, possibly indicating an imminent loss of consciousness. Projections are that this loss of consciousness may last as long as eight hours. WILL SHE WAKE UP???

I wonder what she aspirated?

I think it was probably [vulgar comment removed by moderator].

Mr. Woll: "Chris, then she shouldn’t be hugging and kissing a child today if it wasn’t aspirational pneumonia as she would be virally infectious."

How would she know if she was overworked and has allergies?

Twenty three years ago I was working very hard to finish getting a house ready to move in, and I have allergies. I had a cough, which a attributed to my allergies. It kept me from sleeping sometimes, so I used that time to paint a bathroom with a triple color treatment.

It turned out I had bronchitis from an infection. I had no idea. I call that bathroom my "bronchitis paint job."

I also had bacterial pneumonia when I was in eighth grade. It came on in just a day or so. I had not aspirated on anything, and antibiotics really helped. Still my energy was sapped for a month.

So were those both indicative of Parkinson disease? Either a thirteen year old or a mother of two preschoolers who was doing some of the work of a house that we were actually building? Hmmm... how do those compare with someone who is now older than myself (late 50s) trying to run for president?

Yeah, all of you trolls seem to live through conspiracy theories with absolutely no relationship with reality. Larsy might have an "excuse", he probably aspirates window cleaning fluids.

'Marxism' is a loose term even among folks who know something about it, and 'cultural Marixism' is not a defined thing on the Left, nor a commonly used term. If you used the expression in legitimate academia, most folks would assume you meant The Frankfurt School (well, mainly Adorno), as JP noted, or the Birmingham School (Stuart Hall, Dick Hebdige, et al). In these uses, 'Marxism' (or 'marxism' as some of folks type it) means somehow-connected-to-a-vaguely-'marx-ish'-tradition, and not just (or even) the political economy theory of ole Chuck Whiskers. ('Karl' is the German equivalent of 'Charles', and one of my lefty profs in grad school always called him 'Chuck' to keep things in a down-to-earth perspective.) So you can't really smack DL for 'Cultural Marxism' not being square with Marx... BUT...

As you might expect, DL knows bupkiss about any actual Marxism, cultural or otherwise, and his use of "Cultural Marxism" does indeed come from somewhere else. It's a bit more specific than “things I don’t like", though. There's too much wingnuts don't like to fit under one umbrella term, no matter how falsely fanciful.

According to Wikipedia ( a pretty good idscussion 'Cultural Marxism" is the boogeyman in a far-fetched ultra-right anti-semitic conspiracy theory "in which The Frankfurt School are seen as having engineered the downfall of western society" via "Cultural Marxist control over the mass media" spreading the dreaded "multi-culturalism". The brilliant (and super-nice) intellectual historian Marty Jay has traced this back to a single 'documentary' from 1999, which has since spawned a host of YouTube videos:

which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930's

This is hilarious because Adorno was as Ivory Tower as they come, having no interest in pragmatic political strategy (or clear, direct prose), and is known primarily for despising 'mass culture' which he considered inherently fascistic regardless whether the ostensible message was progressive or not. Adorno is also the favorite whipping boy of multi-culties and 'happy postmodernists': "an elitist defending esoteric aesthetic modernism against a culture available to all." (J. M. Bernstein). [12-tone music: politically good. Pop music (including jazz): politically bad.] No need for the wingnut conspiracy videos to be faithful to primary sources though: the quotes they common;y attribute to The Frankfurt School are actually from a book by Pay Buchanan.

The 'Cultural Marxism Conspiracy' is apparently a 'big thing' among Holocaust Deniers, LaRouchies and other wackos monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Maybe they're concerned because besides being a common theme at WorldNetDaily, it was a big inspiration for the Norwegian right-wing terrorist who went to a Labor Party youth camp dressed as a cop, got all the teenagers to gather round him for an announcement, then pulled out an assault weapon with high capacity magazines loaded with fragmentation ammo and began shooting the kids in the head, repeatedly shouting "You are going to die today, Marxists!" (Of course, they weren't Marxists: the Norwegian Labor Party are Tony-Blair-emulating neoliberals). He fired at least 186 rounds, leaving 54 teens and 15 older victims dead.

Yup, Cline's website features the de rigueur gun nuttery, too...
___________

note to JP:
Lucaks isn't 'Frankfurt School' (though reading Adorno, or worse Habermas, can be painful enough). Pretty much everyone disses Lucaks for either being too cozy with Stalinism, or being too 'vulgar', or just for his writing style. But his essay on 'Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat" contains some original and thought-provoking stuff I'll call 'essential' to any informed discussion in social and cultural theory. (The rest, honestly, I haven't bothered.)

What a bunch of fluffy crap!

Okay, Sadmar, in spite of your incredible hair-splitting obfuscations that have been developed over time specifically for the purpose of convincing people this or that public speaker has his head up his ass because his label doesn't match someone else's, the fact remains that at the street level none of that crap matters in the slightest. It is all "totalitarian" and a tyranny -- rather, multiple overlapping tyrannies.

And actually that matches my own observations, because the assholes -- er ... adam henries -- coordinating this crap, pulling the puppet strings, etc., don't give a flying Frisbee for political ideologies or political ideological labels: They'll sell you whatever horsepucky ideology you are sucker enough to buy as long as you let them run your life. Currently the suckers are buying cultural Marxism* under the pseudonyms of Democracy and political correctness and Progressives and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
*Google the phrase; you'll learn a lot well beyond Wikipedia and the Frankfort School. It also comes under the heading of "Political Correctness" and Maurice Strong and Agenda 21 and a whole bunch of realities you seem desperate to ridicule and denigrate.

Your thesis is also fluffy crap because I am not anti-Semitic -- in fact I wear a button that says "I Stand With Israel" and I am a member of Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (though not a Jew); I am not a Holocaust denier -- not of any of the twelve genocides of the last 100 years, some of which a current today -- I am not a fan of a socialists of any stripe, including LaRouch or Bernie Sanders who preaches everything free for all while ignoring the principle of TANSTAAFL.
How do you know what inspired some alleged killer of alleged "neoliberals of the Tony Blair stripe" (which is pretty danged liberal)? In fact the Australian Labor Party when I lived there 1970-74 were out and out communists, and it astonished me how much they sounded like the American government then and a lot more so now.

I take it from your preference for the pejorative form of debate that you consider the right to keep and bear arms of no value in the modern Progressive Utopia. Tell me, Mr. Piled-Higher-and-Deeper, what you think of the value of personal liberty under the Rule of Law, and to what lengths would you go to defend it? Or would you defend it?

When my really bad GERD was making me a coughaholic, I also got sick with every cold/flu bug that came around. (Maybe the raw larynx was an easy incubator? IANAMD.) So, keeping the schedule a POTUS candidate keeps, I could have fainted m'self when those less-than-pneumonia things hit, and not only didn't I have Parkinsons, but I was probably in better cardio-vascular shape than HRC, 'cause I was still playing hoops twice a week at the time...

When my really bad GERD was making me a coughaholic,...

Et tu? My GERD is so bad, if I cough forcefully five times or so, up comes my last meal.
My wife's GERD isn't quite that way though, she's known to spit up at night, covering her face with residue, which then tries to digest her skin.

That's on her to-address list, first we're addressing things that could either kill or paralyze us, then we'll address things that would kill us earlier, long term.

Yep, sadmar, there are things that cause of to cough. I have allergies to certain annoying trees in the spring (alder trees deserve to be burned!!) and in the fall from certain grasses/ragweed ( worse I share that allergy with a ca,t who wakes us up by sneezing and then expects cuddles when he is covered in snot!).

Oh, the whinging of the guy in Arizona reminds me I need to write my dad a snail mail. Trust me, they are very similar in nature. Thanks Fox News.

Lucaks isn’t ‘Frankfurt School’ (though reading Adorno, or worse Habermas, can be painful enough). Pretty much everyone disses Lucaks for either being too cozy with Stalinism, or being too ‘vulgar’, or just for his writing style. But his essay on ‘Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat” contains some original and thought-provoking stuff I’ll call ‘essential’ to any informed discussion in social and cultural theory. (The rest, honestly, I haven’t bothered.)

Theory of theNovel was okay, even though I averaged about 10 pages per minute. His writing style generally makes me want to throw books at the wall, though.

I'm pretty sure I've read the essay you mentioned in a theory class that took place, what, four or five years ago now? (Time flied when you're... having fun.) I'd have to go through my notes (which are in a friend's basement in Ann Arbor) to say much about it at this point, though.

In spite of your smarmy pejorative “McCarthy oath”, a nation that cannot control its borders or what non-citizens are allowed to remain is not a sovereign nation.

Oath of denying Communist Party affiliation seems a clunky one, so I used the 'McCarthy oath' as a short-hand to point out when that oath was used, and why. But I can use the longer title if you prefer it. It was not meant to be pejorative, even if I personally feel that the “McCarthy era” was a relative low point is US history.

Do you believe Supreme court was in error when they ruled Levering act unconstitutional?

And a refusal to swear or affirm an oath of submission to U.S. (and the appropriate State) law is certainly grounds to eject the alien with prejudice against re-entry. And it is not the only grounds; addiction to drugs, a history of alcoholism, an inability to show a marketable self-supporting skill, etc., are also reasons to refuse entry to an alien or to deport one already here.

So you wouldn't kick out US-born Communists, at least. What about those immigrants who have earned their green card? Or have been naturalized?

The oath required of JustaTech and his co-workers is not an oath of fealty to the U.S. but is recognition of the fact that the Communist Party is inimical to our interests, just as is ISIS, and, strictly speaking, Islam. If an individual belongs to an organization of any kind promulgating a belief in the murder or enslavement of non-believers, then that individual by the strict application of law should not be allowed to be here.

When people stop obeying the law voluntarily, liberty goes out the window and that hurts everyone.

Liberty also goes out the window when people start infringing on or dictating others' personal beliefs.

because we do not need government permission to exercise a right the peaceful exercise of which infringes on no one else’s right

I'd wager that the vast, vaaast, vaaaaaaast majority of Communists of all varieties, just like vast majority of Muslims of all denominations, do not promulgate "a belief in the murder or enslavement of non-believers". And what's more, wouldn't your ”If an individual belongs to an organization of any kind promulgating a belief in the murder or enslavement of non-believers, then that individual by the strict application of law should not be allowed to be here” also ban any anti-abortion organization(some of who have killed those with opposing views), or every white-power group for example? There are two to three times more Klan members still than there are card-carrying Communists in the US.

Now, the fact that thousands of Muslims have been allowed to remain here is a testament to the fact that we are very reasonable when it comes to that strict application of the law as long as they are taking no overt or covert actions to execute those beliefs. But we do have the sovereign authority to kick their asses all the way back to whatever sandpit they immigrated from if it suits us.

Or just that most people recognise majority of Muslims aren't terrorists and refrain from assigning guilt by association.

I'm also not denying the sovereign authority to kick foreign individuals out, but I'm just asking how you settle that with your belief that we do not need government permission to exercise a right the peaceful exercise of which infringes on no one else’s right?

We're not talking about illegal aliens. At least I'm not.

Talk to you tomorrow; it's two hours past my bedtime. I haven't read your whole message, but what I have quickly scanned looked like a good discussion. Looking forward to it.

Preface #1: No, I'm not that idiot doctor with the same name in Indianapolis who just got arrested for the felony of inseminating women at a fertility clinic. I'm not a doctor and I've never been in Indianapolis.

Preface #2: Highly recommend the movie "Sully." Excellent! REALLY excellent! (But then, as an aviation aficionado, I have a bias.)

Okay, back to our muttons:

Re: 'McCarthy Oath' explanation: Fair enough.
Re: Your personal feeling that McCarthy was a low point in history. You were programmed by the liberal press to feel that way. It was just so terrible to mistreat all those people who were just trying to make a living by creating entertainment with a very strong bias to help us all understand that living under the hammer and sickle was an absolute utopia on Earth while people living under it were murdered for speaking out, were prohibited from attending church, who could not travel beyond a very short radius from their home without Party permission, who could not travel to a major city without a Party-acceptable reason, who could not eat in a decent restaurant without being a Kommissar or someone who could benefit a Kommissar -- etc., etc. ad nauseum. Strongly recommend you examine Ayn Rand's testimony before McCarthy's HUAC before you feel his efforts were a "low point in history." (see www.frdmftr.net/rand) People have a right to believe in communism if they want to, but they have no right to scam people into supporting excruciating tyranny and they have no right to legislate it into existence here.

Re do I think the Supreme Court was in error in ruling the Levering Act unconstitutional? As it pertains to an educational institution receiving federal taxpayer funds, no. (Though I believe the educational institution should be required to provide equal time for alternative views.) To the extent it pertains to a private employer, or to a government contractor engaged in work related to military or national security issues, yes.

Re those immigrants who have earned their green card or have been naturalized: Both are contingent upon at least a requirement, if not an oath or affirmation, to lawful conduct. If they are so required (and they are) then an oath to that effect should not be a problem for them.

Re "Liberty also goes out the window when people start infringing on or dictating others' personal beliefs." Requiring people to be willing to obey the law and not advocate lawlessness, and not use their presence here to conduct espionage or incite violence does not infringe upon their personal beliefs. If it does, they shouldn't be here. If not a citizen they should be deported; if a citizen, they should be prosecuted and be allowed to justify their actions, if able, by showing how their actions were necessary to stop or prevent government lawlessness.

Note: Thomas Jefferson is attributed with the observation that "America is the one place where sedition can never be a crime." That is a high sounding ideal, but it was uttered in a time of unity of belief in everything our nation was founded to preserve and protect. Today we are only just coming to the awareness that the biggest threat to liberty are those who don't believe in it using it to destroy it.

So we have two choices: We can crack down on liberty abused by those who don't believe in it, or we can support their liberty to destroy liberty and hope that we can kill enough of them when they take over that we can regain our nation of liberty. Which would you prefer?

Re your wager that the (emphasized) VAST majority of Communists of all varieties and ditto Muslims do not promulgate a belief in the murder or enslavement of non-believers." Don't put money on it because you will lose your wager. The vast majority of all Communists of all varieties most certainly do want to enslave everyone, and they will admit it, but they don't call it "enslavement": They call it "taxing the rich to support the poor." They call it "making the rich pay their fair share," and in the process making it impossible for the rich to pay a decent wage to their employees, to expand their businesses, to hire more employees, and generally benefit the economy.\

Similarly, it has already been proven by survey that the great majority of Muslims, while not actively yelling "Allahu Akbar!" and murdering people, nevertheless would like to see Sharia Law instituted in their communities in the United States. And Sharia Law does require the murder or enslavement of infidels, and women who do not obey the men that own them, and children who do not obey the men who fathered them, and most especially the murder of any person or faction or population that opposes Sharia Law. And Islam does not consider it evil; rather, Islam consider it to be bringing (their victims) to the grace of Allah. They actually believe, and the Qu'ran teaches, that doing all the above is doing the victims a favor.

Re your next paragraph about my thesis banning anti-abortion organizations (some who have killed) or every white-power group: I think you should re-calculate those numbers: The number of abortion murders for the convenience of the mothers far outstrips the number of adam henries who have murdered abortion providers. I am very definitely "pro-choice;" I believe every woman (and every man) has the perfect right to CHOOSE whether to get her pregnant or not. No man or woman has the "right" to murder an unknown child, though I agree there are circumstances in which it tragically must be done. OTOH, I oppose a flat prohibition on abortion under the law because I DON'T want to see a resurgence of basement butchers maiming women for a fast buck, because men being men and women being women, pregnancies will happen. And I am not opposed to recreational sex, but dammit, be careful! And don't use abortion as a method of birth control!

Re your suggestion that my thesis would ban "white power" groups. If they advocate murder and/or tyranny and oppression (whether unofficially or officially) over other factions they should be banned, and ditto for black power groups or any other power groups. (Though I am highly skeptical of your claim their are more KKK members than card-carrying communists.)

You have to realize something, Gaist: Black Lives Matter is being supported by the Communist Party and by the likes of George Soros because it disrupts the peaceful exercise of the Rule of Law. It invites police over-reaction and brutality, and that benefits those who want to destroy America because then they can say "see what a fascist tyranny we have here?" If you want to visit an organization that teaches demonstrators how to force the cops to over-react, look up "The Ruckus Society." They're on the web.

Re "Or just that most people recognize majority of Muslims aren't terrorists and refrain from assigning guilt by association." When the majority of Muslims who aren't terrorists start demonstrating in the streets opposing Islamic terrorism and actively opposing IMAMs who call for murder and mayhem in the name of jihad, I will give some credence to that theory. (I've seen a few former Muslims individually opposing it in public, one representative of a group of Muslims [or former Muslims] opposing one time on TV, and I've seen one street demonstration by Muslims in solidarity with the victims of one instance of Islamic terrorism [Orlando], and all that's a good start, but it ain't much. The problem is, they come here -- they are INVITED here in violation of law by that First Enemy Agent infesting our White House -- and they have no intention of assimilating and becoming 'Americans,' any more than the swarms of Muslims invading Europe have any intention of becoming Europeans. They intend to invade us, outbreed us two or three to one, and when they have a majority they institute Sharia Law -- and if we think there is nothing we can do about it, we are toast. Until people recognize the absolute fact that the United States Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and it is virtually the Sword of Damocles against that crap, we are done.

Have I covered everything?

Do a Google search on “Cultural Marxism.” You will learn a great deal.

In your opinion, what, if any, did this guy get wrong?

QUOTE: Definition of Cultural Marxism:

Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and "anti-racism." Unlike traditional Marxism that focuses on economics, Cultural Marxism focuses on culture and maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus malleable. Cultural Marxists absurdly deny the biological reality of gender and race and argue that gender and race are “social constructs”. Nonetheless, Cultural Marxists support the race-based identity politics of non-whites. Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms and anti-male feminism, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology. Critics of Cultural Marxism have maintained that Cultural Marxists intend to commit genocide against white people through mass non-white immigration, assimilation, transracial adoption and miscegenation.

gaist @ #73

You may well find that focusing on internal consistency is just another tool of the Cultural Marxists.

/sarcasm off/

But you are more likely to find that internal consistency is the tool of Cultural Marxists only as long as it suits their agenda. The fundament rule of the Marxist agenda is "Truth" is defined as that which advances the agenda. All else is irrelevant and mere nitpicking.

"After just this one ill-timed health scare, and in the course of just a few hours, Clinton's campaign reinforced concerns about her honesty and accountability. The timing also happened to play into a Trump campaign line of attack about her stamina and overall health.

Just last week, when asked about her health, Clinton declared, "I'm not concerned about the conspiracy theories."

But when events and actions reinforce those same storylines, it's time to be concerned. Those theories will harden and go mainstream, until or unless the campaign addresses them not with accusations and partial accounts but with solid information."

This is from an analysis on abcnews.com, not a hysterical source like NinnytownNews.

Over at AoA, Stagmom has brilliantly observed (ahem) that if Clinton has pneumonia, it means either failure of the 23-valent vaccine or that "she's as anti-vaxxer as the rest of us!"

They really seem to be running short of material. Even Danchi/elnura opines that it's creepy to be gloating about someone's being ill.

My website says, clearly, “DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer (though I have played one in court against a U.S. Department of (in)Justice attorney and won).

District, case number, and caption?

The case was in 1998 in Phoenix and I no long have the number. It was an adversary case in Bankruptcy Court against the Internal Revenue Service and the California Franchise Tax Board (which was a side issue). In 1984 the IRS confiscated a $146,000 of my money in the hands of my fiduciary agent for no reason other than the fact that I belonged to an educational organization teaching the facts about the Illegal Revenue Service, which the District Court in Colorado had already ruled was a protected First Amendment activity. A year later the admittedly communist AIC of the Sacramento office of the IRS took offense at two letters to the editor of the Sacramento Bee I had written, one objecting to the lionizing of a Communist agent by the name of Angela Davis, and the other pointing out why communists want to impose strict gun control on the people in response to another article by an admitted communist. So he looked me up on their database in violation of their own operation manual and assessed me one hundred percent taxes on the money the IRS had already illegally confiscated, and threatened me with a SWAT team on my doorstep in seven days if I did not pay up or make arrangements to pay within seven days. I bailed out to Arizona and sent the S.O.B. my new address (maildrop) in Phoenix and for the next several years played cat and mouse with their SWAT teams and the US Postal Inspector who was illegally confiscating my mail because I refused to give my physical street address. Finally I filed a complaint with the FBI for mail theft and a week later the USPS started delivering my mail again (to the maildrop). Eventually my daughter was ready for college and when you don't have any money set aside (because the enemy would confiscate it) I had to fill out very VERY intrusive financial disclosures so she could get a Pell Grant, etc., and the IRS pounced, claiming I now owed them a third of a million dollars in penalties and interest. So I filed bankruptcy and filed charges against the IRS and CAFTB in adversary proceedings and eventually the DOJ attorney (who had won his previous 12 cases against tax protesters) called me and offered to capitulate and drop the enforced collection proceedings and leave me alone from then on if I would drop my case against them. So I didn't get my money back (because they have a ruling that you have to file for wrongful confiscation within nine months, while they can put a lien on you for ten years and then renew it for another ten) but I took great pleasure in hearing the bankruptcy judge ream the DOJ attorney a new one for trying to prosecute me for what the IRS did to me. They haven't bothered me since.
The law is not too hard to follow if you and read and understand plain English and no how to do legal research.

@ Orac:

Right they LOVE conspiracy theories ( which reflects certain um... aspects of their mental functioning upon which I shan't expand)

AND they all make loads of money so a tax cut would be extra nice as well.
Trump wants to cut out inheritance tax which would benefit his progeny IMMENSELY ( or should I say *hugely*?)

It would benefit us ALL immensely. Income tax is illegal; the 16th amendment was never ratified: Too many States rewrote it and "ratified" something that wasn't proposed. Kentucky even shows on their legislative record they voted it down and then listed it as "carried." Article I Section 9 Clause 4 specifically prohibits any "Capitation" or other "direct Tax." Further, if it had been ratified, the articles about it at the time calling for ratification, asserted it would never apply to the people; that it was intended exclusively to tax corporations on the profit they derived from the employment of labor. And in fact no individual was taxed under the 16th Amendment for 25 years, and then it was only government officers enjoying the privilege of government immunity for the torts they committed against the people. Need I suggest never acting in favor of a measure based on government promises?

re pneumonia, bronchitis etc.

When I was a young grad student I got horrendously ill with bronchitis on New Year's Eve. Codeine made me worse. I'm sure I appeared a lot worse than the 60+ Ms Clinton did .

Then at 40, I contracted a respiratory illness in winter ( not dx'd as either pneumonia or bronchitis) that led to extreme weakness and weight loss despite taking loads of antibiotics, cough medicine and having had a shot of a steroid.
It took me weeks.
But hey, I'm still here.

@ JP:

I'm not sure whether the woo dailies would be good or bad for your mental health. Most of their material makes me laugh.
One never know, do one?

At any rate, JP...
I was thinking about how you could observe alt media w/o risk to your aforementioned mh but after scanning a few front pages I ascertain
IT"S TOO RISKY!!!!!11
I suggest that you make use of Orac ( and company) as a superb filtration system- all of the woo without the emotionally destabilising factor.

e.g. today I noticed that amongst leads, both Adams and Null perseverated and prevaricated upon HRC's health. Mikey talks about the 'walking dead' ( and it's not a television show altho' Franchi , late of RT is involved)

re pneumonia, bronchitis etc.

When I was a young grad student I got horrendously ill with bronchitis on New Year’s Eve. Codeine made me worse. I’m sure I appeared a lot worse than the 60+ Ms Clinton did .

Late in my undergraduate life (or thereabouts), a dear friend not only got mauled by a motorboat while swimming but also was diagnosed with pneumonia, leading Friend to use a beer can for sputum collection.

I imagine that it's obvious where this is going. Yes, the cans got mixed up. No, it was just a texture issue rather than an infectious one.

Narad, in my case , no motor boats were involveD. THANKFULLY
But I did nearly faint a few times and later, had to race to the ladies room in a posh( ish) Chinese restaurant because of nausea etc.

In spite of your smarmy pejorative “McCarthy oath”, a nation that cannot control its borders or what non-citizens are allowed to remain is not a sovereign nation.

Heh. Perhaps the real world does not, and never has – aside from islands and part of the GDR – given a shіt, Princess.

Yes, the cans got mixed up.

My friend Derek used to have regular punk shows at his house, and people would bring cases of PBR or Oly or whatever.

The next day we could usually be found on the back porch smoking cigarettes, and, being 19 and invincible, I would drink the half-empty beers that people had left behind. Gross, but whatever.

But once I grabbed one, took a drink, found it to be the texture of a SCOBI, and just about retched.

"Oh, yeah, I was going to say something to you." It had been there for who knows how long, apparently.

This stopped the habit.

So you're argument against Noel's admitted speculation is that since you can dismiss each individual point as insufficient by itself, all of his points together must also be insufficient. Which makes your argument weaker than his, and you just one more of the many thousands of people who feel they must constantly make excuses for Clinton.

Benedict, zero plus zero plus zero plus zero plus zero still equals zero.

All of which adds up to ZeroBama.

Heh. Perhaps the real world does not, and never has – aside from islands and part of the GDR – given a shіt, Princess.

C'mon, Narad -- it's very important to Kim Jong-un, as well.

@84 and 87
This might be a somewhat fake tale, I was told of it in a surfer bar, on the east coast of Japan after a collaboration party (ie. The meeting is over, no more 8am meetings ... lets get properly smashed).

One of the students on the experiment I work on is from the Isle of Man. He mentioned (at the above mentioned bar) that in the past during the TT there was a tradition of tipping all the dregs from beer cups into a a single vat or bucket misc. objects such as cigarette butts included. This was then sold at a rather low price point, chiefly to a certain sort of lad who might appreciate the cost savings, enjoys a good dare, or just does not care.
Heath and safety apparently have put the kibosh to this.

the far far more telling issue that you can clearly see in that video around the time the metal is dropped is Mrs. Clinton’s right foot. It was clearly being dragged along the street with the anterior portion down on the concrete. I am certain this is how the shoe came off. The comportment of this foot could only mean one thing – her brain or her spinal cord was offline – if ever so fleeting – during that moment. Her right foot was acutely flaccid. There are but a few things that can cause this type of issue: ...

...The most likely diagnosis – in my mind – an acute cardiac arrhythmia – either ventricular tachycardia – or more likely atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response. A FIB with RVR is very very commonly associated with people feeling flushed or overheated ...

This is EXACTLY how people will react if they have an implantable defibrillator and it fires.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-sick-is-hillary/

Cia Parker has now upped (downed?) the ante: Instead of diazepam, the mystery aide carries adrenaline. Oh, and Obama has lung cancer.

Still, AoA beats D. Cline.

Are you the same Narad that posts at AoA?

My website says, clearly, “DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer (though I have played one in court against a U.S. Department of (in)Justice attorney and won).

District, case number, and caption?

The case was in 1998 in Phoenix and I no long have the number. It was an adversary case in Bankruptcy Court against the Internal Revenue Service and the California Franchise Tax Board (which was a side issue).

