Popular Culture

Friday Woo

Paranormal

Popular Culture

Pseudoscience

Quackery

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/10/09/tom-brady-alex-guerr…

Categories

Medicine

This woman...is a moron.

Would her psychic vampire repellent, help to keep her and here kind out of my way? Because they are not good for my wellbeing.

I think all that sand would gum up a spray bottle.

The thing about "just asking questions" is that there are often already science-based answers. Paltrow and her quacky ilk count on their marks not to be smart enough to find them.

So... that psychic vampire repellent. It's a $30 room spray, then? Or is it a $30 body mist? At that price, I hope the stupid thing at least has the decency to smell pleasant.

Renate@2: Sorry, but the product in question is not effective against non-psychic vampires. Just as it says on the label, it only repels psychic vampires.

As for "empowerment", I do not think that word means what Paltrow thinks it means. I would not consider people who are the marks of a scam to be "empowered". As the old song says:

But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to

To me she functions as a psychic vampire, because she brings bad vibes to me.

So, that if you have arthritis or IBS, you can maybe, possibly, make a diet change that’s really impactful.

Should I tell her that drinking Soylent for at least one meal a day is what had a huge impact on my IBS? (From 2 or more flareups a week, to less than one a month.) Most of the ingredients don't pretend to not be chemicals; it would probably blow her mind.

"Psychic Vampire" refers to a toxic person who drains the mental energy and undermines the emotional wellbeing of others. Why that phrase was chosen is puzzling.
In addition, how does this spray work to counteract psychic vampires? Surely it's better to just cut them out of your life?

I know! If all it took to block the malign effects of psychic vampires was some fairy dust made of reiki infused crystal essence and various flower extracts, that'd be awesome. :-)

I would expect pepper spray to be more effective as a "psychic vampire [whatever that means] repellant" than the stuff Paltrow is peddling, but pepper spray may be illegal in some jurisdictions. IANAL. TINLA.

I know of something that works for both psychic and regular vampires.

Go out and trap a skunk. Then on a daily basis have your, now pet skunk, liberally spray you. Not only will this keep any type of vampire away from you but will isolate you from all those disease carrying people out there.

Eric, I think skunk spray beats your pepper spray.

Frankly women like Paltrow make the rest of us look bad. How 'bout education, reproductive rights and equal opportunites for female empowerment? We just don't need stupid over-priced spritzes or vag eggs Gwynnie.

The first time I heard the phrase "Psychic Vampire" was from the mouth of William S. Burroughts.

So vampire spray is real? I saw this pop up in a few places and kind of thought it was a joke. $30 for this stuff?

@Science Mom: I agree, Paltrow is doing the opposite of empowering women.

So this stuff is real? I saw it pop up in a few places and thought it was a joke. $30? Really?

@Science Mom: I agree. Paltrow is doing the opposite of empowering women. She's actually perpetrating the old stereotype of women using "feelings" instead of rational thought.

Interestingly enough, Paltrow's own mother, Blythe Danner, is a shill for Big Pharma: she does commercials for an osteoporosis drug, Prolia. There are also advertorial artciles wherein she discusses how she copes with the illness ( kale is great- as well as meds).

It's funny how woo-slingers sometimes use 'women's empowerment' as a selling point. See also anti-vax and altie nutritionists.

What is Paltrow but a greedy vampire preying on the finances and fears of women? Her goop empire is seriously in need of a stake through its heart.

It is so typical of woo-sters to try to sell you something when all you need is natural mind-power to ward off psychic vampires.

Better yet, fight fire with fire - learn to become a psychic vampire yourself. I found a great site that discusses the technique, beginning with complete relaxation:

"...Now, feel every nerve in your body. Be aware of each and every one. Feel your energy traveling through you, out you, around you, and back into you. Feel the energy pulsate in you. Once you are able to do this comfortably, any time, any where, you are ready for the next step."

"Now to feed. You should now be able to meditate and draw energy through you. The only difference is that instead of directing your energy, you must will someone else's. To do that, feel around. Find someone who has an abundance of energy. Once You have picked out your "victim" or "source", concentrate on them. If you must look at them, then do so. If not, picture them in your mind. Imagine their energy coming out of them and entering you. Continue to do this until you feel satisfied. You may feel the life force coming from them become too weak. In that case, stop, you do not want to leave them overly exhausted or be noticed. If you do not feel satisfied you may need to feed off more than one person."

"As you get more practice, you will be able to this from a distance and over the phone. Perhaps you have a compassionate heart towards the unknowing victim, you can learn to feed off a crowd collectively."

This is way cool! I am already feeding quite well off skeptical websites like this one. Feeling just a bit fatigued, minions? Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Paltrow's audience is people spending somebody else's money. They are narcissists needing no sympathy. Paltrow is a con and and in this case, so are marks.

Her audience is likely inclined to accept the science behind climate change; that many people accept science selectively, when it suits their world view is most troubling of all. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Tom Brady (and his new book) are turning out to be target-rich environments for science-based commentators.

The Patriot quarterback's book suggests that drinking lots of water protects you against sunburn, and attacks GMOs. It seems that Tom is also tight with a "personal guru", Alex Guerrero who was warned by the FTC to stop falsely referring to himself as a doctor, and who has reportedly peddled a supplement claimed to be effective against terminal cancer and other life-threatening diseases.

"Brady and Guerrero are not merely inseparable; they are now also business partners in TB12, LLC, which has a sports therapy center headquartered at Patriot Place next door to Gillette Stadium. Over the past year, major profiles in Sports Illustrated and the New York Times magazine have focused on the unique relationship between Brady and Guerrero, without even hinting at Guerrero’s checkered past. As Guerrero continues to be monitored by the FTC under his lifetime ban, TB12 will likely be under a microscope to back up claims about the extraordinary training regimen Guerrero has sold Brady—and which Brady and Guerrero are now selling to the world."

"Already, the Brady-Guerrero venture has produced a major misstep—one that brought the FTC storming back into Guerrero’s life. Though Guerrero had promised the FTC never to make outrageous claims about his supplements, by 2011 he had a new company, 6 Degree Nutrition, and a new miracle potion. Introduced at a time when NFL players, in particular, had become hyper-aware of the effects of head injuries, it was called NeuroSafe—a “seatbelt for your brain” that promised to protect users “from the consequences of sports-related traumatic brain injury.” The label boasted that the product was “Powered by TB12.” Guerrero, the snake-oil salesman, was back in business.

Paltrow is missing a golden marketing opportunity. She could market wooden eggs for the man who thinks his female friend(s) are physics vampires instead of jade eggs.

I don't have any citations on the effectiveness of this technique.

Zach- I get it.

@ DB

Brady and Geurrero are so much worse than goop. Psychic vampire repellent and jade vagina eggs aren't going to keep anyone away from real medicine, or let them believe they're protected from some illness for which they're at risk. NeuroSafe is just as bad as the dangerous cancer scams that got Guerrero kicked out of California. TB12 isn't just a fly-by-night operation by these two guys. The Patriots have made heavy investments in it, I think in part as a means of giving Brady $$ under the table to avoid salary cap issues. But that makes it a billionaire-backed sports quackery operation. No surprise to me, both Brady and Pats owner Robert Craft are big fans of MAGA Trump.

Hmmm. I wasn't that familiar with this particular scam. I might have to look into it...

I believe the best way to ward off psychic vampires is to stay far far away from Facebook and other social media outlets. ;-)

It’s funny how woo-slingers sometimes use ‘women’s empowerment’ as a selling point. See also anti-vax and altie nutritionists.

See also the tobacco industry (a few decades ago).

“Psychic Vampire” refers to a toxic person who drains the mental energy and undermines the emotional wellbeing of others. Why that phrase was chosen is puzzling.

Think of it as weaponised projection mechanism, or New-Age witch-sniffing. "I am feeling low-energy and emotionally messed-up, therefore someone else must be to blame."

Paltrow is missing a golden marketing opportunity.

"Lisa, I would like to buy your rock wooden egg."

Sound waves? Moonlight?? LOVE?!?!? These are ingredients? I'm fascinated by the implication that there are more sound waves than moonlight in this stuff.

I third the idea that Gwynneth is doing the opposite of empowering women, she is reinforcing stereotypes about the irrationality of women. And "we know that the world follows the consciousness of women"... what? That is a vacuum of a sentence, it sounds like it came from the Chopra woo generator.

Also, "toxic megacolon, anyone?" - thanks, but I'm trying to quit.

Feeling just a bit fatigued, minions? Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Yap, but then, your 3 previous paragraph hadn't had any effect. Just got off from a medical clinic with a script for good'Ol penicilin 875mg twice daily, 14 days.

Radiography indicated infected sinus and right lung lobe. Doc told me to take one (pill) ASAP and come back if it's still infected.

At the very least, I gave myself a good bday gift (tomorrow), It's been 2 days I stopped smoking cold turkey.

The link to the article about Brady and his sidekick Guerrero quoted earlier:

@Sadmar

Tom Brady is a truly excellent quarterback, one who achieves through immense discipline despite being an antique (age ~40) in a brutally physical contest. You can see him working for every one of his team's wins, and often pulling them through when the other team has superior firepower (bigger, stronger, or faster players). He has every day for the rest of his career mapped. Every meal, every training session, every rest period is scheduled, it is how he can still be on the field playing opposite steroidal 20 year olds.

Shame that's he's gotten associated with quackery, but nobody (well, nobody sane) goes to an NFL QB for supplements etc. Brady is an example of dedication, teamwork, skill and perseverance. Considering the number of people like Hernandez in the league, jumping on what is perhaps some undue influence from his trainer diminishes one of the positive examples in the NFL.

Alain: Happy birthday and congratulations on quitting smoking. Good luck with eradicating the infection. Lungs are the worst when they're not working properly.

How is it supposed to repel a psychic vampire without garlic?

@ Orac #27

Do read the Globe article DB linked in #35. It's really good. It is however, from 2015, so it may not provide a timely hook for a blog post. The only update revealed by a quick web search is here: http://tinyurl.com/y9ke5cro, from May of this year: Brady says his regimen (including NeuroSafe) has protected him from concussions, but his wife reports he's had enough of them she's worried about it. IIRC, Guerrero no longer runs the risk of selling and advertising his woo to the public at large. Rather it's incorporated into the 'comprehensive training and wellness' programs TB12 markets to 'elite' athletes (at an 'elite' price), the exact details of which aren't generally publicized. The Globe article on the Pats payments to TB12 is here: http://tinyurl.com/y9ke5cro

Sadmar: No surprise to me, both Brady and Pats owner Robert Craft are big fans of MAGA Trump.

Like I needed more reasons to dislike football.

I ward off psychic vampires by consuming the essences of juniper, coriander, quinine, and lime mixed with carbonated water and alcohol. While listening to "Tattoo Vampire" by Blue Öyster Cult.

Dear Orac,

Whatever I did to first be put on permanent moderation and then move directly to your spam filter, I apologize.

Commentary on Tom Brady's quackery-laden new book (he's also into alkalizing woo):

https://deadspin.com/sports-illustrated-nakedly-shills-for-tom-bradys-d…

Looks like Sports Illustrated is feeling the heat about promoting the book:

https://www.si.com/eats/2017/09/22/tom-brady-book-recipes-avocado-ice-c…

Is a "gem elixir" some kind of very finely ground crystal, or is this something that has met a gem in the past? I'm thinking either light passed through a gemstone to fall on a container of water or alcohol, or a small piece of that gemstone put into the container for some arbitrary amount of time.

For the sake of the customers and those around them, I hope it's not tiny bits of rock being aerosolized into the air around them. That reminds me of the lung damage caused by all the crap people downwind of Lower Manhattan inhaled in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

[Realistically, my suspicion is that whatever they're claiming, that part is just distilled water, making it harmless, like most homeopathic nostrums.]

My best friend did it with me and she ate a banana on the second day, and I was like, “You f%$ked it up. All results are off.”

Me thinks her friend needs some psychic vampire repellent against her bad vibes...

Last night I warded off vampires with the essences of juniper, cardamom, quinine, and other botanicals infused in alcohol and carbonated water.

However, I don't believe it can be an adequate vampire repellent without garlic.

so how much poop does a person have in them? i wonder that w/e i hear the weird 20+ pound people. someday i will get over my fear and google it

Er, judging from my exposure to babies, about a pound.

Quoth GP: So while he was having radiation and the surgery and everything, and eating through a feeding tube, I thought, “Well, I’m pushing this can of processed protein directly into his stomach,” and I remember thinking, “Is this really healing? This seems weird. There’s a bunch of chemicals in this shit.
So, I'm curious. How else did she think her father was going to get the nutrients he needed while modern medicine went about healing him from whatever he had (I'm guessing cancer)?

Alison: Photosynthesis?

so how much poop does a person have in them?

I tried to answer this question. While preparing for a colonoscopy, I tried to keep track of my weight. However, it takes a coupla days - first there is low fiber diet, then liquids, then a gallon (call it eight pounds) of some nasty, thick, salty tasting mixture, consumed and lost over a coupla hours, that not only leaves you with zero poop, you're lucky to have any bones left.

With all of that, I couldn't get a good read, but it can't be more than a pound or two at most.

"... some nasty, thick, salty tasting mixture ..."
probably a solution of polyethylene glycol with added electrolytes

Great stuff, PEG. All sorts of uses.

When I used to do autopsies, we didn't weigh fecal matter but could certainly estimate the amount. It was usually less than a kilogram. 20 lb is absurd.

Great stuff, PEG. All sorts of uses.

If the intended use is "produce a case of the squirts that can only be described as 'copious, sudden, and undeniable'", then I would agree.

TBruce -when I was younger and more foolish, I used to weigh myself obsessively and found the difference between one bowel movement and another was negligible So much for the mythical 20 lbs,. By the by, I first heard that story about 30 years ago. At least two colonoscopies later, and I've still haven't lost 40 lb from preps

Guess it sucks to be human!

I've had a proper detox* - due to acute kidney failure, I'd advise people against experiencing that - and that involves sticking a great big tube in the vein in your neck and cycle your blood through a big machine.

I'm pretty sure that there were no mystical crystals involved. Definitely felt much better afterwards. Strange that Gwyneth dosen't offer it..

*OK, plasma exchange.

what a bunch of prissy shit posting.

what a bunch of prissy shit posting.

Fainting couches and clutching pearls can be rented at reasonable rates.
You may apply for a position as tone troll, but given the current waiting list it is unlikely that a position will come open in this decade.

If the intended use is “produce a case of the squirts that can only be described as ‘copious, sudden, and undeniable'”, then I would agree.

Balistic spring to mind too.

"Whatever I did to first be put on permanent moderation and then move directly to your spam filter, I apologize."

So it's not just me? I thought I was being moderated due to my psychic vampirism. :p

Let me try my other email...

Inasmuch as I can't leave my current kitten socialization/HDD replacement spot to go get a T6 screwdriver (nor does copying and pasting work on this phone), I'll mention that a pair of closely spaced colonoscopies has led me to consider GoLytely merely an acquired taste. Best served cold.

And I never scored better than a C on my prep, despite absolute determination for the second one.

A pharma shill working on behalf of an industry-funded group shows how easy it is to publish propaganda as a legitimate op-ed

oracknows — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:50:32 +0000

A pharma shill working on behalf of an industry-funded group shows how easy it is to publish propaganda as a legitimate op-ed

As a medical blogger with a skeptical bent and a rather aggressive proclivity towards defending science-based medicine, I generally like STAT News. Sure, it's occasionally screwed up royally (e.g., its credulous false balance reporting on a patient of cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski named Neil Fachon), but in general it's usually a good source of medical news and analysis. No publication is perfect, of course, but STATNews is generally better than average, and I appreciate that.

That's why I was disappointed to see how thoroughly a pharma-backed astroturf group whose mission is to loosen restrictions on physicians interacting with drug companies played STATNews last week and how long it took STATNews to do something about it. The screwup began last Friday, when STATNews published an op-ed by a physician named Dr. Robert Yapundich entitled How pharma sales reps help me be a more up-to-date doctor. No, that's not a joke. That's actually what the title of the op-ed was. If you click on the link now, you'll find a note from the editor of STATNews explaining that the article has been retracted and providing reasons (although not a particularly in-depth explanation) for why the op-ed had been retracted. However, the almighty Wayback Machine will show us why, when I saw the article over the weekend, my first reaction, was "WTF?" but why the whole op-ed stunk to high heaven and set my skeptical antennae twitching furiously. (I note that I was not alone.) However, I didn't write about it until things blew up yesterday with revelations that were very embarrassing to STATNews, particularly about the undisclosed conflicts of interest on Dr. Yapundich's part and—surprise! surprise!—ghostwriting.

First, let's take a look at the offending article, with the help of the Wayback Machine. Dr. Yapundich notes:

As a neurologist in practice for more than 20 years, I have experienced many changes that regulate and limit the drug industry’s interaction with physicians and other health care providers. These changes are aimed at preventing companies from having undue influence on physicians.

Correct. Dr. Yapundich even seems to concede that it's a good idea to prevent pharma reps from having undue influence over doctors. But in the op-ed he soon expressed "worry" that "lawmakers could eventually implement further restrictions on these interactions that could de facto ban communications between pharmaceutical companies and doctors." Personally, I'm not sure that that would be such a bad thing, but clearly Dr. Yapundich thinks that it would be, were such a ban ever to occur. Personally, I also highly doubt that such a complete ban would ever be instated, much less enforced. Be that as it may, Dr. Yapundich seems to fear such an eventuality. Why? He seems to think that drug reps are necessary for doctors to keep pace with the fast-changing world of health care and new drug treatment recommendations:

Many doctors find it difficult to keep pace with the breakneck speed of research and development. With more than 7,000 new medicines in the pipeline, treatment options are constantly expanding. In 2016, U.S. authorities approved 46 new medicines for sale.

Unaware of the latest treatments, many doctors stick to their old prescription patterns. That can lead to people not getting the best medications for their illnesses. By one calculation, the average American patient fails to receive the recommended drug in nearly one 1 of every 3 doctor visits.

Drug company representatives can provide doctors with vital nuggets of information on the latest treatments while preserving their freedom to treat patients as they see fit.

He even used an anecdote about how a drug rep told him about a new drug to treat Parkinson's disease psychosis. (More on that later.)

I can't speak for my fellow physicians, but my response to this sort of twaddle is that if you can't find other ways to keep up with the medical literature other than meeting with drug company reps whose job it is to persuade you to prescribe more of their product and to choose their products over those of competing drug companies, you really should reassess your continuing medical education strategy, particularly in the age of the Internet. I'm not one of those who argue that doctors should never have contact with pharma reps, but, come on! These are not physicians. They might not even have a science background. There are better sources for information.

Also, doctors seem to have a rather arrogant belief that their judgment is not affected by gifts that drug companies love to lavish on physicians. It is a truly arrogant view that ignores huge amounts of social science and psychology research that shows that even relatively small gifts can influence behavior subconsciously. Yes, we are social apes, and we feel a powerful urge to reciprocate. It's the reason why charities, for instance, will frequently include little gifts in their mailings soliciting donations. People feel very guilty accepting even tiny gifts without some form of reciprocation. It's our nature. I get really tired of hearing my colleagues opine about how they are not at all influenced by drug company gifts. I really have to bite my tongue sometimes, rather than doing what I really want to do and responding, "Bullshit!" They really believe that, but I know they're basically deluding themselves, which is why it irritates me so much to hear them self-righteously proclaim that they could never, ever be influenced by such trinkets.

Of course, the real point Dr. Yapundich is getting at is something that his pharma paymasters (oops, did I spill the beans?) want so, so badly:

Doctors benefit from hearing about such off-label uses, as they inform doctors about alternative uses of medications. However, existing law essentially bans industry reps from discussing off-label uses — even those that are widely popular in the medical community and proven to be effective and safe. Preventing sales reps from mentioning these uses can be detrimental to patients, especially considering that some conditions have no FDA-approved treatments. In these situations, off-label uses can be doctors’ only option for prescribing. Patients would benefit from having physicians be as informed as possible about effective off-label uses.

Off-label prescribing, of course, is a major part of medicine. Drugs are frequently used for indications for which they are not FDA-approved, because once a drug is FDA-approved for one indication it can be used for any indication. Not infrequently, there is evidence for the use of a given drug for an indication other than the indications for which it was approved by the FDA. Physicians thus have the freedom to prescribe drugs off-label when they see fit, based on their evaluation of their patients and interpretation of clinical trials. It's part of our professional judgment and obligation. However, drug companies have a vested interest in promoting off-label use because it improves their bottom line. Also, why bother going through the tedious and difficult process of applying to the FDA for approval for a new clinical indication when the same thing could be accomplished by persuading a critical mass of doctors in the relevant specialty to use their drug for a non-FDA-approved indication? There's a reason why it's illegal for drug companies to advertise off-label uses for their drug. If they could do that, then all they would have to do is to get their drug approved for one indication and, instead of relying on physicians interpreting the evidence to start using their product off-label, they could promote such uses themselves, even if the drug hasn't yet been approved for that indication or if the evidence for the off-label use is not that strong.

Even in the original iteration of this article, there was a major red flag in the bio of Dr. Yapundich:

Robert Yapundich, M.D., is a neurologist practicing in Hickory, N.C., and a member of the Alliance for Patient Access. The alliance supports regulations that expand manufacturers’ ability to discuss off-label uses, particularly those that are accepted in compendia and practice guidelines or reimbursed by the government and insurers.

So Dr. Yapundich is a member of a group that supports expanding manufacturers' abilities to discuss off-label uses. That's bad enough. However, not long after STATNews published his op-ed, Twitter erupted:

might want to disclose that author has been paid $200k+ in last 2 years https://t.co/QnmU27SPZ7 https://t.co/DMJgJ69yrl

— Zach Brennan (@ZacharyBrennan) September 1, 2017

And:

This pro drug rep article fails to mention the author received 134K in pharma payments in 2015. Disgusting!https://t.co/lFHjBaFNu7

— Stephen Popovich (@sjpopo) September 2, 2017

It's actually worse than that. It turns out that Dr. Yapundich received $332,294 between 2013-2016 from pharmaceutical companies, which was not disclosed in the original article. That's a pretty impressive lapse, don't you think? Funny how he somehow forgot to disclose that or didn't think it important:

As a matter of policy, we ask all our contributors to disclose payments from industry and other possible conflicts of interest. In this case, the author disclosed no conflicts other than his affiliation with an organization that supports expanding manufacturers’ ability to discuss off-label uses of drugs. In response to reader questions, we contacted Yapundich and he told us he had received more than $300,000 in recent years from pharmaceutical companies, including one he mentioned in the article. He also acknowledged that his organization was funded in part by pharmaceutical companies. We disclosed that information at the bottom of the article on Tuesday.

I'm not the sort who argues that physicians should never meet with pharmaceutical company representatives and salespeople, although personally I do try to keep my contact with them to a minimum. Occasionally, I've even gotten useful information from them, but I can't recall a time when it was anything I wouldn't have soon learned for myself another way. STATNews' misstep was on another plane entirely. Here we have a physician who belongs to a what looks all the world to me like an astroturf group funded by pharma whose purpose is to lobby and do PR for loosening restrictions on pharmaceutical companies discussing off-label uses of their products.

That new addendum/disclaimer was the only change made; that is, until sometime yesterday afternoon, after the other shoe dropped in the form of an article by Kevin Lomangino at HealthNewsReview, ‘A blow to [STAT’s] credibility’: MD listed as author of op-ed praising drug reps didn’t write it. Ghostwriting/PR influence. Lomangino interviewed Dr. Yapundich and discovered that he didn't write it. He contributed to it after a draft had been presented to him, but:

Here is Yapundich’s account of how the events surrounding the op-ed unfolded:

The concept for the STAT article, as far as Yapundich knows (although this hasn’t been verified), came from the Alliance for Patient Access (AfPA), a physician group whose stated mission is “ensuring patient access to approved therapies and appropriate clinical care.” The group is supported financially by nearly 30 pharmaceutical companies.

Yapundich is on the board of AfPA, and his membership is disclosed in the STAT piece. He says a staff member from the organization initially approached him about getting involved with the op-ed. The premise — “How pharma sales reps help me be a more up-to-date doctor” — is something Yapundich says he agrees with passionately. It didn’t take much convincing for him to decide to participate.

Yapundich stated clearly that he did not write the initial draft of the article and doesn’t know who did. He said he “agrees with the spirit of the article” and “wouldn’t have put his name to it” otherwise. “AfPA sent me an initial draft that they composed, I made some changes and edits to it, and the process went back and forth for about a month until it was published,” he said.

That’s when the problems began in earnest.

As we reported earlier this week, Yapundich received more than $300,000 from the drug industry between 2013 and 2016, according to the federal Open Payments database. And yet disclosure of that conflict of interest was initially missing from Yapundich’s op-ed; it was added only after an outcry in the comments section of the STAT piece and on Twitter.

So, not only was the op-ed published without a complete accounting of Dr. Yapundich's conflicts of interest, but it was ghostwritten, and the anecdote he told about finding out about a new treatment for Parkinson's disease psychosis was, to put it kindly, embellished:

“It didn’t come out the way I intended it to,” he said, speaking of the op-ed that carried his name. “The article made it seem like I’d never seen the drug before and that was not what I intended.”

He told me he was well aware of the drug at the time of the encounter with the sales rep, and that the rep had said something interesting about the drug — “new medication data,” Yapundich called it — that “set off a light bulb” in his mind and subsequently led to the positive patient encounter.

“I hope there aren’t other parts of the article that escaped my editorial oversight or review,” Yapundich said. “The next time I do one of these op-eds, I should be the one doing the drafting and they should be the ones doing the editing and reviewing.”

Ya think? That is so obvious that it's amazing that Dr. Yapundich needed to be publicly embarrassed by being called out for his failure to disclose how much he benefits from pharma payments. Indeed, his contortions on the issue are epic:

Yapundich says he understands the importance of such financial disclosures and that the omission was unintentional. It resulted from miscommunication with AfPA and uncertainty regarding the disclosure requirements.

“In regards to COI, I’m not sure what is needed,” he recalled writing to his AfPA liaison. “Do you need the company names? Which years? What type of COI?”

His contact reportedly wrote back: “Hold on financial info. Hopefully only needed for AfPA and not for you individually.”

That’s the last Yapundich heard about the disclosure issue until STAT called him to clarify, he says.

Bloody hell, this is disingenuous. If you receive over $300,000 from pharmaceutical companies over the last 3 or 4 years, you should disclose it. You don't have to name the companies. It's clear that AfPA thought it could hide just how beholden to pharmaceutical companies Dr. Yapundich is by rolling it all into itself and having him disclose only that he belongs to the AfPA. Of course, most people are not going to look into the AfPA more, and the vague explanation that it promotes more discussion by pharma reps of off-label uses doesn't tell the whole story in a way that communicates the magnitude of the COI.

Then, of course, there is the involvement of Keybridge Communications, who's just as vague about its explanation for the lapse in full disclosure of COIs:

His explanation of the financial disclosure confusion appears to cast blame on STAT for not being thorough enough. But it may also reflect failure to respect accepted standards for acknowledging conflict of interest.

“As you know,” Snyder wrote, “Dr. Yapundich has many relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. This is no secret; the relationships are publicly detailed here. We didn’t send this along as we were under the impression that the editor was asking about the Alliance for Patient Access, and Dr. Yapundich wrote the piece in his capacity as a member of AfPA.”

Yes, there is blame to be placed on STAT, but Mr. Snyder is being quite disingenuous here. Keybridge Communications is a PR firm that touts its goal as "to get your message in front of your target audience, whether it’s influencers and consumers or lawmakers and voters, noting that opinion media "drives the public debate – and enables our clients to expand their footprint, sway attitudes, and achieve their strategic goals." In other words, it tries to get op-eds published in high profile outlets like STAT in order to promote its clients' message. I don't believe for a minute that Keybridge doesn't know what was being asked when STAT asked for relevant COIs or that it didn't know damned well that its response would hopefully placate STAT without revealing the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Dr. Yapundich had received to be a pharma shill. (Yes, he is a real pharma shill, unlike the pharma shill accusations quacks and antivaxers frequently level at skeptics.)

Unfortunately, STAT fell for it. Even more unfortunately, STAT appears to be circling the wagons more than it should. Lomangino notes that when he raised his detailed concerns with the editors of STAT they declined to offer a detailed response or even to "make an attempt to investigate further and get back to me." According to Lomangio, STAT told him, basically, he was "welcome to do that" himself.

I agree with Lomangino that op-ed contributions are not news pieces and therefore that op-ed writers should have more latitude. They are, after all, writing opinion pieces. Unfortunately, at the time this op-ed was published, STAT's vetting procedures were so lax that they allowed a ghostwritten puff piece (as Lomangino put it) by a pharma-funded astroturf group and distributed through its PR company. Yes, I know that a lot of legitimate op-ed writers have PR companies getting their offerings published in newspapers, magazines, and online outlets, but it should be possible to make it more difficult for companies to get ghostwritten articles published. In this case, a few simple searches on Google and a couple of relevant websites (e.g., the Open Payments database) would have revealed that Dr. Yapundich wasn't disclosing everything.

As I said, I generally like STAT (although one of its reporters doesn't much like me any more—I won't say who). It was a welcome addition to health reporting. It's not perfect, and I don't expect perfection. I do, however, expect better than this when it comes to a very basic function of journalism, disclosing relevant conflicts of interest.

oracknows Fri, 09/08/2017 - 02:50

Tags

Bioethics

Popular Culture

Alliance for Patient Access

astroturf

Keybridge Communications

Categories

The google ad for some car company is preventing me from reading the article as it yanks me back to the top of the page every time it loops. See if you can have the scienceblogs gurus fix that, or at least shut it down.

Orac writes,

I generally like STAT (although one of its reporters doesn’t much like me any more—I won’t say who).

MJD says,

Why mention it if you won't disclose the reporter's name?

FULL disclosure is what makes the ScienceBlogs Respectful Insolence an outstanding read.

Q. Is your subconscious affecting your respectful insolence?

Also, doctors seem to have a rather arrogant belief that their judgment is not affected by gifts that drug companies love to lavish on physicians.

There is a reason why most other fields have restrictions on giving gifts to people in whose decisions you have a financial interest. The line between gift giving and bribery is quite thin, and often gets erased when there is no written rule specifying where the line is. I don't always agree with where the line is drawn (e.g., the lack of limits to donating to political campaigns), but there is always a line somewhere.

Doctors are people, too, and the ones who aren't willing to acknowledge that probably shouldn't have gone into medicine.

To reinforce your point about gifts: there's a Jewish folk tale about a Rabbi who had his garden either come in one day bringing his personal crop of figs in early.

The worker mentioned he's appearing before the Rabbi, who also served as arbitrator in local disputes, later that day and wanted to get the work in early. The Rabbi immediately assigned the dispute to another Rabbi. Ashe was listening to it, he found himself seeking all the points in favor of his worker.

His moral, as he says it, was: "see what an impact. The figs were mine. I was going to get them. He just brought them in a little early. And that small act of giving made it hard for me to distance myself from his case.

Imagine a real gift."

We are human.

Indeed. It's why charities frequently send little gifts in their solicitations, like personalized address labels or pens. Research clearly shows that the extra money used to send such little gifts more than pays for itself in increased donations. When it comes to tchotchkes from drug reps, docs frequently say things like, "It's just a pen" or "It was just lunch," but those little gifts work, even if there is only the gentlest of selling going on, because docs will remember the product and be more likely to prescribe it. We remember who was nice to us and gave us things, even years later, which is why drug reps work on medical students and residents, too.

Is your subconscious affecting your respectful insolence?

Oh, the irony. TIME TO POST!

"I know that a lot of legitimate op-ed writers have PR companies getting their offerings published in newspapers, magazines, and online outlets, but it should be possible to make it more difficult for companies to get ghostwritten articles published."

I can't speak for the medical field, however this is common practice in business. I have myself been the author of a number of articles (technology trade press) that were entirely ghost written. Companies really don't like their valuable people taking the time to do this when it can be done better and cheaper by others. It's a bit of a surreal experience. The hired writer interviews you (usually by conference call with the PR/marketing person) and then scurries off to do their thing. We review and edit the draft, and where necessary I have to agree with the invented quotations (yes, I would or did say this). Eventually it gets published in some trade mag that is also in on the game. Somehow no matter how educational/neutral the subject our company's products and services always seem to get mentioned.

"I do, however, expect better than this when it comes to a very basic function of journalism, disclosing relevant conflicts of interest."

Exactly. At least in my articles my title, company affiliation and area of responsibility were prominently featured. Whether any of this is unethical or at least icky was not too concerning since all our competitors did the same ("hey, I saw your article in xxx -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink"). We might even include a quote from a customer (with their agreement) that would say something along the lines of: "he's right, do you know that?"

Andrew Wakefield's argument is that you don't have to disclose financial support from vested interests unless you spend it on the article in question.

Yup. And all his slimy enablers parrot that claim.

"...Yapundich said... “The next time I do one of these op-eds, I should be the one doing the drafting and they should be the ones doing the editing and reviewing.”

I hope he means the _journal_ should do the editing and reviewing, not the industry-funded influence group. But it's hard to tell.

Orac: "...if you can’t find other ways to keep up with the medical literature other than meeting with drug company reps whose job it is to persuade you to prescribe more of their product and to choose their products over those of competing drug companies, you really should reassess your continuing medical education strategy, particularly in the age of the Internet."

Really.

There was a semi-excuse for getting briefed by drug reps in the past, when the alternative was going to a conference or spending time in class. But there's a ton of good medical CME online now (much of it free), so the excuse no longer exists.

Isn't Orac endangering his own pharma-shill money and that of regular posters, by this post?

According to some the people here are just writing what they write, because of Big Pharma money.;)

Nah. Our pharma paymasters hate people who can't hide the fact that they are shills.

justawriter: "The google ad for some car company is preventing me from reading the article as it yanks me back to the top of the page every time it loops."

Yeah, that is annoying. I just turn on "airplane mode" while attempting to read the page. Those type of idiotic ads have also shown up in ScienceBasedMedicine, but unlike here they have a "report" button.

It’s why charities frequently send little gifts in their solicitations, like personalized address labels or pens.

What's more, it's free advertising space on you, your personal letter, or workspace.

The nearer to the person or physically bigger the pharma's name, the more professionally demeaning it looks to me. Think coffee cups and scrip/note pads.

It turns out that Dr. Yapundich received $332,294 between 2013-2016 from pharmaceutical companies, which was not disclosed in the original article.

When faced with large numbers like this, dollar amounts which are so beyond my quotidian experience, I try to put them into some sort of context.

$332,294 is half as large again as my pension pot, after 30 years of work and careful saving. And I consider myself reasonably well off.

What must he have done in just four years to be worth that much to Big Pharma? How many articles has he written (or had written for him)? How many talks has he given? How many people must he have influenced?

I have no context for that.

Research clearly shows that the extra money used to send such little gifts more than pays for itself in increased donations.

Conference swag works on more or less the same principle: that little gift makes conference goers more likely to buy that company's product rather than a competitor's. The key difference between conference swag and similar gifts from pharma sales reps is that, if I choose to buy, I am buying stuff for either my personal use or use in my research. I am not prescribing the product to third parties who have no particular reason to know that I received a gift from the company that makes the product. The prescribing physician is supposed to take the patient's best interests into account, and those interests do not always include prescribing the pharma rep's product; sometimes a competing product is better for the patient in question.

Maybe Dr Yapundich' next article should be about the dangers that ponies present to society.

A brief online search finds numerous professional sources for information and CME credit relating to Parkinson's disease (diagnosis and treatment).

For example, there's an independent subscription service (Prescriber's Letter) that provides information on new Parkinson's drugs.

Saying you need a drug rep to brief you on new Parkinson's meds is incredibly lame.

In some ways, the whole issue of whether Yapundich was on a pharma-shill payroll is a deflection. The copy itself, per Orac's intuitive reaction, is WTF twaddle PR-flack puffery. The question is where/how STAT gets off publishing it regardless of from whence and whom it came.

My first thought is that Orac may be too forgiving in saying STAT got played. Publishers typically aren't that stupid. They usually know where this kind of thing comes from, and there's often mutual back-scratching, maybe payments even, involved in these pieces receiving a place of privilege.

My second thought though is that STAT may have inadvertently performed a positive journalistic service by publishing something this transparently puffish. All they achieved is generating a lot of publicity for the underhanded shenanagins of pharma shills. One set of shills (AIPA) pimping for another set of shill (office visit sales reps). Barf. I believe quite strongly it's a legitimate publication activity to publish material from certain legitimated quarters so readers can see for themselves how much the BS being spread stinks. A sort of milder 'quote without comment' version of what Orac routinely does here. STAT's a magazine, yes?, not a refereed science journal where publication carries a warrant of editorial vetting and endorsement.

The problem is that few if any publications that now and then intentionally publish stuff because it's bad are clear and open about that, and typical readers assume that anything that appears in a publication does carry a seal of institutional approval. An exception is that savvy readers typically understandt that well-known opinion columnists speak only for themselves: a newspaper may carry both Paul Krugman and Ann Coulter, and since it's obvious the editorial staff can't agree with both of them, most readers get that the editors may not agree with either of them. From the editors' point of view, the same probably ought to be true of one-off op-ed pieces. But, truth to be told, these typically are weighted at least in favor of stuff the editors find some points of agreement with, and the vast majority of readers don't distinguish between these pieces and the official editorials that appear under the masthead.

STAT surely seems to think they donated a chunk of their own legitimation to blatant AIPA propaganda by virtue of the fact they're now trying to pretend the whole thing never happened. This, to me, is their great sin here. One difference between opinion and propaganda is that the first is an exchange of dialogue and the second is in unanswered monologue. There was nothing inherently wrong with STAT running "How pharma sales reps help me be a more up-to-date doctor." But to make that OK, to retain journalistic credibility, STAT needed to place it a context where the possibility that it is just crap could be entertained. By "circling the wagons" they're doing just the opposite.