I still have a first-class American Airlines menu from 2004. One might imagine that a body would save the records from such litigation. Anyway, I'm just trying to save myself the chore of convincing somebody to open a PACER account, as I've already used up my free access for this calendar quarter.

So I filed bankruptcy

You can't discharge federal tax debts in bankruptcy.

and filed charges against the IRS and CAFTB in adversary proceedings

Why were you suing the California Franchise Tax Board in Arizona, again?

and eventually the DOJ attorney (who had won his previous 12 cases against tax protesters) called me and offered to capitulate and drop the enforced collection proceedings and leave me alone from then on if I would drop my case against them.

Yup. It is indeed unfortunate that you've forgotten the case numbers. And, y'know, their names.

The law is not too hard to follow if you and read and understand plain English and no how to do legal research.

I think we're done here.

"I still have a first-class American Airlines menu from 2004. One might imagine that a body would save the records from such litigation." Some people are packrats. (Like me, I guess. I probably still have the records in storage, but I'm not going to dig them out for you.

"You can’t discharge federal tax debts in bankruptcy." Yes, you can, but all returns must be filed for at least two years before the bankruptcy, and even without that the penalties and interest are discharged in bankruptcy, which was the result of my case. In accordance with the adam henries agreement, the enforced collection on the remainder of the false and fraudulent assessment was waived.

"Why were you suing the California Franchise Tax Board in Arizona, again?" Because the CAFTB had no records of any tax liability on me, and yet had claimed taxes owing based upon IRS records, which is illegal -- States are required to assess their own taxes ... unless some pet judge rules they can do whatever they want, which is the case in Arizona.

"Yup. It is indeed unfortunate that you’ve forgotten the case numbers. And, y’know, their names." Not unfortunate at all; the information is not necessary to keep and I have no obligation to dig it out for you. FWIW, the Democrat-appointed adam henry defending the IRS in my case was one Mr. Charles Duffy, Esq.

"I think we’re done here." Yeah, you are.

Narad: "I think we’re done here."

The only proper response to Mr. Cline should be:

You're off key. Don't give up your day job.

Narad: “I think we’re done here.”

The only proper response to Mr. Cline should be

TINW, the foregoing plural pronoun notwithstanding.

"TINW"

Definition required (I personally hate abbreviations used without definitions, but that is because I worked where PSD had three different different definitions... two for my discipline and another for the finance dept). I believe Mr. Cline is only one deluded entity, and he should be ignored.

He is an entity that can be defined as a "sovereign citizen", a plague that has infested this country and several other countries where they are known as "freeman of the land." Much like the Idiots who Occupied an Oregon wildlife sanctuary, who go to trial tomorrow, BUT put in an emergency motion to dismiss Mr. Ammon Bundy because he kind of now owns the Malheur Wildlife Refuge because of "reasons":
https://www.scribd.com/document/323789256/Mumford-Emergency-Motion

Yeah, in my opinion these sovereign citizen dudes like Cline, the Bundy family and their friends are just common thieves. They just want to reap the benefits of living in the USA but don't want to bother with the responsibilities of actually paying for it through taxes, etc. Much like the anti-vax folks who leech off of their community's herd immunity.

You guys are so ignorant of history it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. While I will agree that a few yahoos are painting the label with a tar brush these days because they are unwilling to be subject to the Rule of Law, the fact is for the first one hundred years or so of our nation the term "sovereign citizen" was a common and prideful appellation. It celebrated the fact that for the first time in history, a nation did not treat its citizens as "subjects," but recognized their sovereignty over themselves and all of their personal domain, depriving government from control, oversight, or influence over their personal affairs. We need to restore the rogue occupation government we now endure to its proper Constitutional status.

“TINW”

Definition required

"There is no 'we'."

I personally am on the brink of killfilling Cline because his latest salvo suggests that he is, in psychiatric terms, actually nuts, but that's different from insisting upon "troll" as a universal slogan-order-balm.

Making medical diagnoses from afar, are we (TINW)? :)

OTOH, you might consider suspending your carefully instructed disbelief and do a little honest research. Or you might live in a communist country for about four years, as I did, so when you come back you are motivated to find out why our country is so much like that country when our country is supposed to be different. (And, btw, IS different, enormously different, if its government can be made to obey the law that created it.)

Um, I have a slightly different read in Cline because he is some 80+ year old living in Arizona who probably has Fox News on every waking moment just like my dad who is a few years older and physically not that far away.

It is not "actually nuts" but more age related dementia. Though, unlike my dad, Mr. Cline has embraced teh internets to make sure everyone gets to read his positions of whatever idiocy he has adopted. My father has at least stayed away from such silliness, and only decides to report the same exact stories over and over and over again to my siblings and me.

You see, while I see the similarities between Mr. Cline and my father (whose snail mail must be addressed to LtC (ret) XXX !) is that I remember a time a while ago when my father was lucid and taught me that even though a river created an imaginary border between people... they were not that all different.

It is because of my dad I got to spend a good third of my youth outside of the USA, and experience life under real dictatorships and where bodyguards were necessary (we had one for a while... crossing a busy street is much easier when you are escorted by a nineteen year old kid with an automatic weapon wearing a uniform!... my dad asked the kid to not do that since it attracted too much attention).

"universal slogan-order-balm"

Seriously? What in hades does that mean?

The fact that Cline insists on blogging in the comment section here makes him a troll. He actually writes long comments thinking we would take him seriously, even though it is legally nonsensical. You should have killfiled him ages ago.

Nope, not eighty years old yet; six years short as of next month and in robust mental and physical health according to my last physical.

You know, I don't know your dad, but it sounds like he has made good use of his years and has learned something of value he is trying to pass on to you, and you are pissing it away. Instead of making jokes about him you ought to investigate the reality of what he is telling you.

Thanks for reminding me, I just registered a PACER account. However, I won't be able to really use it until at least tomorrow though.

@Secret Cisco:

For the love of G-d, please also use the RECAP browser plugin (although it's been failing for me lately).

Myself: " whatever idiocy"

Oh, my word... if an elderly conservative person decides to donate to some cause, their vulnerability is sold multiple times. Mailing lists of folks like my dad are apparently gold mines.

There are organizations that claim to be supporting Oliver North, Sheriff Arpaio and other right wing conservative organizations that for a few bucks will send you newsletters. But the real money is your name and address, which they sell to other places like Julian Whitaker who will send you a newsletter telling you that everyone will become autistic before girls will (I am not joking, I found the actual paper newsletter with this idiotic graph in my dad's house!).

This selling of mailing lists is explained in David Neiwert's book And Hell Followed With Her: Crossing the Dark Side of the American Border.

The question is how many newsletters does Mr. Cline pay for? And how many does he sell?

Heh, tell me about it!
I track one general paranoid conspiracy theory site and one firearms related blog (also becoming known for spreading conspiracy theories, which are oddly synchronized with various similar blogs and an ammunition marketing group that's been trying to spur panic buys of ammunition). Just to keep tabs on teh craftiness of teh crazy (read, the Great American Con Jobs).
As a result, quarterly, I get sudden, unsolicited offers on that mail account for all manner of related blogs, sales pages, opinion pieces and spittle ridden e-mails that are "warning us" about things that never come to pass. Mostly, about things I *really* need to get for free, just pay shipping that's higher than buying the damned thing on Amazon.
On a lark, I tried one, as it was a utility tool and it'd be handy in the trunk of the car. I used a prepaid debit card, which was good, as somehow, they autoenrolled me to purchase other junk automatically.
I kept their junk, they didn't get paid, we called it even.

Still, it's amazing how many disparate groups, who claim to not like each other, manage to synchronize their efforts so precisely and near verbatim.
It makes me wonder if there's a Conspiracy Theory Con-man convention each year.

Are you surprised that you cannot believe anything your read on the Internet? That's the result of being taught to believe everything you see on the Communist News Network and disbelieve everything you see on Fox News, regardless of the veracity or lack thereof of either one.
Just keep on drinking the Kool-Aid, Wrzd1, don't check on anything, don't confirm anything, don't do any research on your own, and you can be comfortable believing the communist crap du jour -- until it kills you and everything you hold dear.

"The question is how many newsletters does Mr. Cline pay for? And how many does he sell?"

None, and none.

because his latest salvo suggests that he is, in psychiatric terms, actually nuts,

Or just making sh!t up.

Another "diagnosis" from afar. If that is what you think, prove it. Go do the research, the actual State legislative records, etc., not what some totalitarian apparatchik wants to sell you, and prove what I say is false. I'm waiting.

“What you saw was not even remotely close to pneumonia,” Eric said firmly, citing his own experience at dealing with upper-respiratory infections. “That was an immediate event that caused, obviously, a complete, almost like paralysis of her lower extremities...

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/12/doctors-weigh-in-on-hillarys-…

"Squeeze my fingers" is a neurological test.

https://twitter.com/smellyfed/status/775030514482810881/photo/1

That's Dr. Lisa Bardack in the photo.

Gilbert, you really need to have a doctor look at that tremor in your hands.

you really need to have a doctor look at that tremor in your hands.

Why? I already know that hydroxyzine and benztropine calms them.

I thought Gilbert would realize that diagnosing someone from a distance was absurd with my statement. I really should stop overestimating people's intelligence.

Oh, and Gilbert, remember to tell all your friends to get out and vote on November 9!

https://matrixbob.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/weekend-at-hillarys-22222…

https://matrixbob.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/weekend-at-hillarys.jpg?w…

Are you surprised that you cannot believe anything your read on the Internet? That’s the result of being taught to believe everything you see on the Communist News Network and disbelieve everything you see on Fox News, regardless of the veracity or lack thereof of either one.

It's the hypocrisy that offends me.

I posted a link to a story that quoted Trump as saying that anybody with a faulty memory was unqualified to be president (which isn't in my copy of the Constitution), and then went on to quote Trump who in sworn testimony stated multiple times that he couldn't remember people and events related to Trump University.

Cline rejected the story, because it was published in the Washington Post.

When I ask why, he said that, while he could verify Trumps quote, he couldn't verify the excreted portion of the transcript, even though the Post provided a link to the entire transcript.

So, pink boy, next time you want to accuse someone of rejecting a story just based on the source, look in the mirror.

Just keep on drinking the Kool-Aid, Danny-boy, don’t check on anything, don’t confirm anything, don’t do any research on your own, and you can be comfortable believing the tea-bagger crap du jour — until it kills you and everything you hold dear.

the fact is for the first one hundred years or so of our nation the term “sovereign citizen” was a common and prideful appellation

Uh-huh.

I'm not sure what the red and green colors mean since there seems to be no explanation key, but I've read several books published in the 1800's and early 1900's in which the phrase was used in a manner to suggest it was in common usage -- particularly when government tried to stick its now into someone's private business. But you are welcome to believe Google if you wish.

Gilbert, here's a link for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc

Making medical diagnoses from afar, are we (TINW) [sic] ?

At least that's on-topic, as opposed to your own deranged performance.

You still don't understand that the issues remain in spite of your insults, do you? That's okay, others can sort the wheat from the chaff of insults.

So Donald Cline is younger than my mother, and thankfully, my mom (and dad, who's well over 80) are voting for Hillary because they both think Trump is a walking disaster. But then, my parents don't watch Faux News OR CNN...they both read the daily paper (just like Don recommends - reading!).

And since Donny boy is getting really boring with his name calling, I'm putting him in purdah until he can say something intelligent, rather than just calling everyone Commies. I thought that went out with the 80's.

That's what people do. Your folks think Trump is a walking disaster and I KNOW Hillary is a walking ... er ... stumbling disaster. I will vote for Trump in full awareness of the fact we have been manipulated into voting for the lesser of all evils for the last six election cycle, Trump is a typically bombastic loudmouthed New Yorker, but -- contrary to the far left media -- has a record of treating his employees decently without regard to gender, race, or disabilities, and has helped a lot of people who were in dire straits and some who weren't just because they were Good Samaritans. Hillary, on the other hand, is a narcissistic vicious little hippie bitch with delusions of grandeur, has promised to deprive the people of their primary rights the first day in office, and did her university thesis paper on Marxist Saul Alinsky, concluding that Alinsky wasn't vicious enough in his plans to destroy America. I'm no rabid supporter of Trump, but at least he has a couple of things to recommend him. She has none, and thousands of things she should rot in prison for. But we will vote and I, at least, will remember what FDR said: "Nothing every happens in politics that isn't planned. If it happens, you can bet it was planned."

Allow me to update the Ngrams with more 'appellations'.

Not particularly interested. I don't trust Google any more than I trust any other Hillary supporter.

Wow you were totally wrong about this one! Might want to print a retraction story.

“Squeeze my fingers” is a neurological test.

They did that after I broke my arm. I am fairly certain they were not testing for Parkinson's.

Joseph Smith: "Wow you were totally wrong about this one!"

How? Explain in detail and provide links to support those details.

I am fairly certain they were not testing for Parkinson’s

It is still a common neurolgical test -- the 'nurse' is also pointing as if to say "look to the right". TIA/Stroke???

Taking her pulse or just holding hands?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3786445/Is-Hillary-Clinton-s-un…

(ok, it is the Daily Fail but they have an intriguing compilation of photos in this case)

After watching the video, all that I can say is, someone really should tell Hillary that it's a lousy idea to lock one's knees.

Saw many a junior enlisted soldier do that very thing, then when moving their knees after, down like a ton of bricks they went.

I see a neurologist every year for a seizure disorder and have mentioned that my father and grandfather both had Parkinson's. But he keeps assuring me that I do not. There have been no specific tests that I know of, just the usual visible observation.

Hey Don, That thing I said about the "oath"? It was a JOKE. It was a joke at the time, about pointless government over reach, and it was a joke here about people who haven't noticed the past 30 years and are still scared of Soviets under the bed.

You're a misogynistic creep with a piss poor understanding of American history living in a time warp, and if you accept social security or Medicare you're a hypocrite too.

Perhaps your problem is you are joking around instead of being serious about serious issues. I don't pay a lot of attention to who is saying what, but I will point out that Narad said "I’ll join you in ignoring any mention of it being a joke about the oath. These are serious issues nobody should be allowed to jest about." and I agree.

Either "misogynist" doesn't mean what you think it means or you aren't taking to who you think you are talking to, because I have never said anything that could possibly be taken as a hatred of women or girls. I love 'em and I respect them and I treat them right.

What you take as a piss poor understanding of history is from the perspective of one who has been brainwashed by the piss poor American public education system. I had the advantage of spending four years in Australia and discovered that what I had been taught was a bunch of propaganda crap. So I started studying the real history to find out why, and I did. You might consider doing the same before you fall into the trap they are laying for you.

I will be happy as a clam to reject both Social Security and Medicare if the bastards will refund the money they robbed from me under color of law and allow me to exercise my right to make my own decisions about how to invest it. Until they do, I want my money back, every damned penny of it plus interest. When you find out who scammed the country into the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, you will also find out the number they issued you is also known as a "Nazi-style Government-issued serial number." One day they are likely, unless they are stopped, to tattoo that number on your forehead, your forearm, the web between your thumb and index finger, or on an RFID microchip under your skin. Then you can visit a Veterinarian to find out who you belong to.

To starve the troll, or to make fois gros? Questions, questions.... This is a good one, though:

You have to realize something, Gaist:

Portentous.

Black Lives Matter is being supported by the Communist Party and by the likes of George Soros because it disrupts the peaceful exercise of the Rule of Law.

Thank goodness it has nothing whatsoever to do with people commonly being faced with the opposite under color of law. The only fault here is the failure to actually use the phrase "uppity nіggers."

It invites police over-reaction and brutality

The Agents of the Rule of Law are unable to tame their reactions and tendency toward brutality? I mean, how does this work in detail? Is Bastiat's "Law" an inhuman force, like the Holy Ghost?

and that benefits those who want to destroy America because then they can say “see what a fascist tyranny we have here?”

Yah. And "the Communist Party" gets what out of this, exactly? There is some chance that being an unhinged tax protester in Arizona may have left you just a bit out of touch with urban blacks, johnnycakes.

I'd like to come up with an estimate of the ratio of the number of black Witnesses who I run into during my travels about the city to the number of black Communists, but there's no denominator to be had.

Allow me to reiterate this point.*

* I think I've credited properly at some point, but it's from an interview in Lew Yablonsky's book The Hippie Trip. (It's dry, but essential, reading for anyone interested in that history, IMO.)

Considering the fact that the slave traders were mostly black and the early slave owners in the United States were black, and that blacks were not the only slaves, AND, police have shot more white than they have blacks in spite of the fact the highest crime rates are in black communities; AND blacks kill each other off at a far higher rate than whites, AND whenever a black is shot in the course of committing a crime the black community goes ballistic and screams about police brutality, but whenever a white is shot in the course of committing a crime you never see the white community (or the black community) going ballistic over it because he was a criminal and the shooting was in self-defense, and considering the fact that the family members of blacks shot in the commission of crime wail and moan and ask questions like "how else was he supposed to get any money for school clothes?" it appears obvious that your understanding of the issue about which you bloviate is serious deficient. And for your information, two items: One: My partner when I was a private investigator in San Francisco was black and we saved each other's ass several times in some pretty nasty ghettoes, and Two: I would vote for Alan King or Allen West in a New York Second for President, and they are both blacker than ZEROBama by half, so don't start with me on this racist crap.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to who is saying what, but I will point out that Narad said “I’ll join you in ignoring any mention of it being a joke about the oath.

Why, no, I didn't. Are you too fυcking dense to understand how blockquotes work, or something?

And why are you so fucking bloody-minded you can't carry on a debate without vicious insults?

Don, of course you're a misogynist; you stated perviously that you believe that "women have the right to choose to get pregnant", which is a hateful statement that denies rape. Therefore you are a misogynist.

I can't wait until we have a woman president and your head explodes.

The context in which I said that was not discussing rape and asserting that women have the right to choose not to get pregnant is a recognition of their rights the rapist violates, not an indication of misogyny. You have a bloody-minded way of reading in your own biases, JustaTech. I most assuredly recognize and support every right a woman has (or men, too; male rape does occur) against rape and I rail angrily against assholes who want women to be defenseless against rape. Buy a gun, dammit, and learn how to use it safely and legally and carry it. Because your rapist will, whether the law allows it or not. Self-defense is not a crime and any jurisdiction that says it is is a tyranny in violation of human rights.

Hillary, on the other hand, is a narcissistic vicious little hippie bitch

P.S. I'm here to elevate the level of discussion.

When it comes to that subject, it is not possible. All you can do is paint yourself with her villainy.

Wait, so is Australia the "Communist" country Donny claims to have spent four years in?

"Wait, so is Australia the “Communist” country Donny claims to have spent four years in?"

Yep. It was then; the Labor Government was in power and they proudly said so every time anyone advocated the Law of Supply and Demand, or advocated free-market capitalism. They had egg-marketing boards and dairy marketing boards and beef marketing boards and vegetable marketing boards and the producers of these products were all subsidized by government so every entrepreneur with money saved up from work-related injuries would open a farm to produce until they had a glut and the boards would raise the prices until people couldn't afford to buy the product and the boards would issue press releases threatening to dump the excess in the landfill if people didn't start buying it, and people would respond they should reduce the price and the boards would temporarily reduce the price for one week and the results would "prove" the law of supply and demand doesn't work because they didn't see one more unit of the product during that week BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DELIVER ANY MORE. And now you know why the Aussies refused to pass any government initiative in spite of a A$10 fine for refusing to vote -- they'd scribble all over the ballot, voting for no one, and call it the "donkey vote."

I understand they have become less communistic under a later prime minister who manages to get a law through parliament making labor union membership optional. Union membership dropped from about 56% in the Trades to 23%, and union members stopped kicking people off the sidewalk who refused to get out of their way.

And there are more incredible (to naïve Americans) stories I could relate revealing the total idiocy of the far-left political viewpoint.

JP: Good catch! I don't think Don has ever been to a Communist country, or a former Communist country, or met a Communist or someone who grew up in a Communist country.

I'm starting to feel like all his ideas about "communists" are from Red Dawn and the John Birch Society, and maybe Dr Strangelove.

I've got plenty of friends and coworkers who grew up in Communist countries and here's a news flash: they're people, first and foremost, not automatons or monsters.

I wonder what color the sky is in Don's world?

Oh. I forgot. You've been raise to believe a communist country is just like us, unaware that they are not just like us; we have illegally become "just like them" so you can't see any difference. You also believe socialism is really not communism, because you are unaware that socialism is nothing but communism with the gun pointed at your forehead hidden instead of being obvious. It is still used occasionally, however, to keep the victims in line, but it is kept quiet when possible. It is still robbing producer Peter to support layabouts and guvmint official Paul (which is a repetition).

When you find out who scammed the country into the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, you will also find out the number they issued you is also known as a “Nazi-style Government-issued serial number.”

I regret that I'm unable to figure out what the quotation marks are here for; this appears to be novel, if wholly incompetent, coinage. I suppose it does open up some sort of branding* market, though. Could you elaborate on the different styles (and issuers) of serial numbers? Y'know "Greek-style" yogurt, etc.

TIA.

* Wait for it.

You lack of ... accurate ... political education is showing. So you tell me: What's the difference between the serial numbers Hitler and his vicious goons tattooed on the foreheads, forearms, or hands of Jews and other scapegoats and the U.S. government-issued Social Security serial numbers issued to U.S. citizens with the caveat, written in bold letters across the card, "NOT TO BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION," which is, as all expected, no longer there?

And I forgot to ask you, "just what the hell do you think those "biometric ID cards" are for, that subversive adam henry Sensenbrenner introduced into law and is now being rammed down our throats whether we want them or not? How long before the sheeple are so used to them that they will be compressed into a machine-reader chip you can wear under your skin and just wave your arm at a card reader when you want to buy something ... or when you want to leave your neighborhood, or access your workplace, or buy groceries, or collect your children from school, or cross a State line, etc., etc.

^ Damn blockquote fail.

Wait, so is Australia the “Communist” country Donny claims to have spent four years in?

Did I forget to ask whether he is now, or ever has been, a "student" of "Zenith Applied Philosophy"?

No, and it's just another cult trying to escape reality by drinking someone else's Kool-Aid.

JustaTech: "I’ve got plenty of friends and coworkers who grew up in Communist countries and here’s a news flash: they’re people, first and foremost, not automatons or monsters."

Yes! There seem to be plenty here (the "European Grocery Store" on Aurora in north Seattle is difficult to shop at since I can't read the labels' Cyrillic alphabet). One of of my favorite memoirs I read a while back was about living in Czechoslovakia, with some very humorous ways of dealing with the "secret police": Twelve Little Cakes (the Seattle Public Library still has it on their shelves).

I have a feeling that Donny, like my dad, does not understand the difference between national economic structures and type of government (democratic republic, constitutional monarchy or plain ol' dictatorship, the latter kind of being employed in Venezuela). Oh, another rather humorous historical look at Russia, with the author commenting how the Czarist policies were reflected in the 20th/21st centuries is Glorious Misadventures.

Obviously neither book would be on Donny's radar.

And to the extent that neither illuminate the American (U.S.) descent into tyranny by a rogue occupation government, neither is instructive as to the here and now. Question: Why don't you read what American authors and philosophers have had to say about the American experiment in liberty? People like Ben Franklin, John Paine, James Madison, John Jay, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. Documents like the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States? We were and remain today the only nation in the history of the planet to be founded on principles of private individual liberty instead of the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords, entrepreneurship instead of conquest, etc. Maybe you should give them a try, and then figure out how and why we have devolved into a rogue occupation government without a shred of lawful authority throwing its weight around all over the world.

Uh-huh.

I’m not sure what the red and green colors mean since there seems to be no explanation key

*blink*

but I’ve read several books published in the 1800’s and early 1900’s in which the phrase was used in a manner to suggest it was in common usage — particularly when government tried to stick its now into someone’s private business.

Like which? How common? (Remember, prideful, too.) Filed away with your ground-breaking court case? Memory troubles? C'mon, you've got the limelight that you so crave.

Including but not limited to biographies of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, several Hemingways, Bat Masterson, Doc Holliday, Wyatt Earp, "A Caveat Against Injustice" by Roger Sherman, the only man to have signed all four of the documents that formed our nation and who designed our monetary system of intrinsic value (robbed from us by charlatans in public office who preferred the embezzlement system proposed by John Maynard Keynes, who was a British Lord, btw, and a proponent of recovering the British colonies) and more. I'm not certain each or really any of these books contain the phrase "sovereign citizen," but I have read enough to know it was in common usage whenever discussing the struggles of the common man against overweening government.

Chris: Oh, there are Eastern European grocery stores up there? Sweet! I've been looking for some very specific kinds of rye (getting in touch with my Scandinavian heritage) and that would be a much better place to look than Whole Paycheck.
Thanks!

(I keep meaning to read "Mastering the Art of Soviet Cooking", which is a food-based memoir about growing up in the USSR.)

My, my. What a big bag the 'nurse' has. The outline of the rectangular shape in that big bag kinda looks a bit like a defibrillator.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/09/13/16/384CDD9800000578-3786445-i…

Yeah, my wife has a bag very similar to it. She carries her art supplies in it and one cinder block.
OK, not really true for the cinder block, it only feels like it.

For someone with a screwed up spine, she sure has one heavy bag to hand off to me to carry for her!

Excuse me, I've got a fly stuck in my tail...

Too big. Speaking of ... unrestrained speculation ...

Donny: you said : Trump is a typically bombastic loudmouthed New Yorker, but — contrary to the far left media — has a record of treating his employees decently without regard to gender, race, or disabilities, and has helped a lot of people who were in dire straits and some who weren’t just because they were Good Samaritans.

Are we talking about the same Trump who has over 400 lawsuits against him because he doesn't pay his subcontractors? Who talks about women like they are either brainless or whores, and deserve to be sexually harassed because "they can just find another job"? Who thinks vaccines cause autism and makes fun of disabled people? THAT guy?

If that's what you think if respect and taking care of people, I don't want to see how you think people should be abused.

Yeah, we're talking about the same guy, but we aren't talking about the same source of information about him. You need to stop listening to the hippie twerp and start reading the stuff the mainstream media won't print because it blows their propaganda out of the water.

Are we talking about the same Trump who has over 400 lawsuits against him because he doesn’t pay his subcontractors?

He transcended being raised among bombastic loudmouthed New Yorkers "Kazars."

Pardon me while I whistle the theme to The Newlywed Game.

Thanks for the link; everyone should read that post.

Watch that foot again with it enscribed for easier vewing pleasure --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfAPqvk80_c

^ Foie gras, that is.

Regulating the magic that is homeopathy: The sabotage of poor reporting and false balance

oracknows — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 01:00:52 +0000

Regulating the magic that is homeopathy: The sabotage of poor reporting and false balance

Well, it's over.

I'm referring to the two day hearing held by the FDA in Bethesda seeking public comment regarding how it should modernize its regulation of homeopathic products. Actually, as I discussed before (as did Jann Bellamy over at my favorite other blog, Science-Based Medicine), in fact it's arguable wither there is currently much, if any, actual regulation of homeopathic remedies. Oh, sure, sometimes when a foolish company or true believer tries to market something as unremittingly dangerous as a homeopathic asthma nasal spray, the FDA takes notices. However, for the most part, the FDA turns a blind eye to homeopathic products because back in the 1930s, an update to the law authorizing the FDA to regulate food, drugs, and cosmetics defined anything that is listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS) as a drug. Unfortunately, for whatever historical reason, the FDA seems to have interpreted that part of the law, at least for the last few decades, as meaning that anything in the HPUS is automatically FDA approved and that manufacturers of products within the HPUS don't have to demonstrate efficacy and safety of their products.

For whatever reason, about a month ago the FDA announced that it was looking to update its regulation of homeopathic remedies; not surprisingly, that led to quite a bit of consternation among homeopaths, with reactions ranging from dismay to outright fear mongering that the jack-booted thugs from the FDA were coming to take away your homeopathic remedies and this had to be resisted, because, you know, FREEDOM! (Or "health freedom," anyway.) No wonder the vast majority of those testifying were either homeopaths, manufacturers of homeopathic remedies, or supporters of alternative medicine. Left to stem the tide. For instance, representing the side of science and reason was Michael DeDora of the Center for Inquiry, along with a few others. For instance, I was happy to see that Adriane Fugh-Berman, a pharmacology professor at Georgetown University Medical Center, came down solidly on the side of science, as related by this article in the Washington Examiner:
\

A key part of the hearing was whether the products are effective.

"The evidence for homeopathy's effectiveness is between scant and nil," said Adriane Fugh-Berman, a pharmacology professor at Georgetown University Medical Center at the meeting.

Fugh-Berman cited a recent effort by Australian researchers to pore through more than 170 studies on homeopathic medicines. The researchers concluded there is no reliable evidence homeopathy is effective.

A supporter of homeopathy shot back that the Australia study was "poorly done" and doesn't take into account specific treatments or conditions and do analyses of those treatments.

Same as it ever was. I had been concerned that Fugh-Berman might be wishy-washy given her history of being somewhat sympathy towards alternative medicine and her antipathy to big pharma, but she wasn't. Good on her. Neither was Luana Colloca, a placebo researcher from the University of Maryland Baltimore, who discussed placebo effects and characterized homeopathy as placebo.

De Dora was even more blunt:

Proponents of homeopathy will suggest that there are studies which show homeopathy is effective. It is true you can find studies that suggest homeopathy has brought about a positive result. Yet these studies have found only a placebo effect, and significantly do not and cannot explain if and how homeopathy has treated the illness. Further, these studies must be seen within the broader context of hundreds of studies that have found homeopathy ineffective.

Of course, this all makes sense: by its own definition, homeopathy cannot work. Its centuries-old pseudoscientific principles sit at complete odds with our modern understanding of biology, chemistry, and physics — the bodies of accepted scientific knowledge that form the basis of modern medicine.

Again, we need not spend much time on this, as the federal government is well aware of the scientific evidence against homeopathy. As the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine states on its website:

There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition.

All of which is true. He then went on to answer the question "What's the harm?" and to present proposals for how the FDA should regulate homeopathy going forward.

Links to the text of all the testimony submitted can be found here. Unfortunately, I couldn't watch the live streaming video coverage because I'm at a cancer research meeting right now and I'd have had to miss the meeting to do it. (Watching it at the convention center—or even parts of it—was not an option because the wifi here sucked so badly that just checking e-mail and Twitter was a teeth-grinding exercise in futility, and the convention center seemed to blunt cellular Internet connectivity to the point where it was little better.) Last night, though, taking advantage of the fast Internet in my hotel, just for yucks I perused some of the testimony of the various homeopathy advocates, including naturopaths (of course!), homeopaths, homeopathic pharmacists (the jokes write themselves on this one!), and homeopathy advocates. One, Bruce Shelton, characterized homeopathy as "critical to his success in helping patients" and that he has never experienced safety or quality issues, the latter of which seems like an extraordinary claim given that Shelton claimed over 20,000 patient visits. Confirmation bias, anyone?

In any case, the homeopathy supporters who testified didn't say anything that any skeptic who pays attention to homeopathy (like me) hasn't heard a million times before. At least the skeptics did discuss exactly what homeopathy was and why its principles are so ridiculous.

Which brings me to an observation about the news coverage that a reader named Andrey Pavlov sent me in response to an NPR report on this review. It starts with an anecdote about a homeopath named Anthony Aurigemma practicing in Bethesda (!), MD. He's an MD who became disillusioned with medicine and switched to homeopathy, a truly depressing conversion to contemplate, one I've never understood because a physician should have enough basic science knowledge to understand why homeopathy can't work other than as placebo. Be that as it may, and despite my good bud Steve Novella being quoted in the article, this reader noted a problem, which he describes as why news stories so seldom seem to describe exactly what homeopathy is. This particular NPR story does, but a lot of others don't. Even in stating what homeopathy is, it doesn't really explain why homeopathy is so utterly ridiculous; rather, the explanation was couched in the annoying "tell both sides" trope so common in reporting of pseudoscience by letting Aurigemma explain:

"We believe that there is a memory left in the solution. You might call it a memory. You might call it energy," Aurigemma says. "Each substance in nature has a certain set of characteristics. And when a patient comes who matches the physical, mental and emotional symptoms that a remedy produces — that medicine may heal the person's problem."

Critics say those ideas are nonsense, and that study after study has failed to find any evidence that homeopathy works.

No, science itself says the ideas behind homeopathy are nonsense. Critics of homeopathy cite that science to show why the ideas behind homeopathy are nonsense. I've explained why more times than I can remember. Other medical skeptics have explained why so many times they can't remember. In fact, I consider knowing why homeopathy is The One Quackery To Rule Them All (with the possible exception of reiki and "energy medicine," which vie with homeopathy for the title) and being able to explain it a test of whether one is actually a skeptic in terms of medical quackery.

I'm not the only one who's noticed, apparently. For example, Jerry Coyne noted:

Reader Howie Neufeld sent me a note about two CBS television segments I missed (readers can assume I miss every show except for “60 Minutes” and the NBC Evening News):

This morning CBS News had Dr. Holly Phillips (internist) discuss homeopathy. When the anchor asked her if it was pseudoscience, she sidestepped the question, referring mainly to the lack of FDA regulation of such remedies. Having taught about homeopathy (I consider it junk, not pseudoscience) for years, I was extremely disappointed in her lackluster and inadequate responses. She should have debunked it totally, as she had a national audience. Instead, she caved in to the herbal drug industry.

Howie was right; CBS abnegated its responsibility here in refusing to say that homeopathy is not only ineffective, but dangerous in drawing sick people away from science-based treatment.

Here's the segment:

And the screenshot featured at the beginning of this article illustrates my point almost better than I can explain it. Anyone here who knows anything about homeopathy knows what an epic fail CBS medical correspondent Dr. Holly Phillips' description of homeopathy was in this segment. Truly, one wonders if she has clue one what homeopathy really is!

Andrey ends up asking:

Why is it that we are allowing the discussion to be framed from a "health freedom" and "regulatory" perspective instead of just saying what homeopathy is at every single chance available?

An excellent question. Clearly Dr. Phillips either had zero clue what homeopathy really is and how utterly pseudoscientific it is, or she didn't care.

I've related the tale before about how even medical students and residents whom I teach have no idea what homeopathy really is. Whenever the topic comes up (which isn't that frequently, but over the years I've accumulated quite a few discussions) and I ask the trainee what homeopathy is, he will answer that it's some sort of herbal medicine. Heck, its not just trainees. It's attending physicians and senior scientists, too, who don't know what homeopathy is.

So I tell them.

I tell them the two main "laws" of homeopathy, the first being "like cures like." That one will sometimes cause some amusement, because there really is not scientific justification for concluding as a general principle that to treat a symptom you need to use something that causes that symptom in healthy subjects. Next, I'll explain the law of infinitesimals, specifically how homeopaths believe that diluting a substance—with vigorous shaking between dilutions, of course, to "potentize" it—makes the remedy stronger. Of course, it's not just that. It's that diluting a remedy away to non-existence makes it stronger, dilutions of 30C or greater, which is a 10^-60 dilution, or more than 1036-fold greater than Avogadro's number, are commonly used by homeopaths. When I tell the students or residents this, not infrequently their jaws drop, and they respond, "Really? You're kidding. That can't be. That's ridiculous!"

Minds blown.

I then explain how homeopaths believe in the "memory of water" as the mechanism by which this effect supposedly occurs.

More minds blown.

This brings me back to Andrey's point, which is a valid one. Part of the reason that homeopaths and their apologists so easily get away with making appeals to anecdotal evidence and framing the pseudodebate in terms of regulation and health freedom is that there is so little understanding among politicians and the public just how utterly nonsensical homeopathy is. It's magical thinking. Actually, as I've argued before, it's sympathetic magic. My favorite example to make this point is compare homeopathy to the principles of sympathetic magic. For instance, homeopathy’s law of similars (“like cures like”) is uncannily similar to Sir James George Frazer’s Law of Similarity as described in The Golden Bough (1922) as one of the implicit principles of magic. In addition, the concept that water can somehow retain the imprint of substances with which it’s been in contact, which really underlies the belief among homeopaths that remedies diluted to nonexistence (basically anything diluted more than around 12 C–14C or 15C, to be safe) can have biological effects, is very much like the Law of Contagion. Given that it's been a while since I've written about this, now seems a good time to invite you again to read the following passage from The Golden Bough and tell me that it doesn’t sound almost exactly like homeopathy:

If we analyse the principles of thought on which magic is based, they will probably be found to resolve themselves into two: first, that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and, second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed. The former principle may be called the Law of Similarity, the latter the Law of Contact or Contagion. From the first of these principles, namely the Law of Similarity, the magician infers that he can produce any effect he desires merely by imitating it: from the second he infers that whatever he does to a material object will affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact, whether it formed part of his body or not. Charms based on the Law of Similarity may be called Homoeopathic or Imitative Magic. Charms based on the Law of Contact or Contagion may be called Contagious Magic.

See what I mean? These passages would not be out of place in a textbook of homeopathy, with the word "magic" replaced with various vitalistic mumbo-jumbo to "explain" how homeopathy "works." A later passage by Sir Frazer actually provides an excellent criticism of the two pillars of homeopathy:

Homoeopathic magic is founded on the association of ideas by similarity: contagious magic is founded on the association of ideas by contiguity. Homoeopathic magic commits the mistake of assuming that things which resemble each other are the same: contagious magic commits the mistake of assuming that things which have once been in contact with each other are always in contact. But in practice the two branches are often combined; or, to be more exact, while homoeopathic or imitative magic may be practised by itself, contagious magic will generally be found to involve an application of the homoeopathic or imitative principle.

Of course, homeopaths make exactly these mistakes, assuming as a general rule based on no science that to counter or control a symptom requires a substance that can cause the symptom and assuming that, just because the water used to dilute homeopathic remedies was once in contact with the homeopathic remedy (and the water from the later dilutions were in contact with the water that was originally in contact with the original homeopathic remedy and so on to many, many powers of 10), that the homeopathic remedy is somehow still in mystical contact with the original substance.

Finally, if I want to blow minds to the point of skepticism, I'll talk about homeopathic provings, homeopathic plutonium, and, of course, homeopathic antimatter. Oh, and homeopathic Saturn light, which was made by exposing powdered milk sugar to a powerful telescope while it was focused on Saturn. The homeopath then made a 3C dilution, which means there was actually some milk powder left. The results were described thusly:

The trituration process began with lots of giggling and silliness; and throughout there was talk of getting high, stories about getting high. Senses were distorted. One prover kept seeing smoke rise from the milk sugar as she ground and scraped.

“Drugs come into the mainstream… truckers used speed to stay awake. Ecstasy was first used for marriage counseling.”

“I’m feeling really high… spacey.”

Provers were laughing until the tears came. “You guys are ripped.” “I feel like I smoked.” “Sound is distorted as if I’m high…” “Do you remember the first time you smoked?”

There were a number of other symptoms reported, including itching, headache, watery eyes, and others.

The homeopath's conclusion? She concluded that the sorts of behavior and symptoms observed were consistent with what, from an astrological standpoint, Saturn stood for, the structure of the body, the bones, especially the spine, knees and teeth. Apparently Saturn is also connected to old age and maturity as well as the cycles of time and aging, while the goat aspect of Saturn is connected to "robust sexual expression." This led the homeopath to conclude:

From a homeopathic point of view, both the physical symptoms that appeared and the content of the discussion during the proving suggest that this remedy might be effective for accident-related trauma, bone and nerve damage. The Titan-like quality of strength, survival and endurance seems connected; perhaps an ability to survive disasters is part of this remedy. This remedy may also be effective for allergies, in light of all the itching that occurred.

If you're not satisfied with the ridiculousness of homeopathic provings, take a look at this sampling, which includes Jupiter rays, helium (that must have been fun), Yellow Box Fish, placenta, and the common loon, for which the jokes write themselves.

A huge part of the problem with science and medicine reporting in this country (and the world) can be demonstrated with a simple reference to homeopathy. Homeopathy is, as Steve Novella characterized it, an "excellent example of the purest form of pseudoscience," and as I, more blunt that Steve, like to call it, "The One Quackery To Rule Them All." Failing to make that clear in media coverage of homeopathy lets advocates of homeopathic quackery to label skeptics as "homeopathic naysayers" and claim that the current FDA regulatory framework for homeopathic products is working just fine.

Of course they would say that. As currently formulated, FDA regulation (or, more properly the lack thereof), lets homeopathic "pharmacies" sell whatever they want with minimal oversight, and few know or care enough about it to force change. This FDA reevaluation of its regulatory framework for homeopathic remedies is the first glint of light in ages that could lead to actual reform. However, with news coverage like that of CBS and even NPR, it's going to be difficult to build a consensus to regulate homeopathic remedies the same way other drugs are regulated or at least to stop homeopaths from making scientifically unsupported claims about what their treatments do.

It is, after all, just water (or ethanol, or whatever an individual remedy is diluted with). You'd never know that from the news coverage though, or at the very least all you'd get is a hint of that. Therein lies the problem.

oracknows Tue, 04/21/2015 - 21:00

Tags

complementary and alternative medicine

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

television

Categories

Physical Sciences

The moderator said yesterday that recordings of the hearings will be posted somewhere, --did anyone find it?
I live in a Western state and only caught the last few speakers each day.
I gathered that the last speaker was a retired bureaucrat who'd worked on the regulations in 1988. He basically said to the FDA panel, "you guys have a tough job, we couldn't figure out then what to do about homeopathics, so good luck with that."
I read the Examiner story last night but was too tired to comment over there.Thanks for dissecting the coverage,

She concluded that the sorts of behavior and symptoms observed were consistent with what, from an astrological standpoint, Saturn stood for, the structure of the body, the bones, especially the spine, knees and teeth. Apparently Saturn is also connected to old age and maturity as well as the cycles of time and aging, while the goat aspect of Saturn is connected to “robust sexual expression.”

I'll leave the goats for later.

ObMiller.

From the picture

designed to trigger immune response

Groan. The old "vaccines are like homeopathy" canard.
Had a few years ago a heated discussion about this with my dad, when he was going into a woo phase. Thankfully, he got better.
Funny they didn't put the "homeopathy is like nanoparticles" one.
Both analogies are utterly wrong. Homeopathy is about (very, very) high dilution, vaccines are about using killed or weakened germs (or bits thereof), nanoparticles about using (plenty of) thingies of very small size.

the goat aspect of Saturn is connected to “robust sexual expression.”

*heroically resisting the urge to make bad lewd jokes*

In Roman/Greek mythology, Saturn/Cronos castrated his father to take his place and devoured whole his many children to avoid them dethroning him.
There is a goat involved in raising the child who escaped.

Not sure I would cast Saturn as a role model for healthy sex.

mho #1

The live stream was plagued with audio issues, the sound sometimes disappearing for 15 minutes. The close captioners were obviously listening to the same feed and they were also missing a lot of it. I hope the 'official' recording will have been separate from this, but it may not be. So, if the recording is made available, it may have been as bad as the live stream.

They also said that a transcript will be available within 45 days - but I'm not holding out much hope that it'll be complete.

I did record the speech by Dr Peter Fisher (the penultimate speaker) in case he said anything interesting (he didn't - it was a long way to go to say nothing). He's homeopath to Elizabeth Windsor (aka the Queen) and wanted to make sure he told all you yanks that because he thought you'd be impressed by that...

An example of somewhat better reporting than that from CGBS on the FDA homeopathy hearing:

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2015/04/fda-takes-new-look-homeopathy

From the article:

"Elaine Lippmann, regulatory counsel in CDER’s Office of Regulatory Policy, asked several speakers the same question: “What is it about the scientific method of demonstrating safety and efficacy though our approval process that is inconsistent with homeopathy?”

“It’s like comparing apples and eggs,” explained homeopathic physician Karl Robinson of Houston, Texas. “Homeopathy is very much of an observational science,” he said. Five patients with the same official diagnosis could receive five different treatments based on their complex mental, emotional, and physical qualities. “It’s a different paradigm, that’s all.”

No it's not. All you need to do is to take those five "treatments" and double-blind them before administration.

To pile on:

Five patients with the same official diagnosis could receive five different treatments based on their complex mental, emotional, and physical qualities.

Yeah, nothing at all like regular medicine. It's not like some people take aspirin, other take acetaminophen and other go for ibuprofen.

To add to Elliott, if the goal of the study is to show the overall efficiency of homeopaths, it doesn't matter how many different prescriptions there are. Send the prescription to a third party who will check a randomized list and either send back a vial of sugar pills or, well, another vial of sugar pills.
If all prescriptions are supposed to work, it won't change anything.

This sounds like a typical day at the National Organic Standards Board meeting, which is held twice a year. People repeatedly quacking about the evils of chemicals and Monsanto with no proof or understanding.

I often try to contribute to the general ridicule of homeopathy on facebook. Yesterday afternoon, IFLS posted an anti-homeopathy article and the place went nuts. I had notifications 'on' and my phone went bonkers trying to keep up with the thousands of entries seemingly every second.

When things quieted down and i could drop more than a morsel (Vactruth isn't, etc.), I ran into a woman claiming we were all vibrational beings. Absolutely nuts. The flavor of the posts were so insane that I finally turned off notifications.

MikeMa #8

But, but, but, we're all vibrations...

A brief analysis of "Dr" Charlene Werner's butchery of science...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCeq3gnf0hA

In my personal opinion, homeopathic medicine can cause people to stop pumping their bodies with the chemicals in normal medicine. So, maybe homeopathic medicine isn't a completely bad thing?

designed to trigger immune response

@Helianthus: I noticed that one, too. Of the three bullet points, the first is technically true but severely understated, and the last is unfortunately straight truth, but that middle statement? "Designed"? That's a rather generous definition of "designed", to include schemes that can't possibly work--like waving my arms in the air as a tiger repellant, and claiming that it works because there are no tigers within a 20 km radius. (I'm in North America, and there are no zoos within 20 km of my location.)

The homeopath’s conclusion? She concluded that the sorts of behavior and symptoms observed were consistent with what, from an astrological standpoint, Saturn stood for

Lovely. We have one pseudoscience (homeopathy) based on another pseudoscience (astrology). The bits relating Saturn to old age, etc., are straight out of Greek mythology: Gustav Holst, who named the movements of The Planets after mythological characteristics, called the fifth movement "Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age". Likewise the references to "strength" related to Titan, Saturn's largest moon (also named after a mythological character). It's one thing to do that for the sake of Art, as Holst did; it's another thing to do that in an alleged pharmacology study. Oh, and I suspect the people doing that proving may have been smoking some non-homeopathic herbal preparation.

from the second he infers that whatever he does to a material object will affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact

There are ways to do this in a physics lab, but it takes very careful preparation on the part of the experimenters. Typically, you create a pair of particles that must be in opposite states (e.g., electron spins: there are two allowed states, up and down, and you can force a pair of them to have one in each state), and after separating them, perform some action which forces one of the particles to be in one state (measure the spin of the electron). The other particle will turn out to be in the opposite state. But as I said, this requires a laboratory setting with a fair amount of fancy equipment. Homeopaths don't have that equipment (it's only been in the last decade or so that such lab experiments have been possible, and even today it only works on microscopic systems), and even if they did, I doubt they are careful enough to pull it off.

MikeMa@8 -- If string theory is right, then maybe we actually are vibrational beings, in some sense, but not in the sense she intended.

There's a Guardian article on this, a bit old now, which has accumulated a fair number of comments.

I am still surprised by the level of gullibility of people who fall for and pay for these scams. Or the greed and avarice of those promoting it.

palindrom@11: I remember some of the string theory discussions about this. Over my head and definitely NOT what the woman was preaching.

The NCCAM (no I cannot change it) states:
"The Status of Homeopathy Research
Most rigorous clinical trials and systematic analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition."
As I tell my students "do you really want your water to remember where it's been?"

Homeopathy doesn't REALLY involve the memory of water but its tenets are based upon how the faculty of human memory operates.

As Frazer illustrated, primitive folk associated two unrelated events or items because they *resembled* each other in some manner- visually, functionally or symbolically ( law of similarity) or because they were once in contact ( law of contagion) and thus, remain so for all time.

So, a particular plant may resemble a physiological state to which one aspires (you may use your imagination) or a particular object may have once been in contact with the object of one's desire ( or scorn) - OBVIOUSLY these items' relationships hold a powerful significance PURELY in the mind's eye- which then is transferred to an imagined relationship in the world at large. Which doesn't exist outside of one's head.

Rather than viewing memory as a passive reflectance of perceived reality, it often results from an active working upon supposed links: attending to them, re-iterating them and strengthening them, until they seem quite solid- at least in memory rather than in the world. But the focus here is on the internal world.

Again, modern homeopathy relies upon a belief in a connection between unrelated items or states that exist only in the imagination but is, in believers, actively reinforced frequently through reading, thought and discussion, thus giving it power. In memory and thought, nowhere else.

Even if you dilute an idea with other stuff, it can remain.

I caught part of a piece on NPR about this. The reporter characterized homeopathy as an "ancient healing art." While being ancient is hardly a good thing in medicine, it is also not true of homeopathy. It told me the reporter had not done even the barest investigating of what homeopathy is.

I should note before I run...
the law of contagion - temporal contiguity- is the foundation upon which anti-vaccine hysteria was erected.

#10
This school project is still going on huh? Mikaela Nicolau you forgot to sign your number. How are you going to get credit for your inanity without your number?

Didja hear about the homeopath who forgot to take his medicine?

He died of an overdose!

(Plagiarized from Singh & Ernst's "Trick or Treatment")

The first regulation of Homeopathy should application of the same "Quack Miranda Warning" as with supplements:

"These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

But, of course, that would have absolutely no effect on the "true believers"!

See also David Kroll at Forbes for a report on the FDA hearing:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/04/22/pharma-critic-skewers…

He mentions that the "Science Babe" managed to get Petco to remove a homeopathic pet "calming" remedy from their stores--it used ethanol as a diluent.
Drunk doggies, anyone?

Also, my apologies to CBS for that typo in their name in my earlier message. I think that my morning coffee was too dilute. Need to get me some of that homeopathic java.

@ BKsea

The reporter characterized homeopathy as an “ancient healing art.”

Eh, it depends how you define "ancient". If you are blasé about it, yesterday is ancient...

Although I wouldn't be surprised if the reporter was confusing homeopathy with herbalism. A lot of people do, and homeopathy proponents aren't above maintaining the confusion.
I mean, see bullet point #1 in the picture of Orac's post.

I listened (not intently, and with an average health care consumer's ear) to the hearings for a few hours over two days. I did a fair amount of head-shaking and laughing.

I heard "patients want", "patients appreciate", "patients enjoy", patients like", patients are happy" in reference to ease of access, affordability, and lack of side effects/drug interactions, etc.. I interpret that as you can get it at Rite•Aid or Whole Foods, it's cheap, and it has zero physical effect.

I believe more than one practitioner stated the appropriateness of homeopathy for "self-diagnosed, self-limiting, and self-treatable conditions". I'd say "way to testify yourself out of a job", but I'm sure those not-covered-by-insurance homeopathic consults help to boost the placebo effect immensely.

Another presenter put up a slide from a sham-controlled vertebroplasty study, pointing out equal pain relief in both groups. Supporting placebo effect. . . of something unrelated to homeopathy. . . to support the placebo effect of homeopathy? Did I hear that right?

I heard a presenter say that efficacy studies by "provings" were indeed double-blind. (?) Although with that apples to eggs thing. . . that snowflakes. . er, patients, with the same dx may not receive even remotely similar formulations - wouldn't each individual homeopathic remedy have to undergo a double-blind study for each indication it's to be "proven" for? Not to mention combinations of remedies? And how, in light of the fact that the remedies are nothing,could that be done? I think they believe this has already been accomplished, somehow.

The closed captioning was hilarious at times. While a speaker was discussing "hormetic effect", the caption read "comedic effect".

I look forward to science-based rebuttals on blogs and in the press. Although I don't think homeopathy isn't going away, ever, maybe perceptions of it's value be shifted in the minds of some consumers (closer to voodoo).

I love this (hope the hyperlink works):

[The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense]

As for the credibility of Holly Phillips, consider her tweet from two days ago:

"My first year at Columbia Medical School, Dr. Oz (before fame) talked to our class - Gave the most inspiring lecture of my entire education."

A Dr. Oz wannabe.

I wonder why

for the most part, the FDA turns a blind eye to homeopathic products because back in the 1930s, an update to the law authorizing the FDA to regulate food, drugs, and cosmetics defined anything that is listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS) as a drug.

homeopathic pharmacists (the jokes write themselves on this one!)

Really? What's the punchline other than the obvious extreme dilution when used according to the labeling? People and policy are allowed to do silly things all the time; From breading their cats to locking away millions to protect them from Satan's Weed and Cheetos.

As currently formulated, FDA regulation (or, more properly the lack thereof), lets homeopathic “pharmacies” sell whatever they want with minimal oversight

I'm getting the idea that 'pharmacy' here is the rows of little vials at the vitamin store which contain all manner of exotic herbs and compounds -- Many of which are a precursor the stuff now locked behind authority-authorized-only prescription pricey paywalls.

Orac, you have been duely long-running and long-penned on the 'sillyness' of homeopathy but, should I ever find out a need for one of those compounds, I won't be giggling.

In my personal opinion, homeopathic medicine can cause people to stop pumping their bodies with the chemicals in normal medicine. So, maybe homeopathic medicine isn’t a completely bad thing?

I don't see how that follows. My wife is a Type I diabetic. for example--it would be anything but a good thing if she stopped 'pumping her body' with insulin regularly. My three year old has a seizure disorder--it would be anything but a good thing if we stopped 'pumping her body' with levetiracetam twice a day.

A relative of mine spends so much time keeping up with her vibrations, auras, homepeopathic profile, etc. that it has paralyzed her emotionally and socially. It's evident to others, but not to her. Just another danger of homeopathy.

My suggestion to the FDA was to require an insert in every homeopathy package that explains in detail every aspect of homeopathy, similar to a vaccine or other insert. A few words on the bottle is not enough.