He told me he was well aware of the drug at the time of the encounter with the sales rep, and that the rep had said something interesting about the drug — “new medication data,” Yapundich called it — that “set off a light bulb” in his mind and subsequently led to the positive patient encounter.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. I hope that "new medication data" has been run through the pharma company's science, legal, and compliance divisions before the rep started talking about it.

I've gone through pharmaceutical company compliance training, and reps are not supposed to just spout off about the latest studies until every word has been vetted by the company (and the FDA).

Also, you can't even give stress balls or pens away anymore.

Oh, c'mon--it's just a few hundred thousand COI dollars that wasn't disclosed by Yapundich. It wasn't like it was a much as the $500k+ that Andrew Wakefield failed to disclose to Lancet in COI money.

Heheh.

A few years ago Nature accepted sponsorship for a Special Issue from Saisei-Mirai, a Japanese chain of cancer-exploitation scammers. "Its research activities have contributed significantly to the clinical application of new cancer therapies."
http://web.archive.org/web/20150218052643/http://www.nature.com/nature/…

The package deal included the publication of a 5-page advertorial about their scammocopoeia of fraudulent 'treatments' (hyperthermia, Coley Vaccine, GcMAF, stem cells -- for some reason the advertorial didn't mention Laetrile).
http://web.archive.org/web/20150217214905/http://www.nature.com/nature/…

With Nature pimping themselves out to out-and-out cancer fraudsters, astroturfing seems almost benign.

@ HDB
I am wondering whether paying for an advertorial in Nature helps for having a scientific paper considered by the editors.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Ooh, that's going to leave a mark.

"Pot, meet Kettle."

Not exactly a thesis statement, is it? ;-)

Ouch.

Shine brightly, like only roman pierce can do :)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf5YGlGOWZs?rel=0&w=420&h=236]

Reminds me of a joke:

What is the difference between a drug rep and a lawyer?

Well don't leave us hanging, captian_a. Tell us the punchline.

The lawyer knows when they are lying to you.

"Right To Choose Medicine": The free market fundamentalist assault on the FDA continues

oracknows — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 04:00:50 +0000

"Right To Choose Medicine": The free market fundamentalist assault on the FDA continues

Yesterday I discussed a highly unethical clinical trial of a new herpes vaccine, based on what appears to be questionable science but backed by über-Libertarian Peter Thiel. The reason the trial is so unethical is because Rational Vaccines, the company that developed the herpes vaccine and is conducting the clinical trial, not only arranged to carry it out offshore but, unlike all American companies carrying out clinical trials offshore for purposes of gathering data to support an application for FDA approval, Rational Vaccines apparently carried the trial out without any oversight by an ethics board, known as an institutional review board (IRB). The reason that this trial bothered me is because it was (and is) so clearly intended as an end-run around the FDA. Indeed, the company basically said that, if the FDA wouldn't accept its tainted data (tainted because of the way it was obtained), it would continue clinical trials in other countries and that it planned on marketing the vaccine regardless. Meanwhile, Southern Illinois University (SIU), home of the recently deceased scientist who developed the vaccine, William Halford, tried to wash its hands of the whole mess, perhaps realizing that its federal funding was in jeopardy because institutions receiving federal funding must abide by federal Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) regulations requiring oversight of clinical trials by an IRB.

Clearly, Thiel and Agustín Fernández III, the latter of whom co-founded Rational Vaccines with Professor Halford, are directly challenging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, this is not the only direct challenge to the FDA's authority by free market fundamentalists and libertarians who bristle at any regulation, but in particular regulation of the FDA, claiming falsely that the FDA is so slow and bureaucratic that it is literally killing people. (No, I am not exaggerating. They really say this.) Perhaps the largest and most successful effort to undermine the FDA and its ability to protect patients comes from the Goldwater Institute, which has promoted so-called "right-to-try" laws at the state level as a way to allow desperate terminally ill cancer patients "one last shot." (Never mind that the federal government, not the states, control drug approval; right-to-try advocates know state right-to-try laws have no force and that their real purpose is to put pressure on the federal government.) Unfortunately, the price of that "one last shot" is to leave the dying patient entirely on his own. there is no assistance paying for it, and if he suffers a complication insurance companies don't have to pay to treat it. He can't sue his physician for malpractice, and the state can't take away his doctor's medical license if he practices below the standard of care. I've described all these issues before, particularly the ridiculous claim on the part of advocates that drugs that have only passed phase I testing have been shown to be "safe." It's not for nothing that I call it a cruel sham. Unfortunately, a version of right-to-try just passed the U.S. Senate and appears on the verge of passing the House of Representatives next month.

I've caught flak on many occasions for arguing that the primary purpose of right-to-try isn't really to help patients, that in reality it's a wedge with which to pry the process of drug approval away from the FDA, to undermine the FDA's authority. However, the more I look at right-to-try, the more I become convinced that I'm correct and that it's really a strategy to let patients and drug companies bypass the FDA. I also predicted that, if right-to-try were to come to pass, the next step would be to increase the number of patients who could bypass the FDA, using right-to-try as the wedge. People scoffed. But in researching the story about the herpes vaccine trial by Rational Vaccines, I came across an article on the Foundation for Economic Education an article by Lawrence W. Reed entitled Herpes Cure Needs Free To Choose Medicine. Not surprisingly, FEE is a libertarian think tank, and not surprisingly Reed portrays Professor Halford as a "genius who challenged conventional wisdom, blazed new trails in scientific research, dedicated his life to helping others, developed promising new tools against a terrible affliction, and lighted a path for the policy changes needed to end the suffering of millions."

Wow. That's laying it on thick, isn't it? I suppose the opinions of the peer reviewers who read his work were so scathing because of professional envy.

After portraying Professor Halford as the brilliant brave maverick scientists who was stymied by the bureaucrats at the FDA who are supposedly trying to keep cures from the people, Reed portrays the herpes vaccine as a reason why a new initiative is needed, which he calls "Free to Choose Medicine" (FTCM):

Here’s where a promising, innovative proposal enters the picture. It’s called “Free to Choose Medicine” or FTCM. It was succinctly explained on FEE.org in this article by Bartley J. Madden a year ago. If Congress won’t reform the FDA or if the FDA won’t reform itself, why not allow a separate track—a competitive alternative that would run alongside the conventional FDA clinical testing track?

Madden suggests that “after a new drug has successfully passed safety trials and shows initial effectiveness in early clinical trials, a drug developer could request that the drug be available for sale. Such an arrangement would allow for new drugs to be available up to seven years earlier than waiting for a final FDA approval decision.” Surely patients for whom conventional drugs and therapies haven’t worked ought to have the freedom to choose a promising alternative. Whose body is it, anyway?

Yes, one has a right to control one's body, but there is a competing obligation of the government to try to prevent fraud; i.e., to prevent the true believers or the unscrupulous from taking advantage of desperate patients. In any event, Let me remind you that Madden himself was quoted about the unethical offshore trial for Rational Vaccines' herpes vaccine in a Daily Beast news report on it:

"This is a test case,” said Bartley Madden, a retired Credit Suisse banker and policy adviser to the conservative Heartland Institute, who is another investor in the vaccine. “The FDA is standing in the way, and Americans are going to hear about this and demand action."

I didn't know who Madden was when I used this very same quote in yesterday's post. I do now.

In any case, as I predicted, "right-to-try" is simply a watered down version of FTCM, a version that seems very acceptable to most people who don't know anything about drug development because the patients for whom it is intended are terminally ill. Instead of asking "Whose body is it, anyway?" right-to-try advocates ask, "What have they got to lose, anyway?" It sounds compelling, but, as I like to say, when discussing the patients of Houston cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski, they can lose their family's inheritance, what remaining time they have left if the treatment hastens their death, time away from their families chasing cures, and lack of proper palliative care, among other things. It turns out that FTCM has been around as a concept at least since 2004, as explained on the Freedom To Chose Medicine website. Not surprisingly, the man behind FTCM, Bartley J. Madden is a Policy Advisor for the Heartland Institute, the same libertarian think tank that is so prolific promoting denial of the science concluding that human activity is causing global climate change in which the mean temperature of the globe is rising alarmingly. Indeed, libertarian fingerprints are all over FTCM, which appears to have been, at least in part, the inspiration for right-to-try.

Indeed, Madden himself predicts that the problems with right-to-try will lead people to FTCM:

Assuming there won’t be any federal Right To Try legislation signed into law, the states do not have the legal authority to circumvent the FDA. Moreover, drug developers have a major disincentive to participate because, to survive, drug developers need to secure FDA approvals for their new drugs. And circumventing the FDA by providing not-yet-approved drugs to terminally-ill patients could easily slow or prevent FDA approvals.

Madden presents FTCM as—surprise! surprise!—a "market-based" discipline to the process, based on "competition" that "greatly improves" on right-to-try. In brief, it would create a bifurcated dual track system. One track would be the same FDA process for approval that's been in place since the early 1960s. The second track would be an "alternative," which he describes thusly:

First, the Free To Choose track (separate from the FDA’s conventional clinical testing track) enables patients and their doctors to make informed decisions about the use of FDA-approved drugs or not-yet-FDA-approved drugs. Patients, under the guidance of their doctors, would learn about initial safety results and up-to-date treatment results of FTCM drugs. FTCM drugs for a wide range of illnesses (not just terminal illnesses addressed by Right To Try) would be available up to seven years before conventional FDA approval.

Second, FTCM legislation would provide for government oversight of an open-access, Internet-accessible database. It provides up-to-date information for patients and doctors about a FTCM’s drug’s potential benefits and risks before they choose to use it. This is a self-adjusting system wherein more patients use FTCM drugs that work well and vice versa.

Reading the passage above, I asked myself: Where have we heard this sort of idea before? Oh, yes. Balaji Srinivasan, who was considered briefly by Donald Trump for the position of FDA Commissioner. Remember how he was the one who proposed keeping online databases akin to a Yelp or Über for drugs. In fairness, it's not quite that. Madden represents the database, which he calls the "Tradeoff Evaluation Drug Database" (TEDD) as an "open access database" that would contain "treatment results of FTCM patients including their genetic makeup and relevant biomarkers," touting it as able to "reveal subpopulations of patients who do extremely well or poorly with the new drug." Maybe. The problem with such databases is that without a control group it's hard to know which biomarkers might be useful in the first place. I rather suspect that Mr. Madden doesn't understand the difficulty and complexity of maintaining such a database, its limitations, or how difficult it is to make conclusions from it.

In any case, this is what the FTCM scheme looks like:

I'll give it this much, FTCM at least requires a phase II clinical trial. A variant of FTCM published at the Heartland Institute also proposes requiring drug developers to keep working towards conventional FDA approval in order to keep their observational approval status. Clearly, the Heartland Institute also seems unaware that there is already something very similar, a track known as fast track approval that often requires—you guessed it—phase II clinical trials, after which a conditional approval is granted that can be revoked if later trials don't pan out. In fact, depending on the severity of the disease being treated and the level of unmet medical need, phase II data might be enough, no observational evidence needed.

One potential issue (of many) comes to mind first about FTCM. One of the reasons for clinical trials, besides randomization, is the control part. It's a randomized controlled clinical trial. That means the treatment protocols are predetermined and carefully controlled. Observations are standardized and carefully controlled. Decision algorithms are carefully controlled. What Madden sees as a strength ("real world" use) is actually a weakness in determining efficacy, at least, because variability makes it harder to detect drug effect. It's the same reason we generally don't use pragmatic trials, which are often not randomized and basically never blinded, to approve drugs (and, let's be honest, what Madden is describing is a pragmatic trial), but rather to determine the efficacy of drugs shown to be efficacious in clinical trials under "real world" conditions. In fairness, TEDD isn't a bad idea, but it would be far more useful as a complement to the existing clinical trial process, to be used as an adjunct to not as a second track that can be used as the sole basis for drug approval. In fact, the FDA is already moving in that direction without Madden.

Also in fairness, in the PowerPoint presentation on the plan, Madden doesn't advocate FTCM for all drugs, but rather proposes a "Free To Choose Medicine Advisory Committee ... would be established within NIH to determine which experimental drugs are sufficiently promising to merit entry on the FTCM track." (At least he's not totally off the rails.)

Be that as it may, what it all boils down to is that Madden wants this second track to lead to a new kind of drug approval by the FDA:

Third, FTCM federal legislation needs to provide a new type of drug approval – Observational Approval – based on treatment results for real-world patients who receive the FTCM drugs. This would motivate drug developers to participate as well as expedite insurance reimbursement for patients.

This is so ludicrous from a scientific standpoint that I am amazed that Madden could say something like that it, except that he's not a scientists and probably doesn't realize how ludicrous it is. Yes, with adaptive trials and the use of biomarkers clinical trials are evolving beyond the rigid randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, as they need to, given the advances in genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and whatever other omics you can think of, all of them providing potential predictive biomerkers. That's not what Madden is describing, though. Basically, he's describing a free-for-all, full of selection bias, in which the patients who choose "Track 2" are likely different than those who stick with the old-fashioned FDA track.

Of course, the primary idea behind this two-track approach is so obvious as to be painful. The idea of the second track is not to help patients (although Madden might delude himself that it is). Rather, it is to provide a track by which drugs can be much more easily approved than the standard FDA track, and then to put it in direct competition with the FDA track, making it as attractive as possible to drug companies by using observational approval to induce health insurance companies to pay for RTCM drugs and trying to make it so that drug developers would be "motivated to charge lower prices in order to gain increased usage for their FTCM drug."

Whether right-to-try was inspired by FTCM or not, I don't know. They certainly share ideas in common, the most prominent of which is the idea that somehow the FDA is an impediment to getting "cures" to the people and that bypassing the FDA in a free market-friendly way would be the best way to overcome this perceived impediment. In right-to-try, the Goldwater Institute appears to have strategically chosen only terminally ill patients to make its case, the better to inspire sympathy and to be able to portray opponents as cold, heartless, and cruel. In RTCM, Madden appears to be going for the whole enchilada by applying to nearly all investigational drugs, regardless whether the disease being treated is life-threatening or not.

I now make another prediction. If right-to-try passes the House and becomes federal law, up next will be RTCM. In the era of Trump, I'm not sure that it wouldn't ultimately become law.

oracknows Wed, 08/30/2017 - 00:00

Tags

Food and Drug Administration

Bartley Madden

FDA

Right to Choose Medicine

Categories

And yeah, drug companies are going to make these drugs available at lower prices? I doubt it. It's just another way to cure "fat wallet syndrome" that the libertarians think everyone has.

there is a competing obligation of the government to try to prevent fraud

You believe this. I believe this. Most RI readers believe this. Indeed, most normal people believe this.

I suspect that many libertarians do not believe this. To them, those rules against fraud are troublesome government regulations that must be eliminated. Caveat emptor, as they say. But caveat emptor can only work in cases where the buyer is fully informed. That's not the case with experimental drugs. There, this principle becomes (h/t Carl Hiaasen) fornicat emptor: Let the buyer be screwed.

Oh, and when somebody is described as a "brave maverick scientist," you should turn on your psychoceramic detector. Not all "brave maverick scientist[s]" are crackpots, but that's the way to bet. I have experience in my own field with at least one such type.

If libertarians, of which I consider myself one, really want to allow market competition to lower prices...then the first item to address would be allowing pharmaceutical imports and increase the number of firms in the marketplace. Seems less of a quagmire than this.

"But caveat emptor can only work in cases where the buyer is fully informed."

For instance, by having some idea of which therapies are safe and effective to a certain threshold, and having enough decent studies to populate a product insert. Perhaps all Emptors could get together and pool their money and hire experts to ensure that drugs are tested to a certain basic standard, thorough a certain process... some sort of Administration for Drugs, and maybe to ensure basic safety standards for Food as well...

The Heartland Institute, from whence Bartley Madden and FTCM have emanated, is better known as the policy farm of the Koch Brothers. While the Goldwater Institute presents itself as guided by abstract libertarian ideological principles, and you have to trace back several steps to find out what interests that will profit from its initiatives are providing the funding that winds up going to these efforts, the Heartland Institute is a far more transparent agent for the Koch's financial interests. E.g. Heartland is famous for being the primary force behind AGW denialism, and the Kochs' largest holdings are their fossil fuel companies.

So, anyone wanna guess why the Kochs might be involved in this effort "to pry the process of drug approval away from the FDA"?

How about: "Koch Industries produces through Koch Membrane Systems a vast amount of the chemicals that go into all pharmaceutical products."

Yeah! Forget the "helping patients" BS. These Ann Rand worshiping libertarians aren't exactly known for helping others. Every man for himself, and caveat emptor, baby! This about profit, power and privilege all the way.

Madden is completely off the rails. His "Advisory Committee" is a bone thrown to safety advocates but it would be partisan from the get go, and under pressure to approve drugs it shouldn't. It's a sop.

A bit off topic, but when I read your quote from the DEE.ORG article:
"Whose body is it, anyway?"

I immediately wondered what a "libertarian" view of abortion is, and searching fee.org, I found this essay:

https://fee.org/articles/abortion-a-metaphysical-approach/

which, not surprisingly, posits that while a woman has total control of her own body, that the fetus is a human with the same rights, so blah. Libertarians are, in my view, just greedier and more self-centered religious conservatives...

@nate: that's very odd. Ayn Rand was a known supporter of abortion.

@nate, Julian Frost:
Ayn Rand was also a fairly vocal atheist, and disliked libertarians. That hasn't stopped her from being championed by vocal Evangelicals and Libertarians of our time.

Really, authrotarianism is more of a unifying factor than anything here. The details about what you're authoritarian about are less important than ensuring that the 'right' people (yours) are in charge. See also any number of hypocritical acts from said authoritarians who obviously believe the rules are for other people.

Everything about this is so infuriating. Like I was literally shaking reading this.

Here's why the Yelp model is stupid (which should be obvious to anyone after a half-second's thought): If I go to a restaurant with a good Yelp rating and have a bad meal, then I've had a bad meal, and maybe I write my own review.
If I take a drug with a good "drug-Yelp" rating and I die, well then I'm dead.

In medicine, the consequences for the consumer have the strongly likelihood of being life-altering (or death). Often we hear complaints about scientists and doctors "playing God". At least they do it with *knowledge* and constraints. This proposed method for releasing drugs to patients plays God with people's lives through ignorance. "What will happen when I take this drug?" "Dunno, just try it!"
The Free Market is like Nature, it does not (can not) care if an individual lives or dies. And that's why we have science and society and buildings and things, because we want to live.

This spring there was a relevant comment in Nature about the libertarian assault on the FDA. https://www.nature.com/news/show-drugs-work-before-selling-them-1.21582

Data is NOT "tainted" by moral issues surrounding its acquisition.

It is possible for researchers to be. But data? No.

This is not a court of law.

In science, data is data. As long as the methods for obtaining it were SCIENTIFICALLY sound, then the data is sound.

You may say what you want about the ethics of the situation and the researchers, but that is a completely separate issue from whether the data is sound.

Dumb and dumber: Kent Heckenlively and Mike Adams team up to support an antivaccine WhiteHouse.gov petition

oracknows — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 09:10:07 +0000

Dumb and dumber: Kent Heckenlively and Mike Adams team up to support an antivaccine WhiteHouse.gov petition

Yesterday was a busy day for a number of reasons. I thought of skipping it, but I couldn't resist taking notice of one particularly hilarious bit that I found on what is perhaps the wretchedest of all the wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet, NaturalNews.com. There, yesterday, on a very special day for me, I saw this headline by Mike Adams: Facebook blocks all Natural News article posts to 2.2M fans after site posts White House petition citing immunization dangers:

In the latest outrageous example of total censorship against the independent media, Facebook has blocked nearly 100 percent of the sharing of articles from Natural News. It all began when a Natural News story linked to this White House petition demanding a moratorium on childhood immunizations for five years while toxicology experts study the skyrocketing statistics of autism, adverse events and deaths following vaccinations.
Immediately after the story was posted on the Natural News Facebook account — which has over 2.2 million followers — Facebook manually deleted the post and banned nearly all sharing of ALL posts from Natural News. The White House petition asks for the repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act — the act 0f Congress that granted vaccine companies absolute legal immunity from all the damage and deaths caused by vaccines across America. This law would be equivalent to granting Big Tobacco total immunity from tobacco lawsuits or granting Monsanto legal immunity from glyphosate cancer lawsuits.

(Note that Mikey has been known to play with redirects, and, clicking on that link, you might find yourself directed to a page about the "Health Ranger's scientific accomplishments." If that happens, try this Archive.org link instead.)

Besides Mikey's childish messing with redirects, I laughed out loud at Mikey's histrionics, but I wondered what the heck he was talking about. Before I delved into his claims any deeper, I wandered over to the NaturalNews.com Facebook page and, as a test, tried to share some articles to my own FB page. I had no problem sharing whatever I liked from the page, after which I deleted the shared articles. I also couldn't help but notice that there is now a Natural News app, which made me half tempted to download it to see what sort of crap Mikey serves up to mobile devices. I thought better of it, of course. Who knows what sort of privacy-invading "features" Mikey's added to his app?

I do remember reading about a month ago that Facebook was going to try to do more to prevent the spread of fake news on its platform by deprioritizing clickbait links and fake news on users' newsfeeds. Last November, Mark Zuckerberg himself had promised to do more about the spread of fake news on Facebook. Then three week ago, I saw an article about how Facebook starting to disable the ability of all Pages to edit the previews of the links they post in the Page composer or API, with an exemption for some original publishers. I wonder if it is this change that is what tripped up Mikey somehow.

Aside from that, obviously, there must have been complaints about his antivaccine post regarding Kent Heckenlively's hilarious yet horrifying "petition" to the White House for a five year moratorium on childhood vaccination. I both mocked and expressed my horror at the concept about four weeks ago, when I first noticed it, but I notice that the date on the petition is now August 2, which means that Heckenlively posted a new petition. Why would he do that? Well, the date on the old petition was July 3, and petitioners at WhiteHouse.gov have 30 days to reach 100,000 signatures. August 2 is exactly 30 days after July 3, which means that as soon as Heckenlively's old petition failed (which it did, with only 7,328 signatures in 30 days), he posted the same petition again. I guess that's how he's going to roll. Every 30 days he'll post the same petition again after the old one fails. I suppose the attention from Natural News got him some attention with 1,503 signatures in 6 days (as I write this), but that's nowhere near the pace Heckenlively needs to hit 100,000 signatures in 30 days. In fact, its roughly the same pace as the last version of this petition, and I predict he'll wind up with roughly the same number of signatures as last time.

None of this stops the delusional Mr. Heckenlively from crowing about his new petition:

Yes, that’s the name of the new White House petition. Do you like it? I LOVE it.

Why? I love it because it’s provocative. I love it because it gets people’s attention. I love it because it will probably drive the trolls, people like Orc, Dumb Dorritt, and Dr. Proffit absolutely bananas. I’m hoping this gets the attention of people like Emily Willingham of Forbes magazine and she writes one of her odious articles attacking it.

Because then this idea starts winning. It will have become CONTAGIOUS, spreading like a MIND VIRUS through the consciousness of the public.

I love it because it changes people’s perception of what is possible, and if I can get the trolls angry enough, they will do the job of spreading this wonderful idea. Yes, my enemies are part of this plan because they are stupid and hateful enough not to realize that they will help this succeed.

Poor delusional Kent. He really seems to think that just adding Donald Trump's name to the petition and adding a bit about "pharma control" will make the difference! As for his petition driving "Orc" absolutely bananas (there he goes again with the Tolkien fantasy of him as Aragorn fighting the Dark Lord Sauron and his Orcs, removing the "a" from my 'nym to do it), well, yes, it does sort of—bananas with gut-busting, doubled over, having-difficulty-catching-my-breath laughter at Kent. I almost thought of not writing about Kent's petition after finding his post over at the odious Bolen Report after seeing Mikey's little screed, because I'm always reluctant to give an antivaxer like Heckenlively what he wants. However, I changed my mind for two reasons. First, I don't let cranks control what I write, even in the reverse psychology sort of manner of not writing about something they clearly want me to draw attention to. Second, this blog rarely gets over 10,000 visitors a day, and the vast majority of them will be laughing along with me at Kent. It's not as though anything I right is likely to have the reach to push Heckenlively's petition from 1,500 signatures to 100,000. So I write what I want when I want.

Besides, it's hard not to fall into one of those doubled over, trying-to-catch-my-breath fits of laughter when I read passages like this from Kent:

I won’t be surprised if in a week or two somebody writes that “Trump wants a five year moratorium on childhood vaccines!” Will I correct the record at that point? Maybe. Maybe not.

See how desperate and pathetic he is. He openly admits that he's trying to trick someone into writing fake news about Trump supporting his insane plan. He's also gone from likening himself to Aragorn, Son of Arathorn, and the one true heir of Isildur to the throne of Gondor in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, to likening himself to—get this!—General George S. Patton, Jr. (a.k.a. "Old Blood and Guts"), the World War II general known for his audaciousness and his "always be on the attack" philosophy:

I think it’s like Patton in World War II, seizing towns in Sicily ahead of the projected advance, then when he informs headquarters they tell him he wasn’t supposed to go into that town yet.

“What should I do? Give it back to the Germans?” Patton replied.

So let people think that this wasn’t my idea, or the idea of some truly brilliant lawyers, but was instead Trump’s idea, and the trolls will work themselves into a frenzy and only hasten the day of their own destruction.

Sigh. So much pathetic fantasizing in such a short passage of prose. It can only be followed by what I like to refer to as the fantasy of ultimate vindication:

Now, some people have made comments along the lines of, “You failed because your White House petition only got a little more than 7,000 signatures in the 30 day period.”

A little perspective is in order…

My first White House petition was for Suramin as a treatment for autism. Personally, I think that is the breakthrough treatment for autism and will END the epidemic. That White House Petition got about 700 signatures. Petition #2 got more than 7,000 signatures.

Want to take any wagers on the final number for Petition #3? Petition #4? Petition #5?

I'll give you my prediction. Each of them will get maybe 7,000 to 10,000 signatures. Kent Heckenlively has almost certainly hit (or come very close) to his ceiling.

Which brings us back to Mikey. I once said of antivaccine fantasies, "You want it darker" (a nod to Leonard Cohen's last album before his death). Well, Mikey does indeed want it darker, a lot darker:

Natural News has published numerous stories critical of Mark Zuckerberg and left-wing cult fanaticism, refusing to be silenced by the tolerati of the delusional Left which has devolved into a culture of internet bullies and delusional sh#theads. The internet has truly entered a phase where stating any true facts about vaccines or transgenderism gets you immediately banned by left-wing internet gatekeepers like Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

Merely stating obvious, irrefutable facts — such as “men cannot give birth to children” — gets you censored and labeled a “hate speech” proponent. Pointing out real scientific data — such as the fact that vaccines contain over 50,000 ppb of mercury, a toxic heavy metal — gets you labeled a “conspiracy” website.

That’s why it’s time to regulate Google, Facebook and Twitter as public utilities. Their abuse of power to silence dissenting views has become a danger to the liberty of all Americans.

Why this technocracy dictatorship ends in civil war

We have now truly reached the point of runaway left-wing insanity combined with totalitarian censorship. In essence, the Left-wing internet gatekeepers have become a technocracy dictatorship that demands unwavering obedience to the insanity of the left-wing SJW cult (and its statist tyranny).

He then provides a link to this video:

In the video, Adams claims that everything in the mainstream media is "fake news" and everything in the "independent media" (e.g., him) has science, the facts, and The Truth on its side, that President Obama "betrayed" America, and that Hillary Clinton had anyone who got close to the truth "killed." And, yes, civil war is coming, according to Mike Adams. I had to give up listening after about three or four minutes.

Clearly, Kent Heckenlively and Mike Adams belong together. Maybe next Mr. Heckenlively will again generously offer me a chance at "unconditional surrender."

ADDENDUM 8/8/2017, 2:45 PM: Holy moly! If only I had waited a while to write this. I might have had the amusement of discussing in depth Kent Heckenlively's followup post, Kent Heckenlively – World’s #1 Anti-Vaxxer? The word "hilarious" doesn't even begin to describe it. I must admit, though, he does make a good case in the early running:

Okay, I’m going to make it easy for the trolls.

I am the world’s #1 anti-vaxxer. Seriously, I deserve the title. Who else has come up with an idea for a FIVE YEAR MORATORIUM ON CHILDHOOD VACCINES as well as a plan for the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF PHARMA CONTROL OF MEDIA?

Yes, arguably only the world's "#1 Antivaxer" could come up with an idea as utterly devoid of science, reason, and sanity as a five year moratorium on childhood vaccines. Antivax is a scientifically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt ideology, and the idea of a five year moratorium on childhood vaccines is as scientifically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt an idea as I've heard in a long time. Also, behold the power of ALL CAPS. With bold yet.

His delusions of grandeur get even more delusional, too:

I’ve been very disappointed in the trolls because they haven’t been reading Saul Alinsky’s, Rules for Radicals, specifically Rule #13, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” The idea is that it’s easier to go after people than institutions. I mean, Alinsky did dedicate his book to Lucifer and the trolls do want to destroy the human race, so why aren’t they with the program?

I offer myself as the target to freeze, personalize, and polarize. Just think of me as the Jeff Goldblum character, Ian Malcom, in the first Jurassic Park movie, lighting off that flare so the T-Rex stops attacking the children and goes after him instead. The only difference is that the T-Rex is probably smarter then the pro-pharma trolls.

I really don’t think the trolls should consider that my ancestor was Martin Luther, the 16th century Protestant reformer who took on the all-powerful Catholic Church and not only escaped a burning at the stake, but is generally credited with sparking the Reformation and the Renaissance which gave birth to the modern era. I’m sure that family story is probably wrong.

Yes, and Martin Luther also contributed greatly to German anti-Semitism and was arguably a major influence on Nazi anti-Semitism. No, I'm not saying Kent Heckenlively is anti-Semitic. I don't believe that he is. I do, however, believe that he is promoting an ideology that is potentially just as harmful as anti-Semitism, his antivaccine views. Also, I bring up Martin Luther's virulent anti-Semitism to remind Mr. Heckenlively that he should perhaps be more careful in choosing the heros after whom he wants to pattern himself.

As for the rest, as usual, Heckenlively thinks way too highly of himself. He thinks that I and other pro-science advocates, for instance, are going to spend a lot of time going after him and his silly idea of a vaccine moratorium. Well, I have news for Mr. Heckenlively. Writing about him is the sort of thing I do on days when I don't have a lot of time or thought to devote to blogging. In other words, he's a very easy target. It takes me little effort at all to deconstruct Heckenlively's claims and mock him, after which I rapidly forget about him and move on to far more important topics the following day.

He then concludes with a bravado-filled challenge:

Vaccines are safe! Let’s never question them again!

That really is your message. It’s a little like saying, rotary phones are great! Stop all forward progress! We would never have cellular phones.

You are the past. I am the future.

I am happy to go in front of Matt Lauer, Anderson Cooper, Jake Tapper, or any of those other pretty boy excuses for newsmen on networks that get up to 70% of their income from pharmaceutical companies – and take you on.

In fact, I even promise that if you ever do find the courage to take me on in an honest public debate, that I will fight you with half my brain tied behind my back.

If Heckenlively really were to "tie half his brain behind his back," he probably couldn't outargue a six year old.

oracknows Tue, 08/08/2017 - 05:10

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-royal-we/30249…

Politics

left-wing internet gatekeepers like Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter

Not that we need any more evidence Adams is delusional, but how disconnected from reality do you have to be to think these corporations are "left-wing"? Unless, of course, you define "left-wing" as "those who do not agree with me", which makes this claim an updated version of the "liberal media" canard. It says much more about Adams' political views than it does those of Google, Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter.

Well, on the bright side, Mr. Heckenlively seems to be perpetually optimistic about his chances and of good cheer, so maybe living within his skin isn't as bad as what some of the other conspiracy theorists may be feeling.
And on the even brighter side, as you say, this attempt to deprive children from protection from disease seems to have as much chance of success as his previous ones.

@Eric Lund: This makes me think of the quote in Good end about one of the charactershatimg all Northernees. The book explained that by his definition of northerners he was standing on the South Pole.

A little hard to have a left/right equivalent on a globe, though.

Orac writes,

And, yes, civil war is coming, according to Mike Adams. I had to give up listening after about three or four minutes.

MJD says,

I reached about the 4:32 mark of the Mike Adams video and realized that my mind was wandering elsewhere about 95% of the time.

Q. What's the difference between an ORC and ORAC.

A. ORC's eat man flesh while ORAC simply detests the man flesh of Kent Heckenlively and Mike Adam.

@Orac,

Great read...

@ Eric--Mikey is delusional, but his distorted reality is always balanced by his greater greed for $$$. I think when he gets really dark like this that he is playing to a crowd that he feels he can milk for clicks and profit.

Now Heckenlively....he's ICD-10 level delusional without a doubt. And not very clever, either.

I just read/ listened to Mikey and perused Bolen's site. WTF.

-btw- both MIkey and Null have talked about civil war and/ or social collapse since about 2008-9:
in the wake of the financial crisis, I believe they feared people might stop buying their woo and thus had to get the fans excited so that they would stick with them. Both sites then became more political and speculated on the economy in typically ham handed ways. Both expanded into networks that mimic radio / television. Adams takes ads. Null's site IS an ad for his nonsense.

Characterising liberal beliefs about politicians being 'angelic' is profoundly unrealistic and exemplifies his black and white thinking ( or how he believes his fans think)

Heckenlively's inability to get large numbers of supporters illustrates what I've always believed about anti-vaxxers-
there aren't that many although we might see 50K or 60K likes for TMR or Vaccine Machine I assume that they get everyone they know to sign on - most of these people won't sign a petition.

Mikey may have 2 million plus fans but I wonder how he got them: someone at RI once wrote that if he gets your name/ e-mail you're counted - even if someone signs on in order to access his material et al. I'm sure his history with manipulation supports my speculation.

I have so much more about Mikey but at present he's given me a headache. Ooo. that voice.

A little hard to have a left/right equivalent on a globe, though.

Not at all. You just have to have some fun with branch cuts, to use the technical mathematical term. For instance, there are those who claim that the easternmost point in the US is in Alaska, because the Aleutian Islands chain extends west of 180 degrees longitude. Or to take a more practical example: there has to be a line somewhere in the world where you skip a day either forward or backward (depending if you are traveling west or east); the International Date Line is the line countries have agreed to use for this purpose. I am of the opinion that the political spectrum has a similar feature (i.e., far right and far left meet at some point), but that's a separate discussion.

It is plausible that Mikey is so far to the right that anybody sane looks left-wing to him. I have been told by a self-identified member of Norway's Conservative Party that were Bernie Sanders Norwegian, he would be considered a mainstream Conservative.

ORAC > Gandalf.

Eat that, Mikey.

Note my addendum. Heckenlively's going even more full mental jacket on us.

there aren’t that many although we might see 50K or 60K likes for TMR or Vaccine Machine I assume that they get everyone they know to sign on

Serious question: how many of those are bots?

I am not suggesting that TMR or even Mike Adams have created bot accounts. Adams probably doesn't have the know-how to pull it off, and it's even less likely anybody at TMR does. But some people working for Vladimir Putin certainly do: you may have seen a recent news item about a bunch of suspected pro-Trump bots having their Twitter accounts suspended. Given the political proclivities of the most vocal anti-vaxers these days (particularly people like Adams), it's hardly a stretch to imagine bot accounts "liking" some of these posts as it would help them make more legitimate.

Mikey may have 2 million plus fans but I wonder how he got them: someone at RI once wrote that if he gets your name/ e-mail you’re counted

And I suspect you are counted once for each e-mail address of yours he has. People do change their e-mail addresses every now and then.

I'll illustrate by using myself as an example. There are four e-mail addresses I actively use: my home account, my actual work account, my "official" work address, and one provided via my undergraduate alma mater (the latter two both resolve to my actual work account). A fifth address, on my own personal domain, is currently inoperative because my domain name host can't seem to handle e-mail correctly. I have used others in the past: a previous employer, and an old home account. The latter one changed not because I changed ISPs, but because the ISP was sold to another company, so my account of the form user[at]old_isp[dot]net became one of the form user[at]new_isp[dot]net, Another such change may be in my near future as I hear my current ISP is in merger talks with another company. Were I subscribed to Mikey's newsletter under all of those e-mail addresses, he would probably consider me to be seven different subscribers, even as at least two of those addresses would generate bounce messages if he tried to send to them.

Maybe he can get the #1 Comic Relief Anti-Vaxxer award.

Did he tell Andrew Wakefield, Barbara Loe Fisher, and other more seriously harmful anti-vaccine activists about his new title?

Well, I have news for Mr. Heckenlively. Writing about him is the sort of thing I do on days when I don’t have a lot of time or thought to devote to blogging. In other words, he’s a very easy target. It takes me little effort at all to deconstruct Heckenlively’s claims and mock him, after which I rapidly forget about him and move on to far more important topics the following day.

Don't sugar coat it, Orac. Tell us how you really feel.

...people like Orc, Dumb Dorritt, and Dr. Proffit...

Is Heckenlively twelve or something?

Is Heckenlively twelve or something?

I know right? And to think he's a school teacher.

To tie half his brain behind his back would first require a microscope and some laser tweezers.

Ah, well, that'll do Ken, that'll do.

Kent Heckenlively wrote:

I really don’t think the trolls should consider that my ancestor was Martin Luther

FWIW, the trolls should also refrain from considering that—although poor, pathetic Kent may not be from the noble line of Aragorn—he is also descended from Nefertiti, Confucius, Muhammad, and Charlemagne. Of course, as a high school biology teacher, Kent should have understood genetics well enough to know that before he wrote his silly screed, and he should have known that most of you were descended from Charlemagne, as well.

At best, he is a modern Don Quixote chasing after his equivalent of windmills...

the quote in Good end about one of the characters hatimg all Northernees.
Good Omens?
Autocorrect is not our friend!

Yes, thank you! I'm a bit miffed I missed that. Thanks!

Half his brain tied behind his back - sounds very uncomfortable to me!

tolerati of the delusional Left
"Tolerati" is a word in the Adams vocabulary? The worst thing he can say about companies he dislikes is that they tolerate views other than his?

To continue what I wrote before...

I think that web woo-meisters like Mikey or Null, ardently welcome anti-vaxxers to their various websites, broadcasts and events because they know that these groups are obsessed with alt med theories and anti-governmental rabble rousing so they may pick up new customers for their dreck/ supplements. You will notice that posts about vaccines get a higher number of hits.

In addition, they sell items of special interest to these partisans - films/ books about vaccines, autism, medical corruption; natural 'cures', supplies for preppers, water filters, superfoods etc.

If you haven't, take a look at Mikey's 'store' at Natural News or Gary's Vitamin Closet ( that's the real name)

I read things like this post and listen to the President's (and his favorite alt-media supporters) pronouncements of deep-state overthrow, etc., and actually end up very worried for this country. Though these people might be in a statistical minority, in their world they are the last saviors of truth and virtue, and anything that is against their hero is a lie and they will do anything to protect him and the future of the movement.

The hardest thing for me, though, is the many Evangelical leaders defending him at every turn. I was raised to believe these people wouldn't lie. If they are insisting that Trump is an innocent victim of Satan trying to destroy the country, and Obama is amassing forces to take over the country, then where do I go?

Kent's purported ancestor, Martin Luther, must have owned a Tardis, since the Renaissance begun in 14th century Italy, not 16th century Germany. But perhaps I'm nitpicking.

Holy crap. Heckenlively is a biology school teacher????

I had no idea. Poor kids.

Jane: but the Protestant Reformation began in 16th century Germany, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses onto a church door.

Yes I know, but in the addendum, Kent claims Luther sparked both the Reformation AND the Renaissance. Quite the busy guy.
Next Luther will have invented the internet...

Ah, Kent, it was theses, not feces, that were nailed to the door.

Something tells me he would lose a game of Table Talk, though.

That’s why it’s time to regulate Google, Facebook and Twitter as public utilities.

So, wait, they're going to get to install smart meters and roll trucks around the neighborhood? I'm confused by this proposal.

It’s a little like saying, rotary phones are great! Stop all forward progress! We would never have cellular phones.

Pitiful, just pitiful.

Narad, I wish I'd thought of that pun first.

If you cannot trust the government, why would you want to have Google, Facebook or Twitter public utilities? Not strong on logic.

Hmmm, I wonder what Mike Adams and the other prominent figures in the antivax movement think about Heckenlively's claim to be the No. 1? I mean, loosing the crown count could cut into their fame and profit and I guess they would not take this lightly. Could be fun.

Brian @16: And if you have any Asiatic ancestry you probably posess some of Genghis Khan's genes - at least according to recent genetic research. I can't find the link to check, but it appears that the legend about him having sex with a virgin every night may have some substance to it.

In other news, Congressman Posey appears to have introduced a bill in Congress "To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct or support a comprehensive study comparing total health outcomes, including risk of autism, in vaccinated populations in the United States with such outcomes in unvaccinated populations in the United States, and for other purposes." ( http://tinyurl.com/y8lm7oev )

Because, of course, there are absolutely no comprehensive studies out there on this (s/o). I wonder which of the wealth AVers gave him more money.

DW: "I think that web woo-meisters like Mikey or Null, ardently welcome anti-vaxxers to their various websites, broadcasts and events because they know that these groups are obsessed with alt med theories and anti-governmental rabble rousing so they may pick up new customers for their dreck/ supplements...they sell items of special interest to these partisans"

Adams isn't even subtle about it. In an NN article claiming the CDC and other "nefarious actors" are behind a cyberattack on his little empire, he suggests the public response should include:

"Help support the Health Ranger Store, which provides you the world’s most laboratory-scrutinized, ultra-clean superfoods and nutrients"

What the CDC, WHO, Bill Gates, Cthulu and "Orc" should do is obtain some of the NN store's "ultra-clean" products and run tests on them to document what heavy metals, glyphosate etc. are to be found therein. It'd be fun to see his public and competitors demanding "safe" NN products, like the loons currently protesting Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

Oh, yes. I noticed that now Adams has gone from claiming that Facebook is "censoring" him to claiming that he's the target of a massive DDoS attack initiated by...wait for it...the CDC! How does he come to this conclusion? Behold:

The CDC is a military organization run by an Air Force Major known as Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, M.D. She served at the Wurtsmith Air Force Strategic Air Command (SAC) Base in Michigan and at Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, D.C. Why is this significant? Because the United States Air Force runs Cyber Command, an infrastructure engineered to carry out acts of cyber warfare against intended targets.

It'll die in committee. Once someone points out that research costs money, Grover Norquist will send nasty notes to the Republicans in Congress to vote NO.

Jane: oops! Missed that. Thanks.

Re genetics: Hm. My family has claimed for years that we're descended from Robert the Bruce. If I believe this, it might actually be true. But then again, so is everyone else, so the snobs in the family still need to just shut up.

Speaking of ancestry, it has been calculated that Europeans inherited 2-4% of their genome from Neanderthals. In addition, there is evidence that humans interbred with the Denisovian hominids.
Boasting of your ancestry is racist, not to mention lame. As Abraham Lincoln is purported to have said, "I am not interested in the man his father was, I am interested in the man he will be."

@ Dangerous Bacon:

What's very funny about these guys is that they masquerade as 'just folks' - regular middle class people whilst living on estates or ranches that must be valued in the millions.

They don't admit their earnings though.

Null actually shows his estates and uses them to conduct 'retreats' - i.e. thinly disguised alt med/ energy healing in a resort setting.

So far I haven't been able to find photos of Adams' current Austin area home- he only videos ducks and geese- so I assume it is not as humble as he says. He did show his Ecuadorian hacienda/ 'food forest' which was for sale and opulent for the area. He bragged that locals would work for him for almost nothing.

Recently some business news reported about his ( co-called) lab and that he was expanding his warehousing or suchlike.

Because the United States Air Force runs Cyber Command

I'm sure this will come as a great surprise to the Navy admiral who commands it. I don't think Mikey gets how this organizational chart works.

Oh, good lord. So he thinks that an OB GYN is out to get him because she was stationed at an Air Force base where Cyber Command is located?

Cyber Command wasn't formed until 2009. She would have left the Air Force long before then, probably because she either decided not to go career or she didn't make rank. It's hard to tell when she joined the military but it looks like it was probably in the 1980's or 90's at the latest. If she left with a rank of major she was in probably about 10-15 years depending on how fast she got promoted. She was probably out before 9/11 happened is my guess.

There used to be a full service hospital at Andrews until some time in the 90's early 2000's when the Air Force downsized its military hospital facilities at most of its military bases. Bethesda took over the inpatient services. I actually trained at Malcom Grow Hospital, in my LPN program, in the mid 80's. I did a Med Surg, Peds, and OB rotation there and had a great experience.

The food in the hospital cafeteria was fantastic, and you could get seconds.

Mikey, as usual, is talking out of his a**. He really should talk to someone about the voices he must be hearing based on what he's writing.

Oh, good lord. So he thinks that an OB GYN is out to get him because she was stationed at an Air Force base where Cyber Command is located?

Fort Meade is an Army base.

Orac@36: Wow. That isn't even coherent enough to be considered a conspiracy theory.

Ft Meade is also at or near where the NSA does its thing too.

So he thinks that an OB GYN is out to get him because she was stationed at an Air Force base where Cyber Command is located?

It's worse than that - if you look at where the AF parts of Cyber Command are, Wurtsmith and Andrews aren't included. Also, Wurtsmith was closed in 1993, 16 years before Cyber Command was created.

See the list of locations at the bottom of -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-Fourth_Air_Force

Orac@36,

I read that book last month:

https://www.amazon.com/NSA-National-Security-Claude-Delesse-ebook/dp/B0…

Never in this potentially well researched (in my opinion, I'm no expert there) it is mentioned about any national security agency to have any discussion whatsoever with the CDC.

Alain

Mrs. Woo: The hardest thing for me, though, is the many Evangelical leaders defending him at every turn. I was raised to believe these people wouldn’t lie.

That's really odd. My mother was sort of Lutheran, my dad never went to church much as a kid (Grandpa was liable to get the pastor into a debate) and I was the only kid that was baptized and briefly went to Sunday school when I was fivish or so. Consequently, I grew up viewing the "religious" people as a sort of odd subspecies and thought for the longest time that the commandment was 'thou shalt bear false witness.'" Evangelicals have been lying about everything for basically forever.

So he thinks that an OB GYN is out to get him because she was stationed at an Air Force base where Cyber Command is located?

Not to mention, in the Air Force (like the rest of the DOD), majors barely command respect.

"he should perhaps be more careful in choosing the heros after whom he wants to pattern himself."
That goes for George Patton too. Patton was an unhinged anti-Semite and general racist. He tormented his troops with what is variously known as "Mickey Mouse" and "chickenshit", an exaggerated adherence to petty and unrealistic regulations. He thought death in battle was the most glorious death possible and didn't quite get that none of his troops shared that sentiment - they said of Old Blood and Guts, "Yeah, your blood, his guts". He threw away troops on mad missions, such as the poorly planned and equipped doomed raid into Czechoslovakia to rescue officer POWs, one of whom by cosmic coincidence happened to be his son-in-law. He was removed from command of the US occupation zone in Germany for declaring that the Nazi party was just another political party just like the Republicans and Democrats. His last harebrained scheme was to rearm the Wehrmacht and join them in an all-out war with those racially inferior Soviets. Never mind that most US troops just wanted to go home, and most German troops had no desire to return to the Eastern front after four years of misery and horror.
All in all, not a great role model.

We know that ancient humans mated with Homo neanderthalensis, Homo denisovensis, and Homo heidelburgensis.
I guess our ancestors were just a big bunch of Homo-sexuals.

Jane Ostentatious, it should be easy for Kent to fight with half his brain tied behind his back.
From the evidence so far, behind his back is where his brain is already.

@ORD #50, LOL!

OT but Adams reveals who he really is

Yesterday and today, Natural News

Mikey responds to the events in Charlottesville

Take a peek.
Warning - it might make you sick.

Now, some people have made comments along the lines of, “You failed because your White House petition only got a little more than 7,000 signatures in the 30 day period.”
A little perspective is in order…

My first White House petition was for Suramin as a treatment for autism. Personally, I think that is the breakthrough treatment for autism and will END the epidemic. That White House Petition got about 700 signatures. Petition #2 got more than 7,000 signatures.

Want to take any wagers on the final number for Petition #3? Petition #4? Petition #5?

I’ll give you my prediction. Each of them will get maybe 7,000 to 10,000 signatures. Kent Heckenlively has almost certainly hit (or come very close) to his ceiling.

To get to 7,000 signatures, they are going to have to get 1,901 today.

I wonder how (if at all) Ken will spin this.

Oops - I must have pulled up a cached page from a coupla days ago. The current total is 6,826, so they need 174 to reach 7000.

Or maybe Ken had a bunch of bots ready to go in case this happened.

Ah, the petition did get a bump today (I think it's today)
http://bolenreport.com/heckenlively-opens-talks-trump-regarding-aid-aus…

Yep, Heckenlively talked to Trump. Well, a Trump action figure. But that's the same thing, isn't it?

I wonder if it talked back.

6876 signatures on the petition

The petition did get a shot in the arm (heh) today.
http://bolenreport.com/heckenlively-opens-talks-trump-regarding-aid-aus…

Yes, it seems Heckenlively talked to Trump. Well, a Trump action figure. But that's all perfectly normal, isn't it"

6884 signatures on the petition.

Ah, the petition did get a bump today (I think it's today)
http://bolenreport.com/heckenlively-opens-talks-trump-regarding-aid-aus…

Yep, Heckenlively talked to Trump. Well, a Trump action figure. But that's the same thing, isn't it?

I wonder if it talked back.

6912 signatures on the petition

Suramin as a treatment for autism. Personally, I think that is the breakthrough treatment for autism

Which breakthrough treatment is this? The 3rd? 4th? 5th? How many times has Heckenlively cured his son now? Ah well, when life gives you lemons an autistic son, make lemonade you have a guineapig for experiments.

Suramin is Naviaux's schtik, founded entirely on yet another feckin' mouse model of autism which even Mady Hornig thinks is whack. He was mainly interested in antipurinergic treatment for mitochondrial dysfunction, and spun it as "autism cure" because that's what his funding source wants to hear.

Suramin is NOT A HAPPY FUN TOY.

There is a greater than 50% chance of adrenal cortical damage, but only a smaller proportion will require lifelong corticosteroid replacement.

http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/why-is-mouse-that-spins.html

I must have pulled up a cached page from a coupla days ago. The current total is 6,826, so they need 174 to reach 7000.

It was at 6809 when I checked this morning right after seeing your comment, I think, and then "jumped" to 6814. A veritable groundswell.

The petition is closed now, and the final tally is 7,132 SIGNED. The previous petition drew 7,328, so 196 fewer.

I wonder what Kent's Trump doll will say about that.

Carissa Gleason: Embracing real medicine after fake medicine failed her

oracknows — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 01:00:18 +0000

Carissa Gleason: Embracing real medicine after fake medicine failed her

I wasn't sure if I should do this post, mainly because I could find so little information to elaborate on a bit of information that I discovered. Then I thought about it a bit more. Perhaps my not being able to find out will illustrate my point better than a detailed progress report on a woman whom I blogged about once nearly 16 months ago. Also, it's a hopeful story. At least I think it is, because it looks as though the young woman at the center of it has abandoned quackery.

Basically, this was the story of a young woman with a bad cancer who had eschewed conventional therapy, particularly chemotherapy, in favor of quackery. The reason she came to my attention was because her story appeared in a number of British tabloids, such as—of course!—The Daily Mail, but also a local Australian newspaper near where she lives under the title Cowgirl chooses alternative therapies to treat cancer.

What these stories all had in common was the portrayal of young Australian woman named Carissa Gleeson, who was unfortunate enough to have developed a nasty cancer but, in the manner of patients providing alternative cancer cure testimonials, decided that she didn't want chemotherapy and that she would cure herself "natural therapies." How did she come to this decision? While "doing her own research" about her cancer, she came across cancer quack Ty Bollinger's The Truth About Cancer video series, which is as much a propaganda series for cancer quackery as Eric Merola's movies about Stanislaw Burzynski are propaganda movies for Burzynski's cancer quackery. As I pointed out at the time, the problem with propaganda films like Bollinger's and Merola's videos is that they can be effective. Cancer patients actually believe them and follow their advice—patients like Carissa Gleeson.

Before I get to what I know about what's happening with her now, let's review her story as it was presented in the credulous press in the spring of 2016.

A young woman, 22, who works at a cattle station, is trying to beat cancer by taking high doses of Vitamin C and using an infrared sauna daily.

Doctors told Carissa Gleeson, from outback Western Australia, chemotherapy would give her a 50 per cent chance at surviving five years of synovial sarcoma in her lower back, a rare cancer of soft tissue.

She had visited the doctor with a lump on her back, and was diagnosed with the rare cancer in March last year, when she was just 21-years-old.

According to her GoFundMe page (no longer active), she was also doing this:

In the last 12 months I have made some huge dietary changes, followed a strict supplement routine & done emotional healing. I have also done a lot of cleansing including juice / water fasting, infrared saunas, colonics and hyper baric chamber. We have managed to slow everything down with all of this but we are in need of stronger treatments to start killing off the cancer cells and reducing the tumour size.

I am now doing 3x weekly intravenous treatments including high dose Vit C, ozone therapy, UV blood cleaning, bi carb, polyMVA, glutathione and emotional healing. I am now working along with an amazing team of doctors both in Aust and the U.S and have 100% faith in what I am doing.

Yes, it's a veritable cornucopia of quackery.

At the time, I noted that soft tissue sarcomas can be difficult to treat, particularly if they are on the trunk. Let’s just start out with this presentation. Gleeson had a lump on her back. We don’t know how large it was. Notice how the news story it says that chemotherapy would only give Gleeson a 50-50 chance of survival. The question becomes why that was mentioned. In actuality, most sarcomas require a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation to be treated effectively.

So what does this tell me? Well, the primary treatment for most sarcomas is surgery. Usually, if surgery can be done first safely and without too much disfigurement, it is. Certainly this is the case with synovial cell sarcoma, whose cell of origin is not clear, where wide excision with a negative margin of 1-3 cm all around is the standard of care, and frequently postoperative radiation is administered to decrease the chance of a local recurrence of the tumor in the excision bed. The use of chemotherapy, either before surgery (neoadjuvant) or after surgery (adjuvant) is somewhat controversial and only contributes slightly to survival, which is, roughly, 50-60% at five years and 40-50% at ten years, survival rates that assume successful excision of the cancer.

So Gleeson was briefly famous for her decision to pursue quackery instead of effective therapy. I never heard about her again—until last week, when a reader sent me a link to this image from her Instagram page:

Hair Milestone. ?? Today marks just over 5 months since I finished chemotherapy and this morning I used my hairdryer for the first time in 9 months!! It's definitely the little things that make you happy!! So grateful to be celebrating LIFE today and everyday! ? . . . . #grateful #gratitude #chemohair #chemohairgrowth #chemotherapy #cancer #cancersucks #cancersurvivor #thriver #tarastrong

A post shared by carissagleeson ? (@carissagleeson) on Jul 28, 2017 at 10:51pm PDT

It's from only four days ago, which means that she finished chemotherapy back in February.

That was all I had to go on. For a while, I couldn't find anything more and thought that I'd have to go with just this. It's thin gruel, I'll admit, but basically on her own instagram page, Gleeson showed a picture of herself with hair about the right length for her having finished chemotherapy around five months before.

Then I poked around her social media a little more. Her website was not helpful, having been scrubbed of prior entries about her cancer and her beliefs in alternative medicine. In fact, it was scrubbed of basically everything other than recipes and platitudes. There was, however, this photo of her:

This clearly showed her with very short hair typical of someone who's undergone chemotherapy and is only just starting to see her hair grow back a little. So I did a little more searching. On her Instagram page, there was this:

Hiya, As we come into the beginning of Sarcoma Awareness week here in WA I thought it would be a great time to update you all since I went MIA after my last blog post a year ago. Short answer - I am doing really well. Long answer - A lot has happened in the past 12 months and I'm not quite sure where to start. After my last blog my Dad and I boarded a plane to Mexico where we spent 4 weeks at a holistic cancer centre with the intention of coming home cancer free. My doctor was very confident in my case and was pleased to see my blood results bounce back every week. Unfortunately my scans at the end of the 4 weeks were not what we had hoped for. This is when I disappeared from social media for quite sometime and stopped blogging. I couldn't bear the thought of writing again. The weeks that followed were spent contemplating undergoing the very treatment that was offered to me at the start. Chemotherapy. My oncologist at the time didn't give me a very good prognosis with this treatment which is why I went on a mission in the holistic world and said "Chemotherapy will be my last resort". After returning home from Mexico and weeks contemplating I found myself needing my 'last resort'. I was honestly blessed and was referred to an amazing oncologist by my new naturopath and I began what would be 4 rounds of aggressive high dose chemotherapy, followed by 6 weeks radiation and then surgery. My naturopath helped and continues to help me support my body with natural therapies and nutrition. I have had excellent results and now been given a very good prognosis. (Thankyou Universe)! NOW - I am still recovering from major surgery but I am currently studying psychology and nutrition and will soon be a recognised nutrition and health coach. Planning our wedding, waiting for my hair to grow and starting my blog up again to share everything I have learnt from my experience with anyone who needs it and raise awareness about prevention. Thankyou again to everyone for all your continued support, love and prayers! ❤️All straight back at ya! ? #staytuned #sockittosarcoma #tarastrong

A post shared by carissagleeson ? (@carissagleeson) on Jun 18, 2017 at 8:57pm PDT

First, I have to say something that I rarely, if ever, say. This woman's naturopath actually did the right thing and sent her to a real doctor. There's a line in the Dirty Harry movie Magnum Force in which Harry observes, "A man's got to know his limitations." This naturopath did.

I also found a version of Gleeson's story posted as an entry on her blog dated 4/28/2017) through the Wayback Machine at Archive.org in which she describes a bit more of the quackery that Gleeson tried:

Dad and I flew in a few days early and spent some time in San Diego, before we crossed the border to our new home for the next 4 weeks. The clinic was full of people of all ages from all around the world with a few others from Australia and New Zealand also, all with the same intention.

Cure.

Some people were there for treatment whilst others were back there for their check ups and having awesome results, with quite a few in remission. This was so reassuring to see and hear of other people having success with these therapies. My doctor was very confident in my case and was pleased to see my blood results bounce back every week. My therapies included IPT low dose chemotherapy, IV VIT C, IV PNC27, ozone therapy, hyperbaric oxygen chamber, PEMF, IV B17, Rigvir, whole body hyperthermia, local hyperthermia and recall healing. We ate a plant based diet with fish twice a week, juices and daily coffee enemas. My days were jam packed.

Unfortunately my scans at the end of the 4 weeks were not what we had hoped for. Absolutely gutted!! I had done everything I was told to, I prepared myself, I had gotten second opinions from world renowned alternative doctors, I done everything right.

Why me? Fuck you cancer!

This is a sentiment I've heard all too frequently from patients. Unfortunately, even the best conventional therapy doesn't always work. Patients die despite optimal therapy. There's no real rhyme or reason to it. It's horrible. The difference, of course, is that what was being done at that Tijuana clinic was quackery. It never had a chance of helping her, with the possible exception of low dose chemotherapy, which would have been, in essence, inadequate conventional treatment for her sarcoma. I was amazed, though, at the sheer range of quackery offered at what ever Tijuana quack clinic it was where she spent four weeks. "Recall healing"? Coffee enemas? It doesn't get quackier than that. Not surprisingly, none of it worked. Gleeson didn't really say what she meant when she said that the scans were "not what we had hoped for," but it's not unreasonable to speculate that there was either no change in her cancer or that it grew.

At least she had enough rationality left not to double down on the quackery. Although she wasn't exactly open to conventional therapy, she wasn't closed to it either. She was willing to consider another option. Here's how she came to change her mind:

After returning home I found a new integrative GP and naturopath. After back and forth appointments, many tears and many phone calls I was willing to do radiation and surgery. At this stage there was still no way you could convince me to do chemotherapy. Not a chance.

I had a referral to meet my new medical oncologist, who then referred me to a surgeon and then a radiation oncologist who would all be a part of my recovery. My medical oncologist was freaking amazing and supportive of whatever decision I was to make. He looked into other alternatives and different trial drugs that may be helpful for me as he knew I didn't have an interest in chemotherapy at the time. Although once again after many more appts, many more tears and many more phone calls I was somewhat willing to do chemotherapy. Honestly the hardest decision I have ever had to make.

Fast forward to now, I have completed 4 rounds of chemotherapy, 6 weeks of radiation and am waiting for surgery as I write. All the while still embracing a healthy lifestyle.

I won't go into too much detail on my treatments just yet as I am working on another blog to share my experience with you all. Plus some of my tips to share with my fellow cancer warriors that helped get me through on my hard days.

Patients like Gleeson are very difficult to deal with as an oncologist. Notice how she talks about it took "many appointments, many more tears, and many more phone calls" before she was willing to undergo chemotherapy and the rest of conventional therapy, including the surgery and radiation. She refers to it in her Instagram post as "major surgery," which suggests to me that the lump on her back was actually at least fairly large.

It's clear from her accounts that Gleeson is still into pseudoscience, but reality has a way of not caring what you believe in. For all her desire to undergo a "natural" therapy (although how low dose chemotherapy or high dose vitamin C can be "natural," I've never been able to figure out), her cancer didn't care. Cancer doesn't care. It simply is, and it behaves the way its biology dictates that it behave, regardless of what you believe. It will tolerate your adding some woo to treatment real science-based treatment that targets its biology. It will laugh at attempts to treat it that are based on fantasy.

I'm very happy that Gleeson learned that lesson.

However, I am not happy that the message that the reasons Carissa Gleeson is still alive is because she realized that the quackery she had pursued was not working, had a change of heart, and embraced conventional science-based medicine. She might not have embraced it whole-heartedly, but she embraced enough of it to have a reasonably good chance of living to be a ripe old age. That message needs to get out, and it needs to get out in the media outlets that promoted her story originally 16 months ago, outlets like The Daily Mail.

What are the odds of that happening? Obviously not good. Stories about people who embrace standard, science-based medicine are nowhere near as interesting as stories about people who embrace alternative medicine, even though a story about how Gleeson finally underwent chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation to treat her cancer and gave herself a good shot at long term survival would go a long way towards reversing the damage the irresponsible reporting about her last year.

It would also really irritate Ty Bollinger, which is an added bonus.

oracknows Wed, 08/02/2017 - 21:00

Tags

cancer

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Categories

Medicine

Best wishes for Ms Gleason.

I don't see why a headline of "I tried alternative treatments for cancer and it almost killed me" for these stories is not of interest.

Dorit@2: Same reason you don't hear anything about the Berkeley physicist (I've even forgotten his name) who used to be a climate change skeptic, but then looked at the data and found that the climate scientists were right, and that they were handling the data properly. Both that and the Gleeson case would be headlines of the form, "Experts turn out to be right after all". I can't speak for Australia, but US culture tends to favor the underdog, which in this context would be the person or people fighting the experts.

I can't speak for other cultures, either. But a lot of people HATE to be wrong about anything. They think it makes them look weak to admit a mistake or apologize for anything, and looking weak for some people is worse than dying apparently.

@Panacea #4, that's why scientific thinking is so hard for people to embrace. Science requires one to admit a hypothesis is wrong and then discard it. People have trouble separating their own pride from the need to self-correct and often find reasons to discard a basic step of science when it is emotionally inconvenient. I think it's a human thing. Being flexible is not easy.

My very best wishes to Ms Gleeson for a long and healthy life. I remember my family getting a juicer and my mom drinking lots of carrot juice after her lymphoma diagnosis (she also did conventional therapy). My sister and I got into an argument over a squeaky carrot toy in her hospital room when we were taken to visit her on her last mother's day.

I am grateful that my one aunt is nearing 80 and a breast cancer survivor. At the very least I can use her survival to argue with Mr Woo if I end up with my own diagnosis.

I am slightly fascinated to have had three separate (different body parts) biopsies as part of surgery come back high dysplasia. The most recent one (gall bladder) had the surgeon very excited, and when I wasn't alarmed by the words she thought maybe I didn't know what they meant.

I knew. It seems like a pretty regular occurrence is all, and if it isn't cancer, it isn't scary.

My best wishes to Ms. Gleeson - I'm glad to hear she's decided to choose a therapy which has a chance to keep her alive.

and daily coffee enemas. My days were jam packed.

For a moment there I thought the jam was a new treatment.

to Eric Lund @3

Richard Muller founded the Berkeley Earth project:

He writes for Quora among other things and has explained the approach his group took. He was sceptical of the so-called hockey stick model of temperature increase based on his view of how the statistics were done. He got funding to evaluate global warming and concluded that it is real and almost entirely the result of human activity.

Meanwhile, Olivia Newton-John's cancer has come back. Formerly the host of PBS's Healing Quest and married to the owner of an herbal supplement company, I'd guess her prognosis is not good. She's so deep in the quicksand that it's probably too late to crawl out.

But Eric, the story is about the patient, not the doctors, in keeping with the 'human interest news' frame around 'the fighting spirit of common folk'. That's why you won't see Dorit's peg: it's too negative for how these stories function in the larger constellation of news. In theory at least, you could see a version of the narrative Orac relates though: persistent woman courageously tries maverick treatment, then even more courageously braves chemo when that doesn't work. But that's only possible because the conventional methods have now proven to work. The necessary mythical/ideological element is "you CAN beat cancer if your will is strong". Had she just chosen to forsake quackery and resume conventional treatment, with no results from that yet to report, it would be too much of a downer.

Ugh, more self-centred bullsh!t - "Thank You Universe". Love, the universe is cold and indifferent to you and all of us. It's a disgusting mindset if you scratch the surface - the universe cares enough about you to intervene in your cancer, but what about everyone else fighting a losing battle? What about mothers who lose babies to whooping cough or rare cancers or anything else? What about people who get attacked, brutalised, murdered, while walking home? Does the universe not care about them, or did they not offer enough coffee enema sacrifices?

I saw a patient only yesterday who told me vitamin C cured her cervical cancer 45 years ago, then the doctors decided to give her radiation anyway. Why? BIG RADIATION of course! She told me radiation is the biggest industry in the world, and she suspects that the British doctor who had moved over to be the head of radiation oncology was a PLANT!!1! to drum up business by irradiating people who don't need it.

Oy. That's really scary considering cervical cancer back then was a LOT more lethal than it is now.

Completely off topic, but I've been traveling and may have missed it when this was news. Anybody know anything?

From http://www.autisminvestigated.com/about/

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. For nearly five years, he was contributing editor to Age of Autism where he eventually encountered resistance to his investigations into the activities of several of the blog’s sponsors (one of which is also an editor) and was ultimately blocked from writing for the site. He was dismissed from the Ph.D. Epidemiology program of the University of Texas School of Public Health, due to academic misconduct by the school’s administration.

WTF?

@Panacea #4, it's a very human thing.
I've noticed that people prefer their leaders to be resolute and unwavering. A politician who changes his or her mind on a policy or law is viewed with disdain and called things like "wishy-washy" or a flip-flopper, even when it is clear that changing is the correct thing to do.

I suspect the 'academic misconduct' was all on Jake the Jerk's part, and I'd be wiling to bet they and all the students are happy to see him go. I guess his parents' money wasn't enough to buy him a degree this time.

From Johnny's quote: "He was dismissed from the Ph.D. Epidemiology program of the University of Texas School of Public Health, due to academic misconduct by the school’s administration."

Why are we not surprised? The program dismissed Young Master Jake because due to the fact he could not find a way to force the data to fit his agenda.

Sorry for the bad grammar. In short: young master Jake was dismissed due to several errors, which could not be fixed by rich relatives.

Yeah, actual factual data sneers at exuberant bank accounts. Reality has a bias: towards quantifiable evidence.

The most recent one (gall bladder) had the surgeon very excited

The local hand clinic was nearly ecstatic when I presented with an obviously bad case of ulnar nerve f*cked-upedness. "Look! You can pluck it like a string!"

Then the resident went away to do his thing, and the attending conceded that when he had had a similar problem during his training, he just babied the thing (with a pillow and tape, mind you). I still baby it. Orthopods at teaching hospitals want to cut. So it goes.

re: I don’t see why a headline of “I tried alternative treatments for cancer and it almost killed me” for these stories is not of interest.

There's another important omission, one that would require help from the patient: how much money and time did she spend going through the failed treatment with the Tijuana & other clinics?

While I don't expect that daily mail and similar PoS newspapers have an interest for what's right, at least they could follow up on their original story and put some curiosity in action.

"emotional healing"? Ugh. That's all part of the blame-the-victim poison that underpins all "alternative therapies" - not only is it your own fault for getting sick, it's your own fault if you try all their expensive treatments and still end up dying.
How do these "emotional healers" explain babies getting cancer? No, wait, I can guess - it's the kid's karma, or else their parents passing on their untreated "emotional" problems.
Sometimes I want to punch some of these people.

It's a bit out of date - I'm sure there's a newer version, but on page 21 of this document:

https://sph.uth.edu/content/uploads/2010/06/2009-2011-Catalog-with-Fall…

If the student is unable to successfully complete the preliminary examination after
two attempts, the student will be dismissed from the Ph.D. program.

Sounds like the old reason for being dismissed - failing exams / dissertations / oral exams / being a wingnut. A large chequebook can't help with that at the end of the day.

If the student is unable to successfully complete the preliminary examination after two attempts, the student will be dismissed from the Ph.D. program.

Becky, that is exactly what I assumed had happened, given his major advisor's c.v. admitting Jake had been a Ph.D. student for no more than 2 years. The preliminary exams have the whole committee present and wingnuttery doesn't usually cut it.

I suspect the ‘academic misconduct’ was all on Jake the Jerk’s part, and I’d be wiling to bet they and all the students are happy to see him go. I guess his parents’ money wasn’t enough to buy him a degree this time.

Yeah, but it's very strange that Jake would outright say he was dismissed for "academic misconduct." Knowing Jake over the years, my guess is that he means he was dismissed because of someone else's academic misconduct; e.g., his faculty/advisor/whoever.

Knowing Jake over the years, my guess is that he means he was dismissed because of someone else’s academic misconduct; e.g., his faculty/advisor/whoever.

Or he's trying to insinuate that that's what happened, while in reality it's his own doing.

He probably believes he did nothing wrong, and is trying to deflect blame by claiming the University was in the wrong. He probabky handed in a dissertation chock full of anti-vax nonsense and was outraged when hi was laughed off campus.

Johnny (#15) writes,

2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. (Jake Crosby)

MJD says,

That's great and I'd like to congratulate Jake for his academic accomplishments.

Chris: Yeah, actual factual data sneers at exuberant bank accounts.

Several recent elections argue otherwise. People don't want data, they want to be babied and lied to.

MJD: Read the post again, Dochfus. Jake didn't accomplish anything aside from wasting time and oxygen and taking up space that other students could have used.

@Orac: I actually think Jake is accusing *the University* of academic misconduct, not saying that's why HE was dismissed. After all, HE would never do anything wrong, therefore, the error is the University's.

"He was dismissed from the Ph.D. Epidemiology program of the University of Texas School of Public Health, due to academic misconduct by the school’s administration."

If he meant the misconduct was his own, there would (hopefully) have been a comma after the word, thus "...due to academic misconduct, by the school's administration."

And oops. I see now that I mis-read Orac's comment.

re Jake

Hah!

Of course he's saying that the university was in the wrong- how could it possibly be HIM?

This is standard woo-meistery- Andy, Null, Adams whomever.
The establishment is wrong in fact, data and theory and Mr Geniusman revealed the TRUTH and now feels their wrath.

I'm surprised he lasted this long.

IIRC at GW, didn't he artfully rearrange vaccine data with the help of a Geier? That gives me a clue about what his Texas dissertation might have been about- where he was coming from-
of course he's trying to blame his dismissal on the TSPH ..

But like other cranks, he has LOTS of places in which to acquire his degree.. maybe we should provide him with some helpful hints.

-btw- when I interacted with him ( in 2011?) I warned him.

Also at that time, I created a list of employment options for him- Natural News writer, PRN show host,Green Med info, web woo-meister.. I suppose he could ring up Alex Jones or Breitbart as well.

Let's not use the term "wingnut" or "wingnuttery" in regards to Jake. When it comes to his anti vax beliefs, he's just a plain old nut.

Wingnut has right wing connotations we really don't need to add to his description, irrespective of his actual political belief system. In other words even if he is a wing nut, his academic ideas are just plain old nuts.

I feel sorry for him in a way. It would suck to put all that time and effort into something to fall short at the very end, and if he would just stop hating himself for being autistic, and embrace his field as is, he could actually find a decent job, have a rewarding career, and make a decent living. If he'd stop with the self loathing and revamp his notions about the opposite sex, he might even become attractive enough for the dating scene and even find himself a wife.

I think the problem with these well-intentioned advice is that it's asking him to put aside all that was part of his identity for years. At this point, it's likely too much him to ditch.

@ Dorit Reiss:

I agree.
Actually I think he might make a name for himself in political as well as altie circles-
I just looked at his twitter linked by his site.

The trajectory of a bird with only a right wing or a left wing is to spiral downward.

Love, the universe is cold and indifferent to you and all of us. It’s a disgusting mindset if you scratch the surface – the universe cares enough about you to intervene in your cancer, but what about everyone else fighting a losing battle?

If one accepts the proposition that the perceived world is the unconscious mind, it's a strong suggestion that internal work is needed.

Of course he’s saying that the university was in the wrong- how could it possibly be HIM?

How time flies:

"You shouldn’t be in grad school if you’re emotions get in the way of your acceptance of facts."

I could swear there was another appearance around that time when he stated that he was still in the program despite having been delisted from the directory.

It appears that the same person who appeared here pretending to be me is also posting at Jake Crosby's site, pretending to be me. Crosby is now replying to him.

I just wonder what kind of mental state this person must be in.

Yes, Travis has been known to do that. I shut Travis down as soon as he's recognized here, but Jake doesn't appear to care.

@Panacea, 34:
I feel sorry for him, too. He showed some abilities which would have come in handy for being and epidemiologist, but his writings, rants, etc. would probably give more than pause to any health department/agency looking to hire him.
My best advice for him right now, if he were open to advice, would be to shut everything down online and take six or twelve months off. Find a hobby or interest, or travel the world on mom and dad's dime. Just stay offline. Then, in a year or so, start a blog about the problems of -- and within -- public health. Nothing too sensationalistic, just what is wrong and how people (not himself) are fixing it. Then morph that into a science writing career that is legit and not full of anger and hatred and copy/paste from InfoWars.
Maybe, just maybe, he can turn it around. Maybe he can become an advocate for autistic people young and old, writing about the lack of services (or access to services), the challenges faced by being autistic in a world designed for neurotypicals, etc.
I know. I know. You can't change a leopard's spots.

I shut Travis down as soon as he’s recognized here, but Jake doesn’t appear to care.

Well, Jake already knows that Rebecca is actually Brian Deer, so nobody's going to get confused.

Jake refuses to discuss his dismissal with Becky/ Brian.
Hopefully, we'll soon be reading his version of events which transpired.

Ren, I doubt he would take anyone's advice.
HOWEVER with the amount of money coming his way, he can probably do exactly as he chooses as long as it doesn't require other people or input from them.
Good luck with that, kid.

Well, Jake already knows that Rebecca is actually Brian Deer, so nobody’s going to get confused.