I think I must be homeophobic

As a med-sci lay-guy, I wonder...

• Are homeopathic remedies too diluted to be testable? That is, if I send a potion to a chemist unlabeled, will an analysis of its contents verify that it contains what the homeopath claims is the 'active' ingredient?

• Am I correct in taking homeopathy to differ from some other Alt-Med 'modalities' in that it doesn't ever aver 'well, it won't work if it don't believe in it'? That is, it sounds like the model of 'like curses like' in this case is just supposed to work at some fundamental level of physiology; and according to homeopathic theory a remedy should do it's thing sans any placebo effect. Thus, like fluoridated water, if a person ingested a homeopathic solution with no knowledge they were doing ANYTHING, it should 'work', yes? Can I assume this has been tested and found false? Not 'homepathy vs. placebo', but 'secret homeopathy'?

• Following from the above... re:: "Do you really want your water to remember where it’s been?” Joking aside (yes, all but impossible I'm sure). It's not supposed to be a question of 'want', yes?, but rather tan assertion that water just DOES, am I right? So, on what basis would a homeopath assert that the water 'remembers' the vibration of the now-diluted homeopathic stuff, but NOT the vibrations of anything else it has been in contact with, which may also have trace elements remaining in any non-distilled water? Why aren't the mineral elements in spring water producing a variety of homepathic effects?

• How long does water remember? Does contamination/contact with other substances post-dilution cause it to 'forget'? If I put a homepathic dilution in orange juice, should it still work? If not, wouldn't I have to take it while fasting for it to get to the site of med problem unaltered?

• If a homeopathic potion sits on the shelf past it's expiration date; if the water 'forgets' the vibrations after the passing of time, shouldn't it then have 'a vibration of forgetting' that would make it effective in treating Alzheimer's? :-)

sadmar #26, that is some brilliant and concise deduction. Considering you just destroyed the 'placebo effect' for millions, may one transcribe your analysis into untraceable assasin-water?

@sadmar

1. Depends on the dilution. "homeopathic" cold-eze is barely diluted so has 13.3 mg of zinc in the lozenge according to the label. But for a lot of the "most powerful" that is the very most dilute dilutions you are talking that statistically there is no chance there is even one molecule of the active ingredient left in the dose by many orders of magnitude. Homeopathy was developed before we knew how many molecules of a something there would be in the undiluted mixture. So they didn't really know when they invented it where you would go from 1 molecule to no molecules.

About all we get out of homeopaths when asked how you tell them apart is you look at the label or you use a dowsing rod.

2. Well the claim it works on animals, so I don't know if that answers the question (although placebos work on animals, based on the owners subjective assessment, that don't know what you gave them so have no beliefs other than pills always should be spit out if you can). I'm not sure if we have done like they do with some lactose intolerance experiments where they put it in the meal but don't tell you that it is there.

3. I think the shaking violently is supposed to reset the memory or something like that.

4. Um, as long as the label stays on the bottle??

OK, looked up from one of the popular homoepathic kid stuff remedy sites

"Homeopathic medicines are good indefinitely as they are very stable when stored under normal conditions (away from moisture and excessive heat or cold). For this reason, in the US the FDA has exempted homeopathic manufacturers from putting expiration dates on the label."

5. Apparently once you write homeopathic on the label it never forgets.

I suppose the serial dilutions could be so it only remembers the last, strongest thing; forgetting all past joys and woes in the washing thereof.

Mikaela Nicola: "In my personal opinion, homeopathic medicine can cause people to stop pumping their bodies with the chemicals in normal medicine."

Yesterday I had surgery on my wrist due to a Colles fracture, I fell on a tiled bathroom floor. Do tell me how much better homeopathy would work better than the nerve blocker and anesthesia to keep me still while titanium plates were installed to get the arm bones correctly aligned with the wrist joints.

(note: from noon yesterday until I woke up this morning my left forearm was a numb paralyzed pendulum hanging from my elbow... more than once I got smacked in the face with it)

Would it stand to reason (well, homeopathic "reason") that if one were to mix a batch of Kool-Aid with a single drink crystal and a single sugar crystal, you'd have the most sickly sweet glass of Kool-Aid ever?

Belle Gibson, y'all.

@#10

In my personal experience, quackery and pseudoscience (to include homeopathy) can cause people to delay seeking real treatment.

A little story. I was 40 when my first and only child was born. Before that, we'd lost 3 babies, and spent untold $$$ on ART. There is nothing wrong with him, there is nothing wrong with me -- oh wait -- I was old. Old eggs.

Alternative practitioner said to me, age 39, don't do ART! Instead, do my treatment, and here's why....and she was very compelling.

Imagine if I'd listened, instead of pursuing real evidence-based methods. Pretty sure that my child wouldn't otherwise exist, and both timing and the passage of time are sometimes every single thing.

@10 Hmmm....decisions, decisions. Nope, I think I'll stay with my chemical laden inhalers for COPD and Asthma, rather than the bottle of water CVS sells as "homeopathic asthma relief." I'm trying to put off going to the hospital; have no desire to hurry it up.

BTW, you are aware, aren't you, that water is made of chemicals?

My favorite remedy- works every time
"Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,--
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."

If water has memory, shouldn't it remember the first multi-cellular organism? Mass extinctions? The bladder of the first true human? So much information, right at our fingertips. Dare I suggest waterboarding??

Might all water be inherently traumatized by the memory of it's ride on the asteroids that brought it crashing to Earth?

Denice Walter #15 wrote:

Homeopathy doesn’t REALLY involve the memory of water but its tenets are based upon how the faculty of human memory operates.

I think you've nailed it (at least in part) on why homeopathy seems plausible to the people who do know what it means. They're making analogies to the way the mind works and blurring distinctions between the subjective and objective 'worlds.'

It's the same perspective taken with spirituality and religions. There's something about homeopathy which feels familiar and intuitive and so it doesn't matter if the science isn't there. As above, so below. Everything is connected by similarities which are discovered mentally. I like your examples.

"Oh, the science is totally there. I've seen the studies. But if it's not, it doesn't matter." Two opposing ideas, held at the same time. And like all mystical knowledge, personal and private confirmations -- aha! -- are the gold standard.

This very afternoon I was once again gently reminded that homeopathy "works if you believe it will." That's apparently supposed to squash all my skepticism. Proponents who use this explanation by Magic Placebo though have little understanding of what they're really giving up. They think they're not only endorsing homeopathy and alternative medicine, but New Thought and the power of Mind over Matter. But they're throwing out both an honest search for truth and the capacity to recognize lies.

What is the status of fraud in a world where "things become true when you believe they're true?" Adopt this philosophy and you become a sitting duck for any con artist or good-intentioned nitwit with something to sell. You also become incapable -- or rather OUGHT to become incapable -- of ever accusing the Big Evil Pharmaceutical Companies of any crime at all. The only problem with a lie is a failure to believe it.

@ Sastra:

Sometimes I think that myths and the rules of magic exist in the particular forms we recognise because of how memory and perception work. Items are grouped by category; certain combinations are easier to learn; some unfinished stimuli edge us towards their closure; superficial diversity may hint at and then reveal an underlying identity - a prototype.

Oh there's so much more.
Woo-merchants rely upon the rules of how cognition works - despite often being rather impoverished examples of human cognition themselves- to set up their marks.

In my email news feed:
"The Whole Pantry author Belle Gibson admits she lied about having terminal cancer" http://tinyurl.com/mlbfohx

To stay with the current thread, I'll wonder if NSA homeopaths can dilute Ms. Gibson's sweat to produce fail-safe truth serum for use on suspects in the 'War on Terror'.

If water has memory, shouldn’t it remember the first multi-cellular organism? Mass extinctions? The bladder of the first true human?

"Don't put that in your mouth, you don't know where it's been. Although I suppose you could ask it."

3. I think the shaking violently is supposed to reset the memory or something like that.

That would undo the previous succussions. As Dullman would be more than happy to advise you, the carrier is reset by Double Secret Distillation.

You might wish to review this analysis by Claudia De Rosa.

"By using the same container the final remedy contains the energy pattern of all the potencies up to and including the final potency, allowing the patient’s body to use the most effective potency for the condition."

The Korsakovian approach here is less "scientific," but it's MOAR Quantum.

Hmmm... Going to try the Korsakovian method with my favorite wine.

As above, so below. Everything is connected by similarities which are discovered mentally.

I could tell a story about "as above, so below," which involves this and this. It would make me sound crazy, though. It also involved the ingestion of some pomegranate seeds, which, looking back on things, was probably a bad idea.

sadmar -
It's not news to regular readers of RI, but, yes, mainstream media have now become explicit on the story:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32420070

My favorite remedy- works every time

Saying something stupid because you're desperate for attention?

My second link above seems not to work. I suppose we could try this.

It also involved the ingestion of some pomegranate seeds, which, looking back on things, was probably a bad idea.

If you don't have more than six it seems to be OK.

Do you really want

do you really want your water to remember where it’s been?”

per Tim Minchin's Storm

'It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory! And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it! '

I didn't listen to the podcast, but I did scroll through the 52 pages (at the time; it's possible there's more now) of people writing in to the FDA about homeopathy.

A huge chunk of the entries were of tthe "Get your government hands off my homeopathy!" ilk. There were large numbers of anecdotes from people that seem to think that constitutes evidence. I would just like to say in an aside that the average post was deeply scientifically illiterate, and the people claiming to have credentials were barely coherent and may well have been completely baldfacing it.

My favorites were the conspiracy nuts, and one person who just called the FDA Satanists. That was fun "You're just Pharma Shills!" was the most common trope.

I think that perhaps 1 in 10 or 20 posts as described abover were sensible, straight-forward, science-based arguments in favor of regulation. Those people tended to be very methodical in laying out facts (which the rest definitely lacked) and a compelling argument.

I guess I can only hope that the regulators at the FDA recognize that popularity does not make a thing right, and that those in favor of regulation have actual facts and not anecdotes on their side.

Or, yannow, I can hope for Moon Colony Gingrich to open in a year or two.

Oh, I forgot to include the link to the testimony. Here it is:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS%252BO;D=F…

Re. Denise @ 43, and re. 'Saturn light':

The 'Saturn light' episode is a textbook case of 'shared trance,' also known as 'contact high.' The participants talked themselves into an altered state together. People talk each other into altered states all the time, from 'falling' in love to having angry arguments to engaging in role-playing games, religious rituals, etc. Children with decent imaginations can play 'let's pretend' all day, and to them it's real.

So, Denise, you're spot-on about this: it's psychologically lawful. That is to say, it 'makes sense' to us in a similar manner to the way that fictional story plots 'make sense.' And, a moment of critical thinking can 'break the spell' and bring the reader back to where s/he is, sitting in an ordinary chair in an ordinary house, reading printed words on a page.

For purposes of entertainment, creative expression, self-exploration, and spirituality, it's for the most part harmless, plus or minus obvious counter-examples such as mind-control cults. Some of it is useful in psychotherapy. Some of it is even useful for working scientists, to let their minds engage in a bit of free play that may lead to a testable hypothesis.

The harm comes when it's concretised, that is, taken as The Literal Truth that should therefore have direct physical effects. This is what homeopathy is about: the belief that a magic ritual is more than a mental exercise, but something that has physical effects and can be counted on to work. To paraphrase Sir Arthur Clarke, the word for magic that always works is 'technology.' And if homeopathy had anything to it, the word for that would be 'medicine.'

---

Lsm @ 28: "...require an insert in every homeopathy package that explains in detail every aspect of homeopathy..." That's just super! Yes, do it!

Per what Orac said, 'So I tell them (what homeopathy actually is)...' and when they hear it, '...not infrequently their jaws drop, and they respond, “Really? You’re kidding. That can’t be. That’s ridiculous!”'

If people get package inserts explaining 'what it is,' and bother to read them (some will), their jaws will drop too. Some of them will go to the chemist's and say 'I wasted my money!, why are you carrying this crap at all?' Slowly but surely, the harmlessly harmful little bottles of worthless water and pointless pills will begin to disappear from the shelves. Like magic!

do you really want your water to remember where it’s been?

True, if homeopathy worked, water purification would be impossible.
Anyway, how about homeopathic remedies for germs and parasites? They get sick too and need their ailments treated somehow.

In my personal opinion, homeopathic medicine can cause people to stop pumping their bodies with the chemicals in normal medicine. So, maybe homeopathic medicine isn’t a completely bad thing?

Sure, sometimes people would quit taking medications they don't really need, and substitute something homeopathic instead.
The problem is the deception involved - because someone who does that might also quit taking a medication they do really need, and substitute it with a homeopathic remedy.
If there were full disclosure that the homeopathic med can't have a physiological effect beyond the water or sugar in it, and other than that, any effect is from one's mind - then perhaps it would be ethical to sell.
I've heard placebos can work even if one knows it's a placebo.
But, there are also people who think their minds (or a supernatural power) can heal any disease. Such people essentially think the placebo effect can do anything.
So is it ethical to sell a placebo to someone who does believe it has magical powers? If the seller knows the placebo doesn't have magical powers - not ethical.
If both the seller and buyer think it's a magical cure - similar to buying & selling holy water - then it would be ethical. They would just be practicing their shared religion.

Slowly but surely, the harmlessly harmful little bottles of worthless water and pointless pills will begin to disappear from the shelves. Like magic!

But as there's less and less of it on the shelves the pull towards it will just grow stronger.

Is this supposed to mean she knows anything about homeopathy? What a joke - ask an expert on the subject, not a pharmacology professor. Ties to the pharmaceutical lobby, anyone?

“The evidence for homeopathy’s effectiveness is between scant and nil,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, a pharmacology professor at Georgetown University Medical Center at the meeting.

I wouldn't expect too much from CBS. The president of its news division is David Rhodes who was trained by Roger Ailes at Fox News. He rose from production assistant to VP of News at Fox before CBS hired him to spread Murdoch-style pseudo journalism to the once venerable CBS.

ask an expert on the subject, not a pharmacology professor

Here's Edzard Ernst, former homeopath:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/apr/03/homeopathy-why-i-ch…

Nancy Herman #60 said:

"Is this supposed to mean she knows anything about homeopathy? What a joke – ask an expert on the subject, not a pharmacology professor. Ties to the pharmaceutical lobby, anyone?"

No arguments other than ad homs and unevidenced conspiracy theories, Nancy?

#61 Theodora30:

"I wouldn’t expect too much from CBS. The president of its news division is David Rhodes who was trained by Roger Ailes at Fox News. He rose from production assistant to VP of News at Fox before CBS hired him to spread Murdoch-style pseudo journalism to the once venerable CBS."

So: The Law of Contact or Contagion.

271994121

Congrats to NoPanShabuShabu for being our first university assignment visitor to actually make an amusing comment.

Here's what I don't get. Homeopathy has never been found to have harmed anyone. Not true of Big Pharma's products. To those of you who believe homeopathy is bunk: stay away from it; don't waste your $$ on it; keep taking the stuff with lists of untoward side effects; leave the rest of us alone. I have used homeopathic remedies for myself with much success. Arnica Montana for trauma; Nux Vomica for constipation; Hyper Perf for nerve pain and on and on. Placebo effect you say? I also have used homeopathic remedies on my pets--Nux Vomica for a constipated cat or dog works within a hour or so; remedies to treat cat wounds and issues such as acne and abscesses--where's the placebo effect there? I repeat: You think homeopathic remedies are bunk? Don't use them. If you want to address toxic stuff that actually does little good but much harm, talk to Monsanto about Roundup and Big Pharma about, well, just about everything they produce.

Legal thuggery directed at Steve Novella and Science-Based Medicine

oracknows — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:40:57 +0000

Legal thuggery directed at Steve Novella and Science-Based Medicine

If there’s one characteristic of supporters of dubious medicine, it’s that they detest criticism. Whereas your average skeptic might not like criticism—sensitivity to criticism being a human trait and all—science- and evidence-based criticism tends to drive dubious medical practitioners (and, I might add, promoters of various other forms of woo) into paroxysms of anger. Not infrequently, because they can’t refute such criticisms with science and evidence, they respond by lashing out, by going on the attack. That lashing out can take many forms, from simply writing abusive posts about their critics, with or without the intent to poison their critics’ Google reputation, to, in the case of pseudonymous bloggers, “outing” their critics in order to try to silence them. Sometimes they will try to make trouble for their critics by harassing them at work, complaining to their bosses, or generally doing what they can to make their critics pay for criticizing them. Sometimes they will make legal threats. I have experienced all of these things from my critics, including antivaccinationists and supporters of Stanislaw Burzynski, such that my Google reputation is in tatters, and my bosses tend to roll their eyes and sigh when another complaint comes in from an antivaccinationist or Burzynski supporter.

Sometimes, in not rare enough cases, such people will go so far as to actually sue their critics for libel or defamation. We’ve seen this happen before to defenders of science such as Brian Deer, who was sued by Andrew Wakefield; Simon Singh, who was sued by the British Chiropractic Association; and Ben Goldacre, who was sued by Matthias Rath. The lawsuits were all frivolous, of course, and the plaintiffs usually lose or back off, but frivolous lawsuits designed to silence can wear down even the most dedicated defender of science through expense, nuisance, and lost time. Worse, there is always the possibility of the skeptic losing and being on the hook for major dollars for damages, even when the case against the skeptic was weak. After all, the law is not perfect. Indeed, because British libel laws were so plaintiff-friendly, making it easy to sue scientists and bloggers criticizing pseudoscience, a movement sprang up to reform them—and, seemingly against all odds, ultimately succeeded. Unfortunately, even though the libel laws in the US are much more favorable toward the person being sued for libel than toward the plaintiff, thanks to the First Amendment, there are still defenders of science who are sued—like Brian Deer, for instance, who was sued in Texas by Andrew Wakefield—for defending science.

Unfortunately, one of those people is a friend of mine, Steve Novella, who this morning announced that he and a certain blog that I’ve been known to frequent, if you know what I mean, are being sued for having criticized a man named Dr. Edward Tobinick. This lawsuit, IMHO, is cut from the same cloth as the lawsuits against Brian Deer, Ben Goldacre, and Simon Singh. (The online documents regarding the lawsuit can be found here.) Oddly enough, Tobinick isn’t suing over what I would have thought (defamation or libel), which is what practitioners like Dr. Tobinick usually sue over, but rather appears to be using a legal tactic I have never heard of. Specifically, he's suing under the Lanham Act and claiming that Steve Novella was using false advertising to attack him in order to promote his own Yale Neurology practice. I’ll let Steve tell the tale from here on out:

An interesting wrinkle of this suit is that Tobinick is claiming that my blog post is an “advertisement.” This is a legal maneuver as the threshold for forcing someone to remove an advertisement is much lower than the threshold for suppressing their free speech. I can only assume that he and his attorneys are not bothered by the fact that blog posts on SBM are blatantly not advertisements.

In the case of the Enbrel article he had to make the absurd claim that the post (which does not mention my own practice) was an advertisement for my neurology practice at Yale, designed to attack a “competitor.” He would have us believe that Yale neurology in Connecticut is concerned about a clinic in California and Florida. To see how desperate the claim is, he argued that because I use Botox, which can be used to treat symptoms following stroke, that his treatments represent a competitor. However, I don’t use Botox to treat stroke patients. I mostly use it to treat migraines, as I am a headache specialist.

Perhaps he feels that my 18 year career promoting science, critical thinking, and science-based medicine is just a cover so I can occasionally attack distant tangential “competitors.”

Not being a lawyer, for the life of me I can’t understand why his lawyers chose this strategy. Lawyers, feel free do educate me in the comments! Other than that, Tobinick has cast the usual wide net, suing Steve, the New England Skeptical Society (which owns and maintains the SBM blog), the Society for Science-Based Medicine (which does not own SBM but on whose board of directors Steve sits), as well as Yale (yes, Yale). Suffice to say that Tobinick appears to be roping into his lawsuit anyone and any entity even remotely related to Steve and his criticism of his treatments.

So what, exactly, is Tobinick doing in his clinic that attracted Steve’s attention over a year ago? Basically, he’s using a drug called Enbrel (etanercept), an injectable fusion protein in which the receptor for a cytokine protein called tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is attached to the constant end of the IgG1 antibody. It’s a drug that inhibits the activity of TNF, whose normal function is to promote inflammation, which makes etanercept an immunosuppressant. That’s why it’s used to treat inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid, juvenile rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Tobinick, it turns out, is injecting Enbrel near the spine (perispinal) off label to treat a number of conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease. (Again, Again, Steve has the details.) From my perusal, Tobinick’s website for his Institute for Neurologic Recovery is lean on convincing research but includes, of course, heart warming testimonials of near miraculous cures for a variety of conditions. Moreover, Dr. Tobinick is not a neurologist, and, as Steve has pointed out, he has not produced any compelling clinical trial evidence for his proposed treatment:

The only way to really know if the treatment itself is having any neurological benefit is with careful double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials. Tobinick, however, has not produced such evidence. He has a long list of publications – all case series, observational studies, pilot studies, case reports, and reviews. I could not find a single double-blind placebo controlled trial establishing the efficacy of his treatment for any of the conditions I listed above.

At best Tobinick’s treatment should be considered experimental. I think the plausibility of the effects he is claiming is extremely low. It’s possible that and anti-TNF effect may be of some use, but given the type of evidence we have it is likely we are seeing mostly (if not completely) placebo effects.

This is the scientific criticism that Dr. Tobinick cannot abide. In my opinion, it is legitimate criticism, and he cannot answer it other than with a lawsuit. Certainly, he appears unable to me to answer them with basic science and clinical trials—same as it ever was for practitioners such as he. I’ll give you updates as I learn them. In the meantime, Steve has, admirably, decided to fight, and I admire him for that. After all, if all it took were a legal threat to get SBM to take down a post that offended someone like Dr. Tobinick, SBM would open itself to all manner of attempts to silence it using legal thuggery.

oracknows Wed, 07/23/2014 - 02:40

Tags

Institute for Neurologic Recovery

Institute for Neurologic Research

legal thuggery

New England Skeptical Society

science-based medicine

Society for Science-Based Medicine

Steve Novella

tumor necrosis factor

yale university

medicine

Categories

Social Sciences

Someone else who has never heard of the Streisand Effect. He'll know what it is soon though.

Unfortunately I've heard via PRN that there will be a lawsuit and an expose of physicians who are paid to denigrate alt med hokum. Supposedly, the chief loon will unveil an article detailing United Woo's investigation and future plans.

Yes, we are all shills engaged in selfish self-promotion and advertising when we speak up for SBM and against quackery. I sure hope this tactic doesn't work.

It is an interesting legal tactic, but totally without merit. They agree attempting to classify the blog posts as commercial speech, which has lesser protections under the First Amendment. I think it would be absurd for a court to find that SBM is posting commercial speech; this suit will fail very quickly.

Oh, dear, I'll bet he wasn't expecting Randazza.

Glad to see (from the comments over st SBM) that you've already contacted Popehat.

Gah. Of course the suit will fail. Dr Novella (and Yale) should counter-sue, alleging harassment and lost income damages.

Ken White (from Popehat) does brilliant work.

Narad @4 -- Randazza? What did I miss?

Not being a lawyer, for the life of me I can’t understand why his lawyers chose this strategy.

Predictably, he's trying to use the Lanham Act. There's some background here.

The docket should appear here one RECAP gets its sh*t together, but I didn't have the $11.80 to download the complaint.

Randazza? What did I miss?

Novella is represented by Marc Randazza.

Narad @11 -- Thanks. Randazza is apparently quite the character.

So, because Orac is a cancer-sugeon, mr Burzynski can sue him, because his blog-posts are actually advertisements?

What a minute! If he is suing a corporation, aren't they people now? And corporations have First Amendment rights now, so ... what's the problem?

Randazza is on board? Oh my. This should be GOOD.

A minor quibble about the Streisand effect -- I should think that quacks are relatively immune from it, as their client base is heavily into confirmation bias.

No...wait. This turkey is suing The Society for Science-Based Medicine? Yikes !!! There's a lilady who is a paid up member of that Society.

(the other) lilady...who is not a member of The Society for Science-Based Medicine.

Just think of all the tailored News websites where half the posts do contain an extortion to buy the crank's books and supplements.

Maybe we should ask Dr Tobinick if he wants to sue them, too. I'm pretty sure our usual suspects are proposing cures for the same ailments he is treating.

Google Edward Tobinick's name and you'll see what is almost certainly the reason why he's suing Steve and SBM.

Not his first Lanham Act suit, by the way. Tobinick v. Scripps Clinic Medical Group, No. 2:00-cv-06137 (C.D. Cal. 2000). It appears that Scripps had, inter alia, included "Photolysis HR" in "hidden text" on its site. He lost in the trial court and, it appears, in the 9th Circuit.

There also appears to be an ongoing patent dispute, Tobinick v. Olmarker (PDF).

Tobinick has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, defendants have filed motions to dismiss. I got a kick out of Steve Novella's opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction, in which Dr. Novella's lawyer Marc Randazza points out that the case presents a defamation claim masquerading as a claim for violation of the Lanham Act (false advertising), but that ""no matter how eloquently someone may call a 'dog' a 'chicken,' it will never lay eggs." Complaint and opposition to motion for preliminary injunction are here:
http://goo.gl/uTPWAz

He's lost before in an attempted patent interference, BTW.

GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

I wonder if ANTI-SLAPP (anti-Stragetic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) protection applies to this jurisdiction?

I wonder if ANTI-SLAPP (anti-Stragetic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) protection applies to this jurisdiction?

Florida's anti-SLAPP statute is good for next to nothing unless you're sued by a homeowners' association.

Has anyone seen this guy's wiki page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tobinick

"Edward Lewis Tobinick is an American physician who is the inventor of new methods of treatment of neurological disorders."

Un. Fucking. Believable. Isn't there like, some association of skeptics who can cut this asshole down to size?

So, he's a litigious fucknuckle. Got it.

Obligatory: We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Has anyone seen this guy’s wiki page?

Take a look at the history page.

Fight the good fight Dr. Novella. Hopefully this quack will expeditiously lose and we can return to our regularly scheduled life.

I don't know in which state this case is being brought, but if anyone does know, do you also know if that state has laws against vexatious suits?

So, he’s a litigious f[]cknuckle. Got it.

This is an amusing example. The whole hair-removal thing (which may not even have involved a laser) really needs to be expanded on the W—pedia page.

I don’t know in which state this case is being brought, but if anyone does know, do you also know if that state has laws against vexatious suits?

It's a federal suit brought in the Southern District of Florida. Any appeal would be to the 11th Circuit, which, as I understand it, is a hard place to so much as recover attorney's fees for an unsuccessful trademark action.

Meanwhile, on the Dr. Oz front:

http://www.anh-usa.org/medical-student-launches-campaign-against-dr-oz/

@Anne:

Complaint and opposition to motion for preliminary injunction are here

Thanks. Did you RECAP those? (I always plead for people to use this tool.)

Off-topic P.S.: While looking around at miscellaneous PACER stuff, this item, published yesterday, fell out. RI gets a couple of mentions.