And Lawrence is Brian Deer and I'm Autism Diva and Emily Willingham and Allison Singer.

The only names that matter are your porn star names.

Looks like stalker-boy Schwochert got through again.

Yeah, does look that way. Sorry, MarkN. You go on automatic moderation for a while. I hate to do it, but Travis left me little choice.

Science Mom, we now know what Travis does with his free time when not being an obnoxious twit.

It strikes me that is the Gnat's statement is very carefully phrased to not clearly say whose academic misconduct it is - it's not correctly worded for either circumstance, so supporters can give him the benefit of the doubt that it was someone else while detractors can't prove it to be a lie. Ambiguity for the win?

It strikes me that is the Gnat’s statement is very carefully phrased to not clearly say whose academic misconduct it is – it’s not correctly worded for either circumstance, so supporters can give him the benefit of the doubt that it was someone else while detractors can’t prove it to be a lie. Ambiguity for the win?

My reading of his statement is pretty clear. He was dismissed from his program and he is blaming that on the School. In Jake's mind, the only way he could have failed his prelims is if there was a conspiracy to make him fail.

I should add for the avoidance of ambiguity that I think the most likely reason Jake is no longer in his Ph.D. program is because he failed his prelims, not because of academic misconduct on his part.

Jake might have intentionally worded his statement ambiguously—but perhaps it’s just bad writing.

Jake wrote: “[Jacob L. Crosby, MPH] was dismissed from the Ph.D. Epidemiology program of the University of Texas School of Public Health, due to academic misconduct by the school’s administration.”

There are two real possibilities:

[Jacob L. Crosby, MPH] was dismissed from the Ph.D. Epidemiology program of the University of Texas School of Public Health due to academic misconduct by the school’s administration.

[Jacob L. Crosby, MPH] was dismissed from the Ph.D. Epidemiology program of the University of Texas School of Public Health, due to academic misconduct, by the school’s administration.

If you read Jake’s nonsensical screed that preceded that sentence, you’ll get the sense that he believes that nothing is ever his fault. Accordingly, Jake and the University likely disagree on the punctuation--but it should be clear that Jake's interpretation of that sentence (and of the events that it describes) is, um, unusual.

However, a third (and the most likely) posiibility is that Jake just couldn't cut it, and so he blames the school.

The first comment on Jake's "about" page is truly bizarre. Judging by the namelink payload, it appears to be one Ashley James impersonating Seneff.

So much for his MODZ! cred.

Narad, unless I completely misunderstand you, no I don't accept the idea that the perceived world is my unconscious mind. To take one example, are parents right now living through the agony of losing a child because of the poor quality of my unconscious mind? Would me doing more internal work save the lives of others?

I agree that one's own mind, conscious and unconscious, colours one's perception of the world. It can make people seem to be attacking you when they're not, for example. But the idea that my or your or even collectively everyone's unconscious mind is contributing the reality of FGM, childhood cancer, sex trafficking or any other real-life horror (if that is what you're saying) draws too long a bow for me.

What I can't get my head round is what possible self-image a person could have if they think they have the integrity to participate in topics impacting on the safety of children, while pretending to be someone else?

Such a person could only know that they are, at the most fundamental level, a liar, attempting to deceive others.

So, I just wonder about the thinking. Just as I wondered about Crosby's thinking when he repeatedly lies about The Lancet, claiming that it has exonerated Wakefield. It even wrote to him saying that it hadn't, and he takes the very letter and presents it as evidence that he had.

I'm sure such people have always been out there, going back to the African savannah, but to see them present themselves in lines of type on a screen I find to be a strange experience.

I've thought the same when I encountered that "writer" Martin J Walker and the "scientist" David L Lewis, who fabricated attacks on me: just whole-cloth lies.

We sometimes joke about crank magnets, cognitive dissonance.Dunning-Kruger and so forth. But in these little incidents, I think we see the vaccine topic is infested with individuals who are profoundly dishonest. Not mistaken, or confused, but calculating liars whose pleasure is to deceive.

Tried to treat her cancer with woo. Failed. Treated it with conventional medicine. Succeeded. THANKS 'THE UNIVERSE' AND HER NATUROPATH INSTEAD OF THE DOCTORS WHO TREATED HER. Disgusting.

Brian, we see that kind of behavior on playgrounds every day:

Did not! Did so! Did NOT! Did so did so infinity!

Not listening! Nyahnyahnyah!

Or the ever so fun

I'm telling Mom!

Jake simply hasn't grown out of this behavior, and his autism is not the reason why.

"But in these little incidents, I think we see the vaccine topic is infested with individuals who are profoundly dishonest. Not mistaken, or confused, but calculating liars whose pleasure is to deceive."

The key factor here is that most of these individuals have convinced themselves that researchers, physicians, health care organizations, drug companies, government agencies and their paid shill allies have all been engaged in a comprehensive deception campaign to show that vaccines are safe and effective, thus it is acceptable to promulgate lies to counter a fantasized campaign of lies by the other side.

This attitude in my opinion mostly reflects a mental disorder rather than simple lying for pleasure.

Leaning on my professional education a little...

Brian, I think that the fact that many anti-vax advocates constantly lie doesn't mean that they are mentally healthy..

I wonder what leads a person to be so needy that they have to manufacture evidence or create tall tales in order to be recognised as a scientist or writer or sell product to the gullible. Similarly, the fanboys/ girls who maintain sites like AoA/ TMR and myriad facebook groups also have skin in the game.

Self aggrandisement, self protection and face saving seem to be the order of the day on the sites and material I survey.

I venture that they couldn't compete in the normal way- getting accepted to universities, studying, training, working in the real world and thus, need to battle against its 'corruption' in order to prove that THEY themselves are not deficient or the problem but that the system itself is rigged.

And they will ride the cleansing tsunami of paradigm shift as the established order comes crashing down and so achieve their rightful positions as supreme experts and thought leaders. Of course, they can be making money along the way because other great minds accept their line and buy their products or theories.

I truly believe that investing so much time and energy into creating and maintaining such a fabulous system of myths has to be symptomatic of mental difficulties because they deliberately cut them selves off from perceiving reality- they'll bend and twist whatever they read or hear into supports for their own fantasy. Parents want to believe that their children were damaged by an outside force not by nature.SO they do lie but they also partially fool themselves by believing in their stories.

You'll notice that although they often scoff at experts and research they decorate themselves with titles and other identifying signatures in cargo cult fashion Read the bios of accomplished woo-meisters like Gary Null or Mike Adams and you'll see what I mean.

Although I do imagine that mental problems are rife in this sector I do not think that they should NOT be held responsible for what they teach or promote. They aren't psychotic or severely intellectually disabled- especially if they make money or court fame through their activities. They counsel parents about how to care for their children and the latter are the ones who could be put at risk. AoA / TMR feature many people who have no background whatsoever in medicine, psychology or education yet they preach and teach regularly to younger parents- they enjoy the prestige which makes up for other lacks in their life.

So . . . jealously, basically.

Dear Rebecca@24,

Here's the current one:

https://sph.uth.edu/dotAsset/5c8da3d5-71f1-465e-893c-a6146a7b9ebd.pdf

On page 24 of the aforementioned pdf, there is these bits:

If a student is unable to successfully complete (i.e., demonstrate competence in) the preliminary examination after two attempts, the student will be dismissed from the DrPH program. That student may be provided an opportunity to complete the MPH degree program (if the student does not already possess a MPH degree), but the opportunity is not automatic, and acceptance into the MPH program is decided collectively by departmental faculty.

Alternate reason of dismissal from UTexas might be the vaccination requirements (if any, I didn't check) for the practicum but I'm not sure that is the real reason for the dismissal in my opinion.

Alain

Anecdotal: I hope a triumph for my year will be that I convinced a smoking diabetic friend who suffered a catastrophic stroke six months ago and just now got a squamous cell diagnosis that she needs to put herself in the care of people who actually treat these things with real medicine. They be distasteful methods and difficult, but they are proven to work. She was receptive, thank goodness. Otherwise I suspect she would consider this a minor cancer and would have ignored it.

Something people ignore or dismiss is that people in the US who have no access to these kinds of "holistic" ideas are generally fatalistic. The live their lives in traditionally destructive ways, and if they die, they die. I see this all the time among the ignorant fatalists around me (please don't kill me for being a satanist elitist). In the Deep South of the US where I live, we cannot discount this kind of fatalism. She is not the first person who thinks this is her fate and that it is pointless to fight it. That is her rigid view. Sad.

Sorry.....Many typos in my message.

My point was that some people are amenable to receiving the idea that real medicine could save them. It took many days and many conversations to convince my precious friend who already was suffering from a massive stroke that the area of her squamous cell needed to have the care of real oncologists who have treated these things according to methods that are known to work. It was a real struggle, though. Sorry for all the errors in my earlier post.

Denise @ #60: I have zero professional training but a family member who's into treating autism with HBOT. No data here, but based on what I've seen you are spot on. The attraction of woo is that it's an easy path to instant credibility. My family member was making a bundle (upper middle class) in medical sales 20 years ago, but that niche was virtually eliminated by online sales. He moved into mold remediation (middle class), and suddenly every illness was mold-related and he was an expert. When that gig ended (probably due to fraud by the company owners) he drifted into HBOT and autism remediation; at one point he worked for a'murdered' holistic doc. Now he works part-time as a 'contract worker with no benefits. Every step down the economic ladder pushed him further into quackery. Correlation does not equal causation but the relationship is striking.

You identified a taboo within the skeptical world. This susceptibility to woo is entirely the province of those who can smell quasi-ignorance--not outright, overt, ignorance, but sloppy, inadequate education that is easily masked by native intelligence. So, so many people get led down the garden path of their Dunning-Krueger-ness. They are just smart enough to be wooed by the woo but don't know what they don't know. I see it over and over again. When I see the red flag of D-K, I pretty much say sayonara and leave such people to the consequences of their arrogance. Sometimes they never learn, though, that there is real science that may be somewhat beyond their comprehension and quite complex, and there is more convenient fake science that anyone can fake and pretend to understand. To paraphrase the ultimate wooster, S.A.D.

Congratulations! Very good.

What's funny though is that the people I know that love alternative medicine are quite different than the people you describe. I find they love miracle stories and conspiracy stories. " I don't have to worry about cancer - I'll just go on an all-organic
juice diet and cure it myself!" or "There's a diet I found on the internet that is supposed to be amazing..."

The old adage "If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is." has never been intelligentually absorbed.

Melissa Stigler and Melissa Harrell are were Jake's academic advisors. They would know the details of any dismissal, presumably
https://sph.uth.edu/dotAsset/7a33d133-163a-4468-80ad-8f1264aaaf69.pdf
https://sph.uth.edu/research/centers/dell/about-us/faculty-cv/CV_HARREL…

Jake claims to have been a student on the PhD program since 2013. That means he must has passsed his prelims (!), and the reason for his dismissal must have been academic misconduct on his part, which he is trying to turn back onto the school.
The course looks quite hard, and i'd be surprised if Jake has the ability, knowledge base and objectivity to successfully complete the content and exams, but if that were the case he would just have "failed", rather than been dismissed.
Maybe he was due to fail, and had an incredible hissy fit.

Dingo199@69,

PhD student does not necessarily mean PhD Candidate.

Alain

Can you clarify, Alain?
If he was on the PhD doctoral program, why would he not be a "candidate"?.
And if he has been "dismissed from the program" what did that make him?

PS Orac, can the mod hammer be lifted from my posts?

@ dingo199:

IIRC universities may require that he pass a qualifying/ comprehensive exam before he is a candidate within a set period of time/ number of attempts.

From my experience, PhD student which is how I interpreted your comment "Student on the PhD program" mean just that while, PhD candidate was reserved for those who passed quals.

If I go by my usual logic (which tend to be shared by at least, a few other autists and aspie), Jake was indeed a student (as one can be an university student), on a PhD program (can be any program, the one he choose and was initially accepted was a PhD program); that doesn't make it a candidate.

Alain

Quick question for anyone knowing about PhD quals:

Do PhD student get to choose the subject of their quals or it is handed (multiple choice maybe) from the PhD comity?

Thanks,

Alain

I haven't started my DNP yet, but when I did my MA in History, I selected the members of my committee. They wrote both my orals and my written exam questions based on the courses I had taken from them. If I'd chosen other professors, I would have had different questions.

@ Alain:

We had choices across different areas where the essay questions were written by different faculty members but we were somewhat restricted because we had to pick a few in experimental, a few clinical/ related, research design as well..I chose much in cognition/ developmental.

Profs hinted early on that we answer using data from studies to support our positions. So I focused on studying that way.

To expand on my question which is more an hypothesis test, I was thinking about Jake's quals:

hypothesis 1-: He choose a subject, cherry pick his cite and get grilled at the oral.

hypothesis 2-: the comity choose [1,2,3] subjects, Jake pick one of these in case of many subject offered. cherry pick citations and get grilled out.

There may be more hypothesis but for now, those suffice.

Alain

Alain:

How quals work is usually up to the department. Most allow students some input in choosing the committee, some allow students input in the subjects of the questions. The faculty have to agree, of course. My PhD wasn't in the sciences, but I had a discussion with my advisor about who would be appropriate committee members. I had some suggestions, he had some, we settled on a list and he did the invites. He could have done that without my input, or against my choices, but he didn't. He also wanted each member to work with me on choosing a broad general area for each of my questions, so I'd have some clue what to prepare, so they were in for that before they agreed to be on the committee. A couple of them wound up forwarding me more or less the actual question they would ask, others were more vague...

The written answers were only the first step of the process – the real nitty gritty came in the oral defenses of the exam and later the dissertation. I both cases I had no idea what questions would be directed to specifics of my written work, and had to be on my toes to respond to challenges. In my dis defense, one outside member posed great hard on-point questions I was thankfully able to respond to adequately. A member from my department (the least qualified in my field) threw me some OT curveballs and seemed only grudgingly to accept my somewhat wtf? responses. A third departmental member had nothing to say, really, and slept through the whole thing...

So, in all, I'd say the process relied on the advisor to insure the academic integrity of the process by whatever means they found appropriate to the individual case, yielding an exam with both appropriate rigor and fairness. Basically, if poorly qualified students get past their orals, everyone knows it and that reflects very badly on the advisor. They need to produce good new PhDs to maintain their individual status in the field, and the status of the department in the field and the university, which comes back to them first in the form of promotion and after they reach Full Professor to other perks like endowed chairs, research funding and so on. Different advisors take different approaches to filtering out the marginal students. For example, one professor where I got my MA was notorious for throwing curveballs in the exams, and sending some candidates back for major rewrites on their dis multiple times after their defenses. My advisor just didn't let you advance unless/until you were prepared, so almost all his students passed the first time. Both of them were highly regarded in their fields for the quality of their former students... but I'm not sure I could have survived the psychological torture that other prof would likely have put me through.

Hypothetical process 3: the student's advisor chooses the committee whether the student likes them or not (the assumption being an advisor wouldn't just toss an advisee to a pack of wolves), they write one question each getting approval only from the advisor (no multiple choice), and if the student doesn't cut the mustard on those, they fail. Dismissal would only come after repeated failures.

Hypothetical process 4: As above, but the exam committee is chosen by the Department. Department's that do this may wind up with defenses that turn into shark fights between rival faculty, spilling the students' blood on the floor.

I don't know of any programs that dismiss students after one fail, but I suppose there are some. Most attrition before achieving PhD – in the humanities anyway – comes from students dropping out on their own volition after getting discouraged. Again, the point is that whatever the method, graduate schools and departments with good reputations get those reputations by turning out lots of highly qualified PhDs and very few duds. There are many ways to do that, many points where the true winnowing comes.

Also, afafik there's no standard for whether 'PhD candidate' is reserved for ABDs or applied to anyone admitted to the program and on track to the degree.

As for Crosby, his cryptic comment offers no reliable clues into why he's no longer in his former program, since he's not necessarily giving us the straight dope. He might have gotten through his equals, might have flunked them, might not yet have taken them, might even be saying he was "dismissed" despite pulling the parachute cord himself. If he was indeed canned, that could be a flunk out, or something else entirely (just one example, losing his advisor and not be finding anyone else to take him on... which in turn could be for any number of reasons...). If he did in some way get flunked, that could be for trying to sling anti-vax BS, or just not mastering some unrelated stuff considered fundamental material in the field by the committee. There's not really any point to speculating that I can see...

In the biomedical sciences (my PhD is in Physiology and Biophysics, although really my thesis project was pretty much straight up molecular biology), generally students and their thesis advisors pick the student's thesis committee after the student has passed his prelims and picked a lab to work in. During the PhD candidate's thesis work, he presents to the committee periodically (usually 2-4 times a year) to solicit input, advice, and criticism and make sure he's on track to finish in a reasonable amount of time. Most biomedical PhDs take 4-5 years total, usually two years before prelims and roughly three years after. If a project is taking much longer longer than three years the thesis committee starts getting worried, although I do remember one graduate student in my department who managed to stretch his graduate school out to seven years. I rather suspect that he liked the graduate student lifestyle too much, and because his thesis advisor had grant money he didn't mind paying for what was in essence cheap labor longer than he should have. That meant that neither the student nor his advisor had much motivation to make sure the student finished in a reasonable amount of time. The university, however, did have guidelines and standards; every year beyond five had to be justified to the university.

Do PhD student get to choose the subject of their quals or it is handed (multiple choice maybe) from the PhD comity?

It depends on what you mean by "quals"; I presume that Jake passed what other people would call "prelims." In my case (AI/CS), the latter were a pick-three-of-five-and-sit-your-ass-down routine.

sadmar: Heh. Your story on your dissertation defense reminds me of my thesis defense for my MA. One of my committee members was an expert in the Civil War, but not on social or cultural history (my thesis covered both topics). He kept asking me the same question about a particular topic related to cultural history but he'd ask it in a different way each time. I'd answer it the same way every time because that was the correct answer. Finally, one of the other faculty got tired of this, and called the first faculty member out on what he was doing to me.

Orac: that's interesting that someone would stretch their grad school out that long. I have a psychologist friend who had to stretch his time out by one year because his committee didn't give him approval to start his research project in time, and he had to wait a whole year for the event he was studying to come around. In the mean time, he had to continue paying every term for a class, and participate in online discussions. It was a horrendous expense and totally not his fault as he'd submitted everything months in advance and his committee just sat on it, ignoring his pleas to please review and approve.

He was furious. But he'd invested too much time and money to quit at that point.

I'm not sure what the difference is between prelims and quals; in my department, prelims were technically called "the qualifying exam," but everybody called them prelims.

I got to assemble my own committee - it took me a little while because one professor I had worked with a lot died suddenly (the b@stard) and I was kind of shy with most professors besides my advisor.

They had actually just revamped the prelims process a year or two before I got there; when my friend Yana took them, they did the old-fashioned torture chamber method where they locked her in a room with the exam questions and no sources.

When I took them, I didn't get to pick the questions, but my committee and I agreed on what the general topics would be. I got four questions the first weekend and had to pick two of them and write responses (I forget how long, but shorter than a seminar paper.) I had from 5 p.m. on Friday until 9 a.m. on Monday. I did not sleep much. The second weekend was two weeks later, and the same thing.

Then there was the oral exam. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't fun either. (I had a couple of colleagues who were under the illusion that "prelims were fun" or at least that "the oral exam was the best part.") I mean, it went pretty well, but I did get some criticism for not using enough secondary sources (and not being able to rattle off relevant secondary sources from memory.) Also one of the profs felt like my Brodsky essay didn't have enough formal analysis, so she had me analyze one of his poems on the spot. I remember walking back in the room and that's when they mentioned the secondary source stuff; I about passed out, but thankfully Sofya had the presence of mind to interject "Oh, you passed, of course."

And then I went and got drunk.

Orac: that’s interesting that someone would stretch their grad school out that long.

Seven years is actually pretty standard in the humanities; you're "expected" to finish in five, but everyone tells you that literally nobody does. (I can't think of a single person, actually.)

Anthropologists take even longer because of the field work.

3-4 month after I started to work on that (http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00241/full , august 2007), the doctoral student I was partnered with was in her quals / prelims and took a full 3-4 months to prepare for the exam.

She passed and obviously, today, has her PhD but I didn't remember with great details the process.

Alain

Actually I've always had a bit of an aversion to secondary sources; I mean, I read the relevant ones, obviously, but I've never really been one to pore over and memorize and rave about them.

My advisor once asked me why and I said "Because most academic writing is crap and life is too short." He laughed and said, "Actually, you're not wrong."

Yeah, JP. You're really not wrong about that. :(

JP @86: Re academic writing.
For work I once took a class on Effective Writing that was basically "academic writing rehab". No more than X words per sentence (on average). No more than Y sentences per paragraph. Get to the point. No one cares how smart you are, they care if you can tell them what they want to know, so cut down on the $10 words.

I thought papers in the life sciences were bad until the time I had to read a sociology paper. Fully half of the paper was bitching about other papers in the field written by other people that didn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand. It was terrible.

I thought papers in the life sciences were bad until the time I had to read a sociology paper. Fully half of the paper was bitching about other papers in the field written by other people that didn’t seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand. It was terrible.

This is unfortunately kind of encouraged in academia, or at least not discouraged or properly explained. The general method for writing, say, a seminar paper that you pick up either by osmosis or by someone telling it to you is that you read your primary sources, you read all the secondary literature, and then you basically position yourself against the secondary literature already out there in one way or another. Some people seem to think that this means, as you says, "bitching about other papers in the field." I personally occasionally had a bone to pick with one or two other scholars, but usually my "in" to the conversation was something more along the lines of "okay, so scholars A,B and C have said such and such, but here's what I think hasn't had enough attention." I mean, it's very rare that you're the first person to write on, say, a particular author, so you do have to acknowledge the work of others.

And not all academic writing is crap; some of it is good. Stephanie Sandler writes good stuff, as does my advisor (I edited the manuscript of his book Lost in the Shadow of the Word which came out late last year, and the actual reading of it was a pleasure, although looking up and thoroughly checking every single citation was tedious. But it paid well.*) Sofya Khagi's Silence and the Rest is a very good book. Of course I am somewhat biased.

I got in the habit, very early on in grad school, of sending my papers to writerly friends from undergrad and asking them to read them and comment, to "keep myself honest," so to speak. Apparently this helped, as my papers usually got good reviews; "this could be a dissertation chapter," "you should publish this," etc.

*He also had me read and fact check several of his articles, but also request that I comment on them more generally, specifically asking for honesty. We got in quite an argument over one of my criticisms of a paper on a poet we both write about; this was while he was in the archives in Prague, and I remember a flurry of back-and-forth emails before he finally was like, "hey, it's 4 in the morning over there, wtf are you doing, go to sleep."

He conceded in the end, actually.

Melissa Stigler and Melissa Harrell are were Jake’s academic advisors

Given Crosby's appalling online behavior towards women, one can only pity these two.

Shay; Oh, I'm sure Jake was a perfect gentleman to his advisors when he was in their presence. He probably only talked smack about them in private.

JP: Granted not all academic work is crap. But I do think a lot of academics encourage bad writing. I had to take a course called "Proseminar in History" during my undergrad history days. My professor openly encouraged us to write profoundly long sentences and paragraphs. He said if we weren't putting 10 sentences in a paragraph, we weren't getting our ideas across.

It wasn't until later I was introduced to Strunk and White's Elements of Style.

But you can still see my verbosity. Once acquired, it's a hard habit to break :(

I still have a beat up old copy of Strunk and White somewhere from my undergrad days. I was lucky to have a couple of very good professors who were great writers and very tough editors; they also required us to form "peer groups" and critique each other's writing.

I remember a particular incidence from my first year of college very clearly. Our professors wrote narrative evaluations of us, but we were also required to write self evaluations. (This had recently become optional when I was there, which upset these particular professors, and they made it a requirement.)

I had written my Firs self evaluation, and I quickly got an email from Bill saying "would you please come to my office so we can discuss this?" It was admittedly crap; I used all kinds of educational platitudes and clichés.

He was merciless. He read it out loud to me. Then he was like "get rid of this, get rid of that, this is terrible." "I've read your papers, I've read your poetry; you are much better than this. Go try again."

Another of the two professors I am thinking of actually made someone cry once. I remember it well.

But yes, I can be verbose as well. This has been driven home to me as I am sort of getting into Twitter all of a sudden, and I find the form very challenging.

My professor openly encouraged us to write profoundly long sentences and paragraphs. He said if we weren’t putting 10 sentences in a paragraph, we weren’t getting our ideas across.

I see a huge difference in articles in terms of clarity and style. Some articles are so well-versed (like 1%) that I feel like sharing them with people.

But some articles are lazily-written, with horrible analogies. Horrible analogies.

Take this one, in which the mechanism of how AMP kinase phosphorylates mitochondrial proteins is likened to "cash for clunkers".

http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v13/n9/fig_tab/ncb2329_F3.html?foxtro…

Besides being distasteful, it's not even a complete analogy since used car dealers don't "tag" vehicles for removal. They merely put out cheesy advertisements and hire C-list musicians to write catchy radio jingles.

This analogy must be stopped. It even has a YouTube video!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MueOdG9kWQ0

What's next? The Auschwitz analogy? Where defunct mitochondrial proteins are phosphorylated for removal in a manner reminiscent of how Jews were marked for removal with yellow stars of David? (If David Irving were a biochemist...)

I hope not. We have to stem this tide of metaphorical stupidness before it catches-on!!

Go away Travis Schwochert from Endeavor, Wisconsin.

I scattered that good money that I made, though, in various ways. Apparently when I was manic I once gave a cab driver a $400 dollar tip. He said I saved Christmas to his kids.

My advisor mentioned it (he heard about it) when he was visiting me in the psych ward at St. Joe's. I tried to explain that I knew the Cuban driver for like a couple of years, that he was a good guy and he was Black -white -Native.

"That makes it even worse," he said. " Don't. Ever. Do. That. Again. "

I mean, jeez, he knows what it's like to be poor.

* FOR his kids. And CAB driver, not Cuban. Frigging autocorrect.

Also I got permanently kicked out of a couple bars that winter, mainly for using the different gendered bathrooms however I felt like. "Oh HEY MAN, oh look there's a stall." Staff : "Well are you a man or a woman?" " I dunno. "

Chris @ #94

With a name as distinctive as Travis Schwochert, he needs to be very very careful now. Since I too have now tracked him and archived the evidence, even with my modest website I could put up material that may severely damage him, and should I use him as an example in a bigger project, he will be blighted by his behavior for the rest of his life.

And that's even before I sue him for his efforts to harm my career with postings at crank websites.

I don't know what kind of sick fuckhead he is, but he'd better cut it out.

Brian, it's more than likely that Travis Schwochert posted here on RI using your name and credentials. It's well documented that he often does that under multiple other user names, and indeed he has confessed to that behavior on these very pages.

He may have used your name and e-mail address on other sites, but those post under your name at Jake's site aren't Travis. It's Jake.

Jake thinks that you and the lovely and talented Rebecca Fisher are one and the same, and when she posts at AI, under her own name, Jake edits that post to read your name.

I dunno why Jake believes this. I think it's because the fact that there are two people from across the pond who disagree with him is too painful a thought, but that's just speculation on my part.

I could put up material that may severely damage him, and should I use him as an example in a bigger project, he will be blighted by his behavior for the rest of his life.

If you do, please let me know. I have all of his vile comments he's left on my blog. Those alone would sink him.

Even though I started deleting a lot of Travis' comments from this blog as soon as I recognized what he was and learned to spot him fairly quickly, there are still quite a few on various posts here dating back close to a year that I never bothered to delete.

I have to agree with Johnny:
whenever Jake gets a comment from Becky ( I assume it IS her by her point of view, writing style and avatar image) , he substitutes 'Brian/ Brian Deer' for her 'nym because he believes that she is he. I've observed this for quite a while.

I don't think he lets many critical comments through but these are of course SPECIAL because he thinks it's Brian.

Alain's todo list:

1-: buy a friggen popcorn machine.

2-: watch fight going between Brian Deer, Travis Schwochert and optionally, the gnat...

3-: Enjoy.

Alain

1-: buy a friggen popcorn machine.

Carnival King? (I actually wound up working one of these at my mom's behest when I was a kid, for a charity event. We used Frymax.)

Totally off-topic related to the way this blog tracks comments: I have tried to sign off from receiving follow-up FIVE times. If you sign up for followup notifications, it's very hard to cancel that.

It's not going to work, Travis.

I have all of his vile comments he’s left on my blog. Those alone would sink him.

Hell, let's just cut to the chase: Travis J. Schwochert thinks that identity theft "falls into the prank category" and gets asshurt when identified as the perpetrator.

Is there much else to add?

Well, if Crosby keeps doing it, then I guess I will get around to doing a special on my website when I have the time. They are quite labor-intensive, but always curiously fascinating, and surprisingly widely read.

Then, whenever he tries to get a job, or any other opportunity, people will see what kind of abusive little squirt he is. If he wants to smear me, or put my name on other people's posts then its right that he should get what's long been coming to him.

As far as I'm concerned, his blog - so grandly titled - is nothing but a cess pit of abuse. And as for his "editor" title and talking about himself in the third person, it's pitiable.

When I was his age, I was a journalist. He produces nothing anyone could use, just bilious smears and stolen material.

Joke.

Actually, I could probably do a Sunday or daily story on identity theft, weaving together both Crosby and Schwochert.

That one's now on my list for when I get a break. A third example would be ideal.

Panacea: Oh, I’m sure Jake was a perfect gentleman to his advisors when he was in their presence. He probably only talked smack about them in private.

I can see the sarcasm here from orbit.

I guess I forgot the time that Travis apparently set up an IP phishing site, but I can't review the record at the moment.

Alain @103: Fun fact: you can pop popcorn in a plain paper bag in the microwave using plain popcorn (rather than special microwave popcorn). You do still have to watch it so it doesn't burn.

Mmm... popcorn.

@ Brian Deer -

Here's where Jake decides to make Rebecca's posts into your posts - http://www.autisminvestigated.com/the-journalist-age-of-autism/#comment…

And it seems that this exchange is his "evidence"
http://www.autisminvestigated.com/wakefield-cdc-whistleblower/#comment-…

Off-topic: Seventh attempt to stop followup comments didn't work. Be aware that signoff attempts take forever if they ever do work. Scienceblogs has a really bad oversight mechanism. I have been trying to stop followup comments for a week, and I'm still getting them.

Dear L-rd, please discard that Strunk & White at your earliest convenience.

# Johnny @ 113

God help planet Earth. So... faced with the fact that Rebecca Fisher and I are plainly two different people, he concludes that because we are taking roughly the same kind of tack, we must be the same person?

This is the most bizarre variant of a pattern of thought I've seen with two other cranks: a guy called "Martin J Walker" who says that you don't need to find secret documents or get proof of conspiracy, but if two people say the same thing then they are in cahoots; and another called David L Lewis, who says that if two people say the same thing then one must be helping the other.

Now we have, if two people say the same thing, on the same page, on the same topic, then they are the same person debating with themselves.

Believe me, there's some very sick people out there on this vaccine thing. But I guess you know that. So, I suppose you must be me too.

What a whack-job that guy is.

# Johnny @ 113

I'll tell you what that exchange you found reminds me of: my mistake in ever trying to help these people, or have any kind of rational discussion with them.

During Wakefield's GMC hearing, I stopped outside to talk to the gang outside. And I asked them if they'd been in to the hearing, because the evidence was being laid out that the children in Wakefield's study didn't have bowel disease.

So what happens? This crank named Heather Edwards, whose son had much of his gut chopped out, at a different hospital, for different reasons, who wasn't in Wakefield's study, and had nothing to do with the research, has turned up waving a placard with a picture of her semi-naked son on it.

So some piece of shit liar takes video from various sources, intercuts what I say with pictures of this Heather Edwards's son, and makes it look as though I'm a liar.

Never again will I interact with these people. This is through-the-looking glass stuff.

He's certainly getting worse - it was bad enough when he was the attack dog over at AoA. Now that he's on his own, he's sliding down the rabbit hole at a rapid pace.....i

So, I suppose you must be me too.

While I would be pleased and honored to have my brain droppings confused for Rebecca and yourself, I'm sorry to say that it just isn't possible. I've gone on the record admitting that I'm really Bonnie Offit.

PGP: 0:)

Narad: Honestly, I haven't cracked it open in years. But there's something to be said for brevity and clarity in writing. Of course, my English lit professors pointed out that expert writers break the rules of writing all time time . . . because they know how to do it effectively.

Students don't.

Wait Johnny...

Aren't all of us really Orac?
That's what I was told

I must compare the level of thinking exhibited at Jake's to that of loonies when I was a child who believed- and bought- crappy books/ films which purported that because there were pyramids in both Egypt and Mexico there absolutely HAD to be aliens!

Isn't more parsimonious to say that opponents of anti-vax just READ the same studies/ books? Or have a similar orientation to reality?

Dear L-rd, please discard that Strunk & White at your earliest convenience.

I think it's actually here, in storage somewhere with a bunch of books I didn't take from Portland to Michigan back in 2010. I haven't looked at it at least since then. I mean, I had/have several other books on writing (one is titled, appropriately, On Writing; there's also Bird by Bird and The Elements of Style Workbook, which was required for a class and heavily used) which probably all contradict each other to some extent.

Students don’t.

Depends on the student.

^Er, On Writing Well, that is.

And it might not be the Elements of Style Workbook, but I had some big-@ss writing workbook that we made heavy use of.

Oh: it Artful Sentences: Syntax as Style. I just found the ol' syllabus online.

If anybody who is studying at Evergreen somehow comes across this comment, you would do well to take a class with Sara Huntington whenever she is teaching. (She is also a librarian.)

Oh wait again: we also had Style: Toward Clarity and Grace, which might be the "workbook" I am thinking of.

Crap, we used a lot of "writing manuals" in that class.

JP: Fair enough. I'll qualify it; MOST student's don't.

You wouldn't believe some of the papers I have to slog through to grade. :'(

You wouldn’t believe some of the papers I have to slog through to grade. :'(

Oh yes I would. Grading papers was a soul-crushing exercise, generally speaking (with some bright spots), but it dad at least make me feel better about my own writing. To be honest, I don't recall my friends or I writing nearly as badly as some students I have been when we were undergrads, and I don't think that's just a "Kids These Days" statement; I suppose we were just somewhat exceptional.

When it came to the ESL students (mainly from mainland China), I pretty much quit marking up grammar, spelling, usage, etc., after the first page and just instructed them to go to Sweetland (the UM writing center.) I didn't typically dock their grades much; not at all on first drafts.

A lot of the papers were bad in content and ideas, though. My all-time favorite was one titled "Jews are Christians Too."

No. Just no.

I graded pretty gently*, actually, but I spilled a lot of red ink, and occasionally a little snark made its way through my filter. A couple of students complained about this, but the professor always defended me. I did feel a little bit bad when I found out I had made a student cry.

BTW, I hope that apostrophe in "student's" is intended as a joke. :-)

*The professor usually had me go back and take everyone's grade down a notch, actually, because my averages came out a little higher than his and the other GSIs' sometimes.

^some students I have had

There is a reason why I preferred teaching Russian to being a GSI (I was only a GSI for one semester, while I was preparing for prelims), even though teaching Russian is a lot more work. (Somehow it pays the same, though, which was always a source of consternation for myself and most other grad students.)

Holy crap. No, that's a straight up grammatical error. SMH. Hoist by my own petard!

My biggest pet peeve was plagiarism. Many times I didn't even need Turnitin to spot it. It was that transparent.

Oh yes. Crushes the soul indeed.

Honestly, I haven’t cracked it open in years. But there’s something to be said for brevity and clarity in writing.

You're not going to find it there (PDF).

@Brian Deer - it's me posting at Jake's site - Jake thinks that I'm you, so he changes my name in the poster name field, and the text of my post to yours.

Sorry - just realised this has been pointed out already.

Thanks.

Since he's been kicked out of university and has no other affiliations, I think I'm going to have to write to his mother asking if she has any influence over his behaviour.

You would think if she was a half decent parent she would be very concerned to see himself destroy his own future with all this abuse and misconduct.

Rebecca is Brian Deer. I am Brian Deer. JP is Brian Deer. Panacea is Brian Deer. Den ice Walter is Brian Deer.

Brian Deer is Spartacus.

There's only one Narad, and Narad is Narad is Narad is Narad.

Jake is none of the above.

Narad: you're right. I didn't find anything there ;)

Was that intentional or was I really supposed to find something there?

@ Brian Deer:

As I understand it, Jake's mother be the person who introduced him to alt med ideas.

Panacea:

Narad's link got mangled. It's a critique of Strunk and White.
This link should work:
http://tinyurl.com/n3cqg46

Strunk & White is a great book. I've given away more copies of that than anything else.

I'd agree with Denice at #137. Jake's mama is (more than likely) paying Jake's hosting fees, because (as far as I know) Jake has never earned a dollar on his own. She probably also wonders how he spends his days, so I rather suspect she keeps an eye on his web site. I'd say that, if she doesn't fully support Jake's "work" at AI, she at least doesn't object.

@ Johnny:

IIRC his mother was involved somehow in anti-vax/ woo when he was a teenager which gave him ideas and got his foot in the door at AoA.**

-btw- his family is extremely BIG money ( 1 billion USD?) because his grandfather invented something to do with fire prevention in buildings- I believe that his mother and uncle are the heirs.
Well connected in Austin/ uncle on board at U of T.

** I expect that someone here @ RI ( Chris? Eric? Narad? Ren?) knows the tale better than I do.

@sadmar: Well, I've been impersonated at AoA. Can't remember whether that was good ol' Travis J. Schwochert and his identity-theft fetish or not. I've only been accused of being Brian Deer once, and it was misspelled.

Sorry about the broken link; I can't see what went wrong with just this phone to hand.

Sadmar: thanks for the link. It's an interesting review, and I think I've read it somewhere before. The author's beef is inexperienced writers (and some editors) are too slavish to the advice in the little white book, and I actually agree that's the case. It doesn't help writers learn to develop the skill of making a logical, reasoned argument in writing.

I like it because it cuts down on the BS in student writing until they learn this skill. However, Mr. Putnam does make some valid points. I suppose I've grown beyond it since I can't remember the last time I actually referenced it.

On The Poxes, about Jake's father: http://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/look-to-your-father-young-…

From six years ago on RI:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/30/young-antivaccine-propagan…

And the awesome Liz Ditz:
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2013/02/jacob-lawrence-cro…

Thanks, Ren.

I found part of what I was looking for:
AoA, 2008: 'Discovering I was Toxic'
Jake describes his mother giving him supplements etc.

I got to AoA by binging Jake Crosby Age of Autism ( not linked at present AoA)

Looking again at what this man Crosby has done at his blog: not only has he changed Rebbecca Fisher's name in posts to my name in the author box, but has actually gone into the text of her post in order to sign it off "Brian".

I had no idea that it's even technically possible for a blogger to alter the text of posts. What's to stop any blogger falsifying correspondence in this way?

I know this thread is now pretty buried, but if anyone has direct knowledge of what's possible, I'm kind of interested. An unscrupulous individual could make anyone appear to say anything.

It's very easy with WordPress to do this. The only time I use this power is to remove the use of my real name and replace it with Orac.

Everyone knows that comments signed "Brian Deer" are really written by Orac himself, using a falsee name.

Yeah, Wordpress allows you to edit comments as you want. I've only done it to add in-line comments (bolded and clarified that it's me writing) to anti-vax comments.

I don't comment anymore on Jake's blog, though I used to do it under a 'nym and with a fake IP address because he has an allergic reaction to me, it seems.

What's the over/under that Jake's next insightful essay will be about Ken Frazier?

CEOs outraged after Charlottesville - and two quit Trump council
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/14/news/companies/ceos-trump-manufacturing…

I don’t comment anymore on Jake’s blog...

Given than most of his posts don't draw a double digit amount of comments, and nearly half of those are from him, I'd say that's true for most people.

"What’s the over/under that Jake’s next insightful essay will be about Ken Frazier?"

Forget that. What's the over/under that Jake was in Virginia this past weekend, wearing khakis and a nice, crisp white polo? After his rants about Black Lives Matter being a "cancer," I wouldn't be surprised if he was.

CEOs outraged after Charlottesville – and two quit Trump council

And Lo there was a mighty petulance across the land, with great butt-hurt and gnashing of teeth, and Tweets about "I never wanted those guys in my Manufacturing Council anyway".

@ Johnny:

He hasn't written about Frazier yet but Mike Adams has ( see Natural News)

Ren, I don't picture Jake in anything CRISP after seeing his wardrobe choices in videos in the past
BUT I agree, he might possibly be sympathetic to some of what those whitey righties preach.
What worse, he'll have enough money someday to implement his beliefs.

Likewise, AoA has a post up about Frazier, and it's about what you'd expect.

Also, the count is up to 4 execs who have quite

Fourth executive walks away from Trump after Charlottesville
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/news/trump-charlottesville-ceos/index.h…

It's reasonable, I think, to believe that Jake would want to join the lads in Charlottesville, but I think mommy and daddy would put a stop to it. I gotta believe that they know that being seen marching with Nazis is not a good thing, and wouldn't pay for his trip.

Thank you for writing these articles and for all the work you do obtaining real facts and so eloquently presenting them. It's disappointing so many people fall for the falsities presented by Ty, who has no medical training and severely skews information to reflect his misguided agenda.
I'm a late stage cancer (breast) patient and have seen firsthand the dangerous, ineffective results of Ty's unscientific "cures." In one instance, a close friend died from his cancer because he followed Ty's quackery instead of seeking more effective help from real doctors.
Everyone I know who has survived cancer long term has had conventional medical treatment, yes harsh, but life is prolonged! I would not be alive today if it weren't for chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. It's simple as that.
Certain "alternative" health practices do have great value when employed synergistically with allopathic medicine. For example; acupuncture, juicing, yoga, and sweating in those infrared saunas were amazing in helping me cope with chemo and, my oncologist believes, increased recovery times. (of course check with your doc to assure synergy and avoid contradictions, especially with certain supplements and chemo)
I wonder if Ty even sleeps at night, contributing to and hastening so many deaths. Perhaps he is so disillusioned by his direction he can't see the destruction in his wake.
It is unfortunate we can't easily access statistics on how many cancer victims needlessly died from eschewing conventional medicine and seeking only "alternative" treatment. How many life spans cut short?
I hope Gleeson lives long and prospers. So glad she came to her senses before it was too late!

Gwyneth Paltrow shows that the Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface was ahead of its time, as NASA slaps down Goop

oracknows — Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:33:40 +0000

Gwyneth Paltrow shows that the Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface was ahead of its time, as NASA slaps down Goop

Long time readers (and I do mean really long time readers) know that I used to do a regular Friday feature called Your Friday Dose of Woo. In the feature, I used to look for the silliest, woo-iest bits of quackery and pseudoscience that I could find, like quantum homeopathy, SCIO, Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface, or Magickal psychic amplification a-go-go. Over time, it got harder and harder to do that on a weekly basis, but I still think that, barring some new, deep, serious story, there's value to ending the week with something on a lighter note. Yes, I know, this is a rule or tendency that I probably won't always honor, but it will (I hope) lighten my mood. After all, I could write about the vicious, nasty, con job that is Trumpcare (or, as the Republicans disingenuously call it, the American Health Care Act), but that would really depress the hell out of me.

Thankfully, there is Gwyneth Paltrow, who appears to have the ambition of becoming the female Bill Nelson. True, she is much more attractive, famous, and wealthy, but she is every bit as scammy, with products marketed to affluent women through her website Goop of the type who would like and trust Paltrow and still have sufficient disposable income to buy her overpriced woo. (OK, given that her woo is the purest of pure quackery, pseudoscience, and nonsense sold with bafflegab, $1 would be overpriced, but give me some artistic license here.) Yes, who can forget the Jade Eggs that she sells for $55-66 that are claimed to "increase sexual energy, health, and pleasure," "harness the power of energy work, crystal healing, and a Kegel-like physical practice, increase "chi, orgasms, vaginal muscle tone, hormonal balance, and feminine energy in general," and, of course detox. All it requires is that a woman keep the egg in her vagina while sleeping and walking around. I'm not a woman, but my main reaction to this bafflegab (my new favorite word for now) was (and remains) WTF?

What amused me this week, however, is that Paltrow was busted for making yet another false claim. Yes, I know. Ho-hum. Another week, another bullshit claim by Paltrow in the service of selling quackery. What made this slapdown unusual is the source:

Somehow, Goop—which previously encouraged women to shove eggs up their vaginas—has out-Gooped itself: the brand is now promoting stickers called “Body Vibes.” The product, which I remind you, is literally a sticker, uses “NASA space suit material” to “rebalance the energy frequency in our bodies,” whatever the actual fuck that means.

“Human bodies operate at an ideal energetic frequency, but everyday stresses and anxiety can throw off our internal balance, depleting our energy reserves and weakening our immune systems,” Goop says on its website. “Body Vibes stickers (made with the same conductive carbon material NASA uses to line space suits so they can monitor an astronaut’s vitals during wear) come pre-programmed to an ideal frequency, allowing them to target imbalances.”

Yes, these sentences sound like what you’d expect if you threw Enya lyrics in a blender. But what’s somehow worse is that Body Vibes is trying to invoke our beloved space agency to bolster its legitimacy. Obviously, we had to go to the pros.

"Enya lyrics in a blender." Heheheh. That's almost as good as "bafflegab." Personally, I like to refer to it as woo-babble. Star Trek fans know what technobabble is, a form of lazy writing in which scientific terms and science-fiction concepts are thrown into a blender, like the aforementioned Enya lyrics, to produce sciencey-sounding verbiage that is used to explain our heros out of basically any dicey situation. Sadly, it doesn't work as well for our woo hero Paltrow. Why? Because NASA is on her case:

A representative from NASA’s spacewalk office told Gizmodo that they “do not have any conductive carbon material lining the spacesuits.” Spacesuits are actually made of synthetic polymers, spandex, and other materials that serve a purpose beyond making their wearer look like a resident of Nightmare Coachella.

Wow. When a representative of NASA is willing to go on record publicly to tell you that your claims are bullshit, that's a special kind of quackery. Yet, entrepreneur that she is, Paltrow is selling this nonsense for prices that run as high as $120 for a pack of 24 stickers, although there are several versions that go for $60 for a 10-pack, which is $6 apiece for each sticker, making the 24 pack seem a bargain by comparison at $5 apiece! (Aren't volume discounts wonderful?) And get a load of the wonderful designs (click to embiggen):

I'm convinced!

Besides, the company whose work made these stickers possible, AlphaBioCentrix, is a target that would have been most worthy of a Friday Dose of Woo entry back in the day. It bills itself as "Software for the Human Body" (whatever that means), and if you don't believe just how woo-ey this company is, take a look at some of its products if you don't believe me. They rival the old Tesla Purple Energy Shield. There's a Health Pendant, and, as many times as I know I've used the word, the marketing material is a lovely bit of bafflegab. Or maybe I should call it technobafflegab, which is even worse than technobabble:

AlphaBio Centrix is proud to announce the availability of a custom pendant that is made for “Long Term” healthcare support. The unique design is made to attach an individual “energy chip” to its face that is programmed with specific subharmonic frequencies that assist in the therapies listed below.

Each energy chip is color coded for identification purposes and made using a crystalline carbon substrate, then they’re domed for environmental protection. Programming the energy chips is a unique process that utilizes our patented Bio Energy Synthesis Technology; an infusion process, which when functional will hold bio frequencies to the substrate material.

When the health pendant is worn around the neck, the energy from the energy chip taps into your chakras. Balancing between the chakras promotes health and a sense of wellbeing. ─ Long known by the ancient healers, healing is a three-way arrangement between, body, mind and spirit. Today’s science has shown the human body has an “electrical frequency” and that much about a person’s health can be determined by it.

And here are the color codes for the "energy chips" that you have to attach to the pendant:

Blood Sugar (Diabetic) – Blue Chip
Stress & Anxiety (Helps Calm) – Aqua/blue
Female (Mood Swings) – Orange
Pain & Inflammation (Reduce Pain) – Red
Healing XL (Promotes Healing) – Purple
Environmental – (Allergies) – Green

This is sheer quackery, of course, but note how the wording is careful. AlphaBioCentrix never actually claims that its products can cure, diagnose, or treat anything, although it does rather skirt the edges of the law. After all, the implication of the "Blood Sugar" Blue Chip is that it will do something that helps a diabetic control his blood sugar. And all of this for a mere $149.95 for the pendant and $39.95 for each additional energy chip!

Another AlphaBioCentrix product is particularly hilarious. Get a load of the Digestive Solution™ Energy Card (because, of course it's trademarked):

The Digestive Solution™ energy card is made for Human Carbon units.

"Human Carbon Units"? Seriously? It would appear that AlphaBioCentrix is making a subtle (or not-so-subtle) dig at its customers. Take a look at the Urban Dictionary for its definition of "carbon unit": "A low-grade worker; a peon. A dumb person doing a dumb job, often in retail, food service, or warehousing." Of course, "low grade workers" generally can't afford to waste money on the products sold by AlphaBioCentrix (and, of course, Gwyneth Paltrow). You would, however, have to be fairly gullible to believe how this product supposedly "works":

You can NOW boost your “Body’s Energy Signature” by simply placing this Digestive Solution™ energy card under your food plate and the beverage of your choice and receive energy from the card instantly. The energy card has a magnetic strip embedded in the back that holds digitally enhanced information that once your food or beverage comes in contact with it, the energy is delivered immediately to the food and beverage, thereby boosting the energy to your food to maximize the nutrition you consume.

The Digestive Solution Energy Card is an energetically enhanced products. Our engineers have achieved the correct ratio response of frequency signatures through a technology that matches the same energy you receive from the nutrients you get from the food you eat and drink. When we consume food it converts into chemical energy, which provides the nutritional needs for energy and growth. This connection is defined by the laws of thermo-dynamics that requires all humans to ‘burn’ food for energy.

Now wait. Does this card deliver energy to the food, or does the food deliver energy to the card? Perhaps the rest of the entry will clarify. It says that all you have to do is to place the plate or bowl containing your meal on the card for 20-25 seconds and then place your beverage on the card for the same amount of time and "your body will receive the bio energetic signatures from the energy card." Well, that certainly explains things.

Then there's Gravity Balance™. Basically, these "Gravity Balance" chips looks like polished glass disks with a pattern embedded in them. At only $59.95 for a set of five, they supposedly do all these things:

Gravity Balance encourage proper cell reproduction while sleeping – The energy chips rapidly promote and activate the necessary resources to optimize body and brain function, restore missing cell communication, and accelerate the body’s natural ability to heal itself, while sleeping.

The Gravity Balance™ energy chips maintain continuous support therapy for proper cell reproduction while sleeping. The human body depends on a strong inner magnetic core for healing. Proper placement of the chips on your bed mattress will support the body’s energy core to increase individual cell’s reproduction.

Technobafflegab. Energy bafflegab. Woo Bafflegab. Profitable bafflegab, too, I'd guess. After all, these chips only last six months. (How would you tell if theyu weren't working any more?) Then you have to replace them. P.T. Barnum was overly optimistic about human nature.

Of course, I noticed right away that AlphaBioCentrix doesn't sell its products directly to the public. It sells to distributors, who then sell retail to the public. In this case, Body Vibes claims to be working with AlphaBioCentrix to bring these miraculous stickers to the world, and Goop is promoting them. There's even a video:

The claims are more of the same:

Inspired by frequency research conducted by the biggest U.S. defense contractor, AlphaBioCentrix pioneered Bio-Energy Synthesis Technology (BEST), a process using a one-of-a-kind, FDA-approved device, the accelerator frequency generator (AFD). The AFD captures bio-frequencies from a comprehensive catalog of known frequencies that are then digitally transferred to Body Vibes.

How much do you want to bet that this patter about frequency research by the biggest US defense contractor is as much nonsense as the claims about NASA, a claim that is in this video and no doubt was what Goop picked up on when repeating the claim. I certainly know that this is nonsense:

Body Vibes work by targeting the Central Nervous System, our natural hub of energy, powered by a network of electrical signals that vibrate along our nerves. Body Vibes emit a bio-frequency that resonates with the body's natural energy field. Each body vibe is programmed with a specific sub-harmonic frequency to target a particular lifestyle concern. Use Body Vibes smart stickers to optimize brain and body function, and increase the body’s natural ability to heal itself.

Since everyone is unique, effects of Body Vibes may vary. Some people experience immediate benefits, while others realize the results over time. We recommend wearing Body Vibes for at least one month to experience a complete mind-body reset.

Bafflegab.

Personally, I will give Goop credit for making one claim about this product that is undoubtedly true:

P.S. Leaving them on for the prescribed three-day period left a few goop staffers with marks on their skin, so be careful to stick them somewhere concealable if you’ve got an event coming up.

Good to know. They are, after all, stickers, and you wouldn't want nasty marks from the adhesive show near your cleavage or bare shoulder while wowing everyone at the latest party for beautiful people.

I used to make fun of Bill Nelson all the time back in the day (say, ten years ago) for his claims about "frequency," "vibrations," and quantum physics, as well as his supremely ugly SCIO, Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface, software that broke new ground in hideous user interface design. Sadly, it appears that Nelson was ahead of his time. AlphaBioCentrix and Body Vibes have taken up the challenge to sell this pseudoscience to affluent fools, and Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop is more than willing to help them by promoting their products.

Sadly, Body Vibes and AlphaBioCentrix products aren't the quackiest things Paltrow promotes and sells. More's the pity. But Body Vibes does use beautiful models to sell its products; so that's something.

Because nothing sells woo like beautiful, naked models strategically photographed wearing your product.

oracknows Fri, 06/23/2017 - 03:33

There is also a wonderful takedown of the nonesense peddled by Goop on Jezebel...

http://jezebel.com/wellness-womanhood-and-the-west-how-goop-profits-fro…

So I looked up the word "goop".
noun, Slang.
1. a viscous or sticky substance; goo.
Origin:
1955-60; expressive coinage akin to glop etc.
NOUN
informal
A stupid person.
Origin
Early 20th century (originally US): of unknown origin; compare with goof.

I am reminded of Noam Chomsky's observation that you can make perfectly grammatical and correct sentences that, none the less, are completely meaningless.

"Human carbon units?"

Error, error, must ster-il-ize!

Anyone who does not recognize that reference does not watch enough Star Trek!

Well, that's another reference, V'ger.

I know it's Goop's regressive goal to reduce (specifically) women to their (specifically) female body parts -- it's so post-feminist it will make Commanders and Handmaids alike blush with shame -- but these stickers look pretty tailor-made for buttholes, which of course we all have. However, as long as Goop sells exclusively to women, I can see how feminine butthole use of these stickers could still fit with the Goop model of "improving" women for the pleasure of men and bragging rights among women. Perhaps the stickers could vibrate at a "bleaching" frequency and smell like strawberries. And since lululemon yoga pants are see-through, women can still show off their wealth, status, and commitment to being objects of pleasure and/or envy every time they go into downward facing dog (be sure to stake out a good spot in the front row!).

Just remember, Goops are rude and irresponsible!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goops

“Body Vibes stickers (made with the same conductive carbon material NASA uses to line space suits so they can monitor an astronaut’s vitals during wear) come pre-programmed to an ideal frequency, allowing them to target imbalances.”

Even if there were such a thing as ideal frequencies (which I seriously doubt), they wouldn't be the same for everybody, because people come in different shapes and sizes. The frequency gets lower as the person/thing in question gets larger, as any physicist or music performer should be able to tell you. Even the stupidest drummers know this.

As for spacesuit materials: they are designed to simultaneously (to the extent possible) optimize low mass, flexibility, and ability to retain pressure in a vacuum, If you are going to be wearing this material on such a small part of your body, only the first of these is at all relevant, and only barely so at that.

It's been a while, but do I smell an old sock at (what is currently) #6?

@Orac, #5

Oooohh....so close. But wrong :)

It's not Nomad. Nomad, IIRC, referred to "biological units."

$120 for a pack of stickers. That seems like an incredible profit margin to me. Wow. Makes me reevaluate my chosen profession. Why make something that works when you can make something that people believe works but has a 24,000% profit margin?

I wonder what the engineers and researchers who work for Goop make... Not sure I would be able to look in the mirror in the morning, but it would sure put the kids through college.

I don't think there are any engineers and researchers working for Goop. Goop simply sells or rebrands things other manufacturers make.

I don't think so, but I could be wrong and I'm always on the lookout. That particular sock always revealed himself sooner or later (usually sooner).

Aww. Who here hasn't ever had an orange and white cat named Unit with labels on his food bowl and litterbox reading *UNIT INPUT* & *UNIT OUTPUT*?

@Orac, #11

But Nomad used the quoted line, "Error, error, must sterilize!"

Guess we're both right.

I guess. V'ger used the term "carbon units" speaking through its avatar Ilia, IIRC.

I sincerely hope that those three models with the three different stickers on their arms haven't chosen a combination that produces resonant frequencies and sets up a standing wave, else their arms could fall off. And then where would they be? Eh? Eh?

"Inspired by frequency research conducted by the biggest U.S. defense contractor, AlphaBioCentrix pioneered Bio-Energy Synthesis Technology (BEST), a process using a one-of-a-kind, FDA-approved device, the accelerator frequency generator (AFD)."

Why be coy about who it is? "Biggest defense contractor" isn't exactly a secret. It's Lockheed Martin, and by a very large margin. Maybe someone should goes ask them what *they* think about this claim. ;-)

V'GER and Nomad. Yes, and yes.

the object identifies itself as a space probe named Nomad, and oddly refers to Captain Kirk as "the Creator". ...

Nomad has mistaken Captain Kirk for Dr. Jackson Roykirk, the scientist who created it. Nomad corrects Mr. Spock by saying that its mission is to "find and sterilize imperfection". Since Nomad's definition of imperfect includes all living things, it travels from world to world, killing everything and everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changeling_%28Star_Trek:_The_Original…

V'GER severed it's communication link to 'bring the creator to him in person'.

Units. LoL.

time = money
time = frequency^-1
frequency = money^-1

Therefore f(rich person) 0 as money->∞.

Or something something.

If Johnny smelled Travis at #6, I don't think so. That sock's command of language doesn't come close to what's on display in that comment. I do wonder though if JSterritt is working through an energy overdose from applying an entire ten-pack of Body Vibes™ Self Love stickers all at once somewhere along the central nervous system.

The Digestive Solution Energy Card is an energetically enhanced products.

I guess that means the workers on the enhancement assembly line take a shot of espresso before each unit is enhanced. I guess it also means AlphaBioCentrix, has yet to perfect its Proofreading Competence Pendant.

AlphaBioCentrix never actually claims that its products can cure, diagnose, or treat anything.

Orac didn't dig in far enough. Most of their items struck me as harmless comedy, but then I clicked their PetZone page. They're selling a bioenergy Flea and Tick Protector: "A Perfect Solution for Ridding your pet from Fleas and Ticks. Chemical Free! Safe, No Drugs" [They really need to get going on that Grammar Pendant too, apparently.) "You don’t have to poison your pets with chemicals. Our products effectively raise your pet’s immune system to cope with anxiety issues and protect them from fleas and ticks using natural Bioenergy." Uh, no. Your house is going to get a flea infestation it will take months to get rid of, your furry pals are going to become flea feasts at least, which will definitely increase their anxiety, and maybe they'll get tapeworm which could kill them, and if you live in the right part of the country YOU might even get REAL Lyme disease when they bring in those tiny ticks from the woods nearby. You might deserve the Lyme for your cavalier gullability, but animal cruelty is not funny.

@rs:: In the same vein:
knowledge = power
power = work / time
time = money
Therefore: knowledge = work / money
So as knowledge goes to 0, money goes to infinity.
This relationship is empirically true in the American corporate world. And it explains how so many woo pushers, Paltrow among them, are able to afford their extravagant lifestyles.

Tim@15,

Interesting :) Do the cat owner put in a pair of scales under the bowl and the litterbox?

Alain (more data needed).

About half my comment got disappeared. Possibly because the various characters I used confused Wordpress. It's throwaway so not worth redoing.

I've read sci-fi (and fantasy) paperbacks off the 99 cent rack that had more logical and believable science/magic systems than those stickers.

It's all about the vibrations, let's put stickers on ourselves to vibrate better, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the people who buy these stickers are also afraid of the microwave.

Ahh, Alain. Averaged over a week, the *UNIT input* is the weight of the small bag of meow mix. *UNIT output*, strangely enough, the ratio of unit output per unit input seems somewhat over unity.

@rs: The software on which this site runs interprets the left angle bracket/less than sign as the start of an HTML command. So if you ever need to use that character literally, use the escape sequence:
< gives you <
There are other escape sequences as well. This site recognizes, among others, the ones for Greek letters and the accented characters used in Western European languages.

the ratio of unit output per unit input seems somewhat over unity.

Ah, you need to measure the unit fluid input as well.

Back in The Olde Days these pendants and stickers would have been made with uranium or radium that actually could deliver some energy, albeit not at any of the target "subharmonics" (One might inquire: subharmonics of what? - or is it just more gobbledygook?)

I kind of wish Mikey flogged this sort of thing. Perhaps he could be goaded into going out and blowing several tens of thousands on a nice new spectrum analyzer to use in a nice new RF test chamber (that'd only set him back a few hundred grand) to prove the competition didn't emit anything.

I wonder if there is a market for stickers made with the recently developed super-black coating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v0_fID_jvA

I'm a bit surprised the owners of the Goop (adhesive) trademark haven't smacked Paltrow down.

Eric, with respect, I won't do that. A comment engine should be designed for humans not machines. I'm not holding my breath.

rs, it *is* designed for humans. The idea is to allow humans to include markup if they want -- while also foiling humans who wish to insert malicious code. (It will only permit specific HTML through.) This is actually pretty common in blog commenting software.

That said, personally I'd prefer it if they stopped allowing us to include markup and instead converted anything that looks like markup into string literals so it can't be executed. But I'm sure someone else will be just as upset if the ability to italicize and boldface were taken away.

Ah, you need to measure the unit fluid input as well.

Well, naturally. Though I measured it indirectly from the 'clumping factor' of the output. There is still more there, I think he ate birds.

#28 Eric Lund June 23, 2017

@rs: The software on which this site runs interprets the left angle bracket/less than sign as the start of an HTML command. So if you ever need to use that character literally, use the escape sequence:
< gives you <

It's actually your browser that does that. The blogging software often does recognize actual html markup and either, depending on the markup:
• passes it through, like <b>
• deletes it, like it does (IIRC) for <p/>
• corrupts it into something else.
(If there's a font change in the first two bullets, it passes the <code> markup.)

There are other escape sequences as well. This site recognizes, among others, the ones for Greek letters and the accented characters used in Western European languages.

Since most html entities represent unicode glyphs and are benign, the blogging software doesn't even recognize them, leaving that job up to your browser. There may be exceptions for the left-to-right/right-to-left/vertical unicode controls.

“My eyes are up here”_says the model in the photo

I sincerely hope that those three models with the three different stickers on their arms haven’t chosen a combination that produces resonant frequencies and sets up a standing wave, else their arms could fall off. And then where would they be? Eh? Eh?

Disarmed, naturally.

The blogging software often does recognize actual html markup

Which is exactly what I said. In order to decide whether to pass through or strip an HTML command, it has to have some way of deciding that it is dealing with an HTML command. Presumably there is a whitelist of allowed HTML, and anything else is stripped; as Calli notes above, this is to avoid passing malicious code to the client browser. In addition to the ones mentioned above, this site allows the anchor (for linking) and block quote tags.

This is an experiment to see if strikethrough works: Never mind. If you see words crossed out, then you can also use the strikethrough tag.

Any programming language, such as HTML, has to have certain characters with special meaning, and if you want to render those characters literally, you have to have some alternative way of doing so. In C, the backslash is used to produce certain control characters (most commonly the newline character), so if you need to print a literal backslash you have to escape it. In TeX or LaTeX, dollar signs switch you between text mode and math mode, so if you ever need to print a literal dollar sign in such a document, you have to escape it. Same with HTML. What you gain in exchange for that quirk is a vast increase in what you can do. For most people, the tradeoff is worth while.

I didn't intend to start a battle over this. I've been manually marking up documents since the 1970s (Runoff, Text/360) and in the early 90s I used to manually put HTML in documents for distribution over a corporate intranet. I've even written server code that spews HTML via HTTP to clients (browsers).

It's now 2017. I expect that when I enter a comment it is faithfully rendered, not interpreted as something else. For marking up text the technology to provide features to highlight text and alter the font or font effects, or enter links etc., is routine.

As with many sites Scienceblogs doesn't make available the technology. They should be making our task easier to encourage reader participation. It ain't my job to accommodate their negligence or disinterest.

Short alphabetic sequences have little influence over the powers that be. It is what it is: a minor annoyance that does not degrade my quality of life. But you have been deprived of my droll humor (heh!).

As with many sites Scienceblogs doesn’t make available the technology.

You mean, like a preview button?

"preview button"

Not necessary if wysiwyg. It may take an irresistible force to drag Scienceblogs into the modern era. But I fear they're an immovable object.

Is there available blogging software that provides WYSIWYG entry for comments? Does it also provide the features that the bloggers and administrators think they need?

Eric Lund
June 24, 2017
The blogging software often does recognize actual html markup

I am guessing that the broken Blockquote was a deliferate misteak, to demonstrate the difficulty of hand-HTML and the need for a preview / correction option.

Notice where this model is wearing the magical energy stickers being promoted by Goop.

I also note that her stickers are for 'ANTI-ANXIETY' and 'MENTAL FOCUS', and I suspect that is indeed what she's feeling at the moment. This is no doubt due to the cuppa coffee (fair-trade, non-GMO, vegan friendly, gluten free coffee, to be sure) and the stickers are just advertising.

Se Habla Espol@41,

I wanted to code one and have our esteemed host move platform but that was years ago.

I am guessing that the broken Blockquote was a deliferate misteak...

Speaking for myself, no. I'm not that clever.

I really try to make it easy for people to read everything I write, but -

Typing was a girls class back in the day - boys took shop classes. My typing is slow, but it's inaccurate.

Dad was in the Air Force, and we moved a lot. I went to 14 different schools between 1st and 12th grade. I went from a school where we were just learning the shapes of the letters in cursive, to a class where everything was expected to be in cursive. As soon as I was able, I went back to printing. I don't think I've written a full sentence in cursive in over 40 years.

Likewise, for much the same reason, my spelling is atrocious. If it wasn't for autocorrect, my post would look like they were written by a concussed idiot, instead of just reading that way. But I can mostly tell that a word is spelled wrong, even if I can't spell it, which is why I'd like a preview button. Misspellings are easier to spot in a large preview window as opposed to a small composition window.

I try too hard to make my comments coherent to go back and purposely make errors.

I'm surprised The Digestive Solution Energy Card isn't advertised as making GMO-derived food safe to eat if you put it under your plate. I guess it would break the vibe to make a claim that's actually true. Not that Goop-ers would want to support Monsatan anyway. Not the worst idea, actually, but for different reasons...

Johnny@45 is correct: I misspelled the close block quote tag. In an illustration of the limitations of spell checkers, mine does not recognize "blockquote" as a correctly spelled word, so I ignored the red underline, as I often must when typing peoples' names (e.g., some common names in various languages are recognized, but others are not, such as the pseudonym and real surname of our host).

I have seen sites that provide buttons to allow formatting, something that this site does not do. That is the closest one can come to WYSIWYG under the current HTML standard. For instance, the website for entering reviews for several of the leading journals in my field provides buttons for superscript and subscript formatting, which are useful things when discussing mathematics or chemistry.

Many years ago, this site did have a preview function, but I for one found it to be worse than useless for checking whether you had correctly formatted the HTML. The reason was that after previewing, the post command ran the resulting text, not the original text, through the HTML interpreter, resulting in the loss of your carefully typed formatting.

My browser has a Text Formatting Toolbar, which I currently have turned off. Since text formatting is my choice, I deem it my responsibility to (a) know how to do it and (b) make it easy on myself, should I wish to. YMMV.

@sadmar #46: LOL.

The reason was that after previewing, the post command ran the resulting text, not the original text, through the HTML interpreter, resulting in the loss of your carefully typed formatting.

I recall using the preview feature, then going back to the previous page to have my original and submit that as a way to deal with that feature.

I don't remember that behavior.

Different platforms and browsers, maybe? I'm a mac/safari (and sometimes iPad) user.

In the video labeled BV interview, Richard Eaton describes mind-blowing engineers that use a silent sound.

Q. Is it possible for something that is silent to have sound.

@ Eric Lund,

What's the physics/physiology behind this?

Q. Is it possible for something that is silent to have sound.

Yes, obviously. The sound can be of amplitude that's too small for a listener, a frequency that's too high for the listener, a frequency that's too low for the listener, which is outside the range of whatever reproduction equipment is in the chain, or filtered out by by that equipment. In such cases it's silent to the listener, even though it has some audio content.

@ Se Habla Espol (#53),

The definition of the word "sound" is vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.

The definition of the word "heard" is to perceive (sound) by the ear.

You just might be an "alti" if you believe that silence can be heard. :-)

Doucheniak:

Q. Is it possible for something that is silent to have sound.

The definition of the word “sound” is vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear.

I raise this dog whistle to my lips, and blow. It's silent. I ask The Wife if she heard anything; she answers in the negative. I ask the great-grandson sitting next to her; he reports having heard a squeal. The dog comes arunning. Was this a silent sound?

The Google definition you quote does not include those vibrations that occur in the presence of a microphone, for which the nearest ear is too far away, so that the vibrations have such a low amplitude that they cannot be heard. Was the sound silent, even though the meter reporting the microphone's response showed that there was one?

Q. Is it possible for something that is silent to have sound.

Yes. The most common example is the dog whistle: inaudible to most humans because it's too high in frequency for our hearing, but not too high for dogs to hear it.

A typical young adult human will be able to hear sound from roughly 20 Hz to roughly 20 kHz. The former is a few semitones below the lowest note on a piano; the latter is about two octaves higher than the highest note. There are two reasons not to use the full range at the upper end. One is that it is desirable to be able to hear a few harmonics. The other is that many people suffer hearing loss, some of it a natural part of aging and some of it due to damaging the hearing from excessive exposure to loud noises. In both cases it is the higher end of the frequency spectrum that is lost first.

CDs are sampled at a rate that theoretically allows frequencies up to 22 kHz (half the sampling frequency, which is known as the Nyquist frequency), but the recorded sound will typically be low pass filtered at about 15 kHz. The main reason for this filtering is to prevent aliasing: a frequency above the Nyquist frequency will be reproduced as if it were the same amount below the Nyquist frequency. Which can do nasty things to sound quality if the overtones in question fall in the listener's audible range.

There is also something called the bandwidth theorem, which says that the uncertainty in the frequency of a note is inversely proportional to the length of time the note is held. This is the reason tubas rarely play staccato. The bandwidth theorem turns out to be mathematically equivalent to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but to explain why would take several comments worth of text.

Also, it depends on the listener. A human isn't going to hear a regular dog whistle, nor are they going to hear a mouse under a foot of snow.

There are other ways of coding these things. There's the Markdown standard under which I would get emphasis using asterisks or underlines around a word:

*important* and _emphasized_

(That's HTML-safe, but it looks funny when people use asterisks to indicate actions (like *hug* or "*runs out of the room*), and the software treats them as boldface instead.)

And there's the coding used on some forums, with tags in square brackets instead of angle brackets:

[b]boldface[/b]

Neither is standard HTML.

(I will now submit this and find out whether this site supports either, or passes the markup through as plain text.)

@Se Habla Espol:

You beat me to it, but I'll humbly add that his Google definition also didn't address the thorny issue of trees falling in forests.

nor are they going to hear a mouse under a foot of snow.

Nor are they going to hear a flea fart at a 1000 yards. I bet I could hear the snow-blanketed mouse if it were squeeking.

I *think* that it has been purported that children with undamaged hearing can hear air molecules hitting their drums and a mosquito in a window sill ten feet away -- I seem to remember that the latter served as reference to what 0 dB sounds like.

I *think* that it has been purported that children with undamaged hearing can hear air molecules hitting their drums

I'm autistic with Sensory Processing Disorder. If I lie still in bed and it's quiet, I hear a noise that I can only describe as a ringing hiss.
Sorry. I just wanted to tell that story.

If I lie still in bed and it’s quiet, I hear a noise that I can only describe as a ringing hiss.

That does sound like a mild case of tinnitus.

tinnitus can manifest many different perceptions of sound, including buzzing, hissing, whistling, swooshing, and clicking. In some rare cases, tinnitus patients report hearing music.

https://www.ata.org/understanding-facts

The explanation that I've always heard is that is like the brain tries to turn the 'gain' up on receptor hairs that no longer work.

I *think* it can also be caused by bad ear infections early in life.

I sure wish I could write music because I sometimes, do hear what I think is beautiful music -- Possibly the result of a percieved 'dawn chorus' beating with aforementioned tinnitus; like an audio paradolias(sp?) effect (like seeing Jesus in a cheeze sandwitch)

The electromagnetic dawn chorus is a phenomenon that occurs most often at or shortly after dawn local time. With the proper radio equipment, dawn chorus can be converted to sounds that resemble birds' dawn chorus (by coincidence).

The electromagnetic dawn chorus is believed to be generated by a Doppler-shifted cyclotron interaction between anisotropic distributions of energetic (> 40 keV) electrons and ambient background VLF noise. These energetic electrons are generally injected into the inner magnetosphere at the onset of the substorm expansion phase. Dawn choruses occur more frequently during magnetic storms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_chorus_%28electromagnetic%29

"Female (Mood Swings) – Orange??????"

Now you've gone and made me angry...

Interestingly, the average "quiet" room has a decibel level of about 30. There's an anechoic room in Orfield Labs that has a decibel level of -9. It is apparently an extremely uncomfortable experience.

That's really interesting. I know I like to have the fan going when I sleep,regardless of the weather, and my place isn't exactly quiet.

But yeah, a -9 decibel level would be weird, as you'd be straining to hear the smallest noise, and our brains are simply not wired for quiet. A quiet area in the wild usually means some big predator has passed through or is still there.

PGP, it's so quiet, people can hear their internal organs, such as their heart and stomach.

For instance, listen to a yard or a forest while a Cooper's Hawk is passing through. Every smaller bird goes quiet.

Terrie:Oh, wow. That would be unsettling.

It's weird enough when the HVAC turn off and suddenly all the blowing air noises go away. I can't imagine what the absence of sound would be like. At -9 does the room *absorb* the sounds you make (breathing, heartbeat, etc)?

I once put in earplugs to block out the sound of construction while I was trying to sleep. I was very irritated that the construction noise was replaced by this "whoosh whoosh" noise until I realized it was the sound of my blood flowing in my ears.

"Breast Cancer Conqueror" "Dr. V", (Veronique Desaulniers DC) , has some nice magic-pendants for sale, see ... http://archive.is/GkGLV#selection-81.1-87.29 , (only $373).

Will the right combination of stickers, chips and pendants purify my Essence ?

Quoth the Court of Justice of the European Union: "Let's make it easier for plaintiffs suing for 'vaccine injury' on dubious grounds to prevail!"

oracknows — Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:04:55 +0000

Quoth the Court of Justice of the European Union: "Let's make it easier for plaintiffs suing for 'vaccine injury' on dubious grounds to prevail!"

Courtrooms are generally not a good place to decide issues of science. I've said this more times than I can remember. Admittedly, courts can at times do pretty well with issues of science. The Vaccine Court is a good example, as is the Autism Omnibus decision, which ruled that the test cases brought before the Vaccine Court to determine if there was a plausible case to show a potential causative relationship between vaccines and autism. The court ruled against the test case complainants, even though the rules of evidence are those of a civil court, in which "50% and a feather" are all that is required for a ruling in favor of the complainant.