It would appear that some recent edits have been made to his Wikipedia page to point out some of his deficiencies. Any bets on how long before he edits them out again?

One of the attorneys Justia lists for Tobinick appears to have been involved in hijinks recently:

http://chapter11cases.com/2013/08/12/new-bankruptcy-opinion-in-re-herma…

Did he find his lawyer on Craigslist? (Mad props if you know what I'm talking about.)

AIDS Denialist Clark Baker sued me in TX Fed Court and lost. (He has appealed) He lost, in part, because the Lanham Act worked in my favor. And yes, Ken White at Pope Hat is awesome. He sent out the Pope Hat Signal on my behalf and that is why I got pro-bono, kick-ass attorneys!
http://hivinnocencegrouptruth.com/2014/07/04/clark-baker-loses-in-feder…

Mark Thorson @36 -- I think I'd seen that article elsewhere a few days ago. I did look at the comments on the link you sent -- nearly all are the comments are indignant defenses of Oz and the usual crapola about how bad "allopathic" medicine is. Then I noticed that the site you link is the "Alliance for Natural Health" -- so this is yet another example of the way people on the web tend to frequent echo chambers where they hear exactly what they want to.

Even us RI regulars are birds of a feather, but at least we have real evidence and critical thinking ...

Ooh! The banner ad is for a company that sells cases that reduce "cell phone radiation exposure!"

Almost as good as the creepy old guy with the big muscles.

Did he find his lawyer on Craigslist? (Mad props if you know what I’m talking about.)

I don't suppose it involves the movie "Twister."

One of the attorneys Justia lists for Tobinick appears to have been involved in hijinks recently

Ooh, skanky. I suppose he's protected by the Florida homestead exemption all the same.

Tobinick, it turns out, is injecting Enbrel near the spine (perispinal) off label to treat a number of conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease.

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned somewhere in the link tree, but there's nothing like an AD drug that doesn't "cross the blood-brain barrier," leading to a secondary need to speculate about breakdown of the neurovascular unit.

In Tobinick's hair-removal-related litigation, I particularly liked this part:

Additionally your web pages include quotations attributed to my client's web sites which are not currently present on the web sites. Some of these statements were taken from old material, written in 1997, which was long ago updated. Please review the current web sites of my clients and correct these many mistakes.

"Your accurate citation of what my client[s] used to claim is defamatory, because he is now unsaying it."

Did he find his lawyer on Craigslist?

Past evidence suggests that his lawyers advertise with fliers stapled to powerpoles.

@herr doktor bimler

I thought that his lawyers advertised through popup ads.

Yale? Why include Yale?

Composer99: Yale? Why include Yale?

Possibly in the hope that they'll pay him to shut up and go away. Let's face it,Yale is kinda famous for being rich and buttoned down. (And not that bright, if their alumni are a fair sample.)

(And not that bright, if their alumni are a fair sample.)

Yea another vapid generalisation completely devoid of any basis. Every institution of higher learning is going to have less-than-stellar graduates, mediocre graduates and stellar graduates. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

@ PGP:

But did you ever see their art musems?

Let’s face it,Yale is kinda famous for being rich and buttoned down.

Yes, in your head. I insted tend to think of Louis' Lunch and the Yale Robot Joke when I think about it at all.

Let’s face it,Yale is kinda famous for being rich and buttoned down.

Not really.

Princeton, maybe.

The docket for Tobinick's failed trademark action is finally up. Only the decision itself (doc. 271) was downloaded.

I expect PGP is referring to at least one of Yale's better known alumni in particular.

And yes, I do mean William Howard Taft. Or possibly Bill Clinton.

Battling antivaccinationists at FreedomFest

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

Battling antivaccinationists at FreedomFest

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

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

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

My eyes lit up.

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

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

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

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

The debate

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

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

I'm sure that's probably true.

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

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

Then I saw the moderator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later, Dr. Whitaker writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And all the rest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, I wish I could have been there!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cecil Fielder

Dude. [/pedantry[

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is unscientific about this orac?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did he really expect people to believe that claim?

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

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

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

@Old Rockin' Dave:

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

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

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

@ Katherine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the full schedule from the Freedom Fest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is unscientific about this orac?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, please provide evidence of your drivelling claims.

Mu,

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

Puts things in perspective.

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

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

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

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

there are plenty of people who don’t vaccinate

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

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

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

Has Thingy returned under the new name 'Bouquet'?

Renate, I thought the same thing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is unscientific about this orac?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Bouquet's post:

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

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

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

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

All the more reason to support the Gates.

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

http://www.facebook.com/WhitakerMD

Too bad I don't "do" Facebook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prove me wrong ;-)

here’s a complete article about NPAFP in India

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

The actual site appears to have had some code injected.

@ Spectator:

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

** which is flipping lunacy.

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

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

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

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

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

GroovyKinda:

Well played, sir!

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

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

http://www.medicalchannel.pk/

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

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

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

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

@ Infuriatingly Moderate:

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

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

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

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

** as imagined by a Ms Cooper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science Mom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The source of the article is here

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

@Infuriatingly Moderate

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

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

@ Infuriatingly Moderate:

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

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

Presumably they'll all be Elvis Impersonators too

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

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

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

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

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

Denice Walter on Diana Cooper

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

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

Neq to this site and found this discussion very interesting.

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

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

I guess someone knew what they were doing.

Very much enjoy reading the discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

Burrahobbit

PS. How the hell do I italicise comment…

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

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

Thanks Militant Agnostic

seems to work

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

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

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

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

@ Redloh:

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

Look up "Calamine" lotion :-)

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

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

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

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

I do feel a bit sorry for Julian Whitaker though.

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

Ouch.

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

@ Mrs Woo:

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

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

@Roxee

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

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

Errm...the common cold?

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

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

Orac,

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

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

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

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

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

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

@PsyberDave

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

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

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

My comment was still in moderation when I last looked.

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

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

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

@chris

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

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

Blockquote Fail

should have been

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

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

I hope I have not italicized the thread

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

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

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

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

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

I see the comments being open, but 0 made?

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

Sorry, for the error. Though it is odd.

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

http://www.facebook.com/WhitakerMD

@ Mrs Woo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lilady,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Marc Stephens Is Insane

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

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

@ Militant Agnostic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Mrs Woo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Mrs Woo:

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

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

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

I bet my post gets deleted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MSII:

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

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

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

lilady,

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

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

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

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

lilady,

You're out of moderation hell chez Whitaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

lilady,

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

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

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

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

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

@ Mrs Woo:

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

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

I just keep pondering a way to maybe help him let go of a little of this here and there when I can, and try to figure out how to protect him from this as much as I can. I would love to have a day when he decides that these people are all self-serving mouthpieces with no real knowledge and can quit listening. The reduced stress would be such a good thing for him.

Please, please, please tell me...that some one is preserving all the comments that I posted on Whitaker's blog...and his replies.

My last comment go "through" where I lambasted him about the ridiculous charts he used during his debate with Dr. Novella.

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

I made a big oops when I said:

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

It is still there, it just moved to the right side of the page. I apologize. I am going to blame the old laptop I use outside of the house.

As predicted, all my comments on Whitaker's site have been removed.

My minions at the Village Voice are starting to treat Dr. W. to some insolence of their own. I'd suggest subscribing via e-mail or RSS because those comments will eventually come down.

I "expanded" the comments on Whitaker's Facebook page and they are all still there...62 of them...including Rene's and Lord Draconis'...and some other "choice" ones, as well.

http://www.facebook.com/WhitakerMD

In case any of you were wondering where "Augustine" has been been...this is what he just posted at Whitaker's blog:

Augustine

Dr. Whitaker,
Lilady is a vitriolic hateful skeptic who seeks to make fun and insult you. She does not come in earnest. She has a history or cyberstalking anyone who comes in her path. She is a pro mass vaccination ideologue.

She is a groupie of self aggrandizing David Gorski, MD who has continually insulted you.

(I wouldn't "touch" that comment with a twenty-foot pole)

lilady,

Do you have a "friend" named Augustine? He or she is looking for you over at Dr. W's site.You've been outed...oh noes! You're a proponent of mass vaccination!

Marc, I have a comment here on RI "in moderation" about Augie. I'm not touching that troll's comment with a twenty-foot pole. I'd appreciate it, if you just ignore my personal stalking troll, as well.

lilady 1:53 pm

Please, please, please tell me…that some one is preserving all the comments that I posted on Whitaker’s blog…and his replies.

Done. You can use "Save page as" on your browser to save the webpage (easiest) or for a screenshot of the page, press Shift + Print Screen and paste the image into paint/document.

D'oh Sauceress...you are communicating with me...an absolute idiot when it comes to anything about computer functions. (Ask "Chris" how long it took me to figure out how to link to an article)

Dr. Whitaker has finally made a statement about the debate with Dr. Novella and an "explanation" about those *charts*...enjoy.

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

(Someone please do a screenshot!!!) Thanks.

Which internet browser do you use lilady?

Sauceress...I use the latest version of Mozilla Firefox.

Oops, within the last five minutes, after his *swan song* about the debate and charts, Dr. Whitaker closed down his blog for additional comments....damn it.

Find some bare space on any webpage and click right hand mouse button on it. Choose "Save as..." using Chrome or "Save page as.." using Firefox. I don't know but expect similar with IE.

Here's Whitaker's latest response:

I realize that this entire discussion is one that's fraught with opinions and emotions--and I thank those of you who respectfully cited your views. But comments that did not stick to the discussion at hand, or included profanity, have been removed since that's not within the climate of this blog.

Now, for everyone here who has inquired about the “Projection: Autism Incidence in US Children” graph I cited in my debate with Steven Novella, MD, at FreedomFest, here's my response:

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

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

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

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

Once again, I wanted to thank everyone who participated in this spirited discussion.

Best of health to each of you,
Dr. Whitaker

What a load of crap. Clearly this guy does not understand the nuance needed to produce proper projections.
His response translates to 'it went up so it'll keep going up until it's really high! It might not be perfect but if you want a better one go do it yourself.'

He clearly does not understand the huge problems with that graph. It is not that it goes to 100% that the only bit that is unbelievable, the fact that it shows all children being autistic before all of the girls become autistic.

I wonder if he will answer the question of who gets to pick up the bill for sick kids if the parents get a vaccine exemption.

@ AdamG

Julian Whitaker - ignorant moron and proud of it.

@ AdamG:
He cites a scare-mongering graph to please the
woo-bent then, when he gets called on it, maintains that it's hard to believe. And closes down criticism simultaneously.
Game, set, match.

Game, set, match.

Yes, clearly much was learned from this "spirited discussion"

Dr. Whitaker has finally made a statement about the debate with Dr. Novella and an “explanation” about those *charts*…enjoy.

Oh my, that's just so precious. I feel some RI coming on.

OT
Not sure if this has already posted, but I wanted to share a link I picked up over at the "Loosing in the Lucky Country" Skeptics site.

Parents make a dash for jab cash

Opponents to childhood vaccines say it is unfair to be denied Federal Government cash because of their beliefs, and are exploiting a loophole to claim more than $2000 a child after registering as "conscientious objectors"

I thought all the comments slamming these sleazy antivaxxers were worth reading to brighten up one's day.

@lilady: Oh, little Augie is over there? Wish I'd seen that earlier - I would have gone right over there and asked him if he'd learned anything...(evil grin..)

Well, perhaps we all shouldn't rest upon our laurels YET...
supposedly alternative media ( Info Wars, Natural News) has *blown the lid off* Big Pharma's bribery network ( @ Natural News, today) and whistle blowers *par excellence* Gary Null and Steve Kohn ( David Lewis' BFF) are revealing the details of the FDA's surveillance of scientists ( @Progressive Radio Network)- their investigation has gone viral....

I hope this won't lead to a cut in this year's bonus.F@ck!
Where's that grey ops fellow, now that we NEED him?

@DW - I feel so sorry for my primary care physician - I'm pretty sure that no one has been telling him about this. He doesn't even drive a nice car (he explains that it comes from putting kids through college and the type of doctor he chose to be - family physician as to why he doesn't drive BMWs, etc.). He volunteers once a week at a free clinic and two different two-week intervals overseas.

They're missing a huge market here in rural Missouri. I know they aren't "reaching" him - every single medication I get is generic!

Wow - maybe I should alert Lord Draconis?

Hm. Propublica.com shows a whopping $10.00 for our esteemed host. I'm really worried about his bias now.

Dr. Whitaker did shut down comments about the debate debacle, but he didn't shut down the other THREE articles on his blog, that I commented on...

http://www.drwhitaker.com/hpv-doesnt-require-yet-another-mandated-vacci…

http://www.drwhitaker.com/the-untold-truth-about-vaccines-and-children

http://www.drwhitaker.com/a-new-study-concludes-shingles-vaccine-is-saf…

Enough RI for you, Science Mom?

@ MI Dawn: I'm so glad that you didn't dish out the snark at Augie. I just *knew* the little b*sta*rd has been lurking here for months, waiting to stalk me on another blog.

@ Sauceress: Conscientious Objectors? Is that like the Conscientious Objectors that refused to be drafted...then wanted to claim benefits under the G.I. Bill, after World War II?

lilady
One of my favourite comments there was from:
Show Me The Money of Brisbane (Posted at 11:06 PM July 14, 2012)

I am an objector to all Family Incentive Payments - I don't have a child so I feel like I am being unfairly punished. I would like to know where I can get my $2000++ for objecting to the Government forcing me to have a child. Thank you.

Stupid government. I am in full favor of firing everyone in washington and replacing them with vultures. At least the vultures look better, smell better, and can make better decisions for freedom. Then again we have a few vultures in washington already.

I did not write this post, just by the by, and I have the static IP to prove it.

Nor the one stamped 9:45 pm.

@ Sauceress: Good grief, I hope the Government Incentive doesn't encourage "Show Me the Money" to breed. Think of the gene pool, if these conscientious objectors actually decide to have a child...heh...heh.

Would someone please give me a two-sentence summary of who or what an Augustine is? As a relative newbie I don't think I've ever encountered any posts from that 'nym. I could use the search box and go back and reach older posts and figure it out myself, but it would be so much easier if someone else would do it for me... :-)

Looks that moronic racist Ham from Dismal Seepage is impersonating Narad.

It does go to further highlight the robustness of the system, I suppose.

The "real" Narad:

You mean someone posts under your 'nym and makes you look crazy? Can't this blog platform prevent that, by requiring unique user names? Like once someone uses Narad no one else can ever use it. They'd have to use Narad2 or something.Or just use "guest" or "anonymous". That would protect the first person to "register" a 'nym.

It's sickening that someone would do that. It makes all posts suspect of not being genuine.

Are you really in Canada? Care to narrow that down? We might be neighbours (with a "u"!)!

I thInk I've taken care of the problem for now. Will monitor.

It was Medicien Man/Dr. Smart again.

MSII, you can Augustine in action here. He is often called "Little Augie" due to his juvenile behavior. He seems to be obsessed with transgendered people. We have no idea why.

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

So, he's basing his graphs on an 'estimated' autism rate - because there wasn't hard data.

That's textbook stupid right there.

...and someday I'll get my text right.

But today isn't my day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

MSII, this thread has some wondrous bits with Little Augie's transgender obsession.

Wow--thanks for those Auggie links. That's one big can of mixed nuts...

Marc...You just got a small taste of Augie and the Pothead Troll.

You really need to get up to speed here, about the sockies, the trolls and other assorted characters :-)

One thing I've learned here in a few months, sort of covers everything I seen:

It's a big, strange world out there with a lot of different people.

We should do some kind of mock awards presentation once a year. The Astra Star Child Strangest Thread, Best Use of All Caps in a Spittle-Filled Screed, The Hulda Clark Humanitarian Award for Most Useless Electronic Gimmick, The John Of God Award for Original Screenplay for a Comedy or Fantasy, and of course The Marc Stephens "You Can't Say That On The Internet" Lifetime Achievement Award for Excellence in Bullying.

We could also include the The Silliest Graph. This year's winner would be Shawn Siegel for creating the graph, and Dr. Whitaker not understanding that if every kid is autistic by a certain year, then the 100% intercept for the girls would not come several years later!

Another contender would be Obomsawin.

That would be Best Use of Graphics or Visuals to Justify Ludicrous Claims

The Eric Merola Visual Achievement Award for Commercial That Looks Most Like A Documentary

The Joe Mercola Online Merchandising Pinnacle Award for Most Products Sold at a Website

The Jim Humble Innovation Prize for Most Misused Household Cleanser in the Quest To Heal

The Jim Sheridan Holy Cross for Best Exploitation of Religion to Promote a Cure

I could go on...

The Mark and David Geier Family Trust Endowment for Best Actor in a Supporting Role

The Jenny McCarthy Golden Bust for Least Significant Actor Stirring Up Vaccine Hysteria (Rob Schneider has already won this year)

The Mayim Bialik Post Graduate Scholarship for Having Beliefs that Most Conflict with Science Education

The Gary Null Legend Award for Most Ironic Name

The Mike Adams Siver Screen Award for Sensationalistic Website of the Year

The Jake Crosby Rising Star Award for Nerwcomer Under 25 of The Year

The Max Gerson/Starbucks People's Choice Award for Most Imaginative Use of Coffee

On the topic of doctors with strange Libertarian beliefs, I just heard from a friend that one of his high school friends from the small Texas town on the Gulf Coast where they grew up (near where she still lives) is suing her doctor because he had been ranting to someone else about Obamacare and how he wasn't going to make as much money because of it, then when she told him she wasn't going to have health insurance for a month because she's changing jobs and her new job doesn't start until a month after her last day of the previous job, he allegedly flips out and says he can no longer have her as a patient because she's going to be temporarily a dirty jobless person or something. She says he actually told her "we don't serve your kind here" or words to that effect (these are two white people, BTW).

So the friend-of-a-friend wrote down everything he said and called a couple of lawyers and also found another doctor right away. It strikes me as amazingly unprofessional for a doctor to be parading his political beliefs in the office like that, but this is rural Texas, so not completely unexpected.

The only explanation I could think of for refusing a patient and then getting into a huge argument with them for not being employed for a month, is that maybe with the recession going on as long as it has, and people being out of work and living in their cars, etc., that if you're the type of "up from your bootstraps" person who blames others for their misfortunes, eventually the cognitive dissonance is going to grow to the point where you either have to a) start showing some compassion for the less fortunate, or b) double down on the Tea Party Kool-Aid and start looking for traitors and freeloaders around every corner.

@Jake - the ridiculousness of that is that she said she as going to be without insurance for one month. Being a cash payment for a month is not a big deal. Yes, there's the possibility of needing one doctor's appointment or having an emergency that you might have to pay off (and that is a scary thought), but many get by a lot longer as cash pay only without it being a big deal. My doctor's office gives cash patients a discount if they pay their entire bill at time of service because they save money with cash vs. insured patients because of the reduced cost of processing the paperwork.

Sometimes I suspect that libertarians come from people who only believe they have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. If you've ever had to choose between unemployment vs. working two jobs to make ends meet and leaving your too young to babysit themselves children at home alone and worry about whether or not you'll lose them to social services and get through it, you still learn from that experience that sometimes bad things happen to perfectly good people and that there is more than temporary circumstance that measures a person's worth.

Maybe the lawsuit will wake him up a little.

Lilady, MSII, Augustine has been posting a lot over at ERV

Another poster seems obsessed with polio like symptoms in India, I wonder who that could be?

OT but I must say it is very refreshing coming here and not having my intelligence insulted by the likes of Augie, Dr Smart or crazy thingy. This new platform is great :)

It's good to see that science based people don't shy away from a debate with quack&woo – I wish climate scientists would the same braveness and not chicken out of similar debates on anthropogenic global warming.

Why, oh, why can't I have something like this aimed at me? (part 2)

oracknows — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:00:39 +0000

Why, oh, why can't I have something like this aimed at me? (part 2)

Remember John Benneth? He's a homeopath who runs a website called The Science of Homeopathy and produced a woo-tastic video claiming to show us how homeopathy works. Steve Novella also took on his video. For his trouble, he was rewarded with one of the most hilariously off-base attacks I've ever seen, even from anti-vaccine loons. So full of awesome looniness was the video that it induced in me a distinct sense of envy. After all, all I have is J.B. Handley attacking me.

Now, for reasons that elude me, Mr. Benneth has produced a second video. It's just as outrageous. In fact, it's even more so and probably NSFW given that it drops the N-word. Clearly Benneth has upped the ante considerably, particularly given his apparent attempts at sound effects and the hilariously "artsy" beginning of the video. Don't play it if that offends you. You have been warned:

You heard it right. In this one, Mr. Benneth compares Steve's criticism of his discussions of homeopathy to the breaking of an "uppity slave" by a slave breaker.

Damn. Steve gets all the best crank attacks directed at him for his efforts.

One almost has to wonder if Benneth's second video is a joke, given that it was posted on April Fools' Day. What I fear is that it is not. I rather believe that Benneth is dead serious.

oracknows Sun, 04/04/2010 - 18:00

Tags

Blogging

complementary and alternative medicine

complementary and alternative medicine

humor

medicine

Yeah, those are some weird video effects. Loved the voice echo whenever he got especially indignant. What was with the growly sound every minute or so? Sounded like demonic indigestion. The part at the end about slave breaking was seriously wacko. I had no idea I was "God's nigger," whatever that's supposed to mean.

I think he used almost every logical fallacy in existence. Appeal to authority was a popular one. As if heads of state can't be serious deluded individuals.

I didn't know you could transmit homeopathic cures through the internet. The fact they recorded some of the "data" at 44kHz tells me I can look forward to some homeopathic CDs. Maybe the Techno one can cure schizophrenia, Country for depression (like cures like!), and Lawrence Welk for hemmarhoids. The possibilities are endless.

I'll have to check out the few studies he referenced, just for lulz.

at first they were funny but now they are sad.

He's like the Lewis Black of the crank world.

Techno may treat schizophrenia. I haven't seen any studies. However I think this video is good evidence that homeopathy does not.
Seriously, I have concerns.

Actually, I tried a little homeopathic mood therapy the other day. I was sort of moody, maybe a little depressed. Who knows?

But, I thought "like cures like", right?

Anyway, I listened to five different versions of Don't Fear The Reaper back to back followed by Don't Fence Me In (it was next on my mp3 player). That was about as far as I got before I got home.

But, somehow,

regression to the mean
+ cognitive bias
+ subjective self-evaluation
= I did sort of feel better later ?!?!?

( :) )

He's like the Lewis Black of the crank world.

"You're God's nigger!" Man, I love that line. I think I'm going to steal it.

This could crack my top 3 of hilarously, offensively inept self-comparisons to the oppressed, along with the WCA's Terry Rondberg comparing chiropractors to civil rights heroine Rosa Parks, and the influential priest who spoke before the Pope and other dignitaries last week, likening criticism of the Catholic hierarchy over hushed-up child sex abuse by priests to the sufferings of Jews in the Holocaust.

"What was with the growly sound every minute or so? Sounded like demonic indigestion."

Or maybe he's a fan of metal music.

Wait - the growly sound appears to be a toilet flushing. How...apt.

You know, Orac's gonna get some more heat from people who think he's making fun of the mentally ill.

This guy is either totally, utterly batshit crazy or a magnificent Poe willing to beyond any rational comfort zone Ã¡ la Andy Kaufman. Did you see his website? He thinks he's the American Buddha. http://www.bandershot.com

You know, Orac's gonna get some more heat from people who think he's making fun of the mentally ill.

Well, Benneth does appear to be mentally ill and Orac is making fun of him.

Benneth does appear to be becoming increasingly unhinged. I wonder where the mental health professionals draw the line between crankery and mental illness.

Yeah, I just climbed out of the rabbit warren of crazy that is bandershot.com and it's disabused me of any notion that this guy is a Poe. He's spectacularly unwell. There are some older videos under the name Jack Hammer where he takes on the Federal Reserve and they're just as unhinged and overdramatic as his Novella rants, so it's hard to say if he's getting worse, but I guess time will tell . . .

@1, The Gregarious Misanthrope

The 2004 I.G. Nobel laurate for medicine:

"Steven Stack of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA and James Gundlach of Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA, for their published report "The Effect of Country Music on Suicide."
PUBLISHED IN: Social Forces, vol. 71, no. 1, September 1992, pp. 211-8."

From the abstract:
"The results of a multiple regression analysis of 49 metropolitan
areas show that the greater the airtime devoted to country music, the greater the white suicide rate. The effect is independent of divorce, southernness, poverty, and gun availability.[...] Our model explains 51% of the variance in urban
white suicide rates."

Now, in the usual way homeopaths interpret the literature, I am going to state that suicide indeed removes all trace of depression, so it must be a cure. You seem to be right.

Whether or not Benneth is mentally ill is not really the point. I've seen homeopaths link to Benneth's "proof" of homeopathy but I've not seen any concerns expressed by homeopaths. It's almost as if they don't see anything odd in his videos.

Precisely. I have no idea if Benneth is mentally ill or not. In some of his other videos, he appears less over-the-top out there. Whatever the case, his videos are a goldmine of crank hilarity.

This has the appearance of a diatribe from a professional wrestler hyping up his next bout. It took him less than 10 minutes to go from, "There's science behind Homeopathy!" to "Homeopathy doesn't need science!" to "You're god's nigger!"

Mindblowing!

The reason cranks get so upset when their world-view is called into question is narcissistic injury followed by narcissistic rage. They perceive an attack on their woo as an attack on their core persona.

It is quite sad, and also quite dangerous. It is narcissistic injury and narcissistic rage that turns people postal.

@8 Dangerous Bacon: You know, Orac's gonna get some more heat from people who think he's making fun of the mentally ill.

Actually, Orac gets very little heat, mostly because the people he covers really are kooks and cranks. I have only brought up the issue in association with the two posts about a single subject that appeared (unintentionally, I'm sure, which is why I even mentioned it) to set mental illness up as worse than physical illness, which is unfair to the people who already have a lot of problems with social stigma*.

I respect Orac, and love his blog. I don't bother mentioning that sort of thing to people who have every appearance of not caring who they hurt, but I figured Orac is one of the good guys, maybe he'd consider what I was saying.

Those of us who think the mentally ill get kind of maligned when people carelessly use "crazy" as a euphemism for "dangerously self-deluded, arrogantly stupid, and/or suffering from speshul snowflake conspiracy syndrome" just feel it isn't fair to associate people (who have a hard time dealing with negative attitudes to organic illnesses even without this kind of association, because it affects the brain, which scares people) with these utter assholes who are so arrogant and self-righteously deluded that they actually think it's acceptable to use a disgusting racial slur without any sense of embarrassment or shame.

The feeling is the same as when people carelessly/unknowingly call homeopaths "scientists", and true scientists feel a sting of annoyance that anyone would think they're remotely like those idiots. My mentally ill friends are *much* more intelligent than this racist dumbass douchenozzle, and would prefer not to be confused with him or his companions in douchefailery, thanks. :)

*It concerns me because I see the fallout of the stigma against mental problems in the military population, and how it prevents people from seeking the help they need, because mental illness is still regarded as separate from body illness, even though the brain is an organ like any other.

@attack_laurel

It concerns me because I see the fallout of the stigma against mental problems in the military population, and how it prevents people from seeking the help they need, because mental illness is still regarded as separate from body illness, even though the brain is an organ like any other.

The folks at the Boston Red Sox and Massachusetts General Hospital agree with you. They've established a special program, the Home Base Program, to reach out to veterans so they can get the help they need to deal with psychiatric illnesses.

Crypto molecular pharmacy - solid gold hilarity.

Jeebus, this nut is off his rocker. If he had uttered my name like he did Novella's I would have got a restraining order written up within 10 minutes.

Pondering the Militant Agnostic's question(which I've thought about myself for *quite* a while)-a few random notes:1.often the crank's "theorizing" includes unrealistic,self-serving, "black-and-white" thinking,paranoid suspicion(conspiracy confabulation),inattention to facts/studies that don't fit the solipcistic hypotheses,"wishful thinking",over-estimation of one's own expertise(*comme* Dunning-Kruger),concretism,grandiosity,inability to weigh risk/benefits,invocation of the supernatural,etc..Is this immaturity,lack of education, or a sign of MI or a learning disability,e.g. executive disfunction, NVLD,ASD? 2.I think it's important to differentiate the perpetrators from the recipients:they are involved in woo-ful thinking for different reasons(including perhaps,entrepreneural enthusiam vs. hopeful self-delusion/temporary emotional over-reaction to illness,respectively).Does someone who creates woo *truely* believe in it or are they using it solely as an avenue to fame and wealth(actually, notoriety and derision)? 3.Like everything else,it's a question of *degree*- compare a relatively healthy person who buys trendy,expensive supplements with an HIV/AIDS denialist(HIV+) who refuses ARV treatment despite having a low CD-4 count.At what point does the activity/belief reflect disfunctionality? All speculation, of course.

Actually, I think that the cranks' overestimation of their own expertise facilitates the sceptic's task: we can ask the woo-entranced mark,"Is it possible that Woo-meister X, who is a *nutritionist*(chiropractor,etc.)can question the *entire* medical field? How is *one* person able to be *expert* across several diverse fields(most scientists specialize *within* a field)?

squirrrelelite @ 5:

Actually, I tried a little homeopathic mood therapy the other day. I was sort of moody, maybe a little depressed. Who knows?

But, I thought "like cures like", right?

Anyway, I listened to five different versions of Don't Fear The Reaper back to back followed by Don't Fence Me In (it was next on my mp3 player). That was about as far as I got before I got home.

Anecdotal, but serious....

I have chronic depression. It's weird, I don't entirely understand it, but oddly, really angry music helps exorcise my demons (so to speak). In particular, if I get really really depressed, I put on headphones and listen to "The Downward Spiral" (which is a frighteningly accurate portrayal of the state of mind of a suicidally depressed person -- been there, almost done that, glad I didn't, but I can say this is the most accurate portrayal I've ever seen).

Don't know why it works. Don't know whether I'm just seeing regression to the mean. But I do feel better after a session. The severity of my depression is usually echoed in how many tracks I get through before I feel okay again. So your experience is not unique. This probably has something to do with the evocative nature of music.

I know you were joking about the "like cures like" thing; while it seems to fit here, it can be dangerous, because the music could just as easily give the person a very bad idea. A delicate balance, when one is on the brink of madness....

"Biological signal... transmitted over the intent"?

I kept expecting him to shout "KHHHAAAANNNN!!!"

I had to chuckled when he said that the folks at Yale tasked Dr. Novella with bringing him down. As if he were that important.

Reminds me of "Video Psychotherapy" ... coming attractions for the end of sanity.
Only this guy is not nearly as sane as the Doctor.

Wow. I think that video is the worst thing to have happened to me today!

(And if it stays that way, I shall go to bed a lot happier than if something worse happens between now and bedtime.)

@11, Pareidolius,

There are some older videos under the name Jack Hammer where he takes on the Federal Reserve and they're just as unhinged and overdramatic

Not Sledge Hammer!?

He criticizes the pharmaceutical industry for making a profit off of the medicines they sell. Does that mean that he does not charge for his shaken, not stirred water, that is supposed to remember only what he wants it to remember?

Is homeopathy free? Or does Mr. Benneth enslave homeopathy and only release it for his 30 pieces of silver? Insert sound of snorting pig, right about here.

Patients need to demand that they not be overcharged. I pay about half a cent per gallon for tap water. I trust it more than I would trust anything coming from Mr. Benneth. Therefore, even half a cent per gallon is too much.

Sorry, I got a bit carried away with that last paragraph. I am still being adversely affected by the memory of those homeopathic special video effects. Homeopathic video effects from someone apparently having spilled a homeopathic remedy on his camera and not noticed the damage. Must be the dastardly actions of that uppity Dr. Novella! MwaHaHaHa!

True homeopathic video effects would be indistinguishable from placebo video effects. Perhaps this video can be seen as a microcosm (maybe even a dilution to its essence) of the problems with homeopathy.

Sorry, I got a bit carried away with that last paragraph.

Oops. That actually refers to the paragraph two paragraphs prior. Perhaps some 44kHz interference with my editing? Or my proofreading?

Calli Arcale @22,

Thanks for hanging in there. You bring a lot of light to these blogs. I would miss it without you. I'm glad you found some method of working through your depressive moods.

Actually, I wasn't feeling all that bad. I'm usually a fairly cheerful, even-tempered person and it would probably have gone away anyway. (My medical problems lie in other areas.) I just thought I'd mention it since the subject sort of came up in the first comment.

On a more serious note, I'm not sure what I would want done with me in a locked-in state. I think playing music or reading to me or just being there would be good. When I had a seizure episode last summer and my son drove me to the hospital, I couldn't think of my name or birthday or answer any of the other questions. Fortunately, my son knew the answers and I just told them to let him answer for me. For several days after that, I had trouble maintaining my concentration enough even to play solitaire on my cell phone. Just knowing someone from my family was there was a big help. Fortunately, I'm mostly recovered now.

But, please, don't waste money dragging me off to Mexico as an undocumented test subject for some experimental therapy with no proven effectiveness!

Oops!

Some of that was more about Orac's next post on "stem cell therapy".

Oh well?!?! ( :) )

@Calli: "like cures like" works with art & emotions because of what Aristotle identified as catharsis (http://www.yourdictionary.com/catharsis). It works for me too, although my depression is perhaps not quite on your scale.

Oh, and glad you didn't.

Shifting goalposts, shifting stories

oracknows — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:00:00 +0000

Shifting goalposts, shifting stories

On Wednesday, Steve Novella did a nice analysis of the recent study showing that signs of autism can be detected as early as six months of age. However, it was flawed by one clear misstatement, which was brought to his attention in the comments and which he then promptly corrected. Not that that stopped our old "friend" J.B. Handley, chief anti-vaccine propagandist for Generation Rescue from leaping into the fray with a goalpost-shifting, disingenuous, and insulting misrepresentation of the overall point of Steve's post. Par for the course for Mr. Handley.

Today, Steve has responded with a beautiful takedown and deconstruction of Handley's nonsense, in which he revisited his post, admitted his mistake, and then showed how, even with his mistake Handley was clearly being intellectually dishonest:

Further, Handley is now trying to argue that this new study supports a correlation between vaccines and autism. In fact, it does nothing of the sort. It does all but eliminate MMR, varicella, and Hep A as having any potential role in autism, as these vaccines all come after the onset of autism in most cases. Handley, if he were being intellectually honest, should admit this, but he doesn't, and very dishonestly implies that MMR specifically is still a potential cause.

I had been planning on applying a bit of my usual insolence to J.B. Handley, who was clearly begging for it yet again. After all, Steve's too much of a class act to get really down and dirty over JB's anti-vaccine proselytizing. However, these sorts of antics are typical of JB, and Steve handled him more than competently. Besides, Andreas Moritz angered me far more than JB did because, let's face it, JB's attack on Steve was just JB being JB. He can't help it. Still, I noticed this paragraph in which JB states:

More importantly, autism is not an event, it's a process. It is exceptionally rare that I hear the story, "my son was 100% fine, and at 2 years old after one vaccine appointment he lost everything." I have heard that story, but very rarely.

Hmmmm. That's exactly the sort of story I see time and time again presented by anti-vaccine believers, J.B. included, as "evidence" that vaccines cause autism. Is this the same J.B. Handley who has touted at least since 2005 how common stories of children declining right after vaccines are? Let's see, a couple of years ago he complained to the AAP:

Ms. Martin, let me give you a little insight into my world. If I wanted to find parents who had autistic children and who believed their child's autism was impacted by vaccines, I wouldn't need to email the nation's pediatricians hoping I might find one or two. I could just open my window and yell, because these parents are everywhere in my neighborhood and town! Worse, our numbers continue to grow.
You see, not a day goes by without Generation Rescue receiving an email from a new parent who watched their child decline following a vaccination appointment with their pediatrician. While you search for the handful of parents with autistic children who may support immunizations, we can't respond to emails fast enough from the thousands we hear from who feel vaccines contributed to their child's autism.

"Not a day goes by..."? Sounds like Handley was arguing that regression after vaccination is very common. Let's look a bit more, say, from a post JB wrote before going on Larry King Live! last April:

Finally, we have tens of thousands of case reports of parents reporting that their child developmentally regressed, stopped talking, and was later diagnosed with autism after a vaccine appointment. The number of vaccines have risen along with autism rates, vaccines are known to cause brain damage, and parents report regression and later autism after getting them. Is it really so hard to believe we think vaccines are a trigger?

Wow. Tens of thousands of case reports!

You know, it appears to me that there's a bit of goalpost shifting going on here. After all, the "stereotypical" (or "prototypical") story of the anti-vaccine movement is of the child between the ages of 1 and 3 who is brought to the pediatrician, receives vaccines, and then shortly thereafter loses language and social skills and develops regressive autism. Never mind that, given the number of children who are vaccinated every year and the number of children who develop regressive autism, there are bound to be overlaps such that by random chance alone there will be many children who regress in reasonably close temporal proximity to vaccination. Never mind that no one has ever shown that this regression occurs more frequently in vaccinated children. Anecdotes like the ones JB was touting up until (apparently) now are the very "evidence" that the anti-vaccine movement uses to blame vaccination for autism. And, in all fairness, in a single child not studied in the context of populations, such an event can look all the world as though the vaccine caused the regression even when it did not. Even so, the point is that parents who believe vaccines caused their children's autism don't blame a process. They blame vaccines, often specific vaccines like the MMR.

I wonder if JB has shifted the goalposts so far this time that they are no longer even in the stadium.

oracknows Fri, 02/19/2010 - 07:00

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

autism

complementary and alternative medicine

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

Here's my comment on this in the latest "Evil Possum" post:
When it seemed that autism appeared around age 2, they blamed MMR, which is administered at 12 months or later. Now that strong evidence shows that 12 months is too late for a cause of autism, they are looking backward into vaccines before age 1. In a further display of selective memory and perception, 6 of the 25 âvaccinesâ listed are the PCV and rotavirus vaccines, which were added well after the early- mid-1990s âautism epidemicâ. They do not just âmove the goal postsâ, as critics have charged; they also move the first-down lines, switch the end zones, rewrite the rule book and change the game to cricket.

I read the SBM the other day, then J.B's response yesterday. I was in shock! This guy really thinks he has a point to make and has no idea how ridiculous he sounds. It's no different than some total dumbass coming into court and telling the judge he/she doesn't know what they're talking about because he watches daytime TV's Judge Judy. But what else would you expect from a total narcissist who needs someone to blame for his tragedy...the cures of an autistic child?

He really needs to stick with vinegar. I think that's about the limit of his expertise in anything.

@#1

David that last sentence made everyone in my lab look at me funny due to the fit of hysterics it put me in. Kudos.

I just love that JB Handjob is calling someone else a "weirdo" maybe we should start calling him Gonzo the Muppet.

Wow, I finally agree with ORAC on something. You are absolutely correct when you say that MMR is not the cause of Autism. This is not to say it doesn't complicate Autism further, however it is not the CAUSE! Good job ORAC, you finally got something right for once.

I'm 'telescoping' myself out of this conversation... Whether it be an hour or a few days let me know when this thread dies out. :)

Dr. Novella... most hilarious commentary EVER!

"This is not to say it doesn't complicate Autism further, however it is not the CAUSE!"

That's right. It does not say it doesn't complicate autism either. That's a different subject. As it turns out, when you this is examined independently, it doesn't complicate autism further, in addition to not being the cause.

Crusade's over, JB. time to hand Jerusalem back to the Arabs.

I read JBs post the day it came out. While they are usually good for a chuckle and an "aw shucks, more kids are gonna die now" moment, this one was (gonna get slammed for this, I know it...) actually kind of reasonable.

IF, for a moment, we assume that no studies have ever been done before this one that fail to show a connection between vaccines and autism, and IF we allow the findings of the new study - that autism develops over time and so does the vaccine schedule, then it MAY BE reasonable to conclude that there is some connection.

Of course this is not the case, so his argument fails to persuade, but this is far from the usual flaming stupid I'm used to. Can we at least get behind a measured reduction below usual stupid levels? A drop in a bucket, maybe, but still some progress.

It's just that when we all line up to kick a brain-dead man every time he flails on his keyboard, we start to look exactly like the nuts at AoA. As Jay-Z quips: "my momma told me not to argue with fools, because from a distance you can't tell who is who."

Ian said:

IF, for a moment, we assume that no studies have ever been done before this one that fail to show a connection between vaccines and autism, and IF we allow the findings of the new study - that autism develops over time and so does the vaccine schedule, then it MAY BE reasonable to conclude that there is some connection.

Don't give him any ideas. Him and his ilk are not reasonable.

It isn' that autism is a condition which develops over time; that's a semantic problem. Autism is a condition that becomes apparent over time. These two sentences are vastly different in meaning. Autism appears to be a neurological difference set by birth that as developmental milestones are not met or gradually become delayed compared to the child's cohort, the condition becomes manifest and diagnosable.

Memory is faulty at best and denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Having three on the spectrum, I can relate anecdotally that you can know the signs, know what to look for, admit your child has issues and still not be willing to call it autism until left with no choice.

So, there's my nitpick. The other is with the whole idea that autism is a disease. In a strict medical sense, yes, it does meet the criteria, but since the public does not use the same operationalized definition of disease, and because of the negative connotation it has, neurological difference is much more accurate and less pejorative.

A succinct working definition of autism, then, would be this: autism is a neurological difference that is set in place by birth which becomes apparent as early as six months to a year in many cases. And no one associated with the mainstream field of autism research or clinical practice would quibble or be surprised by this working definition.

You don't suppose they know the vaccination status of the kids in this study (and the larger longitudinal study), do you? Most of the kids who developed ASD were from the high risk group from families with other kids with an ASD. That seems to clearly point to a genetic cause. There are probably quite a few of these younger siblings who developed an ASD even though they had not been vaccinated or were alternatively vaccinated.

I, for one, would love to know the vaccine status for the whole high risk group, not just the 22 kids who went on to develop an ASD, because I'm sure there would be no difference in vaccination rates between the kids who went on to develop an ASD and the other high risk kids who didn't. I wonder what the total number of kids in the high risk group in the larger longitudinal study is.

A Prospective Study of the Emergence of
Early Behavioral Signs of Autism

It needs to be pointed out that, despite the interpretations given, the study doesn't demonstrate that the "onset" of autism is 6 months of age or anything of the sort. It simply says that, developmentally, they couldn't detect any differences of note between 6-month-old autistic babies and non-autistic babies.

This is not surprising at all. If the baby is too young, there's not much "development" to compare and contrast, especially if you're looking at language and socialization delays.

There's absolutely no difference between an autistic newborn and a non-autistic newborn (I'm talking idiopathic essential autism) but this doesn't mean the newborn is not autistic at the time of their birth.

A related principle is that the earlier the autism diagnosis, the less stable it is, i.e. it's harder to tell if a baby is truly autistic the younger the baby is.

Orac,

Is it possible that JB doesn't know what "tens of thousands" means? Maybe he's not good with large numbers and can't get his head wrapped around what "tens of thousands of cases" would look like.

Just a short "reality check" here. If you could read aloud the names of each of the children who make up 10,000 cases (one "tens of thousands") at a rate of one name every two seconds (which is pretty fast; try it yourself - get out the telephone directory and read the names as fast as you can), it would take over five and a half hours (no breaks, no tea, no bathroom stops) to read their names.

If you printed out just the names - ten point font, single-spaced, two columns, one name per line - it would take 143 pages to list 10,000 names. Just the names.

Even if I knew nothing about JB's veracity, I would find it hard to believe that he is aware of "tens of thousands of cases". At best, he has been told that "tens of thousands of cases" exist.

And now, in order to demonstrate his reliability as an information source, he wants us to believe that after telling us he has

"...tens of thousands of case reports of parents reporting that their child developmentally regressed, stopped talking, and was later diagnosed with autism after a vaccine appointment."

that he "rarely" hears about children who were

"...100% fine, and at 2 years old after one vaccine appointment [they] lost everything."

Thus my question. If JB thinks that "tens of thousands" is the same as "rarely", perhaps he simply doesn't understand numbers very well.

Or, he could just be pulling numbers out of the air...or some other, less ethereal location.

Prometheus

@Prometheus

You know, I just love reading your comments.

More importantly, autism is not an event, it's a process. It is exceptionally rare that I hear the story, "my son was 100% fine, and at 2 years old after one vaccine appointment he lost everything." I have heard that story, but very rarely.

Make no mistake. This quote will come in handy as a canned message in response to various types of trolls.

@15 Well, and the funny thing is I don't think he even realizes how insignificant and almost irrelevant his 10,000 number is. (My numbers are a little high because I'm rounding up a bit, but bear with me.) There are close to 100 million kids in the U.S. and about 1% of them have an ASD so that's about 1 million kids and his 10,000 (not that it's right) would only be about 1% of the kids with an ASD anyways. So, I'm thinking that even according to him 99% of autistic kids didn't regress.

I see Dumber Than Everybody Else On the Planet still doesn't understand autism.

More importantly, autism is not an event, it's a process. It is exceptionally rare that I hear the story, "my son was 100% fine, and at 2 years old after one vaccine appointment he lost everything." I have heard that story, but very rarely.

He needs to talk to Jay Gordon, who once claimed here that he gave an 8 mo old a vaccine and THAT AFTERNOON the child stopped communicating with his older brother.

That was the first time I realized that Jay Gordon was full of shit and not serious.

i guess there are lies, damned lies, statistics and j.b. handley.

I don't know if this has been pointed out already, but the study in question is essentially on familial autism only. All of the autistic children studied were considered high-risk because they had an autistic sibling, right? None of the control group children ended up being diagnosed with autism.

This could be relevant to the extent that children with non-familial autism might show developmental differences at 6 months of age. Children with familial autism appear entirely "normal" developmentally at that age.

Joseph,

a fraction (3 out of 25 or thereabouts) of the ASD kids in the study came from the "low risk" group.

Three of the 25 kids later diagnosed with an ASD were from the low-risk group.

The primary inclusion criteron for the
Low-Risk group was status as a younger sibling of a
child (or children) with typical development. Low-risk
status of all older siblings was confirmed by an intake
screening questionnaire and scores below the ASD
range on the SCQ. Exclusion criteria for the Low-Risk
group were birth before 36 weeks of gestation, developmental,
learning, or medical conditions in any older
sibling, and ASD in first-, second-, or third-degree
relatives.

I stand corrected, but it's largely familial autism still.

What I'd like to know is the rate of autism in non-vaccinated children. I've read some claims that it's the same. Some claims that it's higher. Some claims that it's lower.

But I trust none of the claims because I'm not getting source or links to source. Or they're from organizations that have a, well, particular bent... And I really don't trust them as I'm not willing to get sucked in by the rabid-anti-vax crowd.

So I'd like a link if anyone has one... With real, peer-reviewed studies. My wife is a scientist so I can get past a lot of journal fire walls because, well, she has access through the University.

And, for the record, I don't think all vaccines are perfectly safe as I know they're not. I also know that most medicines can have side effects, though for some it's pretty damn rare. Even OTC medicines.

I just know that, as a population, we're better with medicine and vaccinations than without them. So I use them, but never as a lark and always exactly as prescribed.

Joseph, Just wanted to let you know I linked to the study @13 so you can have a look just in case you haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Try starting at PubMed, there is also a list of journal articles at http://www.immunize.org/journalarticles/conc_aut.asp . You can also find a list of papers being discussed at (including Orac) at Research Blogging.

The studies you want are the large epidemiological studies done in several countries covering millions of children, that really show no difference in autism rates between fully vaccinated and partially vaccinated children (you will not find a population of purely unvaccinated children because they are often in groups that eschew all medicine and are not in the databases).

To get an explanation on how these studies work, and why Kirby's ideas are bogus go to the library and check out Paul Offit's book Autism's False Prophets, and read Chapter 6.

You can also look at the

Oops, I hit a button to soon...

You can also look the study summaries and commentaries here:
http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/vaccines-and-autism/

@Moses

You are the kind of people I think a) make up the majority of the population, even though you don't speak the majority of the rhetoric, and b) we should be writing to. Sniping back and forth between people whose minds are already made up is fun and diverting, but hopefully at least a FEW Moseses (Mosei?) read these blogs. I'm not saying we shouldn't be mocking the ridiculous beliefs and pointing out the gaping flaws in the logic, but every time we allow our arguments to get personal, we erode our credibility.

Good on ya, Moses. However, the question is far from a simple one. Non-vaccinated children are not representative of the child population at large. They are usually present in demographic clusters rather than spread out among the general population. If you do find the kind of study you're looking for, it may not be terribly informative one way or another, because a lower rate (or a higher rate) of autism MIGHT be due to the vaccine status or could be due to any number of other confounders (extraneous variables) present in that population. It is possible to control for some confounding (matching, statistical control) but not all. Just keep that in mind when you read any study.

Never mind that no one has ever shown that this regression occurs more frequently in vaccinated children.

C'mon Orac. You've continued to opine against an observational study of both populations to determine autism prevalence... don't turn around and pretend it now supports your position.

@Ian
Agreed. The thing that frustrates me about this whole "debate" is that people like JB, who are the loudest (but definitely not smartest) make it difficult for people like Moses to be heard. The people who should be most upset by this state of affairs are the parents of children with autism.

So, cynic, are you seriously suggesting that large swaths of children should not be vaccinated just to prove a point? Considering that last year children have died from Hib, and several infants have died from pertussis, and if more are not protected by the MMR there will be actual deaths instead of the occasional bit of deafness, pneumonia and such that have happened in the USA. A further explanation of why this is a very bad idea is in this podcast.

If you have any evidence that vaccines have any connection to autism, please present it.

Parents may attribute the diagnosis of ASD *to* vaccines because diagnosis *follows* vaccines. Reminds me a bit of something Fuller Torrey wrote about young people newly diagnosed with schizophrenia: their parents often attribute the illness to some significant, recent, negative, *external* event - usually problems in school,at work,or in relationships -as though the person became ill *because* of some recent external event (one really major difference: here causation may actually be reversed as SMI can "cause" problems at school,work,or in relationships)although the SMI has been developing for a long time, often marked with significant differences throughout the child's earlier years (learning problems,social differences,differences in movement- as analysed from videos, etc.).

You guys are a complete joke. Get it through your head. Kids are showing regression. Besides Rett's syndrome, when did you hear about all these "regressing toddlers" in American folklore or greek tragedy or Shakespearian plays. That's right. You didn't. You are all splitting hairs about when children regress. My God they are being vaccinated on day one of their life! The regression would stand to start at different points for different children depending on their tolerance and vulnerabilities and what they've been exposed to.
I looked at a hep b vaccine insert (infanrix). They mention contraindications. These include: allergies to any component of the vaccine- yeast, neomycin, polymyxin. How the hell would you know if your kid had a yeast allergy or any of the other allergies on his/her first day of life?? Seriously?!! If anyone can anser me this I will admit defeat. But NONE of you will be able to and you know it. Are they f'g kidding me? They go on to state that infants who have progressive neurologic disorders or infantile spasms should not get the vaccine. Again, how in hell would you know if your hours old baby had any of these conditions. You may not even know any of these "contraindications" until they were maybe half a year or year old. My God people. Use your brains!
The dpt and hep b vaccine inserts give plenty of pause for thought when it comes to side effects and when these finally accumulate for a particular child would just be a matter of time for regression to happen.

jen (the cranky one):

Get it through your head. Kids are showing regression.

Do you have some kind of evidence that shows this? Something other than your argument by blatant assertion?

Besides Rett's syndrome, when did you hear about all these "regressing toddlers" in American folklore or greek tragedy or Shakespearian plays. That's right. You didn't.

Actually, there have been many stories and tales of "changelings." These are kids that is was assumed that a demon took over. Sometimes they were abandoned to die in the wild.

Again, if you or cynic have some actual evidence that vaccines are really associated with autism, please present it. Something other than "argument by assertion."

o.k. there are some stories of changelings. I will read the link. Now, answer my question about how on earth you would know to avoid giving your hours old infant a hep b vaccine because they have allergies to the above listed ingredients (yeast, neomycin, polymyxin) OR a neuropathy related condition?? You wouldn't know that as a parent and the inanrix people damn well know it. It's completely non-sensical!!!!!!!!

Oh Jen, you idiot. Do tell me how my daughter was diagnosed with autism when she didn't have a vaccine on day one? The MMR later, please, she would tell you to your face you are an idiot. She gets incensed when idiots like you say that vaccines cause autism. She is happy and proud being autistic and would not want to be 'normal' like you if you paid her. How do you live with yourself when you make bald statements that have no basis in reality? You can pick apart all you want the fact is, autism was here before, will be here after and all your blather matters not one wit in the life of my daughter and never will. You are doing NOTHING to help these kids in spite of your talk otherwise. Learn to accept neurological differences and stop looking for causes that have nothing to do with anything. Tell me what you tell parents with autistic children do you tell them that vaccines were the cause and hence they are responsible? Go away and stop telling people you are Canadian - you embarrass the rest of us.

Agashem: Name calling will get you nowhere. Answer my question from # 37. Anyone? Anyone?

Jen...

You are the one suggesting vaccines are causing autism.

Show. Us. The. Evidence.

Cannot possibly be more clear than that. Stop with the "well, what about this?" or "How can that be good for children?" kind of rhetoric.

Evidence is what is demanded. Show it.

A contraindication to any medication is known allergy. To become allergic, one must first be exposed then exposed again. People have anaphylactic reactions to ampicillin. By jen's logic I should not use that medication in my septic neonates because they might be allergic. The other conditions that jen can be apparent before any vaccines are given. For something to be progressive you have to have a starting point. Quite frankly, Jen, I find you nonsensical.

gaiainc: Then perhaps they should not be giving anything to an hours old infant. It is still nonsensical on THEIR part to be stating that on the package insert when they know that it will be given to infants on their first day of life. I do not even understand your fifth sentence. "The other conditions that jen can be apparent...

jen, you should read this book: Not Even Wrong, A Father's Journey into the Lost History of Autism.