On the other hand, there are numerous examples that I can point to where courts got the science badly wrong. The one I always like to cite occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, where lawsuits against Dow-Corning over chronic diseases, such as autoimmune diseases and cancer, claimed to be caused by silicone breast implants, which resulted in Dow Corning agreeing to pay $3.2 billion in settlement in 1998 for tens of thousands of claims, resulting in the company filing for bankruptcy reorganization a few months later. There was only one problem. Science does did not support a link between silicone implants and it never did. Indeed, I remember that the Vaccine Court was created by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 because of a flood of lawsuits over "vaccine injury."

Unfortunately, yesterday I learned of a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union that illustrates just how badly courts can get it wrong and is likely to open the way for more scientifically unsupportable rulings, at least in Europe:

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled Wednesday that courts may consider vaccines to be the cause of an illness, even in the absence of scientific evidence confirming a link.

I can't help but note that this is a very different thing than CNN's profoundly clickbait headline that "Vaccines can be blamed for illness without scientific evidence." A lot of news outlets were guilty of this.

Clickbait-loving editors will be clickbait-loving editors, I guess. Onward::

The EU's highest court said that if the development of a disease is timely to the person's receiving a vaccine, if the person was previously health with a lack of history of the disease in their family and if a significant number of disease cases are reported among people receiving a certain vaccine, this may serve as enough proof.

Yes, you read that right. Basically, the court said that correlation can equal causation. Of course, in some cases, that is true. After all, some correlations do indicate causation. However, as all scientists know, an observation of a correlation is a beginning, not an end. Observed correlations are hypothesis-generating. They are not sufficient to conclusively support a hypothesis. That requires more, a lot more, because correlations alone can be profoundly misleading. There can be confounding factors, such that an observed correlation to one factor (say, factor X) is actually a correlation to another factor (say, factor Y) that happens to be also correlated with factor X. Epidemiologists know this and do their damnedest to account for such confounders.

So what was the case that brought about this most curious ruling? A man with multiple sclerosis claimed that the hepatitis B vaccine caused his disease and sued:

The ruling stemmed from the case of a French man known as J.W. who was vaccinated against hepatitis B in 1998 and developed multiple sclerosis a year later. Multiple sclerosis is a neurological disorder in which the body's own immune system attacks the brain and spinal cord. The disease scars nerve tissue and causes a range of symptoms, from vision problems to paralysis. J.W. died in 2011.

In 2006, J.W. sued pharmaceutical company Sanofi Pasteur, which produced the vaccine, blaming it for his decline in health.

The case was brought before the Court of Appeal in France, which ruled that there was no scientific consensus supporting a causal link and no evidence of a causal link between the hepatitis B vaccine and the man's multiple sclerosis, therefore dismissing the action.

This judgment was appealed and brought to the French Court of Cessation, which took it to the European Court of Justice.

The Court of Justice said that "specific and consistent evidence" relating to timeliness, a prior healthy status, lack of family history and multiple cases may prove to be enough, according to a statement. J.W.'s case referred to the first three criteria.

So let's take a look at the case and see if it even meets the court's criteria—even one of them. Here's the relevant document:

Between the end of 1998 and the middle of 1999 Mr J. W was vaccinated against hepatitis B using a vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur. In August 1999, Mr W began to present with various troubles, which led to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in November 2000. Mr W died in 2011. Earlier, in 2006, he and his family had brought legal proceedings against Sanofi Pasteur to obtain compensation for the damage they claim Mr W suffered due to the vaccine.

So wait a minute. When, exactly, was Mr. JW vaccinated against hepatitis B? That's a several month window! Then, his symptoms didn't start until months later, although it's unclear from this description how many months. Then, it was more than a year before he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. This is hardly "specific and consistent evidence" relating to timeliness. It's the same sort of weak gruel that we usually hear from parents convinced that vaccines caused their children's autism. It's the same sort of thin gruel that we hear from parents who think that Gardasil caused their daughter's premature ovarian failure or even death, with long time frames between vaccination and the onset of symptoms. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence that the hepatitis B vaccine does not cause multiple sclerosis or other nerve demyelinating diseases.

Basically, the European Court of Justice's ruling is very disturbing. Although it is not a decision on a specific case (that is, JW's case), it does represent guidance for European courts in future cases claiming "vaccine injury." In fairness, I do have to repeat that the clickbait headlines about the ruling are also misleading. For instance, as bad as this ruling is, it does not say that "vaccines can be blamed for any illness even with lack of evidence" or that "vaccines can be blamed for diseases without any proof."

If anything, the ruling is far more puzzling than anything else and definitely appears to lower the standard of evidence for vaccine injury causation cases. It is a rather absurd ruling as well. Indeed, the news reports emphasize the absurdity of the ruling, with Dr. Paul Offit noting that using the court's criteria, "you could reasonably make the case that someone should be compensated for developing leukemia after eating a peanut butter sandwich." Now, I love and admire Dr. Offit to death, but unfortunately have to say that I find his example a bit too obvious—a bit too precious—a reductio ad absurdum, because even I, as staunch a proponent of vaccination and opponent of antivaccine nonsense that I am, don't think that a court would, using the European Court of Justice's ruling, find for the plaintiff in a lawsuit against a peanut butter company claiming that its product resulted in his leukemia. Personally, I think that Peter Openshaw, president of the British Society for Immunology and professor of experimental medicine at Imperial College London, nailed the issue more accurately:

"The scientific evidence does not support a link between the hepatitis B vaccine, or any other vaccine in current use, and multiple sclerosis," he said. "To say that there is a link between any vaccine and multiple sclerosis and at the same time to admit that there is no scientific evidence of such a link is illogical and confusing to the public."

Indeed, if you read the actual decision itself, I suspect that you, as I did, will find yourself scratching your head, because the decision is very poorly reasoned. To demonstrate that, it's necessary to quote liberally:

In today’s judgment, the Court holds that evidentiary rules allowing the court, where there is not certain and irrefutable evidence, to conclude that there is a defect in a vaccine and a causal link between the defect and a disease on the basis of a set of evidence the seriousness, specificity and consistency of which allows it to consider, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, that such a conclusion corresponds to the reality of the situation, are compatible with the Directive. Such evidentiary rules do not bring about a reversal of the burden of proof which it is for the victim to discharge, since that system places the burden on the victim to prove the various elements of his case which, taken together, will provide the court hearing the case with a basis for its conclusion as to the existence of a defect in the vaccine and a causal link between that defect and the damage suffered.

OK, so the court can look at claims of correlation, but that doesn't change the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove all the elements of his case. So what's changed? In any case, the court demonstrates a very poor understanding of science. First, the seriousness of the condition has nothing to do with whether it was caused by vaccines. These are two separate issues. Second, "temporal proximity" is useful for conditions with a rapid and clear onset, such as anaphylaxis. It's not nearly as useful for diseases that often have an insidious onset, like multiple sclerosis. In other words, it's not unreasonable to consider temporal proximity, but what that means for various diseases is so variable and vague that we rely on epidemiology to try to suss out correlations. Third, anecdotes are by their very nature seemingly plausible—and misleading. Large numbers of such anecdotes don't necessarily make them more convincing. Then there's this:

Moreover, excluding any method of proof other than certain proof based on medical research, could make it excessively difficult in many situations or, where it is common ground that medical research neither confirms nor rules out the existence of a causal link, impossible to establish producer liability, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the Directive and its objectives, which are to protect consumer health and safety and ensure a fair apportionment between the injured person and the producer of the risks inherent in modern technological production.

I find such language curious. I don't know EU law here specifically, but the court seems to be implying that for a plaintiff to prevail the standard is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt when in civil cases it's generally a preponderance of evidence (the aforementioned "50% and a feather"). In any event, there is no such thing as "certain proof based on medical research." There never has been and never will be. What there are are probabilities, given that there is inherent uncertainty in all medical research. The questions that need to be determined in any given lawsuit are not whether there is "certain proof" but rather based in probabilities. How much, if at all, does a given exposure (e.g., a vaccine) increase the risk of disease, if increase the risk of disease it even does? How likely is it that the exposure claimed significantly contributed to the development of the disease claimed in this plaintiff? How likely does it have to be that the given exposure caused or contributed to the disease before compensation is warranted? We know from copious evidence that there is no good evidence that the hepatitis B vaccine causes multiple sclerosis or, more properly expressed, detectably increases the risk of multiple sclerosis above that of a population not exposed to the vaccine. In the case of JW, add that evidence to the very weak anecdotal evidence for causation in his case, and the only scientifically supportable conclusion is that it is incredibly unlikely that the hepatitis B vaccine caused JW's multiple sclerosis.

What the Court of Justice seems to be doing is intentionally lowering the bar of evidence for product liability cases, while trying to convince itself that's not what it's doing. In other words, it seems to be trying to have it both ways:

In the present case, the Court considers that the temporal proximity between the administering of a vaccine and the occurrence of a disease, the lack of personal and familial history of that disease, together with the existence of a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following such vaccines being administered, appears on the face of it to constitute evidence which, taken together, may lead a national court to consider that a victim has discharged his burden of proof. That could be the case inter alia where that evidence leads the court to consider, first, that the administering of the vaccine is the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of the disease and, second, that the vaccine therefore does not offer the safety that one is entitled to expect.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable, but in reality it paves the way for correlations that don't equal causation (for instance, that are spurious, coincidental, or due to confounders) to result in scientifically unjustifiable decisions in favor of plaintiffs claiming vaccine injury when there is no compelling evidence that vaccines caused whatever condition it is the plaintiff is suing over. Worse, the court uses as its template a case where the temporal correlation is not strong at all and represents it as potentially being sufficiently strong without additional evidence if there are a "sufficient number" of other cases reporting such a correlation. But what is a "sufficient number"? Actually, we already know how to define that number. It's basically what epidemiologists do when they do epidemiological studies. Or, as Openshaw puts it:

"The only alleged evidence that would be worth taking seriously is the alleged numbers of other similar cases," he said. "Those data should be capable of detailed case comparisons for consistency, and probably also orthodox epidemiological study."

Exactly. If there are enough such cases, then science should be able to study them, compare them to the population at large, and determine if there is actually a real correlation and, if there is, whether that correlation is likely to represent evidence of causation. That's what epidemiologists, not judges, are trained to do. Courts should let them do it.

Oh, and news organizations should stop representing this decision as allowing courts to blame vaccines for any disease without evidence. That doesn't help. This ruling is muddled as hell, but it doesn't say anything like that. It does, however, very much appear to lower the bar of evidence for vaccine injury causation claims. That's bad enough.

oracknows Wed, 06/21/2017 - 21:04

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

Court of Justice of the European Union

antivaccine

causation

Politics

The Court of Justice's press release headline:

“Where there is a lack of scientific consensus, the proof of the defect of the vaccine and of a causal link between the defect and the damage suffered may be made out by serious, specific and consistent evidence”

What an incredibly stupid statement! Upon what does the court think that scientific consensus is based, if not serious, specific and consistent evidence? Does the court imagine it can see it when science cannot?

I'm at a conference, and this is a complex decision that I would like to read again more closely before analyzing. I do want to point out, though, that:
A. The ECJ did not actually rule on this case. It answered a specific legal question referred to it by the French high court, which is whether member states, handling a product liability case, can consider things short of clear scientific evidence. The case would have to go back down for decision. The court leaves the choice of standard to the member states.

B. This isn't just about vaccines, and the logic in product liability has always been to give consumers breaks in an era of mass production, because they're in a weaker position.

Doesn't mean it's a good decision, but it's more nuanced than the press release or coverage suggest.

And you're right that the decision isn't a dramatic change in rules of product liability in France. To my understanding, the French standard already allowed finding for plaintiff without clear scientific causation evidence. Since there's an EU directive on the topic, the question here was whether EU preempts using the French standard.

"the seriousness, specificity and consistency of which allows it to consider, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, that such a conclusion corresponds to the reality of the situation," -
Seriousness, specificity and consistency refer to the evidence. It's translated from the French, and is simply the wording of the French legal standard, which is why it sounds strange to us. In lay terms it says that if the circumstantial evidence is good enough, you can find causation even without good scientific evidence for it.

Which is exceedingly problematic from a scientific point of view, because "circumstantial evidence" frequently misleads. That's why we need the controlled investigation of science.

@Orac: the only thing I can think of, regarding the range of when the plaintiff got the vaccine is how it used to be scheduled. I remember when I first got it (as an student employee at the old Harper-Grace hospitals), in 1982 - the first and second vaccines were a month apart, and the third was supposed to be 3 months after that. However, due to nursing school schedules and activities, my 3rd vaccine was nearly 6 months later.

I don’t know EU law here specifically, but the court seems to be implying that for a plaintiff to prevail the standard is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt when in civil cases it’s generally a preponderance of evidence (the aforementioned “50% and a feather”).

That's the standard for the US, but not necessarily the standard in other countries. IANA European lawyer, but I do know that the French legal system is quite different from those that are based on English common law, such as ours.

One instance of a court getting the science right was when Judge John E. Jones III found against intelligent design in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005, stating in part that "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism." Page 31.

That's an excellent example that I should have mentioned too.

The EU’s highest court said that if the development of a disease is timely to the person’s receiving a vaccine, if the person was previously healthy with a lack of history of the disease in their family and if a significant number of disease cases are reported among people receiving a certain vaccine, this may serve as enough proof.

Saw this on CNN yesterday and couldn't believe how low this standard of evidence is. I can see how the judges who issued this opinion might think it reasonable at first blush, but they clearly didn't think through the implications:

1) The development of the disease is "timely" to the vaccination. Many people, including the subject of this case, blame vaccines for conditions they developed months later. In many childhood "vaccine injury" cases the parent bases their claim on the fact that the child had mild or moderate fever, malaise, and/or fussiness immediately after the vaccine - but this is an extremely common reaction experienced by about 10% of young children after getting a vaccine. Simply by chance, you'd expect thousands of people to develop various illness or conditions within, say, a year of getting a vaccine.

2) "Previously healthy with no family history." Except for those born with a congenital defect, everyone who has ever developed an illness or condition was "previously healthy," so this part is completely meaningless. The importance of family history varies quite a bit depending on the disease. This particular case was about multiple sclerosis (MS), so I looked it up; the lifetime risk for someone with no family history is 1 in 330. Having family members with the disease increases your risk, but not by much - even having an identical twin with MS "only" increases your odds of developing the disease to 1 in 5. In short, of the thousands of people you'd expect to develop a disease or condition within a year of getting a vaccine by chance alone, you'd also expect many of them to be previously healthy with no family history of the disease they developed.

3) "If a significant number of disease cases are reported among people receiving a certain vaccine." "Significant" compared to what? Many people get the flu shortly after getting the flu vaccine because it's administered during flu season. No doubt thousands of kids experience earaches, tummy aches, etc., shortly after getting a vaccine because those things are extremely common at the ages when kids are getting their childhood vaccines. An epidemiologist (or anyone with a smattering of common sense, really) would say that "significant" means "significantly more cases than are seem in a similar population that didn't get the vaccine." But that, of course, is exactly the kind of study that scientists already use to determine whether an adverse event is caused by a vaccine - the kind of "scientific evidence" that this court seems to be saying is unnecessary. So what standard do they propose instead? I suspect it's something along the lines of "if enough cases are reported to make the evening news."

It's quite possible that with recessive genes & certain conditions, the family members just didn't marry the "wrong" people to have those conditions manifest themselves in the past.....another reason why this is problematic at best.

Orac writes,

It does, however, very much appear to lower the bar of evidence for vaccine injury causation claims.

MJD says,

In my opinion, lowering the bar of evidence for vaccine-injury causation claims will increase vaccine safety.

For example, a child gets a vaccine manufactured with natural rubber latex and thereafter acquires atopy and allergy-induced regressive autism.

In an effort to increase profits and reduce vaccine-injury claims, pharmaceuticals will be forced to completely eliminate natural rubber latex in the vaccine manufacturing process.

Q. Is this an example of a check-and-balance by the judicial system for the pharmaceutical industry.

And Mr. Dochniak wonders why I keep him in perpetual automatic moderation. He just couldn't resist mentioning Latex. He just couldn't. I let it through to make a point. That's the last time for a while.

@Orac - your patience with MJD is amazing. I just roll my eyes.

MJD, there is absolutely ZERO evidence supporting your claim.

In fact, I've never even heard any other anti-vaxxer make a similar claim. And, since you are probably one of the only people on the planet that is concerned about this, the number of "vaccine injury claims" would not be "reduced" if latex were eliminated, and therefore there would be no incentive for the vaccine manufacturers to remove it (of course, in the U.S. we have the VICP, so it's a moot point here anyway).

@MJD-E

@MJD-As of 2004, only 28 cases of a hypersensitivity reaction to latex had been reported to VAERS (I don't know what the current number is, but I doubt it's that much higher). That is out of millions of patients vaccinated. I know you will ignore me, but really-you are barking up the wrong tree. Latex in vaccines does not cause autism.

BTW, ignore the "@MJD-E" comment above-I accidentally hit "submit comment" too soon.

Thanks for this; the headlines were scary and IANAL.
At least it's not nearly as bad as those poor geologists in Italy who were convicted (it was overturned) of manslaughter for not predicting an earthquake in 2009.

I'll be very interested to read the thoughts of a lawyer who can point out the important differences between Common Law (US/UK/etc) and and Civil Law (France/ Germany/ etc) that impact how this ruling might be applied.

As one who is highly allergic to 'natural rubber latex', I concurre. I don't know about its relation to autism but it has been somewhat of a 'bane' on my life for a very long time.

From a very young age, I remember my lips burning after blowing up party baloons. And later, going to the dentist after the AIDS scare in the '80s.

Now, If I'm getting a blood draw, I still have to remind them that I'm allergic to latex -- And this after a student shoved the needle in sideways and asked for help. The head nurse came to help and only after reminding her of my latex alergy did she don the blue gloves.

Jonas (#17) writes,

I know you will ignore me...

MJD says,

I have to ignore you on this subject based on Orac's attitude in unlucky post #13.

Certainly, Orac will never be able to wipe the egg off his face when it comes to his weakness for perpetual auto-moderation.

In my opinion, lowering the bar of evidence for vaccine-injury causation claims will increase vaccine safety.

Opinions are like a certain bodily sphincter. Everybody has one.

Julian Frost. A sphincter-enveloped void???

Tim, no one is arguing about the existence or seriousness of latex allergies. We all know that they are real, they are serious, and that more needs to be done for people with latex allergies in all medical settings.

If you're not familiar with MJD, he's a regular here who has a serious fixation on latex that is all out of proportion with what is known or reasonable. And it's the only thing he will talk about, given the opportunity. That's why our gracious host (Orac) has placed MJD on permanent moderation. Otherwise that would be quite literally the *only* subject discussed on every single post. It is very frustrating for the other regulars, which can make us a bit short with him.

A sphincter-enveloped void

Worst Hawkwind bootleg album EVER.

1) The development of the disease is “timely” to the vaccination.

"Timely" is the CNN correspondent's weird choice of words. She evidently did not read the court's ruling. I rather suspect that she found a French tabloid report and plagiarised it by running it through Google Translate. Some of the worst grammar errors in the translation were subsequently fixed. but 'timely' remains,
The Court's ruling notes that in earlier French court-hearings, the plaintiffs pointed to the one-month proximity between vaccine and MS diagnosis, while the other side pointed out that the course of MS begins years before it is diagnosed. The French court weighed up these temporal-proximity arguments, and ruled against the plaintiffs. The EU Court of Justice allowed this to stand. I think they are on top of the problem.

3) “If a significant number of disease cases are reported among people receiving a certain vaccine.” “Significant” compared to what?

That, it seems, is for nations' own legal systems to decide. If the plaintiff's experts find that there were 50 cases of vaccine / disease combination in one year, then it is up to the other side's experts to point out that given the number of vaccines and the incidence of the disease, chance alone would predict 55 cases per year.

Think of the Pandemrix / Narcolepsy episode. In that case, "temporal proximity" plus "significant number of cases" was evidence of a causal link, even in the absence of a known mechanism. The evidence was correct and the mechanism was worked out some years later.

European skeptic bloggers are shrugging their shoulders over the ruling and wondering what the fuss is about.

@Eric Lund I don't know the exact French situation: but I do know the Dutch system (also an EU country), that has the same basis (inquisitorial judicial system). The basis of proof is 'legally and convincingly proven'. That entails that if you want to convict someone for a crime, for example, you need a minimum ammount off proof. (two pieces off evidence from two different sources) and you need to convince the judges. If they have doubts or simply believe the a suspect (despite te evidence) they will release him.

Soooooo...... Autism is back on the list of liabilities in the EU? That's literally all I can piece out of this ruling.
Specific vaccine - check
Timely presentation with no family history - check
Large population presenting after the same vaccine - check
No science to back up the correlation - check

Can't wait for that shit storm, law of unintended consequences and all.

Just testing if my first comment went to moderation for the naughty word, or because I've been inactive for a while and may now be a suspected sock of that dirt merchant because of his hacking shenanigans..

:(
It was the sentence enhancer.
Missed you guys!

@HDB #24

Oh, bravo! :-)

@But I play one on tv,

It's not as bad as that. The ruling only applies if there is no evidence either way. Unlike this French case, there is ample research on vaccines and autism. The results of that research are conclusive: there is no causal link between this.

In this case too, there is strong evidence against the link between Hepatitis B and MS. And the court said that a trial court should consider that. It did not decide the issue, and said it needs to be decided case by case. Here is the relevant passage, after an earlier passage said it's okay to consider temporal link and lack of history:

"As stated above, however, any such conclusions can be drawn in a fully enlightened manner in each specific case by the court ruling on the merits of a given case only after that court has duly taken into consideration all the circumstances of the case before it, including in particular all the other explanatory evidence and arguments put forward by the producer challenging the relevance of the evidence relied on by the victim and questioning the plausibility, referred to in the preceding paragraph, of the explanation put forward by the victim."

@MJD (#20). Yes, I know you cannot mention your obsession with latex, but you might want to be willing to consider the following:
#1-There is no good evidence that the true incidence of autism has increased at all. It appears that most (if not all) of the apparent increase is due to increased awareness/broader diagnostic criteria.

#2-There is evidence that autism is already present in utero, prior to the administration of any vaccines. This obviously rules out any link whatsoever between vaccination and autism.

#3-It appears that the cause of autism is genetic. Of note, advanced paternal age has been repeatedly shown to significantly increase the risk of autism, and this is presumably because of the fact that the likelihood of de novo mutations steadily increases with age. It is therefore possible that if there has been some true increase in the incidence of autism, that increase might be the result of more people having kids later in life.

Of course, I'm sure that many others have made you aware of the above many times before, and you have ignored it and maintained that your son "regressed into autism" because of an allergic reaction to latex in a vaccine, despite the evidence against that-so like I said, I don't expect that I (or anyone else) will change your mind on this.

@Jonas: MJD's story of his son's regression has changed so many times, who knows what is true? Originally, it was due to latex balloons at a birthday party, IIRC - it's been so many years that he's been posting variants of the story that I don't remember exactly. And I can't be bothered to go to his "book" to see what version he's touting at the moment.

He said that latex balloons at a birthday part caused his son to regress?! Seriously?!

It was something like, he had a major reaction to latex balloons (but didn't go to the ER or anything!) then regressed after a vaccine subsequent to the allergic reaction. It was a very strange story.

Minor nitpick that MI Dawn has also pointed out: the range of time forgiven for the immunization makes since since typically Hep B vaccination is a three shot series at 0, 1 and 6 months.

IANAL so this may be wrong, but in the UK a decision at the EU court is essentially the equivilent of a US Supreme Court ruling, ie it sets a precedent that lower courts in all of the EU countries must then follow. Although that will presumably not be the case here for much longer.

Yes, the ECJ's interpretation of EU law binds the member state in this case.

MI Dawn (#34) writes,

It was a very strange story.

MJD says,

It's called a hypothesis, scientists and non-scientists use it to express ideas that may solve a problem or bring understanding to the human condition.

The Oracmeister is famous for writing very strange stories that use respectful-insolence to ridicule; it's called "entertainment".

Unfortunately, Orac has been known to inhibit some individuals based on the materials perceived entertainment-value for his voracious minions.

Warning - Vaccine-safety advocates are preferably seen and not heard at the Scienceblogs Respectful Insolence

Although this ruling is unfortunate, I do want to point out that at least one European country-Italy-has taken steps in the right direction when it comes to vaccine policy.

Last month, the Italian government enacted a new compulsory vaccination law, which requires that children be vaccinated against most VPDs by age 6, and reportedly parents can be fined up to $8,000 for refusing to vaccinate their children under the new law.

And, unlike in the U.S., where, in all but 3 states, vaccine-averse parents can get philosophical or religious exemptions, it appears that only medical exemptions will be allowed under the new Italian law.

And that is as it should be, in my opinion. I know many people, even those who are very pro-vaccine, might object to fining parents for refusing to vaccinate their children, but if you think about it, parental vaccine refusal is a form of neglect-and it is a form of neglect that endangers not only the unvaccinated child but also those exposed to the unvaccinated child, so I have no problem at all with the new Italian law.

The new law was prompted by a marked increase in measles cases in Italy-as of last month, 2,395 cases of measles occurred in Italy this year-more than all of the recorded cases of measles in Italy in 2015 and 2016 combined. Apparently, the 5-Star movement, a populist/anti-immigrant political party in Italy, has been promoting anti-vaccine misinformation, which is probably part of the reason that measles cases have increased so much in Italy. Hopefully the new law will reverse that trend.

I think I heard that Germany had implemented a similar law, but I can't recall for sure.

In any case, my point was that it;s not all bad news when it comes to vaccine policy in Europe.

Oh fine, I have two children. As an vaccine expert I am vaccinated since about 25 yrs against influenza. And in the future I will have additional yearly immunisations against influenza. So in future I will die within one year after my last influenza shot. I am a high risk patient because in the past I failed to die within one year after my last influenza vaccine.
But I am convinced in the future this must happen. May be after 30 or 40 immunisations.
So I have to prepare my children to go to the European Court of Justice, that my death was due to the influenza shot.
I hope they are succesfull to get millions of € - each !!!

Almost, but not entirely, off topic -

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver takes on vaccines.

The lads at AoA will not be happy.

I don't know why it is, but Europe is WAY ahead of the US in many areas, however not on debunking quack medicine. In most of the countries, especially Germany, "alternative" medical remedies are paid for by the national health services, and unscientific woo is accepted as mainstream. (See "Heilpraktiker") Remember Switzerland/Germany and the fetal lamb cell therapy? It was finally banned in Germany in the 90's, but is still extant in Switzerland. How come they are so far ahead of us in many areas, but not this one?

How stigmatized are undervaccinated children and their parents?

oracknows — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 04:45:36 +0000

How stigmatized are undervaccinated children and their parents?

I've discussed several times over the last several years my impression that the media have become in general less tolerant of antivaccine views. At least, the media seem less willing to indulge in "tell both sides" false equivalence. Back when I started blogging, I routinely used to bemoan how news stories about vaccines or autism would almost inevitably include obligatory quotes from antivaxer like J.B. Handley, Jenny McCarthy, and sometimes even Andrew Wakefield. More recently, over the last five years or so, such tropes seem a lot less common. I don't have any solid evidence to back up my impression, but I'm not alone in it. I'd like to think it was because of evidence, but generally I've attributed much of this change to the the downfall of one of the most famous antivaxer of all (at least before the rise of Donald Trump, and even then most people didn't know that he has antivaccine views), Andrew Wakefield. When Wakefield lost his medical license and the was revealed to be a fraud, it provided a handy shorthand way to dismiss antivaccine views. Again, that wasn't my preferred way to have won people over, but stories tend to be more effective than evidence.

It's against that backdrop that I came across a story about a study examining how the mothers of unvaccinated children are viewed by other people. From the story in the Vancouver Sun:

Mothers of unvaccinated children are judged harshly by other people and their children are more likely to be shunned by other families, according to a study from the University of B.C.
And it really matters why the child is unvaccinated.

Those moms who outright refuse to vaccinate their kids are viewed most negatively, said co-author Nicholas Fitz, now a research associate at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

“On measures of social distance — like would you let your child befriend an unvaccinated child or work on a school project together — across the board unvaccinated children suffered from stigma,” he said. “People felt the most anger and the least sympathy for the refusal group and viewed the mothers as a danger to the community.”

But, because of the perceived health hazard, the child is most likely to be shunned.

“They don’t want the family to move into the neighbourhood … and they don’t want their children to play with (unvaccinated) children,” he said.

The authors Carpiano et al discuss how parents in the US are frequently judgmental of each other in the introduction to their study and then point out that vaccination status has become another area where judgmental attitudes can come into play:

In addition to these cultural expectations, media coverage of undervaccination has heavily focused on “anti-vaxxer” parents (mostly mothers), who refuse vaccinations for their children. This small, but vocal proportion of parents of the total undervaccinated population—more likely to be white and higher SES and thus with greater capacity to undertake healthy practices—are (a) known for rejecting certain evidence-based medical recommendations, (b) engaging in emotionally-, time-, and (often) financially-absorbing “intensive mothering” practices centered extensively on managing a child's development; as well as (c) often identifying with essentialist notions of mothers as the best caregivers for their children (Reich, 2016 ; Hays, 1998). Popular media has even characterized anti-vaxxers as dangerous (e.g., Sriram, 2015). This attention paid to anti-vaxxers has contributed to misconceptions and even stereotypes about other vaccine-hesitant parents who refuse or delay vaccinations for their children (e.g., Haelle, 2015).

Of course, antivaxers are dangerous, but I always try to distinguish between vaccine-hesitant parents who have fallen under the sway of antivaccine views and the hard core antivaxers themselves, who spread the message. The former can be reached; the latter are virtually unreachable with rare exceptions.

In the study by Carpiano et al itself, the authors consider three issues:

Is undervaccination stigmatizing for the parent and the child?
Do stigmatizing attitudes depend on the reason for undervaccination?
What are the policy consequences of undervaccination attitudes?

Guided by these issues, the authors sought to investigate three questions:

To what extent does the causal reason for a child's undervaccination status predict people's: a. Evaluations of child undervaccination (in terms of attribution theory-based emotional reactions and/or mother judgment-based differentness, credibility, and dangerousness) and b.Stigmatizing behavioral orientations (i.e. social distance and discrimination) towards undervaccinated children and their parents?
Do people's evaluations of child undervaccination explain differences in stigmatizing orientations observed across different undervaccination reasons?
Do these undervaccination evaluations and stigmatizing orientations predict support for specific child vaccination policies?

Carpiano et al examined these questions by designing a survey-embedded vignette experiment that was administered in 2015 using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online crowdsourcing Internet marketplace that allows individuals and businesses (referred to as Requesters) to coordinate the use of human intelligence. It's a tool that's been increasingly used to recruit subjects for social science experiments like this one. Carpiano et al designed a survey-embedded vignette experiment with checks for whether or not the participants paid attention to the instructions and had understood the survey items. Overall, the sample surveyed included 1,469 participants representing at least 46 US states and Washington, DC. The four vignettes were about a mother who either has:

Concerns about vaccinations and has decided to refuse vaccinations for her child (“refusal”).
Concerns about vaccinations and has decided to delay some of her child's vaccinations (“delay”)
No concerns about vaccinations but whose job and family demands have made it difficult to schedule medical appointment so her child has only received some vaccinations (“time constraint”)
No concerns about vaccinations and has decided that her child always receives recommended vaccinations (“up-to-date;” the control condition).

The mother in each vignette was randomized to be:

either white (and named “Molly”) or Hispanic (and named “Maria”)
either high or low socioeconomic status (in terms of education and job).

The authors note:

We selected Hispanic (versus White) because, in addition to Hispanic being a minority demographic group in the US, at the time we developed the study (i.e. following the Disneyland measles outbreak), politicians and pundits had publicly raised concern about illegal immigrants (often portrayed as being Hispanic) being unvaccinated and thus posing a risk for spreading disease (e.g., see Kessler, 2015). Hence, randomizing the mother's demographics enabled us to determine if they influenced respondents' reactions to the undervaccination condition at hand. As further context, US White and Hispanic children ages 19–35 months had similar 2014 national coverage rates for most vaccines and dosages (Hill et al., 2015).

The authors then asked questions about how the parents in the vignettes were viewed, stigmatizing behavioral orientations, and policy support. Results of evaluation measures for the vignette parents are shown in this figure:

Basically, undervaccination reflected negatively on the mohter. Anger and blame at the mother were highest for mothers refusing vaccines, less so for mothers who were time-constrained. These time-constrained parents also evoked much more sympathy than the other groups, which makes intuitive sense.

Here are the results on stigmatization:

What these results suggest is that both unvaccinated children and their parents are socially stigmatized, but that the child is stigmatized more than the parents, as the differences in the scores between fully vaccinated children and the undervaccinated were much greater than the differences in stigmatization between the parents. The authors themselves note in the discussion:

Third, participants reported even stronger social distancing attitudes towards the undervaccinated child than the mother. This suggests that children bear the bigger burden in undervaccination—in addition to not being protected from one or more vaccine-preventable diseases, they may be the recipients of courtesy stigma via the stigma of their parent's decision/inaction (Phelan et al., 1998). We further discuss this idea below in relation to advancing stigma research.

It also turns out that those who read different vignettes also ended up with different attitudes towards what should be done to encourage vaccination. Those who read the refusal vignettes tended to be more supportive of punitive measures, such as banning unvaccinated children from school, but the differences were not large. For instance, those who read the vaccine refusal vignetted were only 24% more likely to support banning undervaccinated children from school. In addition, those who read the delay condition were only 15% more likely to support more education and services and 16% more likely to support reporting school vaccinated rates, while those reading the time constraint condition were 30% less likely to support a fine or a tax on parents of undervaccinated children.

So basically, the results of this study show that negative portrayals of antivaxers appears to be having an effect. However the message is being received, via the media, the Internet, or other sources, the parents of undervaccinated children are viewed negatively, and the reason matters. Outright refusers are viewed the most negatively, and time-constrained parents the least. The latter group even provokes a fair measure of sympathy. This does not bother me. What does bother me is that the children are stigmatized more than the parents. It bothers me because it is not the children's fault that they were born to parents who won't protect them from infectious disease, whatever the reason for their refusal or delay of vaccines.

The authors, to their credit, tackle the issue head on. They note that social stigmatization can work in changing behavior, noting the most obvious example, smoking. They then point the similarities and differences between smoking and vaccine policies:

Our investigation also informs stigma research more generally. First, it highlights the interplay of evaluations and consequences for the parent and child. Stigma research has considered how family members of stigmatized persons can also be stigmatized as recipients of courtesy stigma (Phelan et al., 1998). Child undervaccination extends the courtesy stigma concept, as the focus of the stigma is both the parent and the child—for mutual and distinct reasons. A child's (under)vaccination status is a consequence of the parent's actions, regardless of whether those actions are by choice or constraint. This status is beyond a child's control, yet the child bears the burden of any negative consequences from parental (in)action. Thus, the child risks being doubly stigmatized as both the identified child of a vaccine-hesitant parent and a perceived health risk.

Second, our focus on stigma of undervaccinated children and their parents provides important angles to scholarship on the ethics of using stigma (or more broadly, denormalization) as a policy tool for modifying behaviors (see debates between Bayer, 2008a ; Bayer, 2008b and Burris, 2008; and Bell et al., 2010 ; Bayer, 2010). Given that vaccinations are necessary for ensuring the health of a community (including people who cannot be vaccinated), they juxtapose individual and public rights (as well as the role of government). This situation is similar to anti-smoking policies and second-hand smoke, but is more complex in that it entails the parent (as the decision maker) and child (as a beneficiary and health risk). This additional dimension is essential in ongoing debates about stigma and policies that aim to address adult and child health conditions and behaviors (e.g., eating unhealthy foods, obesity).

Of course, hard core antivaccine parents feed on any perception of stigmatization. How often have you read posts by such parents ranting about how they feel judged when interacting with health care providers, the press, and others? They revel in painting themselves as the persecuted minority, sometimes going to ridiculous extremes, such as donning a yellow badge with a syringe on it patterned after the Yellow Star of David that the Nazis required Jews to wear, thus likening their "plight" to that of the Jews during the Holocaust. Indeed, antivaxers are quite enamored of Holocaust analogies, either with vaccines causing a Holocaust or laws requiring children to be vaccinated before they can attend school being likened to Nazi-ism. Even mildly vaccine-hesitant parents can be turned off by excessive judgment.

Basically, stigmatization is highly problematic because it is the children who suffer far more than the parents, even as they are unnecessarily left vulnerable to infectious diseases. Also, we basically know that stigmatization only makes the beliefs of committed antivaxers stronger and increases their will to resist. However, this group of antivaxers is, as I pointed out at the beginning, different from the mere vaccine-averse. Their numbers are smaller, even though they are much louder and more responsible for spreading antivaccine beliefs. The question is whether stigmatization has an effect on vaccine-hesitant parents and whether it makes them more likely to vaccinate or less likely—and at what cost, given that it is the children who suffer far more than the parents. While it's encouraging that parents of undervaccinated children are not viewed favorably because it indicates that pro-vaccination views predominate and that the reason for not vaccinating matters, we have to ask: How can we as a society maximize the social pressure to vaccinated without harming the very children that suffer from not being vaccinated? The answers to those question await further research.

oracknows Fri, 06/02/2017 - 00:45

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

Bioethics

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/01/these-3-t…

Categories

Education

/stigmatization is highly problematic because it is the children who suffer far more than the parents

I have not read the Sun article or the original one but it strikes me that the "stigmatization" of the children may not be so much stigmatization as simple self-defence.

An un-vaccinated person, adult or child, is a time bomb. I would not want a child of mine associating with such a person. Heck, I would not want to associate with such a person.

As a poor analogy, I live in an area where rabies was endemic and still occurs despite heroic efforts by the provincial and federal governments. I would not even think of petting a dog that I knew had not had their rabies vaccination.

I am sorry for the children who are stigmatized (shunned?) but it is morfe a case of child abuse by the parents than a problem with other people.

jrkrideau said exactly what I wanted to say. The isolating of unvaccinated children is to protect other children.

I share Orac's concerns about unvaccinated children bearing the burden of their parent's foolish decisions. Children can be very cruel to one another, and young children in particular cannot understand the reasoning of adult decisions. Teens need to be able to form stable peer groups.

This is the kind of issue that can have a negative impact on social development.

I have no idea what the answer to this problem is, but dismissing it as "them's the breaks, vaccination is too important" is not it.

Exactly. It's way more complicated than simplistic dismissals and the apparent lack of empathy for the children of antivaxers and the vaccine hesitant. How far should people go in stigmatizing children who had no part in the decision not to be vaccinated? How do we protect our children without adding to the harm unvaccinated children are already suffering?

I don't think it's as simple as those children being isolated for defense. I do hear people talk about them in ugly terms. That is a problem. Vaccine-deprived children are victims. I think social anger about non vaccinating is needed to get policy changes, but we need to consider the cost.

This is important work, and I hope they continue and look at the other questions Orac mentioned - how does stigmatizing affect vaccines hesitant parents.

Yes. I've occasionally seen provaxers describe unvaccinated children in the same sort of ugly terms that nativists use to describe immigrants, as "dirty," spreading filth and disease, etc. I must confess myself to having occasionally drifted in that direction in the past, but I'm trying to watch myself to stop from doing it in the future. These children are victims; they didn't choose not to be vaccinated. We should not forget that. It might be necessary to isolate them by keeping them out of school and daycare to protect others, but if it's done abusively and punitively it will harm them.

Of course, AVers *never* stigmatize vaccinated children....

Another excellent reason not to stigmatize the children of antivaxers. We don't want to emulate antivax behavior.

I've been accused many times of making fun of children who are "vaccine damaged." When I ask for evidence of my actions, I get only evidence of me berating anti-vaccine parents. Children are, as you and others have stated, innocent in this whole discussion. Even if the kiddos are at protests with their parents, holding signs and whatnot, they don't know any better. Adults, on the other hand, should know better... For them I have no patience.

I actually divide such parents into two groups. There are the real antivaxers. For whatever reason they've come to believe that vaccines are dangerous, and nothing will change their minds. These sorts of parents are relatively few in number and are the "leaders" of the antivaccine movement. They write the blogs, form the organizations, make the videos and movies, show up on TV and other media, and support the bogus science claiming to find that vaccines cause autism. With them I have no patience and tend view our job as trying to inoculate parents whom they can influence from their malign views, because changing the minds of such parents is incredibly difficult and rarely successful.

Then there are the vaccine-averse. They tend to be the ones who have heard scary things about vaccines (often from the former group) and are taking what they view as a cautious, reasonable path. These parents range from being almost part of the first group to being just mildly scared when their children are vaccinated. As I've said many times, if you don't have the scientific background to recognize antivaccine misinformation, that misinformation can sound very convincing and it is not unreasonable to take precautions. These are the parents who are reachable, and for them we must have patience for the good of their children.

I think a missing vignette is where the child is not fully vaccinated because of a reason recognized by national health authorities as a good reason not to get certain vaccinations (e.g., had a life threatening reaction to the first DTaP so does not get the second). How would the children and parents be treated then?

jrkrideau (#1) writes,

An un-vaccinated person, adult or child, is a time bomb.

MJD writes,

A "time bomb" is defined as a process or procedure causing a problem that will eventually become dangerous if not addressed.

A vaccination could be a "time bomb" by definition in that it's a process or procedure that may become dangerous (i.e., contraindications) if not addressed.

@ Orac,

Are parents who fail to immunize their children simply over- reacting to the vaccination "time-bomb effect"?

If this is the case, social pressure to vaccinate may increase their will to resist.

In my opinion, if medical science fails to eliminate vaccine contraindications there will always be a small number of parents that break the social contract of herd immunity.

In a worst case scenario, increased social-pressure to vaccinate may turn into bullying and that is a sickening thought.

@MJD-There are legitimate contraindications to vaccination-for example, immunocompromised patients often cannot receive live virus vaccines. These patients, who, for legitimate medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated, rely on herd immunity and are (along with infants who have not yet been vaccinated) the ones who are endangered the most by ignorant parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

Also, MJD, this post is discussing children who are unvaccinated not because they have a legitimate reason why they cannot be vaccinated, rather, it is discussing children who could be vaccinated, but are not because their parents are misinformed. There is a huge difference.

I don't think that children with a legitimate medical reason why they can't be vaccinated would face stigma, much less "bullying", because they are unvaccinated.

For one thing, in many cases, a serious illness (e,.g., acute leukemia), that those in their schools/communities would be aware of, would be the reason why they couldn't be vaccinated.

Since vaccination is a medical procedure and therefore private personal information, it seems to me that any stigma experienced by the child would only be because the parent chose to share their child's vaccination status with others. That's on them unless/until our society starts demanding unvaccinated individuals be publicly identified whether with yellow stars or pick triangles or some other easily visible means. I don't think that is likely to happen.

@Orac-Ginger Taylor springs to mind when you mention the first group.

It's quite a conundrum. On the one hand I agree that children of antivaxers are victims and don't deserve social isolation. On the other hand I've already vaccinated my child, mostly to protect him but also with the vulnerable (such as unvaccinated children) in mind. Should I go even further and encourage interaction between my child and an unvaccinated child? That feels too risky to me.

@CC

If your kids are vaccination, why do you consider it risky for them to associate with an unvaccinated child? It's very unlikely that both the unvaccinated child is infectious for a VPD and your child's vaccine won't provide protection against that disease.

This is a common trope used by antivaxers: "If vaccines protect your child, then why would you be worried about your child playing with my unvaccinated child?"

I call it a trope because it is one. Vaccines are never 100% effective. The measles vaccine is one of the most effective vaccines there is, well over 90% effective after the full series, but even that level of effectiveness still means that a small but significant minority of children vaccinated against measles are not immune. So CC's concerns are not irrational. It's a real issue. Certainly I agree with CC that at least I wouldn't encourage interaction between one's child and the unvaccinated.

@Orac-Regarding reaching the second group--the "vaccine hesitant", I think that a clear discussion of the dangers of the diseases might be effective. Perhaps watching a video in which the parents of a child who died of a VPD speak about their loss, or a video of a polio survivor discussing their illness, and subsequent permanent disability, would go a long way towards convincing the second group of parents to vaccinate.

I think that part of the problem is not just the misinformation regarding autism, but also that the vaccines have been so successful that some people no longer really fear the diseases that they prevent., and therefore having vaccine-hesitant parents watch a video that illustrates that the dangers of skipping vaccination is very real might be effective.

I also think a video might be more effective than just a doctor discussing the dangers of VPDs, since people could personally relate to a video more than they would a doctor discussing what they might view as "hypothetical" risks.

Like jr and Julian, I question the whole issue of "the kids bear the stigma". This is the kind of thing that gets me POed about "social science" – a brute quantitative measure of an ill-defined and uncontrolled subjective concept ('stigma') as if it was some concrete, coherent and consitent property. Duh, of course you can expect parents to express "social distance" from potential sources of dangerous infectious disease. But this is not necessarily "stigma". That is, while parents may not want their kids to befriend or be schoolmates with an unvaccinated kid – they may still view that kid with sympathy and compassion as a victim or irresponsible parenting.

There is simply no nuance or depth in survey research. In this study, the results probably have as much to do with the way the "vignettes" were written than with the set of attitudes out in the world the authors were trying to study. The way a parent responds to a hypothetical kid identified as "an unvaxed" will be different from how they respond to a real 3-dimensional non-vaxing family down the block who have been their neighbors for years (for good or ill, among other things).

Social scientists are often masters of hiding their biases and motivations, not just from others, but from their own spheres of cognition. I take these authors expressed concern for the supposedly stigmatized un-vaxed kids as a form of propaganda working to guilt-trip vax-hesitant parents into doing the right thing out of fear their kids will be socially/psychologically harmed. While likely over-stated, I guess it's still legitimate enough a persuasion strategy...

@Beth Clarkson

Also, you ignore that children live in households and communities. My vaccinated child also has a younger brother who is too young to have received all his vaccinations. My vaccinated child and I also regularly see parents of children who are immunocompromised in addition to being in regular contact with the elderly. No one lives in a vacuum.

Focusing on the individual is part of the reason the "your kid is vaccinated so why do you care" argument is so misleading.

This article from Washington Post that looked at the relationship between education, skepticism, and support for mandates might be interesting and related:

I take these authors expressed concern for the supposedly stigmatized un-vaxed kids as a form of propaganda working to guilt-trip vax-hesitant parents into doing the right thing out of fear their kids will be socially/psychologically harmed.

Because these parents are likely readers of Social Science & Medicine?

I also note that this study rated very little news coverage. It was really only by chance that I came across the one news report about the study that I saw. If the authors were trying to guilt trip vaccine-hesitant parents, they sure are doing a crappy job of it, given that their study got very little news coverage.

Orac, I'm not saying it not possible for a vaccinated child to contract a VPD from an unvaccinated child, I'm saying it's extremely unlikely because it requires the confluence of two rare events - that a) your child was not immune despite the vaccine (rates vary by vaccine, but most are effective in more than 90% of recipients) AND b) the unvaccinated child is contagious for a VPD but not showing symptoms of illness. If you assume that the vaccinated child has a 10% of not having immunity (a high estimate) and the unvaccined child has a 1% chance of being infectious without displaying symptoms (again, a high estimate), then the probability of your vaccinated child might contract a VPD is only 0.1%. In other words, even with high estimates of the probabilities of those events, CC can be at least 99.9% certain that his/her child will not contract a VPD as a result.

Personally, I wouldn't consider that a risk worth actively avoiding (I find the security of having vaccinated my child sufficient for my comfort level) but it's up to CC whether that is worth the effort to both find out the vaccination status of potential playmates and avoid contact with those who are unvaccinated. My point was that the risk is quite low under normal circumstances and I was curious how CC evaluated it and decided it was too high for his/her comfort level.

Even accepting your numbers that would be a 0.1% risk per encounter. Kids can easily have hundreds of encounters with their friends over the course of years. Those risks add up.

@Jinny Suh #22 - I'm aware of this issues, but I don't think those risks played into CC's concern as stated in #17.

@Orac - exactly. What anti-vaxers fail to realize as well, is that a similar percentage of people will also not gain immunity, even if they got the disease naturally. There are plenty of individuals who suffered multiple infections of chicken pox or even measles, because their body could not develop the antibodies necessary.

In today's world. where international travel is commonplace, any disease is merely a plane-ride away.

Orac, no, that's not the risk per encounter. But I didn't make that clear, so let me be more explicit. I was taking the 1% chance of a child being infectious but symptomatic as cumulative, for any particular encounter, the probability that a child was infectious would be orders of magnitude lower than 1%. Even during an outbreak, as in Minneapolis, the probability that any particular child is currently contagious without showing symptoms is considerably lower than 1%.

Jonas (#13) writes,

-There are legitimate contraindications to vaccination-

MJD says,

Absolutely, and at the top of the list is a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) after a previous dose or to a vaccine component.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/contraindicatio…

The unpredictability of allergic reactions from vaccine components and their packaging (e.g., Orac's restriction for MJD) is a real "time bomb".

Again, medical science has failed to eliminate such vaccine contraindications and thereafter continue to administer a defective product-by-process.

Unfortunately, children are not immune to a vaccine learning-curve that seems to have plateaued.

Q. Do vaccine safety advocates have a right to preach and practice exclusionary measures in an effort to accelerate vaccine continuous-improvement.

@Beth - funny that you consider that risk to be "minor." Because where you compare that percentage to the percentage chance of a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine.....which works out to about 0.00013% (or 1.3 ten-thousandths of a percent), it's obvious which is the safer course of action.

Heheh. You beat me to it. That's where I was leading. No problem, though. It doesn't matter if it's I or someone else providing the message, as long as the message is provided. :-)

Remember a few years ago, when a 17-year old girl ("Cassandra C" was forced to undergo chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease, against her will and against her mother's wishes?

It amazes me that the state will intervene in that case, where the person in question was almost old enough to make her own medical decisions, and where refusing treatment affected *only* her, and did not endanger anyone else, when the state will not intervene to ensure that children are vaccinated (refusal of which not only endangers the health of the child in question, but also the health of those who are exposed to them).

Obviously it's not a perfect comparison, considering that, without chemotherapy, Hodgkin's disease is fatal, but I still think it's a comparison worth making.

Sadly, I recall seeing last year that Cassandra C had suffered a relapse, and was not going to have chemotherapy to treat the relapse, so, unless she changes her mind and decides to undergo chemotherapy, it seems almost certain that she'll die from her illness.

Ignoring that measles is perhaps the most contagious disease on the planet.

It is a testament to the effectiveness of the vaccine that there has only been 73 cases....at least 68 of them completely unvaccinated.

And you're still wrong Beth - Orac's math is correct, your's is not.

Beth: "If your kids are vaccination (sic), why do you consider it risky for them to associate with an unvaccinated child?"
Beth: "I’m not saying it not possible for a vaccinated child to contract a VPD from an unvaccinated child, I’m saying it’s extremely unlikely"

There's more to this story than vaccines not being 100% effective. Beth may wish to educate herself about risks to children who can't be protected by vaccination due to primary or acquired immunodeficiencies. Should the parents in the following case be criticized for "shaming" parents who avoid vaccination or for "shunning" their unvaccinated kids?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/02/open-letter-parent-unvac…

Personally, I have some fundamental issues with parents who intentionally not vaccinate their kids.....I don't feel comfortable having my children exposed to that kind of thinking - it's just ignorance.

@Lawrence - I consider the risk of adverse reactions to be well worth the benefit of vaccination for most vaccines so I agree with you on that point.

And which ones do you not, and why?

The "American Loon" ignores the studies and evidence that anaphylaxis has been shown to occur in vaccinations at a rate of less than 1 in 1 million......

What this discussion does bring home for me is the question of how am I going to work with the vaccine adverse once I begin professional practice as an FNP.

During the Spring Semester, I did my Women's Health rotation in an affluent practice where many of the mother's to be were heavily into woo. I always felt like I was walking a fine line with some of these ladies who instantly shut down when I discussed influenza and TDaP vaccinations with them, or where convinced Hep B was bad for their babies . . . and of course, there was the issue of the fact I was a guest there, in a student role. I met some actual anti vax folks there, not just vaccine adverse.

In a few weeks, I head to Iowa for four and a half weeks for my Peds rotation. I don't know what I'll find when I get there, but I have no doubt I'll run into vaccine adverse parents, though perhaps not anyone anti-vax.

Seriously . . . I'm trolling for suggestions. How DO you approach someone who's vaccine adverse without driving them into the arms of the antivaxxers?

@MJD (31).
Anaphylaxis from a vaccine is EXTREMELY rare, so much so that even bringing it up is kind of silly.

Not to mention that it's pretty much irrelevant to this thread, since vaccine-averse parents don't refuse to vaccinate their children because they are concerned about a TINY risk of anaphylaxis, they refuse to vaccinate their children because they mistakenly believe that vaccines could cause autism, or because they mistakenly believe that "natural immunity is better" (another common anti-vax trope).

And while I shouldn't even have to say this, are you aware, MJD, that the risk of acute encephalitis from measles (13 in 1,000 measles patients, per the review article in Clinical Infectious Diseases) is vastly higher than the extremely small (maybe one in 1-2 million) chance of anaphylaxis from a vaccine?

It seems that you are either unaware of this, or, more likely, you are aware of it, but choose to wildly exaggerate the minute risk of anaphylaxis from a vaccine, while not mentioning the serious risk of encephalitis and other severe complications from measles and other VAPDs, to further your anti-vax agenda.

Sure, the vaccinating parents shouldn't stigmatize the unvaccinated children, but there's no reason for the vaccinated children not to do so. Child-child interactions might be more productive than parent-parent interactions.

Mom, the other kids won't play with me because they say I haven't had the vaccine against cooties!

@Lawrence #40: Since you asked, I will answer your question. I understand that others may disagree, but I'm not particularly interested in debating these opinions. I'd rather just agree to disagree.

I'll assume your asking about areas where I disagree with the current CDC recommendations, not about vaccinations for diseases like smallpox and yellow fever. We didn't deviate much from the CDC recommendations for our kids although we did insist on the killed polio vaccine back when the live vaccine was recommended.

In general, because the risk of catching the disease can spike overnight in the case of a local outbreak, I find vaccinations worthwhile for easily communicable diseases like measles and mumps. The exceptions would be for relatively mild diseases like the flu or chicken pox (although I did vaccinate my kids for that) because the risk of serious harm from the disease is very low. In those cases, it's not that the risk of the vaccine too high (they are very safe), but that I don't consider the risk from the disease to be sufficient to necessarily justify the cost ($ and time) but I don't object to them and would get them when it was convenient.

I don't agree with the CDC that newborns need to be vaccinated for Hep B when no one in the immediate family has it. I'm not currently convinced that HPV is worth the risk for boys although the evidence for that is still coming in. Since neither of these are easily communicable diseases, I don't think they should be required for school attendance nor are they relative to the current discussion about the risk of letting your vaccinated children play with an unvaccinated friend.

@Lawrence (#38). You're right. And the same type of thinking that leads parents not to vaccinate can lead them to make other poor choices-for example, I bet anti-vax parents would be much more likely to buy raw milk products (which are potentially quite dangerous), or to treat potentially serious illnesses with quackery like homeopathy rather than taking their children to a real doctor.

Anti-vaxxers are usually hostile to science in general.

@Beth-You are wrong. Even previously healthy children can die from the flu. Almost all children who have died from the flu were unvaccinated. Look up the website Families Fighting Flu and read some of those families stories, and you might think differently about the necessity of the flu vax.

As for Hep B, while the risk of a child getting Hep B might be low, why not protect them? There is no way to predict what they might eventually be exposed to, and Hep B actually can be transmitted more easily than many people think. You can get it from sharing toothbrushes or razors, for example.

And the HPV vaccine is necessary for boys. Even if one were to assume that males were not at risk for HPV-associated cancers (they are), vaccinating them would still be needed to protect females. Besides, like I said, men do get HPV-associated cancers, for example, many cases of head and neck cancer are caused by HPV infection.

Also, Beth, you might want to reconsider your view of chickenpox as "mild".
http://www.immunize.org/reports/report004.asp

I had chickenpox as a child. I didn't consider it "mild." In fact, it's one of the few things I remember from that early in my life because it made that much of an impression on me. I was so sick and miserable.

Plus, the varicella-zoster virus doesn't just go away-it oftentimes later resurfaces as shingles, which is often extremely painful.

Lawrence (#41) writes,

...anaphylaxis has been shown to occur in vaccinations at a rate of less than 1 in 1 million……

MJD says,

Did you notice that the CDC used anaphylaxis as an example of a severe allergic reaction.

Another severe allergic reaction, not mentioned by the CDC, would be vaccine-induced allergies suspected in the etiology of REGRESSIVE AUTISM.

Oh....I wish I had the freedom to speak openly here at RI in the absence of Orac's auto-moderation proclivity. :-(

And that's the reason why you remain in automoderation. The last time I let you out it didn't take long at all before you were back to your old ways.

...mild diseases like the flu...

I used to think that. Then I caught a case of the flu. Not a bad cold. Not a upper respiratory illness. For darn sure not the 'stomach flu'.

I had fever. I had chills. I ached, and I ached everywhere. And I did all that for several days straight. Come the second week, those symptoms finally went away, but it left me weak as a kitten for a few more days. I missed almost 2 weeks of work, and, frankly, wan't much use when I went back.

I make darn sure I get a flu shot now.

There's a lot of things that get called 'flu' that aren't. But if you or yours ever come down with the real flu, I'll bet you change your mind about the flu shot.

I used to think that. Then I caught a case of the flu. Not a bad cold. Not a upper respiratory illness. For darn sure not the ‘stomach flu’.

Yep. I got the flu 9 years ago. It was before the flu vaccine was mandatory, and for some reason I foolishly didn't get it. I think part of the reason was because I was too busy wrapping up my old job in NJ and preparing for a new job in Michigan. In any case, it knocked me on my ass for a whole week. What so many people refer to as "the flu" isn't really the flu but some mild viral flu-like illness. The real flu is bad. I learned that, and since then would have continued to get a flu shot every year even if it weren't mandatory for my job.

The “American Loon” ignores the studies and evidence that anaphylaxis has been shown to occur in vaccinations at a rate of less than 1 in 1 million……

He also seems to not understand that 'rights' only exist in the context of a government and it's citizens. I'm not aware of the US government, or any other government on the earth, adopting any policy that restricts anybody's right "to preach and practice exclusionary measures in an effort to accelerate vaccine continuous-improvement".

That's not to say that you can't have your 'preaching' restricted in a private forum, or that you won't be laughed at for saying silly things.

Let me be specific in where the CDC fails to address the concerns of some vaccine-safety advocates.

A "severe allergic reaction" after a vaccine dose or to a vaccine component is clearly a recognized contraindication. (see comment #31).

The definition of the word "severe" is something bad or undesirable.

Therefore, a "severe allergic reaction" is effectively a bad or undesirable allergic reaction.

In children with atypical immunity, the long-term affects of a vaccine-induced allergic reaction (non-anaphylaxis) are not clearly understood.

In my opinion, the CDC gives the impression that if the vaccine doesn't temporarily harm you or kill you (e.g., anaphylaxis) it makes you stronger.

Q. When is a vaccine-induced allergic response to beneficial proteins acceptable.

Well, I can speak directly to Chicken Pox, because I just suffered from an incredibly painful, month-long bout of Shingles at the end of last year.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone & I am extremely happy that my kids are now vaccinated against Chicken Pox.

As for HPV, my boys will also get vaccinated - because women just don't "get" HPV from nowhere, they get it from infected men. Plus, HPV causes a number of very nasty kinds of Cancer in men too - and the fact that we have another (HepB vaccine was the first) vaccine that prevents Cancer - we should definitely be celebrating.

Oh….I wish I had the freedom to speak openly here at RI in the absence of Orac’s auto-moderation proclivity.

There is a saying amongst us nerds - 'The Internet treats 'censorship' like 'damage', and routes around it'.

If you feel that you are unfairly restricted on this blog or any other, you can, for the price of zero dollars, start your own blog, where you will have the completely unrestricted ability to go on at great lengths about any topic you wish, as well as impose any and all restrictions on readers comments you want.

While I do not, can not, and will not speak for our host, I'd go so far as to say he'd probably even allow you to mention your blog here, a time or two at least, because he's just that kind of guy

@Beth #45: I'm sorry but you are horribly wrong on the flu. Bear in mind, much of what people think of as the flu is simply gastroenteritis. Actual influenza will knock you on your ass. I've had it twice . . . both in years I skipped the flu shot, or got it very late in the season (through my own neglect I will admit). Both times I got pneumonia and it took MONTHS for me to recover.

You are also wrong about Hep B. The CDC recommends it because not every other knows whether they've had it or not, and because while it is a blood borne disease and can be detected through a blood test, when a person has the active disease it clears so rapidly there are a lot of false negatives. The titer for the antibodies (anti-HBs) show's you have had it or been vaccinated but doesn't show if you have a current infection.

That's why newborns should be vaccinated. The chance of passing this disease along is too serious for a hope for the best attitude. The newborn's liver is immature and vulnerable.

Boys get HPV as well. Besides the head and neck cancers already mentioned, 90% of penile cancers are caused by HPV (granted it's a rare cancer but one we could virtually eliminate by vaccinating). In addition, some of the HPV forms that cause genital warts are covered with this vaccine; boys do get genital warts, and on the penis they can cause life threatening urethral obstructions. Nasty stuff.

MJD: the CDC considers vaccine reactions. But they are so incredibly rare to be anything more than a fever and the icks for a day or two, that there is NO reason not to vaccinate on schedule. The benefits so far outweigh the risks as to make your position laughable . . . in fact it's why we laugh at you and refer to you as the American Loon.

You're demanding a perfect world. Such a thing does not exist.

@ Johnny (#58),

I've been commenting at RI for seven years.

Orac has skillfully and persistently provided a blog site that reaches a substantial global audience.

Thank you Oracmeister!

Panacea (#59) writes,

You’re demanding a perfect world. Such a thing does not exist.

MJD says,

A message to all the children learning how to make a difference:

The perfect vaccine, become a science-based thinker and make it happen.

MJD (#41) wrote: "Another severe allergic reaction, not mentioned by the CDC, would be vaccine-induced allergies suspected in the etiology of REGRESSIVE AUTISM."
Well, you just confirmed what I already suspected: You are anti-vaccine. No, you are not a "vaccine safety advocate", you are anti-vaccine.

There is a mountain of evidence indicating that vaccines do not and cannot cause autism. Refusing to accept that evidence makes you, to put it bluntly, delusional.

@Jonas: MJD isn't *completely* antivax. He just has a bee in his bonnet about latex, which he believes leads to autism in certain individuals. However, in his 7 years, the story of his son's reaction morphed and changed, so we all rather take anything he says with many grains of salt.

(He claims he'd be fine with vaccines if they didn't have latex at the top of a vial - which I assume means he's fine with anything in an ampule)

He's in moderation because EVERYTHING leads to latex allergies in his comments. No one denies they exist. We do deny that latex sensitivities lead to regressive autism.

And I hope explaining things to you doesn't put me into moderation hell - not sure how Orac flags things.

Jonas (#62) writes,

There is a mountain of evidence indicating that vaccines do not and cannot cause autism.

MJD says,

Did you mean to say autism spectrum disorders?

Said spectrum-disorder is believed to encompasses numerous dissimilar etiologies.

The subgroup most likely to be affected by vaccine insult, at the moment, is allergy-induced regressive autism.

Please provide the mountain of evidence indicating that vaccines do not and cannot cause allergy-induced regressive autism.

@ Jonas,

Do you work at the CDC?

OK, I see. Thanks for explaining why he's anti-vaccine.

@ Everyone,

I'm going to politely back away from commenting again in this post.

You all have a great weekend!

He's even got his own entry here:

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/07/628-michael-j-dochniak-denise…

And I have to say, MJD's "theory" is extremely farfetched-even by anti-vaccine standards, which is really saying something....

Jonas -

Another bit of history -

You may have noticed friend Lawrence referring to MJD as the "American Loon". This may give a false impression that MJD is the only being referred to as "American Loon". MJD is just one of many American Loons. He is in fact the 628th example of the American Loon of the 1844 identified to date.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/07/628-michael-j-dochniak-denise…

Lawrence types faster than I do, it seems.

I wonder if MJD has heard about the studies that have come out in the last few years that show that the brain abnormalities that have been found in people with autism would have been present in utero (thus completely ruling out vaccines as a possible cause)?

My guess is that he has, but he is so convinced that his bizarre theory is accurate that he has ignored them. Anti-vaxxers do not listen to evidence.

Oh, and thanks for clarifying what the "American Loon" comment (Lawrence #41) meant.

125 words per minute - I credit my high school typing class....

i didn't say the authors were intentionally trying to mount a guilt-tripping propaganda PR campaign. it's more like their thoughts come through in the research publications that are their... "idiom". You could say it's a social science study that's repressing it's dreams of being a clever propaganda campaign.

Perhaps I should note I don't necessarily consider "propaganda" a bad thing. I'm a fan of 'agit-prop' creative work, for example...

I see no reason not to include a frank and sensitive discussion with vax-hesitant parents about how un-vaxed children may feel stigmatized by the social isolation they will rightly feel when their peers stay away from them, not knowing whether or not they are disease vectors. To bring that home, you also present them with material on the consequences real-life unvaxed kids (often due to reasons OTHER than antivax) have suffered from VPDs. The Texas Children's Hospital has and excellent photo-book on this, available online. (ATTN JONAS: This is what you're talking about, just not in video. It's good, and an equally strong video would be hard to pull off.)

I hope Beth is not the Beth Clarkson who was in pre-med when I met her.
HPV is not that much of a risk for boys? Someone needs to look up the literature on it, because I think someone hasn't done their homework.

I had the real flu as a teen. 105 temps for a week and could barely get out of bed. Hurt to even blink my eyes. Been getting flu shots since and wish more people would.

@ Panacea

I left a note for you about talking to the vax averse on yesterday's thread. Where in Iowa are you headed? It's not all the same. Take a look at the Texas Children's Hospital VPD book I noted above. As a general rule of thumb, I'd advise keeping Orac's description of vax hesitance above in mind:

They have heard scary things about vaccines and are taking what they view as a cautious, reasonable path.

To slightly adjust what Orac says, antivaccine misinformation can sound credible enough that reasonable parents will be concerned enough to worry, and maybe worried enough to 'take precautions', seeing non-vaxing as 'better safe than sorry'. That is, the vax hesitant don't believe vaccines cause autism, they're just not 100% sure it doesn't. (Of course, as Orac notes, the degree of worry and drive toward caution can vary from approachable to almost-gone-to-the dark-side.)

Still, if you gauge you're not talking to a true anti-vax nutter, you ought to be able to identify and sympathize with the concern low-information parents may pick up from social media and local gossip. The folks spreading this may be friends they otherwise trust, so I'd try to include them in the web of sympathy, too. You can tell the parent something like, "If I hadn't studied this, didn't know what I know about science, and heard or read the stuff going around, I'd be worried too. But, you know word-of-mouth goes, and some pretty weird things can just get a life of their own, even though they have no basis in fact...."

I'd probably go on to offer an explanation of why vaccines have become a target of opportunity for fears and frustrations so profound that once some people latch onto the shots as a perfect too-simple scapegoat, they're never going to let go. But whatever path you take, try to prep the emotional ground before you introduce any info on the science, and then keep that short sweet and pithy.

Yah, back in the dark ages only girls took typing class - they were the only ones likely to touch a keyboard in their careers. Us boys were all in shop class.

MJD, you keep saying, "Again, medical science has failed to eliminate such vaccine contraindications..."

I'm not a doctor, or even very good at science, but smarter people than me have said almost everything (and I'm hedging here) has a possibility of causing a bad reaction.

We can save the horrible, terrible, macro-triggering imperialism of stigmatizing the anti-vax VPD vectors by moving them to a place where they may be among like minds, those who also block vaccinations. That would be the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I believe those places also practice organic farming, use no GMOs and are free of chemtrails.

Oh, we'll explain that there's an alien time portal at the border and if they return to their point of origin in the USA, they will cause a time aneurysm. So, it's go go go, no come back. Their irreplaceable indigo uniqueness will be missed

by no one.

Hi, sadmar,

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I'll try to keep your suggestions in mind. I am very nervous about this rotation, in part because I'll be so far from home. I couldn't find a preceptor in my state, but since I'm licensed in Iowa I looked there and lucked out.

I'll be in Council Bluffs, across the river from Omaha Nebraska. I have no idea what kind of a community it is. I've never been there before.

It really bothered me in my last rotation, dealing with so many families that were really into the alt med thing. I really want to do a good job counseling parents, but I also have to consider where the parents are so I don't close the door so they don't hear me at all. That's something I'm still learning how to do.

It really is different from the regular practice of nursing. I had no idea. It's been a humbling experience.

Dirty fkkn' LAIVed kids everywhere you damn go.

Orac: "The measles vaccine is one of the most effective vaccines there is, well over 90% effective after the full series, but even that level of effectiveness still means that a small but significant minority of children vaccinated against measles are not immune."

And every child before their first birthday. Children under the age of one year old are also unprotected from mumps and chicken pox due to the fact the vaccines for those diseases are not given until after their first birthday. Not to mention that the DTaP series is not completely protective until then.

Won't anyone think of the babies?

I say because my youngest had chicken pox when she was six months old a full year before the varicella vaccine was available (saying she was miserable would be an understatement, her older brothers also suffered). Now as a grad student, she has a much higher chance of shingles in the next three years.

I do not think well about those who think chicken pox is a "mild" disease.

Orac (from the main article): "... but I always try to distinguish between vaccine-hesitant parents who have fallen under the sway of antivaccine views and the hard core antivaxers themselves, who spread the message. The former can be reached; the latter are virtually unreachable with rare exceptions."

From my personal experience the latter are also very annoying snooty "better parents than anyone" types. My oldest son had seizures as an infant, so only got the DT instead of the DTP. While our county was having a pertussis outbreak. It was over twenty five years ago, as a direct result of Lea Thompson's "investigative journalism" and the efforts of Barbara Loe Fisher.

So whenever I went to a new mom/kid group I would ask about vaccine status to protect my kid. I got one woman who proclaimed that her "doctor" said that vaccines were not necessary for her children. She was really obnoxious.

I am sure her kids were perfectly wonderful little beings. If they were stigmatized it was because their mother walked and talked like a big ol' broomstick went from her posterior all they way up to her snide mouth. No loss in socialization by avoiding that extremely unpleasant person.

# 45 Beth C

I don’t consider the risk from the disease to be sufficient to necessarily justify the cost ($ and time) but I don’t object to them and would get them when it was convenient.

Jesu, you Americans have one insane health care system. Around here you practically have to beat off nurses and doctors armed with loaded syringes whenever you step inside the clinic!

I dropped in for a flu shot last fall and ended up with two shot-up arms. Flu in one arm and Shingles in the other.

Personal cost for vaccination – wave your health card.

Well, this is partially optional since if it has expired or you forgot it, if you are a registered patient and they have your ID and health card number, they just tell you to get the (new) card and come back when you get the time.

@ 49 orac

I spent one Christmas, at about the age of 18, with the blankets pulled over my head and listening to some Nashville basketball game while I had chickenpox. Since a) I don't live in the USA and b) don't like or understand basketball you can imagine just how horrible I felt. You have my complete sympathy.

Urg... in moderation again!

jrkrideau

;-)

By the way, the cost of the vaccinations even in the USA in total is often much less than the cost of the diseases. Especially if you count lost wages due to a parent having to stay home with kids.

Twenty plus years ago if you were lucky your employer would help pay the $$$$ for sick kids to stay in a special daycare at a local hospital so you would not have to lose work. They even included a special chicken pox room. Guess what happened to those less than ten years after the varicella vaccine was introduced.

@ Spectator

I see where you are coming from, but think of the children, if they all cluster like that it maximises the risk.

There's no reason Indigo children shouldn't be vaxed as well, viruses do not discriminate on aura colours ;)

@ 66 MJD

@ Everyone,
I’m going to politely back away from commenting again in this post.
You all have a great weekend!

Don't let the electrons hit you on your rear on the way out.

Antivax parents need to recognize that stigma falls squarely upon them, as opposed to their unvaccinated children. This shouldn't be that tough to recognize, as in their view, everything is about them and their rights.

Simiilarly, I've always viewed the stigma for bad child behavior in public as falling on their parents. When you're dawdling at your table in the restaurant long after the meal is finished, eyes glued to your cellphones while your kids scream in boredom and run about, you're the ones at fault.

My oldest caught the Flu when he was only 3 months old, it was a very scary experience & certainly not one I would see any baby have to repeat.

This blog never fails to provide a chuckle--the dark sort of chuckle that phrases like "science never lies" inspires. Bertrand Russell always gets a kick out that one from his grave.

"At least, the media seem less willing to indulge in 'tell both sides' [']false['] equivalence." Gee, ya think? I guess that's because the media is more honest and objective than ever. :D

"An un-vaccinated person, adult or child, is a time bomb." It's amazing we all didn't explode in the 60s, 70s & 80s, before the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act opened the vaccine flood gates with its cozy protection from liability!

"Vaccine-deprived children are victims," wrote Dorit, with a sly wink and knowing smirk, which unfortunately isn't visible online.

"Anti-vaxxers are usually hostile to science in general." Change the spelling to 'psyence" and it would actually make sense!

I'm amazed by the exceptionally weak immune systems among the vaccine army that regularly patrols this blog, and their families. Seems they all have a tale about how something like the flu or chicken pox almost took them out. If I believed them, I'd suggest they spend less time in the basement pounding on a keyboard, and more time in the sun absorbing some vitamin D.

Jesu, you Americans have one insane health care system.

Clarkson's talking through her hat. All pediatric vaccinations are covered by insurance in the US, and for low-income families who can't afford the doctor's visit, the county health department administers a program called VFC (Vaccines for Children) that's paid for by the CDC.

(having said that, yes -- we do have an insane healthcare system).

If I believed them, I’d suggest they spend less time in the basement pounding on a keyboard, and more time in the sun absorbing some vitamin D.

My generation spent most of our time out of doors in good weather - no cable tv, no tablets, no Gameboys, nada. My generation also universally came down with measles, mumps, chicken pox and whooping cough.

I'm amazed we all didn't explode! I'm just glad that you, me and all the kids I went to school with lived to tell the tale. But I'm going to take a wild guess that you have a tale of tragedy to tell. ;)

I am impressed (to laughter, mainly) by the insistence of the woo crowd that they need not concern themselves with dangerous infectious diseases because of their purportedly superior immune systems. In addition a lack of evidence that their immune capacity is better than that of non-wooists', a bit of education about what can happen when genuinely strong immune systems overreact to infection and disproportionately cause suffering and death (as in the case of certain influenza strains) should temper their egos a bit, not that it ever does.

Our resident New World Order paranoiac apparently has gotten the wrong idea about Bertrand Russell. Rather than being a harsh critic of science (and vaccination), antivaxers seem to generally loathe him for statement like this (from The Impact Of Science On Society):

"Science has already conferred an immense boon on man-
kind by the growth of medicine. In the eighteenth century
people expected most of their children to die before they were
grown up. Improvement began at the beginning of the nine-
teenth century, chiefly owing to vaccination. It has contin-
ued ever since and is still continuing. In 1920 the infant
mortality in England and Wales was 80 per thousand, in
1948 it was 34 per thousand. The general death rate in 1948
(10 -8) was the lowest ever recorded up to that date. There
is no obvious limit to the improvement of health that can be
brought about by medicine."