More information on allergies. It is an immune response, but first the immune system needs to be exposed first. One does not need to worry about the first bee sting, it is the second bee sting that could cause trouble!

How do you know a neonate is not allergic to wool? Or latex? Or bees? You don't - occasionally life is unpredictable. If you want 100% certainty, then wait a while and you will die. That is about it; science rarely deals with absolutes. The numbers don't support your contention. You keep talking about a vaccine that my daughter didn't have and yet here she is autistic. Try something else. Maybe computers? Maybe global warming? Maybe the increasing availability of mangoes in Canada? How can you say it wasn't any of those things? Whatever education you purport to have I hope didn't occur in Canada. I can't believe you are a product of our country.

Cheers, gaiainc. You beat me to it.

Jen: are you the same JenB who comments at AoA, claiming that you don't read Orac anymore?

BTW, gaiainc, I would doubt that even if a day old baby became sensitized to say, the yeast component, that by the second or even third vaccine this would be properly identified. You would basically have an infant presenting with some problems but nothing that would cause a ped to say, "My God, I think this infant may have some kind of yeast or neomycin allergy. Let's skip the rest of the hep b series." I seriously f'g doubt it.

jen, you should read this book: Not Even Wrong, A Father's Journey into the Lost History of Autism.

There was an error in the that link.

Jen, if you have data that shows the HepB vaccine is causing issues, please present. Do not make assertions without data (especially when you are telling a real medical doctor, gaiainc, who works with newborns that she is wrong!).

Hagashem: Knock it off with the rude bullshit. Where were you educated? So your daughter didn't have the hep b shot- the dpt's also have similar product insert contraindications. We don't know specifically what causes autism and what doesn't cause autism. There are no double-blind randomized studies comparing vaccinated to non-vaccinated children.

What are you talking about? The recent British study looking at adults who didn't have these vaccines and were found to have similar rates of autism is not good enough for you? What do you want? A study that would not ever, ever ,ever, ever be allowed? My education is not in question. Yours is. Cough up the goods......

to all:
o.k. so do the monkey have some kind of Helsinki declaration that would preclude us from studying them in a randomized double-blind study comparing vaccinated and non-vaccinated monkeys and looking at things like mitochondrial changes, digestion, brain circumference, immune system etc.?? I'll answer for you. No. The time is now!!! The pharmaceutical industry needs to reassure their consumers! Parents aren't buying their crap.

@Jen...

E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E.

What study are you citing? Reference please. And since you work in the school system you may have noticed that children are not monkeys and if a study such as you propose is done/has been done and doesn't meet your expectations wouldn't you say the same?

All the actual evidence so far points to autism being genetic. Yet, despite searching over many years, I have seen no evidence whatsoever (anecdotes aren't evidence) for the assertion that vaccines 'trigger' let alone 'cause' autism.

As Agashem states, how can a vaccine that our children did not have cause their autism? I have four autistic sons and (in the middle of the bunch) a non-autistic daughter. My husband and I are both autistic as are my father, one sister, several nephews and at least one of my grandchildren. Oh, and my paternal grandfather was autistic; I'd like to know which vaccines caused his autism!

Hagashem: you are a pompous, fucking bitch. Your education is most certainly in question every bit as much as mine.

Oh sorry, did I upset you? It seems to me that you criticized me for insulting you and using insults. Is it ok now? Or is it just reserved for you. Really, let me know by whose rules we are playing so I can keep track.

Oops, I seem to have re-posted my earlier comment instead of this one. Perhaps grannies shouldn't use the internetâ¦

jen how does being irrefutably correct = pompous?

If you had any evidence, jen, you could have posted that instead of your pointless and juvenile insult.

Do you have evidence? That is all it takes to convince other people - simple, really.

I was looking around the google to see if I could find out how many kids are in the high-risk group in that larger longitudinal study and it turns out there are 180 in the sibling group. The article about the infant sibling study that had the information is really interesting. The infant sibling study: Finding the earliest possible clues to autism

A cutting-edge UC Davis MIND Institute research project, the Infant Sibling Study, is leading the way in identifying early behavioral manifestations of autism by studying the younger siblings of children already diagnosed with the disorder. For reasons that are not entirely clear, these children are among the most likely to be subsequently diagnosed with the condition. While the chance that a first child will have autism is about 1 in 100, the chance that a sibling of a child with autism will also have autism is as high as 1 in 5.

-snip-

The second five-year phase of the study is focused on examining even earlier potential indicators of autism for clues to vulnerability to the disorder.

âSo far, we havenât been able to find behavioral signs of autism at 6-to-9 months of age,â Ozonoff said, âbut that doesnât mean that they donât exist. We may not have been looking at the right things in our first study.â

âWe are now turning our focus to very basic, low-level processes that might help us identify the highest risk infants,â Ozonoff said.

-snip-

The Infant Sibling Study is part of the Baby Siblings Research Consortium, a voluntary network of more than 15 universities in the United States, Canada and Israel studying infant siblings of children with autism, and working together to examine questions that require large sample sizes. Ozonoff is currently the chair of this large, multi-site group and as such is directing many of the projects undertaken by the consortium. One particularly important undertaking of the consortium is understanding the recurrence risk of autism, that is, how likely a family with one child with autism is to have another child with the condition.

Now I wonder how many baby siblings are being studied in total through the consortium. A few thousand probably isn't much of a sample size to be meaningful and who knows how the baby siblings break down in terms of fully vaccinated, alternatively vaccinated and un-vaccinated. But I'm thinking that by showing there is no difference in the vaccination status between the baby siblings that end up with an ASD diagnosis and the one's that don't, that could be one more nail in the coffin of the anti-vaxxers. Hopefully they're collecting the medical records of these baby siblings because not doing so could be a big missed opportunity.

Tigger, as far as I know, genetics accounts for only a small percentage of autism. In your case it sounds as though it is the answer. Many other families, though, have been through extensive genetic testing and have found that there is no genetic explanation for their child's autism. Hagashem can't deal with a monkey study because it might actually reveal something. Suck it up, honey. The truth hurts.

You still haven't cited.

@Jen: the problem with animal studies is that they DON'T have syndromes of developmental delay like autism. There were many problems with Wakefield's monkey study (search RI...Orac did a good tear down of the study...but I think I remember you commenting on THAT thread and still getting things wrong). A study that monitored monkeys much longer found no long term delays from the vaccines.

I really, really wish you would get off your HepB horse. HepB wasn't even a consistent part of the immunization program when Handley blamed vaccines for causing the autism epidemic. And if it was through parental exposure, well, my kids should have been autistic, since both their father and myself had the hep B series for work (and I, personally, would not have blamed the Hep B series because I have family members, all the way back to at least the 30's who would now be considered autistic or ASD or PDD-NOS. AND the letters describing their behaviors. In fact, one letter plays with the possiblity of autism, but since the child doesn't strictly fit (in 1943) the definition set by Kanner, they decided that wasn't the problem. He was institutionalized as a teen and died in his 20's.)

Any evidence yet, Jen?

Tigger, Has your family been able to participate in AGRE the Autism Genetic Resource Exchange? There are probably a lot of scientists who would be very interested in learning about autism by studying the genetics of your family. Or do you already know which gene is implicated in your family's autism?

And I suppose it's possible it's not due to a DNA difference but an epigenetic change. These can persist for generations. You might find this article on epigenetics interesting. Epigenetics research takes aim at cancer, Alzheimerâs, autism and other illnesses

Agashem @44, I think you are on to something with the mangoes :)

Chris @36 I have had the some thought about "changelings". Although my understanding of a changeling is that it was a child left behind by fairies etc. to replace a child that was abducted.

jen: "Many other families, though, have been through extensive genetic testing and have found that there is no genetic explanation for their child's autism."

Citations please.

"Hagashem can't deal with a monkey study because it might actually reveal something. Suck it up, honey. The truth hurts."

What are you talking about? Vaccines have been extensively tested in all animal groups already and there is, as yet, no way of testing for specific genetic markers of autism in humans and no way of telling whether a monkey is autistic or not.

Please stop with the infantile insults and actually give us links to actual evidence to support your assertions.

Please, stop pretending that you can make something real just by repeating unfounded assertions and insulting the people who ask you to prove them.

Tigger, who are you? The Hag's protector? Infantile insults? You must be talking about post 38.
So, you're telling me that the monkeys are good enough for doing some quick vaccine safety/toxicity studies (where they're usually killed immediately after) but they're not good enough to give the entire vaccination schedule and study in a randomized, double-blind experiment to look at mitochondrial changes, digestion, brain inflammation etc.? I'd say it's you guys that are changing stories.
I agree with Militant Agnostic. I'm not convinced from her reference that "changelings" were children who regressed into what we call autism now but who perhaps developed more slowly or differently than other kids.

jen,

No-one has an allergy to anything on the first exposure. Allergic response can only develop on re-exposure. See http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/11/allergies_of_the_first_kindtyp.php.

The allergy warning on hep b is more likely for people like me, who get these periodically as adults because of possible occupational exposure or where we travel.

Ah, nevermind, I see that has been covered already.

jen, the monkey study was picked apart in great detail on another thread. It isn't a good study for real methodological reasons, but if you didn't understand there I don't hold out a lot of hope that you would understand anywhere else.

I'm going to join the chorus, here: all you are doing is whining about people insulting you, you ignore all the substantive answers which have been given to you (or deny they exist; do you not understand them? I'm holding that out as a possibility) and you produce no evidence of your own, all the while feeling free to insult everyone else. Enough. Put up real data, or shut up.

@jen:

gaiainc: Then perhaps they should not be giving anything to an hours old infant.

Are you suggesting that if a newborn has a bacterial infection, that they shouldn't be given antibiotics? If that is what you're saying, then what should be done for such neonates? Just pray that they don't die?

And a word of defense for jen: she's saying that there should be non-behavioral monkey studies on vaccination. Basically a pre-phase-I safety study of vaccines, but rather than examining the general/overall health of the test subjects, examining specific things that autism/vaccine-link advocates think might have a causative role in autism.

Matthew Cline: "â¦examining specific things that autism/vaccine-link advocates think might have a causative role in autism."

But what are these 'specific things', and why does what the autism/vaccine-link advocates 'think' have to be continually, time-consumingly and expensively refuted when they consistently fail to come up with any evidence for their 'thoughts'?

Every time any alleged link is proved not to exist, they keep moving the goalposts. It is the very opposite of science; they never look for evidence to support their assertions but expect everyone else to believe the assertions unexamined and get really, really annoyed when called out on it.

I think they are particularly annoyed that the only 'study' that ever 'found a link' was proved to be fraudulent.

Suppose I 'think' that autism is caused by weaning. I might even manage to convince a whole lot of other people to 'think' the same thing. Then we could scream and shout about how science is ignoring us, how Big Retail is profiting out of everyone having to eat food and they are in a big conspiracy. Would you expect scientists to respect us to the extent of doing animal research?!

Truth is about facts. Facts are supported by evidence. Thoughts need to be backed by evidence before they can be considered for research. Until the anti-vaccine people have evidence there is no reason to give them any more credence than my hypothetical anti-weaners.

@jen

I noticed that you have yet to answer my follow-up questions from the other thread. Here they are again, for your convenience:

1) Do you have some studies to support the safety of removing the vaccines you indicated from the recommended schedule?
2) Should "biomed" treatments like chelation and Lupron be used or offered without evidence supporting their safety and efficacy?
3) You admit that you have no evidence showing the vaccines cause autism and make the tired call for a vaxed vs. unvaxxed study (I'm assuming prospective, random, controlled trial?). Please review the Declaration of Helsinki, the Nuremburg Code, the Belmont Report and the ICH Guidelines on Human Research Protections. Please explain to me how such a study, in light of the documents just listed, would be designed to satisfy ethical requirements. Please also address the issue of subject enrollment (i.e., if randomized, how will you get people to agree to potentially not receiving a vaccine if they support vaccines or potentially receiving a vaccine if they think vaccines are dangerous).

As to the package inserts, the information contained there is comprehensive. It is not specific to newborns. As others have already addressed, allergic reactions occur at the earliest on the second exposure.

Second, you propose using animals as models for autism. Please cite a couple studies that establish any valid animal model for autism.

Finally, leave the insults offline. (As frustrating as jen can be, I would encourage others to also try to keep their tempers in check. Stick to the facts.) If you cannot conduct yourself in a calm manner, perhaps it would be best for you to not comment at all.

@19 Katharine, first of all who the hell spells their name that way! Second of all I know more about Autism in my left pinky toe than all of the rest of you on this entire site put together. I should call you all "fat lazy asses" that hide behind your computer and think you can understand the science that way. Try going out and interviewing the doctors and scientists behind all of this and then you too will see how big of a joke your side is. I can tell you every answer to every question you could possibly ask related to the cause of Autism, but I won't even if you ask because you will have all of the answers very soon and it would take way too long to do it here. I, unlike you, have actually read the science and traveled the world talking to the scientists who did the science. I don't expect dumb people like you to understand the science and to be able to put it all together in a way that proves everything to a T. You will see very shortly as like I've said before, this is the year all of you dipshits will bury your heads between your legs and realize how your actions and ignorance have caused so many children harm. The clock is ticking before the big bombshell is dropped and everything is proved, and it has nothing to do with a new study that is coming out, or anyone such as Wakefield, Jenny, J.B. or anything else. I can assure you it's something no one on this planet has seen before and it will give everyone the answers they have been so desparately seeking. In the meantime, I hope you shut your mouth so you stop putting future children at risk for this devastating neurological disorder.

@Kwombles

I can relate anecdotally that you can know the signs, know what to look for, admit your child has issues and still not be willing to call it autism until left with no choice... A succinct working definition of autism, then, would be this: autism is a neurological difference that is set in place by birth which becomes apparent as early as six months to a year in many cases.

I swear, I could kiss you right now! This is so simple, and so profound. I hope some reading this will really think about what you wrote.

GR and JB Handley (aka "Hairy Biped") already did a vaccinated-unvaccinated study. This proved two things. One is that, if entrusted to perform a study, they will commit massive fraud. (Among other things, they exagerated the autism rate in the fully vaccinated group FIFTY THREE PERCENT!) The other is that they cannot commit fraud competently enough to hide inconvenient facts, like the wholly unvaccinated group having a ca. 2% rate that might be plausible for a sample of the general population and the partially vaccinated having the highest autism rate of all. It appears the Hairy Biped is now pretending the study doesn't exist.

Re: Comment #72

"You will see very shortly as like I've said before, this is the year all of you dipshits will bury your heads between your legs and realize how your actions and ignorance have caused so many children harm. The clock is ticking before the big bombshell is dropped and everything is proved, and it has nothing to do with a new study that is coming out, or anyone such as Wakefield, Jenny, J.B. or anything else. I can assure you it's something no one on this planet has seen before and it will give everyone the answers they have been so desparately seeking."

OK. Rather than making us wait for this revelation, why don't you just tell us now? So why wait? Go ahead and show us how wrong we all are for relying on silly things like actual evidence and science-based medicine. Think how satisfying it will be for you to put us in our place! Come on, then, let us have it!

@Smarter Than Katha(e?)rine's Dumbass

Hmmm, are you like, starfart's brother or something ?

Militant Agnottic:

Although my understanding of a changeling is that it was a child left behind by fairies etc. to replace a child that was abducted.

Actually, you are right. I mis-remembered, but the google search shows that it is mostly fairies. Though there are some areas where it is types of demons, it kind of depends on the time and place. I was probably also misremembering Paul Collins' book Not Even Wrong, where he described in detail the fate of Victor, the Wild Boy of Aveyron. Perhaps a child who was abandoned because he "changed" and could not speak.

Agashem:

Oh Jen, you idiot.

jen:

Agashem: Name calling will get you nowhere.

jen (again):

Hagashem: you are a pompous, fucking bitch. Your education is most certainly in question every bit as much as mine.

My mother used to tell us "People in glass houses should not throw stones." Does this ring a bell with you, jen? Perhaps you have heard of "the pot calling the kettle black"?

Now, jen, about that evidence. Need we need to remind you that Argument by Assertion is not sufficient? List the journal, date, title and author of the paper that shows that the HepB vaccine is causing the issues you are claiming. Until then, you should be ignored.

"Smarter Than Katha(e?)rine's Dumbass" ... there is this part of English grammar that you might not have heard of... it is called "paragraphs."

Paragraphs are used to break up what you are writing about into digestible bits. This is to avoid a "wall of text" that many people find annoying.

Though, after reading your "wall of text" that is full of insults and absolutely no evidence, I can see why you use this technique. It shows the level of your discourse, and that we are correct in just ignoring you.

Katharine, first of all who the hell spells their name that way!

Oh, no one notable, I'm sure.

Second of all I know more about Autism in my left pinky toe than all of the rest of you on this entire site put together.

In that case, I request that your left toe pick up from here; I'm sure that its conversation will be infinitely more enlightening.

I'm posting from my phone and sometimes I forget to put in a few words when my son decides he wants my phone. The sentence probably should have stated that the conditions jen was so het up about can apparent prior to the initial hep b vaccine. jen's idea of not giving any neonates anything strikes me as a pretty good way to increase the infant mortality rate. As a consequence autism rates may also go down as fewer kids grow old enough to show signs of autism. Since I don't see autism as a death sentence and letting babies die from sepsis is a bad thing, I will ignore jen's advice.

A true allergic reaction is pretty unmistakeable. The few I've witnessed have often let me wondering whose heart is beating faster: my patient who just got epi or me as I wait firvthe EMTs?

As to the Smarter than everyone else poster, wow. Really? Disagreeing with how someone's name is spelt (a name, BTW, that does have a variety of spellings) is your argument? Wow. That's a pretty good epic fail.

A succinct working definition of autism, then, would be this: autism is a neurological difference that is set in place by birth which becomes apparent as early as six months to a year in many cases.

Not to be contrary, but in the interest of maintaining our credibility I just want to say that I don't think it's quite correct to believe we have the science to support this statement at this time. That's one of the implications of this first-phase of the infant sibling study that is the subject of Dr. Novella's analysis. I'm pretty sure what the author's are saying is that based on the indicators they used, there weren't significant differences at 6 months between the babies later diagnosed with ASD and the babies who had typical development. (Just to be clear, I don't mean to suggest in any way that this means vaccines cause autism.)

From the study:

Most convincingly, the
effects were in the opposite direction as predicted,
with the ASD outcome group demonstrating
(nonsignificantly) better social communication
behavior at 6 months than the TD outcome
group on all variables. After 6 months, the ASD
group shows a rapid decline in eye contact, social
smiling, and examiner-rated social responsiveness.
Group differences were significant by 12
months in gaze to faces and social smiling and by
18 months on all other variables. Similar declining
trajectories in the onset of autism symptoms
have also been reported by others.35

Here's a link to the study in case anyone missed it.

A Prospective Study of the Emergence of
Early Behavioral Signs of Autism

Objective: To examine prospectively the emergence of behavioral signs of autism in the first
years of life in infants at low and high risk for autism. Method: A prospective longitudinal
design was used to compare 25 infants later diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder
(ASD) with 25 gender-matched low-risk children later determined to have typical development.
Participants were evaluated at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months of age. Frequencies of gaze
to faces, social smiles, and directed vocalizations were coded from video and rated by
examiners. Results: The frequency of gaze to faces, shared smiles, and vocalizations to
others were highly comparable between groups at 6 months of age, but significantly declining
trajectories over time were apparent in the group later diagnosed with ASD. Group differences
were significant by 12 months of age on most variables. Although repeated evaluation
documented loss of skills in most infants with ASD, most parents did not report a regression
in their childâs development. Conclusions: These results suggest that behavioral signs of
autism are not present at birth, as once suggested by Kanner, but emerge over time through
a process of diminishment of key social communication behaviors. More children may present
with a regressive course than previously thought, but parent report methods do not capture
this phenomenon well. Implications for onset classification systems and clinical screening are
also discussed. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2010;49(3):256 â266. Key Words:
Autism, Onset, Infancy, Regression.

And this link is to an article about the larger study that this study is a part of and about Sally Ozonoff who is lead scientist of the team and chair of the large, multi-site Baby Siblings Research Consortium. It's encouraging to see that they're going to try to find earlier potential indicators of autism so they can better evaluate the differences amongst babies younger than 9 months old so that maybe they will find differences that they so far haven't had the tools to identify.

The infant sibling study: Finding the earliest possible clues to autism

The second five-year phase of the study is focused on examining even earlier potential indicators of autism for clues to vulnerability to the disorder.

âSo far, we havenât been able to find behavioral signs of autism at 6-to-9 months of age,â Ozonoff said, âbut that doesnât mean that they donât exist. We may not have been looking at the right things in our first study.â

âWe are now turning our focus to very basic, low-level processes that might help us identify the highest risk infants,â Ozonoff said.

Todd W. @ 71,
I agree with you about using animal models for autism. I just don't understand how that works. This guy wants to compare social behaviors in mice and humans.....what??

His group's ongoing research, continued Hakonarson, focuses on investigating the exact mechanisms by which these genetic variations cause autistic disorders. "For instance, we expect to manipulate similar cell-adhesion genes in mice to see if the animals show altered social behaviors that may correspond to human behaviors." In addition, other genes remain to be discovered.

Autism Genes Discovered; Help Shape Connections Among Brain Cells

From Dumber than You can Possibly Imagine regarding revelations about the TRUE CAUSE of autism.

I can assure you it's something no one on this planet has seen before and it will give everyone the answers they have been so desperately seeking.

I can assume this means that the Greys will emerge from their secret base behind the moon and enlighten us with regards to the causes of autism.

Next time you are waiting at the checkout in the grocery store, check out the National Enquirer - the headline at the top reads "Dr Oz is a Fake" - the article is on page 43 or a little further in and has quotes from Steve Novella and Oracs "friend". Instead of a comment from a toke skeptic they have for skeptics and a comment fomr a token woo.

But what are these 'specific things', and why does what the autism/vaccine-link advocates 'think' have to be continually, time-consumingly and expensively refuted when they consistently fail to come up with any evidence for their 'thoughts'?

I wasn't defending that part of what jen was arguing for. I was just pointing out that people seemed to be misinterpreting her call for primate vaccine research.

Jen - Infanrix is not a hepB vaccine (but DTaP) - European countries do not have a birth dose of hepB, but they have the same autism prevalence.

Unconvinced @ 63: Sorry I missed that. I have no idea which gene(s) is/are implicated and I doubt that such a simple explanation exists. It may well be that many different genes in different combinations have to come into play. I suspect that autism is as normal a variant of human neurology as white is a normal variant of human skin. Both can be problematic if the person with that variation is treated erroneously as if they have the dominant phenotype but if proper care is used neither has to be a disability. As for taking part in a study, that might be difficult as we are great travellers and live scattered across the globe! I shall check the link, though. Thank you!

Jen @ 66: Who is the hag? I see no-one on this blog who needs protecting; everyone is perfectly well able to stand up for themselves. Just because two or more people may agree does not make them a gang and just because someone other than the object of your insults points out that you are being somewhat unnecessarily rude does not mean that there is a conspiracy. Insults are infantile. Politeness does not cost anything.

Matthew @ 84: Sorry, on re-reading my post I realise that my tone could seem somewhat accusatory; it was supposed to be 'puzzled'. Oops!

Post 69:
"And a word of defense for jen: she's saying that there should be non-behavioral monkey studies on vaccination. Basically a pre-phase-I safety study of vaccines, but rather than examining the general/overall health of the test subjects, examining specific things that autism/vaccine-link advocates think might have a causative role in autism."

I am still curious to know, what are these specific things and what could their causative role be? Did you mean jen's list at post 50?

Post 50:
"to all:
o.k. so do the monkey have some kind of Helsinki declaration that would preclude us from studying them in a randomized double-blind study comparing vaccinated and non-vaccinated monkeys and looking at things like mitochondrial changes, digestion, brain circumference, immune system etc.?? I'll answer for you. No. The time is now!!! The pharmaceutical industry needs to reassure their consumers! Parents aren't buying their crap."

So far as I know none of those things on the list have anything to do with autism.

it was supposed to be 'puzzled'. Oops!

No problem.

I am still curious to know, what are these specific things and what could their causative role be? Did you mean jen's list at post 50?

She does mention damage to mitochondria, and there was that one case where a girl with a genetic mitochondrial disorder who was vaccinated, the vaccine was the (probable) cause of her getting a fever, and the fever interacting with the mitochondrial disorder was the (probable) cause of her getting brain damage. The Hannah Polling case, I think? Anyways, after that case, lots of the autism/vaccine people latched onto mitochondrial disorder as a likely causative factor in their "vaccination -> autism" theory. So I'm guessing that jen is presenting a more generalized idea that, in addition to vaccines causing oxidative stress which aggravates a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder and leads to autism, that vaccines can cause mitochondrial disorders, which later oxidative stress aggravates and leads to autism.

Chris @33 - are you seriously suggesting that large swaths of children should not be vaccinated just to prove a point?

Where did I do that? I'm talking about people that have already refused vaccines... hence the word "observational". Bacterial conjugate vaccines carry their own issues that will require addressing after their implementation into the program, not to mention, they don't prevent carriage of the organism. I happen to agree that measles vaccine works quite well. My comment, directed to the author, was that he has repeatedly stated that an observational study of both vaccinated and unvaccinated cannot be done due to confounders, etc... yet then infers that because of the absence of such a study that autism prevalence isn't greater among the vaccinated. Misleading at best.

Jen and similar thinkers like to say, "Maybe autism is caused by this... prove that it isn't. What about this? Prove it isn't. Or this? Prove it isn't." Ad nauseum. Cluelessness about the concept of "burden of evidence" is a major characteristic of all kinds of cranks. They think any idea they toss into the ring is the default position and that everyone else is obliged to convince them it isn't true.

MPW - I have noted many times that at least the MMR/autism link has an air of plausibility, given that onset of autism symptoms at least correlates with the time of MMR. Of course, the link has been tested, and shown to be not there, but you can understand the post hoc ergo prompter hoc problem.

However, with all the other crap, there just isn't anything there to even suggest a link at all. See my comments about the accusation that HepB vaccines cause autism. Where in the heck does that come from? There is no basis at all for associating autism with HepB, and it merely comes from an anti-vaccine perspective that 1) vaccines are bad by definition, and therefore 2) that means they cause autism.

We should get into the "prove it isn't" game. Breastfeeding rates in the US are on the rise - prove that breastfeeding doesn't cause autism. Lots of babies get diaper rash, and there is a new "creamy" version of Desitin. Prove it isn't the cause of autism (it's got zinc in it!). Etc.

Why is it always vaccines? There is just as much of an association between Desitin and autism as there is with vaccines, but for some reason, no one ever mentions that. Or any of the countless other things babies are exposed to.

Oh, but it must be the vaccines...

@Unconvinced #81,

Actually, we do in fact have a great deal of evidence to suggest that autism is set in place by birth, that there are neurological differences from the controls set as the neurotypical norm. The problem is that the bulk of scientific research on autism does NOT make it to the public for consumption.

I'd recommend, for a short primer, Mary Coleman's The Neurology of Autism. If you're up to a nearly 1500 page read, there is always the Handbook of Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Second Edition.

@Kristen,
:-)

@83, Militant Agnostic quotes "Smarter Than You" as saying:

"I can assure you it's something no one on this planet has seen before and it will give everyone the answers they have been so desperately seeking."

Then Militant Agnostic says:

"I can assume this means that the Greys will emerge from their secret base behind the moon and enlighten us with regards to the causes of autism."

Sadly, a very close relative of mine genuinely believes that people with autism are of alien origin, and that we were sent to Earth to observe the human race and bring enlightenment, or something. *sigh*

Shit. I mean, shit.

What the fuck are Dumber Than the Rest of the World's and jen's background's in? I wonder.

(For the record, I'm an undergraduate biology student.)

Jen and similar thinkers like to say, "Maybe autism is caused by this... prove that it isn't. What about this? Prove it isn't. Or this? Prove it isn't." Ad nauseum. Cluelessness about the concept of "burden of evidence" is a major characteristic of all kinds of cranks. They think any idea they toss into the ring is the default position and that everyone else is obliged to convince them it isn't true.

I don't meant to defend them, but to correctly characterize them: they think that their collection of anecdotal evidence is rock solid evidence that vaccines cause autism, but don't know how it causes autism. But they don't say "we know that vaccines cause autism, but we don't know how they cause autism" because:

1) they want to stop more children from becoming autistic now

2) they want to cure their own autistic children now

So when one explanation on "how" gets shot down, they latch onto another.

Also, if research scientists said "your collection of anecdotal evidence has convinced us that vaccines do cause autism, so we will now bend all of our resources to figuring out the 'how'", then they'd probably feel a lot less of a need to play armchair-scientist.

cynic:

Where did I do that? I'm talking about people that have already refused vaccines... hence the word "observational".

Well, that is the standard that the AoA wants, the new cry is the vax/unvax study where children are randomly selected to get fake placebo vaccines. Which is what is not very ethical.

Those who have actually refused vaccines are self-selected, or are part of groups that typically refuse all medical procedures (and would not participate in the group, even to the point of not allowing diagnosis of autism, and note that one group has created a backlash in the form of a group called Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, CHILD, Inc.). Or there was the group that Handley found in a phone survey that found that those who were not vaccinated or partially vaccinated had higher autism rates (possibly because the parents stopped vaccinating after the first diagnosis, and then did not vaccinate any further, like Kim Stagliano whose youngest autistic daughter has had no vaccines!) Those are the confounders.

If you have a way of obtaining a large group without confounders, go for it. Do tell how you would get them and then do a case match with a fully vaccinated group. Then find a way to finance a large enough study.

Until that time you will have to be satisfied with the several large epidemiological studies done in the USA, Japan, England, Finland, Canada, Sweden and Denmark. They are listed in this freely available review.

Personally I feel enough money has been thrown at the idiotic and thoroughly disproved link between vaccines and autism. Having an adult child who is disabled (possibly due to seizures while ill with a real now vaccine preventable disease) I am more concerned with services for disabled adults. And until someone actually shows me that the vaccines cause more disability than the actual diseases, your objections to the present scientific consensus will fall on deaf ears.

Matthew Cline#69: Thankyou for your post and your clarifications on the primate research I proposed. I do see your point about an infant having a bacterial infection. By all means, if it is clear an infant is suffering from a bactrial infection we should treat it (hours old or not!). For me, that goes without saying but I see how my phrasing was too general.
There is some interesting research coming from Dr. McFabe from Western Ontario on inducing autism in rodents. I really feel the vaccine program is failing its consumers(although you can still say the majority of parents vaccinate there is concern about vaccine compliance or we wouldn't be having this conversation) and they will need to step up the safety studies- maybe a pre-phase-1 safety type study looking at things like brain swelling, mitochondria, digestive or immune differences over time.

matthew kline wrote

I don't meant to defend them, but to correctly characterize them: they think that their collection of anecdotal evidence is rock solid evidence that vaccines cause autism,

But the problem, as I keep pointing out, is that there aren't even any anecdotes that vaccines other than MMR cause autism. At least with MMR, the onset of autism symptoms corresponds with the timing of MMR vaccines. But recall the recent poster who was blaming HepB. What in the world suggests that HepB, given at birth, is the cause of autism symptoms 18 months later? That's not an anecdote, that's fantasy. Similarly, DTaP is given at 2 mos. Flu vaccines are given all over the place. There is no association with any of these with autism. So where is even the anecdotal evidence? "MMR has been accused of causing autism, but since it doesn't, it must be some other vaccine" is not evidence of anything.

But if you look at it, that's all they have.

Actually, Pablo, there are those that do claim the flu shots, DTaP and others cause autism. I even read one site that said their kid was fine after MMR, it was the Booster at age 4 that did their kid in. Started seizures, etc. Sounds more like Landau Kleffner to me, but what do I know? My kid was born autistic so I don't get to blame vaccines. He didn't have any until 3 months (not even the usual ones at birth) and by then we were already convinced that something was amiss.

The Domestic Goddess:

I even read one site that said their kid was fine after MMR, it was the Booster at age 4 that did their kid in. Started seizures, etc. Sounds more like Landau Kleffner to me, but what do I know?

I was quite surprised when after hearing Jenny McCarthy blame the MMR for her son's seizures, that the seizures happened when he was over 2 and half years old. That is between six months to a year after the vaccine!

A good neurologist would do a sleep EEG to rule out Landau Kleffner. Even though my son's last seizure had a cause (a now vaccine preventable illness), he was tested for LKS.

I also knew a family whose youngest had LKS. He even went through surgery. I recently saw them, he is a young man now, and still quite disabled. (I have been running into my son's special ed. preschool classmates lately, some are still quite disabled and some are doing okay. My son is in the middle. Funny how that works.)

Actually, Pablo, there are those that do claim the flu shots, DTaP and others cause autism.

Oh, DG, I know very well that they CLAIM that, but as I said, there is no basis for that. See our recent poster blaming HepB. What in the world could make one conclude that HepB given at birth caused autism symptoms at 18 months? It's just like the Jenny McCarthy claim that Chris mentions, where she is blaming MMR for autism onset 6 months later. With DTaP or HebB or Hib, it is even longer. That's not even post hoc ergo propter hoc. That's "it happened somewhere in the past and therefore it must be the cause."

I still am trying to figure out what could actually happen to make someone even think that HepB given at birth caused autism, outside of "vaccines are bad, but it wasn't MMR so it must have been some other one."

@PABLO: He needs to talk to Jay Gordon, who once claimed here that he gave an 8 mo old a vaccine and THAT AFTERNOON the child stopped communicating with his older brother.

That was the first time I realized that Jay Gordon was full of shit and not serious

Pablo, that was the first time?! I thought your disdain for me was boundless far before then. :-)

I'd rather not step into this fray right now except to correct the facts of the incident. What actually happened was, a week after a nine month old had received a vaccine, the family called my office for a second opinion and some help. Within hours after receiving a vaccine at another doc's office, a week earlier, their son had regressed, stopped communicating with his older sister, lost language, facial interaction and motor skills.

Causation implied but not proven.

I gave them the help I could and then referred them to autism experts, both conventional therapists and also to a pediatrician who practices judicious and successful dietary and other biomedical interventions. At the same time, I referred them to a neurologist for evaluation and scans to look for other causes of this regression such as a stroke. The child has since improved greatly.

Best,

Jay

Pablo, that was the first time?! I thought your disdain for me was boundless far before then.

I was new to the forum.

So basically what you are saying, Jay, is that when you claimed that you gave an 8 month old (and you said 8 mo, I clearly remember, because I asked why you were giving shots to an 8 mo old, since that is non-standard), and that the baby that afternoon stopped talking to his brother (as others said, 8 mo olds don't talk much), you were making it up. As I said, I knew you were full of shit. You just admitted it.

Since then, of course, you have done nothing to change my mind.

Jen,

Itâs commendable that you devote so much effort to keeping up with the literature, including that concerning rodent models for ASD. Was your enthusiastic support for seasonal and H1N1 flu vaccination in pregnant women derived in part from the well-studied mouse model in which influenza infection of the pregnant dam leads to neurodevelopmental changes early in prenatal development and in pups that are deficient in social interaction, or did you miss that?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2312390/?tool=pubmed

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/23/1/297

I recently became aware of a study examining a link between in utero exposure to valproate (Depakote), an anti-seizure medication, and autism. This appears to be following up on a study that was published in Neurology in 2008 that found an increased risk of autism in children whose mothers used Depakote while they were pregnant.

One thing, though, is that despite this risk, it is still recommended that anti-seizure meds be used, even if pregnant, because of the risk of other severe complications of having a seizure while pregnant.

It seems to me that this sort of research is probably the way to go from here. The purported vaccine link is more or less dead, with no promising leads to follow. Genetic and epigenetic causes, however, seem to be more promising.

A real Dr. Jay Gordon comment:

I just saw an eight-month-old boy who got two vaccines then lost his language, motor skills, reaction to his own name and responsiveness to his 3 year old sister. This all happened three hours after a DPT/HIB combination. All previous observation and video of this little boy is normal. Lots of great video of a vibrant, talkative happy baby.

He has autism now. No proof, but the temporal proximity of the regression to his vaccines is daunting to those of us who would like more rigorous proof rather than just a collection of hundreds of pieces of anecdotal evidence. Tempting to assume causation even if only this one case/child.

Wow.

Oh my, this Jen has really stepped on herself. The spittle-spewing anger mixed with the unearned arrogance and scientific illiteracy brings to mind a nexus of woo: a chimera of Kevin Champaign, JB Handley, Sue M, John Best and Cooler. The only question is does the hind end of the chimera come from Handley or Sue M? The profane tongue is itself a mix of KC (late at night version) and John Best. The rapid fire stupid is all Sue M while the arrogance smells like JB.

Vindaloo: listen to yourself! You sound quite angry and bitter. I guess it pisses you off that some of the other posters like Matthew Cline actually understand what I am talking about in terms of the monkey research and you find this threatening. Oh well.

Matthew Kline said:

Also, if research scientists said "your collection of anecdotal evidence has convinced us that vaccines do cause autism, so we will now bend all of our resources to figuring out the 'how'", then they'd probably feel a lot less of a need to play armchair-scientist.

Um...what? "Research scientists" certainly have taken the anecdotal evidence seriously enough to devote the time and resources to several major studies exploring this purported link. The data are in, they do not support this hypothesis. Parents who truly want a solution now would do well to consider the value of exploring a correlation that has already been quite thoroughly studied and disproved, particularly as further studies necessarily takes resources away from more productive avenues of research into genetics, environmental factors impacting neural development, etc.

Jen: You seem to want to use science to prove a causal link between vaccines and autism, yet you ignore/wave away all the science showing that there is no link. Don't you see how hypocritical that seems? Show me good, reliable studies that support the vaccine-autism-link and I will be happy to change my position on this topic. Why do you not do the same...

I wrote:

Also, if research scientists said "your collection of anecdotal evidence has convinced us that vaccines do cause autism, so we will now bend all of our resources to figuring out the 'how'", then they'd probably feel a lot less of a need to play armchair-scientist.

Jennifer B. Phillips responded:

Um...what? "Research scientists" certainly have taken the anecdotal evidence seriously enough to devote the time and resources to several major studies exploring this purported link.

The autism/vaccine hypothesis advocates wouldn't want scientists to consider it a possibility, investigate it, and then dismiss it when the results come up negative. They would want the scientists to consider it a fact, and for them to put all of their resources into studying it, and when one study doesn't turn up anything to consider it from a different angle, and then a different angle, and a different one, until they figured out how vaccines caused autism. (Of course, since every study would come out negative, they'd eventually come to the the conclusion that the scientists were incompetent and/or In On the Conspiracy)

(To re-iterate: the autism/vaccine hypothesis advocates are misunderstanding the nature of science, but there's multiple ways of misunderstanding the nature of science, and I think that the exact manner in which they're misunderstanding science has been mischaracterized)

Parents who truly want a solution now would do well to consider the value of exploring a correlation that has already been quite thoroughly studied and disproved,

If they were thinking rationally, yes. But they aren't.

Kwombles @ 91,

Thank you for the references. I appreciate you taking the time. Looks like they have a copy of the Handbook at our local university. I'll try to get up there soon to take a peak at it (well probably not all of it : ) it sounds pretty hefty) but at least the chapters that address the early signs of autism. The bad thing is their copy is an edition from 2005 (and I imagine that means it was mostly written in 2004) so it's a little disappointing that they don't have a copy of the current edition.

The problem is that the bulk of scientific research on autism does NOT make it to the public for consumption.

Wow, this is really troubling and I'm surprised at this. I don't understand what the point of keeping autism research under wraps would be. Do you have any idea why this is happening? I was under the understanding that a lot of the research into autism was being funded by non-profit organizations like Autism Speaks and the NIH or other government sources of funding. Research funded that way isn't being kept from the public, is it?

Oh, if you have the time, and since I probably won't get up to take a look at the Handbook right away, and since you've already got a good deal of knowledge in this area, could you give a guess as to why in this study they weren't able to see the signs of autism in the 6 month old babies later diagnosed with ASD. Was it a problem with how they were assessing the differences or some other study design flaw? I don't have enough expertise to figure out where they went wrong.

Thanks!

Unconvinced:

Wow, this is really troubling and I'm surprised at this. I don't understand what the point of keeping autism research under wraps would be. Do you have any idea why this is happening?

Actually, I believe most of it is in the academic journals and does not get into the mainstream media. When you go to the library look for journals on autism, pediatrics, special education, speech therapy, occupational and physical therapy. There you will find much of the research. (when my son was getting private speech therapy in middle school it was at a clinic where the bookcase of journals of the American Speech and Hearing Association were kept near the therapy room, every so often I would flip through a copy... realizing why I was paying so much per hour because I could not understand most of what was written in it!)

I just did a search at PubMed just on the word "autism" and there were 15000 cites. Then I clicked on the button that showed some of the over 2000 of the free articles (some of them are suspect, like the articles in the Alternative Medicine Review).

I first lost respect for Dr. Jay on this thread

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/07/dr_jay_gordon_pediatrician_to…

due to this comment in particular:

So . . . drop the formaldehyde stuff? OK. Can I have the rest then?

What actually happened was, a week after a nine month old had received a vaccine, the family called my office for a second opinion and some help. Within hours after receiving a vaccine at another doc's office, a week earlier, their son had regressed, stopped communicating with his older sister, lost language, facial interaction and motor skills.

That's a bit different to how you told it the first time, Dr. Jay. You said the baby was 8 months old, and you said he became autistic. That immediately raised a red flag, because I don't believe any autism specialist would be able to diagnose autism at 8 months with any degree of certainty.

You said he became autistic after receiving the DTP/HIB combination, even though he DTP vaccine was replaced with the DTaP vaccine a while back.

You said the baby was not reacting to his own name. At 8 months, is this actually unusual for a baby? I've read about the 'name test' and it's suggested at 12 months. Of course, even at 12 months, not responding to your name doesn't make you autistic.

You said the baby was flapping his hands a lot. I don't think this is unusual for a baby. But apparently the baby also lost his motor skills. So no motor skills, but was able to flap his hands a lot. What, he lost the ability to do back flips or something?

My comment, directed to the author, was that he has repeatedly stated that an observational study of both vaccinated and unvaccinated cannot be done due to confounders, etc... yet then infers that because of the absence of such a study that autism prevalence isn't greater among the vaccinated. Misleading at best.

I'm afraid that you've either misread, or misunderstood some crucial points in what you've read, and jumped to incorrect conclusions. Observational studies of vaccinated and unvaccinated can and have been done, but it is difficult to extract meaningful data from them because there are so many confounders - to the point that when these observational studies report, as they not infrequently do, that children who received their scheduled vaccines have lower rates of autism than unvaccinated children, science-based writers such as our current host caution that this is no proof that vaccines have a protective effect against autism, which would be the most obvious interpretation of the results. But enough observational studies have been done that if vaccination did anything to increase or decrease the chances of children developing autism, or having autism "triggered", or however you wish to phrase the hypothesis, we would have seen that effect showing up consistently in the data. It doesn't. Those who keep insisting that "more research is needed", based on this hypothesis or that hypothesis of possible mechanisms for such an effect, are putting the cart before the horse.

The studies that cannot be done of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children are randomized controlled trials, because conducting such trials would mean that a significant number of children who entered the study would be deprived of proper medical treatment - not so that they would benefit, but so that science would benefit. Researchers are constrained to follow ethical codes that prohibit such utilitarian exploitation of subjects. Antivaccinationists may be okay with depriving children of vaccinations because they think vaccinations aren't "proper medical treatment" to begin with, but we don't base important ethical decisions based on what "someone" thinks; we base them on what the science says and when the science says that the vaccination makes a big difference in that child's chances of not being killed or maimed by disease, we listen to that science and we don't deprive the child of that protection without a damned good reason. The psychological denial in which antivaccinationists wrap themselves is not that reason.

Thanks Chris,

I use PubMed a lot to find information on my daughter's health issues and used to go get copies of full articles at the university if I found an abstract that looked interesting. I haven't done that much lately. Of course, like you said, there are a lot free articles on PubMed which I'm always happy to find. It seems like there are more free articles now than there used to be. I wonder if that's because of this: National Institutes of Health Public Access

The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicineâs PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.

I've got another trick I use when I find an interesting abstract on PubMed. I google the title of the article and often a site with a full copy of the article will pop up. It works pretty well. I was happy I was able to find a full copy (in .pdf form) of the infant siblings early signs study.

And I agree that the mainstream media doesn't report the results of studies (or, at least, not as much as I'd like) but I often have good like finding pretty detailed articles reporting on studies at Science Daily or WebMD.

I'm sorry about the struggles of your son. It sounds like you are being the best parent you can be for him and that is a wonderful thing.

I know a little guy who has Dravet Syndrome. He is a happy little guy with a great family but it is just so sad to see the suffering he endures.

Best wishes to you and your family.

Thanks, Unconvinced.

Oh, goody, yet another seizure disorder. I once went to my son's school when he was a bit older (and still in special ed.), but when I got near there I had to move out of the way of an emergency aid car. It stopped in front of the school, and followed by a car when a frantic mom carrying a baby got out and rushed in.

In the special ed. preschool her child had his first seizure, with a twist. She told me later that every time he had a seizure that he would stop breathing. So until he grew out of that he had to be constantly monitored. The last I time I talked to her he was doing well in middle school.

Fortunately my son has been weaned off of medication, and the seizure he had while ill was his last one.

By the way, back when I started researching there was no PubMed, and we had no internet. I used to go to the library and ask a librarian to look up the database for me, and then she said she could get me the relevant paper. Then it evolved where I could look it up in the library with my library card. There was too much for me to absorb, but I did some good reprints from the speech therapists and the special ed. teachers. I also got some help from the Resource Library at the local Children's Hospital (I checked out books and pamphlets). So much has changed.

I just heard something about the height incidence of autism among Somali immigrants on CBC Radion One's "The World This Weekend)

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/twtw_20100220_27852.mp3

It is about halfway through the 30 minute podcast (at 14:50).

Apparently this is observed in to many countries to be a founder effect. There is a hypothesis that this is due to a lack of sunlight (possibly vitamin D deficiency). Not only are the Somalis dark, but they do not go outside in the winter as often as people who grew up in Canada.

Chris,

Sorry, I was away from the computer. Yeah, that Dravet is a doozy. Everytime I'm heading away from our neighborhood and I see an ambulance going the other way, I always worry that it's for him. Unfortunately he's a frequent passenger.

His mom was telling me that there is a drug that is helping some kids in other countries but that it isn't FDA approved yet, so it's a fight to get insurance to cover it here. Hopefully, they'll be able to get it for him soon.

I'm impressed that you were such a skilled and tenacious researcher even in the days before PubMed and the google. I'm sure that took a lot of time and effort and that says a lot about you.

Aw, you are sweet. But that is precisely why I was labeled as evil by the Mercury Militia that took over the listserv I joined that dealt with my son's disabilities. I refused to take their word on anything (including the idiot who tried to get me booted off because I insisted the MMR never contained mercury).

But I was an amateur. I was actually alerted by someone else on the Healthfraud listserv several years ago that one of the "moms" posting silly stuff was working for Bradstreet (her kids are about the same as mine). She is even a more skilled and tenacious researcher, since she has an MS in Library Science from Columbia University. She has even had a run-in with a vaccine lawyer, who even accused her and her husband of taking over Wikipedia. You can read about it here: Welcome to My Conspiracy.

Sadly, she has had other obligations, so she cannot update her blog as often. Like me, she has adult children going to college so it is time to find real employment, so I have much less contact than before :-( . But it is worth looking back on what she has written on autism, and the legal issues involved.

Go to your library and check out a copy of Paul Offit's Autism's False Prophets and read Chapter 7. This is where Dr. Offit describes her and her work.

Dear antivaccine crusaders:

Please send out better spokesbeings. The ones in this thread are about as persuasive as Benny Hinn, and about as ethical.

I had to google to see who Bradstreet was. Yow. And the other mom is tenacious and extremely thorough. And she's got quite the blogroll on that site.

I'm familiar with Offit but never have read his book. I'll check it out, especially Chapter 7.

Tigger,

I hope you don't take this the wrong way and I certainly don't want to make you feel bad, but in order to stay above reproach and maintain our credibility, we want to be sure to keep logic and facts on our side.

I noticed that @ 53 you said "anecdotes aren't evidence" and then the next paragraph was the anecdote about your family.

I think that would fly right over the heads of most of the anti-vax crowd, but there's a chance some of them might catch it so I thought I would point it out just in case you wanted to avoid doing that inadvertently in other threads.

@Unconvinced: if you can't get to the library, or would like your own copy of Autism's False Prophets, please contact me at triskele215 at aol dot com. I have 2 copies (one I purchased, and then won one from Sciblogs when they had the book club about it). I'd be happy to send it to you for you to share around.

Actually, if anyone else wants a copy and Unconvinced does not, feel free to contact me. My library won't accept books if they have a copy already and I hate it being wasted around here!

Chris, thanks for the link to "Welcome to My Conspiracy". The hyperlink commentary of the legal documents in hilarious.

Tigger,

I hope you don't take this the wrong way and I certainly don't want to make you feel bad, but in order to stay above reproach and maintain our credibility, we want to be sure to keep logic and facts on our side.

I noticed that @ 53 you said "anecdotes aren't evidence" and then the next paragraph was the anecdote about your family.

I think that would fly right over the heads of most of the anti-vax crowd, but there's a chance some of them might catch it so I thought I would point it out just in case you wanted to avoid doing that inadvertently in other threads.

I think your concern may be misplaced, Unconvinced, for two reasons.

One is that telling an anecdote is not inconsistent with saying that anecdotal evidence does not rise to the level of scientific proof. The antivaxxers say "we have anecdotes on our side, and that's science!" or "we have anecdotes on our side, and that trumps science!" We could say "we have science on our side, and because that trumps anecdotes, we refuse to discuss any anecdotes we have", or we could say "you have anecdotes on your side; we have anecdotes on our side and science, which trumps anecdotes."

The second reason is that sometimes anecdotes are evidence. If someone makes the statement "that gun has never been fired in its whole history" then an anecdote about watching it fire is evidence against that statement. If someone makes the statement "vaccine X is the cause of autism" then an anecdote about people who did not have vaccine X and had autism nevertheless is evidence against that statement. Again, there is nothing inconsistent between telling such an anecdote and saying that anecdotes don't rise to the level of scientific proof, because the sort of statements that are so absolute that they can be refuted by anecdote usually aren't scientific anyway.

triskelethecat, I donated my extra copy of Autism's False Prophets to the elementary school where my son received special education services from preschool through to fifth grade. I also gave them my copy of Patricia Hamaguchi's Childhood Speech Language and Listening Problems, What Every Parent Should Know. There is a section in their library for parents, from parenting kids in the regular program to books specific to the disabilities of their special ed. program.

cat @ 124, That is really sweet, thanks. I checked and I can get it at the library and I'm already there a lot with my kiddos. I find it's better for me when trying to read a book to have a deadline for finishing it...like when it's due back at the library.

I have a terrible time getting through books because I spend way too much time obsessively researching online.

If you don't have any takers here, you might try donating it to your local public school's library. We have a parents resource section in ours.

and A.F. @ 126, Thanks for the explanation about anecdotes.

@Chris and Unconvinced: That is a very good idea. Since we moved to this town when our kids were almost out out of elementary, I am not as familiar with the school library. I'll check and see if they will take it. I just hate having a copy sitting around unused.

@111 Unconvinced,

Chris answered the question regarding research quite well; it's in the journals, but much of the research is not free access; it requires going into universities and accessing it there unless you have online university database access.

The Handbook is a massive undertaking, coalating all major research and threads into one huge work; it isn't surprising that its most recent incarnation is a half a decade ago. We long ago passed the point where any one researcher, clinician, practitioner, academic, or parent could stay abreast on all autism research. There is a monumental amount of research being done in all aspects of autism, some of it downright contradictory, a fair amount of it poorly designed. It's science.

Public consumption of science likes hard pronouncements of absolutes. Many of the studies have small sample sizes and are preliminary studies; they were not meant to be and are not pronouncements of fact.

The new study from UC looked at "gaze to faces, shared smiles, and vocalizations." These alone are insufficient indicators of autism. They only looked at social indicators. Tactile defensiveness, overall disposition -- does the child scream all the time unless held or scream if held-- is just one area that could have also been looked at in the study as does not appear to have been.

In addition, autism is a disorder that manifests over time. It is a developmental delay; it isn't until a particular developmental milestone is missed that this delay becomes apparent. Autism becomes more and more apparent as the child ages and the peers surpass them socially, communicatively, and in other developmental areas. Babies aren't doing a whole lot at six months. :-)

could you give a guess as to why in this study they weren't able to see the signs of autism in the 6 month old babies later diagnosed with ASD.

One mistake that people who look at nature-versus-nurture for the first time make is to assume that the baby at birth is done with genetics, and everything from there on out is environment.

The fact is that it takes genes a long time to express themselves. If there is such a thing as "smart genes" (a hotly contested topic), you couldn't notice it in your newborn. People who are genetically susceptible to Alzheimer's don't act confused as toddlers. Homosexuality probably has a significant genetic component, yet (AFAIK) we cannot tell a gay baby from a heterosexual baby -- at least, surely not at birth.

We can't tell the babies who will develop ASD symptoms from those who won't until they reach enough of a development milestone that the differences could be noticed. (Now, maybe there is a difference pre-six-months, but it's reasonable to think that whoever did the recent study either has been or is looking at the videotapes of the pre-six-month-olds intensively to find any differences. This is retrospective so any differentiators they find -- if any -- would need to be confirmed in a prospective study, but searching for theories to test retrospectively is fine.)

I don't meant to defend them, but to correctly characterize them: they think that their collection of anecdotal evidence is rock solid evidence that vaccines cause autism, but don't know how it causes autism.

These "activist groups" could easily take the next step and do some ecological or cross-sectional studies. They could even pay to use the Vaccine Safety Datalink to do their research. But they won't, because I think deep down they know what the answer is. It's much easier to do half-baked animal studies instead.