Some people can learn from the experiences of others, and some people just have to piss on the electric fence for themselves.

Sure, Chicken Pox wasn't the end of the world, but feel free to spend a Month with the Shingles & get back to us on how you felt.

Suggesting the chicken pox vaccine prevents shingles is a bit too nonsensical to be clever. Surely you can do better than that. :)

And NWOR - that's what we call "survivor's bias."

Just because you came through okay, doesn't mean everyone will (or did).

In fact, I'm happy to use your own analogy against you.....my kids are fully vaccinated & came through just fine, thus everyone did and will & you're talking out of your ass.

Sure, Lawrence. If a few points were shaved off your children's IQ, who would ever know? And if, down the road, they have certain difficulties coping, or develop chronic diseases or cancer, you'll "know" it had nothing to do with the vaccines you agreed to. No worries!

Yes, and I've been through the flu often enough to never want to go through it again. Hence, I get vaccinated every year.

I had chicken pox as a child. My sister just got shingles. I will in short order be getting the shingles vaccine as that is something I never want to go through.

@NWOR (#98). And there is exactly zero evidence that vaccines would do any of the things you mentioned in your post. In fact, a study done in the Philippines found that vaccinated children on average scored half a standard deviation HIGHER than unvaccinated children on cognitive tests. So there!

@Lawrence (#97). Survivor's bias seems to be the reason why many people will say things like "I had measles/mumps/chickenpox and was fine"-these people don't realize that just because they were lucky enough to have a mild case of a VAPD doesn't mean everyone will. I had a mild case of chickenpox, but unlike some people, I'm not ignorant enough to think that just because I had a mild case, chickenpox isn't potentially dangerous.

Yes, yes--we've all heard about that 'study.' Must be all the aluminum that made them smarter, garnished with a little mercury--or was it the polysorbate 80? That high-pitched encephalitic scream after vaccination--don't worry, it's all perfectly normal. It means your child is getting healthier--and smarter! :D

NWOR-You seem to have some serious issues with reality-even your username suggests that you are a conspiracy theorist.

Conspiracies? Nah, never happens. Sure, people are convicted of criminal conspiracies all the time in the judicial system, but that's a fluke. Once people rise above a certain socioeconomic level, they don't engage in conspiracies. Everyone knows that. :D

NWO Reporter asked

If a few points were shaved off your children’s IQ [by vaccines], who would ever know?

Indeed, it is difficult to ascertain that an individual's IQ was affected by particular early-childhood life experiences. We do know, though, that IQ is negatively correlated with the burden of childhood disease.

NWO Reporter's apparent hypothesis that vaccination has a similar negative correlation with cognitive development has been refuted in the case of at least the MMR vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Mrozek-Budzyn D et al. Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination has no effect on cognitive development in children – the results of the Polish prospective cohort study. Vaccine. 2013 May 24; 31(22): 2551–2557.

Mrozek-Budzyn D et al. Early exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and children’s cognitive development. A 9-year prospective birth cohort study in Poland. Eur J Pediatr. 2015; 174(3): 383–391.

@Brian (#104) And that's in addition to the study I mentioned above. NWOR is making a claim with absolutely no basis in reality.

@Ren -- No, that would not have been me.

Re: Chicken pox being a relatively mild disease, I believe that's an appropriate characterization compared to diseases like cancer or meningitis. Do you really want to claim it's comparable to those? I understand that it can still be very unpleasant, even deadly in rare cases. But as a generalization I think that diseases that have very low rates of requiring hospitalization or resulting in serious complications can be characterized as mild and despite all the moaning about how awful it is (and yes, I have had similar miserable experiences) I notice no one has claimed to have required hospitalization or suffered serious harm as a result of chicken pox or the flu.

It's still a disease and the suffering through a disease is the only solid reason for getting a vaccine IMO. Others here disagree, I understand. Just as I understand that others disagree about the cost/benefit analysis I make on Hep B and HPV vaccines.

With regard to the Hep B and HPV vaccines, I was answering a request to describe where I had had differences with the recommended CDC schedule. When I was making those decisions were 18 years ago and four or five years ago, so those decisions are dated. If I was making the same decision today I would review the current arguments and evidence pro and con and I might make a different decision. The evidence at that time for those vaccines was not convincing to me.

@Shay, #90, I am NOT 'talking out of my hat'. My kids are adults now, but back in the 90's my family went through periods of not having insurance not to mention that many people, including me at the moment, have high deductible insurance which doesn't cover anything unless we exceed the deductible which I hope won't happen this year. Worst of all, when you are uninsured, you are billed at full retail rates for all medical services. Nobody is negotiating lower prices for the uninsured. Single payer is the only sensible solution to this mess IMO.

That high-pitched encephalitic scream

Are you under the impression that there is a specific kind of infant cry associated with and diagnostic of encephalitis? Perhaps you can point me to the source for this?

Sadly, I recall seeing last year that Cassandra C had suffered a relapse, and was not going to have chemotherapy to treat the relapse, so, unless she changes her mind and decides to undergo chemotherapy, it seems almost certain that she’ll die from her illness.

There's a Gofundme page from March. It has three donations; I have no idea what the story is.

@Narad-Orac wrote about her case a number of times. I think this is his most recent post on her case.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/04/28/cassandra-callender-the-te…

Suggesting the chicken pox vaccine prevents shingles is a bit too nonsensical to be clever. Surely you can do better than that.

Um, what?
No, seriously. Chicken Pox and shingles are caused by the same virus. If you are vaccinated against one, you're vaccinated against the other. What's so hard to get about that?

Oh, please. The vaccine injects the attenuated chicken pox virus. No one has any idea whether that might theoretically help prevent shingles down the road, or cause it. Stop lying to people.

@NWOR-Well, I suppose you can argue that we don't yet know for sure, since the chickenpox vaccine is fairly new, and those who received it are not yet old enough to be at high risk of shingles, but it is logical to assume that it would prevent it.

If you substitute "magical thinking" for "logical," and we'll have a point of agreement. :D

Speaking of conspiracies, it'd be educational to see a list of all the pharma/government/military conspiracies that were unraveled by Internet devotees sharing breathless theories with their online compadres.

(crickets)

The definition of the word “severe” is something bad or undesirable.

Is this whole "the word $X is defined as $Y," with $Y the output of some sort of random etymology generator, a regular MJD thing, or is it a new development?

I spent one Christmas, at about the age of 18, with the blankets pulled over my head and listening to some Nashville basketball game while I had chickenpox. Since a) I don’t live in the USA and b) don’t like or understand basketball you can imagine just how horrible I felt.

I was 20, allowed to stay in the dorm over winter break (alone aside from the resident heads) because I was too sick to travel, and couldn't get up for over 24 hours to make side 4 of Traffic's On the Road stop playing.

^ Yah, yah, more blockquote fail. Sorry.

Sure, Lawrence. If a few points were shaved off your children’s IQ, who would ever know?

Mirrors, Ginny. Use them.

NWO Troll: we don't have a point of agreement. We already have known for years that the shingles vaccine prevents shingles in people who have had chicken pox. People who get vaccinated from chicken pox are less likely to ever get shingles, but can still benefit from shingles vaccination. Despite a mixed review of the literature, the potential risks are outweighed by the benefits because even if you get shingles after getting the vaccine the pain from it is far less than what it normally would be.

I've cared for people with shingles. They often require opioids to manage the pain until the outbreak resolves itself.

The vaccine is safe. I'd rather get the icks and maybe a headache for a day than the shingles.

NOW Reporter;
" Sure, people are convicted of criminal conspiracies all the time in the judicial system, but that’s a fluke."

Yeah, of 2,3,5 or even occasionally 10 people!
A conspiracy the likes of which you're talking about would never have made it past the planning stages.

Come visit reality, it's nice here.

Well, it is true that conspiracies of this magnitude rely heavily on manufacturing consent. Edward Bernays has a couple of useful books for an introduction to the art, which is as old as civilization itself. Manufacturing a false perception of scientific consensus is essential. So is compartmentalization, along with vested interests, clueless minions and mercenaries. That so many believe it's not possible--and in fact, eagerly ridicule anyone who suggests it is possible--it indicative of its success.

"Manufacturing a false perception of scientific consensus is essential."

And do you have, he said knowingly, any, ANY evidence that this is so? Anything at all?
Are you seriously calling us all minions?
Are disputing, again he said knowingly, that vaccines have been responsible for saving perhaps billions of lives? (A number so large, that some portion of population are going to suffer a negative reaction - and no I don't mean autism).

You come here and spout off all this completely unsupported B.S. without so much as a lick of proof.

The conspiracy you're suggesting would involve different governments, different universities, different political persuasions, different religions, different countries.

OCCAM'S RAZOR. All the evidence is in front of you and your willfully ignoring it all in favor of your view of the world.

That's zealotry, not science.

You may want to read my comment again...anyway, I have no idea if you are a minion, and I don't get the sense you are part of this den of vipers. We all receive the same vaccine indoctrination--and yes, it is global. It can't be overcome without evidence, and the evidence indicates it is one of the greatest and most insidious frauds ever perpetrated on humanity.

Vaccines have not saved billions of lives--they have harmed many more than they have saved, if in fact they have saved any at all. The harm will increase as the number of vaccines on the schedule increases--and it will increase. There were 24 doses in 1983; 74 doses in 2016. How many will there be a decade from now?

I wish you good luck if you choose vaccination. As long as you don't try to impose your choice on others, there won't be a problem.

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible." -- Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952)

Manufacturing a false perception of scientific consensus is essential. So is compartmentalization, along with vested interests, clueless minions and mercenaries. That so many believe it’s not possible–and in fact, eagerly ridicule anyone who suggests it is possible–it indicative of its success.

Then again, you might just be a wholly incompetent dumbshіt who does nothing but regurgitate the same fυcking script over and over again, Ginny, but with the extra frosting of some sort of incredibly stupid tic that causes you slap smiley faces on everything until your sustained failure turns you pissy.

You're a classic case of just the sort of patsy one would want to support if one were actually running a conspiracy.

NWOR at #120:
*Sigh*
the evidence indicates it is one of the greatest and most insidious frauds ever perpetrated on humanity.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Vaccines have not saved billions of lives–they have harmed many more than they have saved...

[CITATION NEEDED]

if in fact they have saved any at all.
Plenty of citations for this though!

The harm will increase as the number of vaccines on the schedule increases–and it will increase. There were 24 doses in 1983; 74 doses in 2016. How many will there be a decade from now?

PERHaps it's because we've discovered better vaccines for more things...assumning your neighbors are accurate, which I won't believe.

I wish you good luck if you choose vaccination. As long as you don’t try to impose your choice on others, there won’t be a problem.
Do you want children to die? Seriously, from what I can tell, and I'm a layman, these are SERIOUS diseases.

You really are divorced from reality aren't you?
And, naturally, you failed to provide any evidence to support anything you've said.

So you're expecting someone to dispel a lifetime of insidious indoctrination in a blog comment? Talk about divorced from reality! :D

NWOR @ 121

Except that doesn't count as science, and since I haven't read the whole book, I'm going to assume your'e cherry picking it, as does apparently a bunch of other woo meisters.

Also, are you saying diet is a conspiracy by the government to control us? I thought you woo-ey types thought diet solved everything!

Weak sauce.

Okay, okay, I'll admit it--I may have been wrong. It appears from your follow-up comments that you may, in fact, be part of this den of vipers. It was your apparent discombobulation and poor grammar than threw me. Sorry. :(

NWOR @ 124

Nope, just a study (JUST ONE RELIABLE ONE NWOR), some evidence, or a plausible mechanism.

Vaccines have not saved billions of lives–they have harmed many more than they have saved, if in fact they have saved any at all.

Smallpox went from killing 1/3 of each new generation to eradication, due EXCLUSIVELY to vaccination, so yes, that's billions of lives.

I don't want to see any buIIshıt about sanitation—it's airborne, you brainless gobshıte!—or nutrition. That's nutrition with the same modern diet that's making everybody sick in your next sentence, right?

You post utter bullshit, then characterize facts as bullshit and demand they not be posted. Classic. :D

Okay, okay, I’ll admit it–I may have been wrong. It appears from your follow-up comments that you may, in fact, be part of this den of vipers. It was your apparent discombobulation and poor grammar than threw me. Sorry.

Still not evidence, a study, or a reliable mechanism.

We're waiting...but thanks for the textbook illustration of an ad hominem.

Waiting? Nah, you're just posturing for the rubes. Have fun! :D

It appears from your follow-up comments that you may, in fact, be part of this den of vipers.

Seizing upon a lone taker is a sign of very poor trolling indeed, Ginny. Are you ever going to explain that whole alterno-gravity thing from your Y—be "channel"?

I mean, just how much "essential" piercing of the veil of "manufactur[ed] . . . false perception of scientific consensus" is really part of your – for lack of a better word – agenda?

and poor grammar than threw me

Nice own goal, there, Gins.

"Waiting? Nah, you’re just posturing for the rubes. Have fun!"

I find you and your opinions (or unsupported assertions) to be pathetic, but I find minds like yours, or "minds" like yours fascinating (Thank you very much Narad ; ) )
So, here, let me help you:

evidenceplay
noun ev·i·dence \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof

Narad, #131

Heh. Nice catch.

manufacturing consent. Edward Bernays has a couple of useful books for an introduction to the art

It is always sad to see some self-styled skeptic uncritically accepting Bernays' essays in self-promotion. The #1 client of his advertising work was always his own reputation, but it's OK to take a skeptical stance to Bernays' claims about how easily he could manipulate the minds of the masses he despised.

Much of Bernays' reputation today stems from his persistent public relations campaign to build his own reputation as "America's No. 1 Publicist". During his active years, many of his peers in the industry were offended by Bernays' continuous self-promotion. According to Scott Cutlip, "Bernays was a brilliant person who had a spectacular career, but, to use an old-fashioned word, he was a braggart."

That high-pitched encephalitic scream after vaccination

Evidence for the existence of this "high-pitched encephalitic scream" phenomenon -- other than the fraudulent fabrications of antivaxxers -- would be nice. Any pediatric textbook will suffice.

Vaccination is a private decision in the sense that your, or your child's, doctor can't disclose your vaccination status. And yes, you can say "none of your business" if the parent of an infant asks whether your children are vaccinated, or if your own pertussis booster is up to date.

That parent in turn can say "Better safe that sorry" and not let you or your child visit you or your infant. They don't need proof that you're a risk, because you have no constitutional right to a play date or to hold someone else's baby. Prudence makes it reasonable to assume there's a risk, as someone else might when told "no, of course I haven't been tested for HIV" or "how dare you ask if I ever drive drunk?! What kind of person do you take me for?"

NWO Reporter is probably the type of right-wing conspiracy theorist nut job who believes in chemtrails, Reptoid shape shifters, and the Illuminati. He or she is probably a birther, 911 truther and a holocaust denier/antisemite as well. I would not put it past the likes of those who use the term NWO seriously in their username.

Lemme guess--you think this string of cliches illustrates how clever you are, right? Standards are so so low these days. You could at least try to write a slew a derision with some originality. My condolences if this was your best effort. :D

Conspiracy theorists can come in several types.
There are the ones who, like sideshow carnival barkers, are basically bullshit artists and con artists who sell their ideas to idiotic rubes without believing in the ideas themselves. These ones take the PT Barnum quote "A sucker is born every minute" to heart as a mission statement and tool to scam the rubes. As an example, Andrew Wakefield started out as this when he committed several acts of medical fraud to fabricate the idea of "autistic enterocolitis". Wakefield's idea to fabricate "evidence" linking bowel disease and autism to the MMR was based on greed, deceit, and a business partnership with a shady American shyster who claimed to cure autistic kids with "transfer factor" crap.
There are the conspiracy theorists who create such wacky theories by satire or trolling. These guys are the ones who prove the validity of Poe's Law. A prime example would be the online satirical website The Onion inadvertently fanning the flames of the Satanic Panic moral hysteria by creating a satirical "news article" claiming or at least inferring that Harry Potter promotes Satanism. I am sure that the Onion did not intend to cause the Religious Right to believe in a link between Harry Potter and Satanism. If conservative Christians believed in such a link beforehand, I am sure that the Onion didn't intend to lend that crazy theory any validity.
Then there are the true believers and the gullible folk who become true believers. This type of conspiracy theorist comes in three overlapping subtypes: the gullible undereducated/ inadequately educated folk who lack critical thinking skills, the paranoid mentally ill folk whose delusions would subside with proper psychiatric/ psychological treatment, and the religious or conservative folk whose beliefs and faith are threatened by facts. These sad suckers are the most likely ones to be tricked by con artists and scumbags. They are the ones who are most likely to be fooled by satirical articles, deliberate disinformation, right wing authoritarian lies and tabloid crap.
Parents who are antivax because they truly believe that vaccines cause autism....are neither truly con-artists nor trolls indulging in satire. They are either gullible folk or true believers who are too far down the rabbit hole of delusion to convince otherwise. Sadly, their status as parents to vulnerable kids makes them villains as well as victims.

Melissa@140 -- yep. Always a sign of crank magnetism.

"Have fun!"

Indeed.

Vicki, vaccination is not a private matter. Mostly because you and your little walking petri dishes can infect others. Public health is part of being in society.

And seriously, with an attitude like yours --- other kids would be better off staying away from your family.

Vicki, vaccination is not a private matter. Mostly because you and your little walking petri dishes can infect others. Public health is part of being in society.

And seriously, with an attitude like yours — other kids would be better off staying away from your family.

"NWO Reporter is probably the type of right-wing conspiracy theorist nut job who believes in chemtrails, Reptoid shape shifters, and the Illuminati. He or she is probably a birther, 911 truther and a holocaust denier/antisemite as well."

That sounds about right. Although there are other elements of the Conspiracy that the New World Order clan fears and despises, including Freemasons, the Bilderbergers, the Club of Rome and many more secret organizations whose threat only they realize.

"Conspiracy theorists believe that the New World Order will also be implemented through the use of human population control in order to more easily monitor and control the movement of individuals. The means range from stopping the growth of human societies through reproductive health and family planning programs, which promote abstinence, contraception and abortion, or intentionally reducing the bulk of the world population through genocides by mongering unnecessary wars, through plagues by engineering emergent viruses and tainting vaccines, and through environmental disasters by controlling the weather (HAARP, chemtrails), etc."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

They're to be pitied, really. Whatever satisfaction they might gain by being In The Know (unlike the sheeple) is more than balanced by the panicky realization that there are way too many enemies to prevent their eventual doom.

There's no rest for conspiracy fighters, just a round-the-clock debilitating surge of cortisol and adrenaline to no useful purpose. :(

@Vicki (#139) "Vaccination is a private decision".
Actually, states can and do require proof of vaccination for school attendance, and in CA, unless your child has a medical exemption from vaccination, they cannot attend public school. So no, it's not an entirely "private" decision.

Also, SCOTUS has already ruled, in the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case, that compulsory vaccination is *not* a violation of your constitutional rights.

So, while HIPAA does prevent your healthcare provider from disclosing your vaccination status or your child's vaccination status, vaccination is still not just a "personal" and "private" matter that the government has no say in. When there are outbreaks of VAPDs, unvaccinated children are usually barred from attending school for a period of time, for example (and then your child's vaccination status would, presumably, become known to other parents at your child's school).

Sometimes, public safety trumps individual rights.

@NWOR (#123). That comment reinforces my belief that you are indeed completely out of reality. Vaccination is one of the safest and most efficacious medical interventions that we have.

Harm from vaccination is rare, and the vaccines with the most potential to cause serious adverse effects are not even on the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule.

I'd say that the vaccines that most often cause serious adverse effects would be the Yellow Fever vaccine (in very rare cases, i.e., 0.4 cases for every 100,000 people vaccinated, the YF vaccine can cause Yellow Fever Vaccine-Associated Viscerotropic Disease), the Smallpox vaccine (in rare cases can cause progressive vaccinia or eczema vaccinatum, those two complications usually only occur in patients with either a history of atopic dermatitis or in immunocompromised patients, respectively), and perhaps the Sabin Polio vaccine (can cause vaccine-derived polio in extremely rare cases).

Keep in mind that all of the adverse effects I just mentioned are VERY RARE, and that, because of the risk of PV and EV, the Smallpox vaccine is listed as contraindicated in immunocompromised patients and patients with a history of atopic dermatitis (in other words, just by not giving that vaccine to those for whom it is contraindicated, most cases of EV and PV would be avoided)-and, even for those vaccines, which as mentioned are not even on the CDC schedule (in the case of Smallpox, because the vaccine was so effective that Smallpox was ERADICATED), the benefits of vaccination still vastly outweigh the very low risk of any of those serious adverse events.

For the vaccines on the CDC schedule, any reaction worse than a transient fever is incredibly rare.

I doubt you'll listen to any of this though, since you view anyone who disagrees with you as "part of this den of vipers."

@NWOR (#123). That comment reinforces my belief that you are indeed completely out of reality.

Ginny is simply an occasional attention whore who happens to be dripping with both stupidity and bad faith.

Ginny is simply an occasional attention whore who happens to be dripping with both stupidity and bad faith.

NWOR's modus operandi is to dredge up fabrications from elsewhere, and troll them here in high-rotate. Eventually someone points out the mendacious nature of a claim, at which point it vanishes from her consciousness --- much as the contents of a cat's dirtbox ceases to interest the cat after its use -- and she moves on to some new BS.

Here it is the "encephalitic scream" fan-fic. A few months ago it was

the unanswered and previously-run-away-from question of whether NWO Reporter still stands by the mendacious crap puked out by the Daily Heil on Irish orphan farms and vaccine tests.

Selective amnesia is certainly one way to not lose arguments, but it's no way to acquire new knowledge.

I'm not sure Vicki meant there weren't legitimate reasons for health care officials to know the vaccination status of her children; school nurses for example need to know to comply with state laws.

But other parents don't have an automatic right to know. And the consequence of that should be that their kids don't play with yours.

@ 136 Narad

Skitt's Law http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/skitt-s-law.
Presumably a derivation of Murhy's

@ 143 Melissa

https://conspiracypsychology.com/
Not a list but it's being studied

Yeah, the NWO Troll aka Ginny is just the type of idiot I had to suffer through outside of my math/physics classes in a Central Texas high school in the mid 1970s (for less than a year because I was an Army brat when my dad was stationed at Ft Hood).

Her website and youtube page are just spouting off the same inane tropes I heard from an elderly aunt over forty years ago! It is not a coincidence that my Killeen High School friends in my math/physics classes mostly ended up in Austin. Hi Roxanne and Russell!

@ Panacea

My guess is that Council Bluffs will have far fewer anti-vax or vax-hesitant parents than most places. Western Iowa is very conservative, but the Omaha metro area is moderate, very middle-everything. Not any of the typical anti-vax profiles, really, on either side of the Sonoma Cty. vs Orange Cty. polarity. It's also an agricultural economy, which fosters a certain pragmatic respect for science and technology. There are definitely anti-abortion nuts there, so I'd be more worried about running into issues other than anti-vax. In any event, Iowans in general tend to be nice, friendly, polite and very low-key interpersonally, so I'd guess whatever their beliefs, you'll have fewer angsty encounters with vociferous parents than you would in other environs.

(My mom's family is from Iowa and we visited often when I was young. I went to grad school there, and travelled around the state working on documentary film projects for Public TV...)

Orac writes,

How stigmatized are unvaccinated children and their parents?

MJD says,

How stigmatized are parents who question vaccine safety?

I co-authored a teeny-weeny book about vaccines and autism several years ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Delivery-Autism-Latex-Connection/dp/1456…

After Orac's/Prometheus'/Minions respectfully-insolent deconstruction, I'm now a parent (i.e., vaccine safety advocate) in Google purgatory.

Specifically, a Google search using the terms "Dochniak" and "Vaccines" provides the following search terms related to Dochniak Vaccines:

anti-vaxxers definition;
anti vaxxer movement; and
anti vaxxer meme.

Vaccine safety advocates are not antivaccine, although, because of Orac/Prometheus/Minions/Google Search some parents that question vaccine safety are labeled anti-vaxxers and worse.

MJD needs to be put back in Moderation.

Julian, IIRC, Douchniak has violated the terms that Orac imposed to allow him to be only auto-moderated: isn't he forbidden to peddle his book'o'nonsense, under pain of actual banishment?

MjD created his own purgatory.......

As far as I know, MJD is still under auto-moderation, meaning that every post he makes has to be approved by our host. I suspect (but cannot prove) that his latest was allowed because it mostly addressed his feelings of persecution by our host and the minions. I feel that engaging MJD on his silly book is unsportsmanlike because of this restriction, but to address other matters is fair game. In that spirit, if I may -

MJD, you're a laughingstock because you wrote a silly book, and when our host used it for blog fodder*, you came here and totally failed to defend it. Valid questions were raised, and your response was 'read my book'. When it was pointed out to you why your ideas were silly, you failed to provide any reasonable arguments. This happened over several months, and (IIRC) about 1500 post on this very blog. Minion Prometheus did read you book, and, on his own blog, gutted you like a trout. You completely failed to defend your stupid book on that site also.

Your complete inability admit you were wrong, learn from your mistakes, and move on is why you are considered a loon. Your failure to move on is the reason our host says it was necessary to restrict your posting here in his own house.

You seem worried about your Google reputation. Like the King of Sock Puppets (who I don't name if I don't see his posts), you earned it. You earned it by your own actions and your own words.

You can redeem yourself. I've offered this advice in the past, and I offer it again - start your own blog**. Fill the inter-web with your 'vaccine-safety' message. Tell us, in your own unrestricted corner of the web why vaccines are unsafe,and how to make them safe, and then back up that message with facts, figures and citations, and make people believe. Then you can call yourself a 'vaccine safety advocate'.

*This is probably the best use of the book, as paper is really not the best firestarter, and the pages were too stiff to make effective a$$ wipe.

** This is not a foolproof course of action. Your further writings may only serve to enhance you reputation as a loon. Frankly, based on what I've seen lately, I'd pretty much bet on that happening. But I really do think it's your only chance to rehabilitate yourself.

@ Johnny (#162),

I respectfully disagree with EVERYTHING that you've written.

Relying on the antiquated insolence of Prometheus is like eating an expired can of SPAM from Hormel - Desperate times require desperate measures.

@ Orac,

If Johnny fails to improve the breadth and scope of his respectful insolence will he be stigmatized like Prometheus was in the academic realm?

Now 130 anti-vaxx families in northern Italy plan to seek asylum in Austria. They don't want theirs childs to be poisoned by thiomersal etc.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40221569

They could compare themselves to LGBT parents in Russia, "we are stigmatized" etc ...?

If Austria's smart, they'll be turned back at the border.

Wouldn't Romania be a more appropriate place for this pro-VPD crowd, what with the current measles epidemic?

If Johnny fails to improve the breadth and scope of his respectful insolence will he be stigmatized like Prometheus was in the academic realm?

In my freakin' dreams. I'm honored that you compared Prometheus and myself using the word 'like' and not 'unlike', but that just shows how clueless you are.

Doing MJD's suggested Google search, one finds (appallingly) that there are only a handful of refutations to his silliness on the first search page, and it takes 8 citations to reach his Encyclopedia of American loons entry.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/07/628-michael-j-dochniak-denise…

More embarrassingly for Michael, there are 627 Silly People ranked ahead of him in the Loon Hierarchy, and another loon is garnering far more attention:

http://www.loon.org/looncam.php

I'm still trying to figure out how this (stigmatization) is happening. 11 kids ages 13 to 31 & now caring for a 4 year old grandson & not once in 31 years has anyone ever asked about vaccination status in any social situation.

Obviously you get asked when enrolling a child in daycare, preschool or k-12 & it's entered into the student record. It's not like they display a chart with gold stars on the wall.

And in an urgent care/ER they always ask but that's not a social setting.

The one & only unusual experience I've had was at a pediatric urgent care center last year. My 14 year old daughter was the patient but her nurse noticed (hard to miss) my 12 year old son flapping, toe-walking & making odd vocalizations & said "I take it HE was vaxed."

I'll take "shit that never happened" for 800, Alex.

Somehow I doubt that happened.

I’m still trying to figure out how this (stigmatization) is happening.

Please describe this "trying."

11 kids ages 13 to 31 & now caring for a 4 year old grandson & not once in 31 years has anyone ever asked about vaccination status in any social situation.

I suspect that a subgroup analysis for "professional baby factory" would be woefully underpowered in this case.

^ Compliments, though, on describing your 12-year-old in the same comment in which your youngest is 13.

Lawrence,
I understand; I’m an Antivaxer. Despite the fact that I’m fully vaxed, my kids are fully vaxed (well; minus hpv) & I don’t “advocate” antivax creed … I am still an Antivaxer & I can’t expect you to find me credible.

Because I’m determined that my son will be a part of his community, I have had to learn how to not care so much about what other people think. My son is very large for his age (5’11 & 189lbs) & vocalizes loudly & continuously; I’ve become accustomed to the stares & the whispers. He’s super strong & when he “flaps” it resembles a full body lunge. I realize he can be intimidating but he is a part of the community too & a valuable one at that(I do not allow him to be inappropriate or disruptive).

It caught me off guard & left me momentarily speechless. I’ve been asked all sorts of things before but never ever, not once has anybody ever asked me about vaccines in relation to his Autism.

I just answered that yes; he is fully immunized. She asked if I thought that it was “because of” the vaccines & I answered truthfully that yes; I did (but that he had been inadvertently “double dosed” at his 2 year check-up).

I guess it had not occurred to me that this is what people might be seeing & thinking when they look at my son & that bothers me. You know; my son makes people smile. He might not be able to answer your questions but he has no problem with standing in a crowded grocery store at the checkout line & launching into a perfect-pitch rendition of Michael Jackson’s “Man In the Mirror”. THAT’S what I want people to remember when the subject of Autism comes up; not “vaccine injury” or worse; “damaged”.

Maybe I handled the situation the wrong way; I don’t know. I doubt I came off like a determined vigilante because I’m not; I still have a lot of questions.

I understand; I’m an Antivaxer. Despite the fact that I’m fully vaxed, my kids are fully vaxed (well; minus hpv) & I don’t “advocate” antivax creed … I am still an Antivaxer & I can’t expect you to find me credible.

A quick note on just this one statement: Just because one's kids are "fully vaxed" does not inoculate (can't resist) one against the charge of being an antivaxer. As a counterpoint, I offer you the example of RFK, Jr., who goes on and on endlessly about how all his kids are "fully vaccinated" while spewing the most nonsensical, pseudoscientific antivax nonsense and referring to vaccines and autism as a "Holocaust." He is as antivax as they come, a leader in the antivax movement. The same can be said for other leaders of the movement, several of whom brag that their children were "fully vaccinated" before their "eyes were opened."

Narad; this Urgent Care visit for my daughter occured last year, when they (my youngest girls are twins) were 14 & my now 13 year old son was 12.

The twins are now 15 & youngest son is now 13.

I should have written it differently; I apologize for not being more clear.

To be clear, I have serious doubts as to whether any legitimate medical professional would have made that statement to you.

Second, I have noted that there seems to be a subset of boys with autism - those on the lower end of the spectrum that are described, invariably, as "big or large" for their age.

It has led me to wonder if this is yet another genetic marker of autism - a physical manifestation (much like one sees with Downs and other genetic conditions) of the condition?

It's a very unscientific hypothesis on my part - but it has peaked my interest to hear physical descriptions which are so similar, tied to autism.

Orac is correct. I remember encountering an anti-vaxxer who, in one sentence, stated that "because they vaccinated their child, they could not be considered anti-vaccine", and then in the next sentence ranted about "vaccine damage".

And BTW Christine, you really should stay up to date on the latest research about autism. Recent research indicates that the brain abnormalities that have been found in the brains of people with autism are already present in utero, thus completely ruling vaccines as a possible cause, and that is in addition to the numerous studies that have found zero link between vaccination and autism (yes, I know, I'm very unlikely to get you to change your mind, but I still thought I'd try).

Also, it has been known for more than a decade now that one of the strongest risk factors for autism is having an older father (I think the first study that pointed strongly in this direction was a 2006 Israeli study). If there is a real increase in autism incidence (rather than just an increase in the number of people being diagnosed due to broader diagnostic criteria and more awareness etc), it could be due to the fact that more people are having children later in life.

@Lawrence (#177). I haven't heard that some autistic boys are unusually large for their age before-I have, however, heard that some autistic people have unusually large heads (macrocephaly).

Apparently, a subset of autistic people with macrocephaly have been identified as having PTEN (?) mutations, which presumably explains both the autism and the macrocephaly. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581311/

Christine Kincaid, if you are continuing to vaccinate yourself and your children, which is a lifelong proposition now, then you are not an "antivaxer." Did you come here to convey the idea that "anti vaccine" actually means "anti medical error" because your doctor accidentally doubled up on your son's vaccines?

There are a lot of ways the vaccine opposition is being controlled, but that's a new one for me. Usually we hear that "anti-vaccine" means "make vaccines safer." Or "vaccines cause autism" (but not any other serious damage). Or we see anti-vaccine leaders using click bait titles, or mixing in outrageous claims to destroy the credibility of the anti-vaccine concept. Or we hear that "autism is a blessing." Although I guess you did throw a bit of that one in--along with the "vaccination = immunization" trope.

Anything is better than the terrifying truth: That the vaccine paradigm is an enormous fraud masquerading as science. Its entire foundation is fundamentally flawed, and its sole purpose is to keep the population sick, weak and obedient, while ensuring a continuous profit stream for the oligarchy.

I love to see something like that said in the face of standards of living and life expectancies which have never been equaled before in human history.....(not to mention lowest infant mortality rates, ever).

Anything is better than the terrifying truth: That the vaccine paradigm is an enormous fraud masquerading as science. Its entire foundation is fundamentally flawed, and its sole purpose is to keep the population sick, weak and obedient, while ensuring a continuous profit stream for the oligarchy.

But what about the fake Moon landings and Mars rovers, Ginny?

Face it, you're the worst disinfo agent ever.

[E]nsuring a continuous profit stream for the oligarchy.

Two doses of MMR (which DO prevent Measles, Mumps and Rubella) are a mere fraction of the cost of treating even one case of any of those diseases in hospital.
"Profit Stream" my foot.

Hi Orac,
Yes; it’s the standard “I’m not an Antivaxer” preamble & I’ve noticed it multiple times, especially with politicians & lawyers
.
There is another one, favored by some members of congress & researchers who may be publishing any study with unfavorable findings. The requiem: “There is no argument that Vaccine’s are the greatest medical achievement of the 20th century …” And they then go on to state anything but.

Maybe it’s considered proper etiquette? At any rate, I don’t have much of an employment future to risk anymore (unfortunately). And unlike Kennedy I am clearly going on the record as an Antivaxer. I don’t like it; I don’t like what it implies but it is what it is & I am what I am. For now (I’m still learning & I reserve the right to change my mind).

My reasons for stating that my children have been vaccinated was, however, intentional:. My son is the youngest of 11. It’s one thing to have one or two unvaccinated kids running around in a community. It’s quite another to have 11 & if that were the case I think I would deserve the harsh criticism of your readers.

I also feel like I should clarify that this was not an easy accomplishment for myself because one might assume that since it is the youngest that is disabled that I never had to make those decisions for the next baby. That would be incorrect; in 1994 my 5th child & that time my only daughter passed away in her sleep at the age of 3 months & 26 days. I was the one who found her. I tried so hard to revive her; it took 4 grown men to pull her out of my arms because I just could not stop trying to do CPR. When I followed the ambulance to the ER & the doctor walked out, looked at me & said “I’m sorry …” I heard a girl screaming & didn’t even realize it was me.

The following days (months) were a blur; some sort of traumatic amnesia took hold but twice, BOTH of the Grandmothers asked me “Didn’t they get their shots that day?”

(Okay, Narad; to clarify; I’ve had twins, twice)

I remember actually feeling very offended that they asked this. There were SO many other factors potentially at play: PROM at 24 weeks followed by 6 weeks inpatient, premature c-sec for Chorioamnionitis (30weeks) followed by 2 months in NICU then discharged home on O2. In fact, that very day her O2 had been D/C’d & that’s what had been nagging at me. Not the immunizations. I remember biting my tounge & answering “Yes, they did but this was SIDS”.

And sure enough, the autopsy report came back saying SIDS. But that “bug” had been put in my brain & I’d be lying if I told you that I wasn’t terrified every time her twin brother had to get more vaccines. And the same with “baby #7”. And “baby #’s 8, 9 & 10” & finally #11. Over & over I had to struggle with that “what if …” & overcome it because I truly believed I was doing the right thing by having my kids immunized.

I just want you & your readers to understand; when I say “My kids are vaxed” that this was no small feat. I deserve to fly that flag; I’m not a “silly Antivaxer”. I’m just (for now) an Antivaxer. With vaxed kids.
(Now; go enjoy your vacation & don’t let me distract you. Your readers can handle me; I’m quite sure.)

Wow, NWOR is so out of her mind that she actually criticizes other anti-vaxxers for being more in reality than she is.

In her case, it seems that being anti-vax is simply part of an extremely paranoid, bordering on psychotic, worldview.

I've noted before that anti-vaxxers tend to be quie paranoid in general, and that there is often overlap between anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, and she seems to be an extreme example of this. Based on her comments, as well as her username, I'm quite sure that her divorced-from-reality beliefs go way beyond her opposition to all conventional medical care.

@NWOR-I assume that Christine Kincaid has stopped vaccinating herself and her children. What she most likely meant was that she got her vaccines as a kid, and her children got their vaccines when they were infants/small children, but then, when her son was diagnosed with autism and she erroneously blamed it on vaccines, she stopped vaccinating.

Which is unfortunate, because with some vaccines (e.g., the Tdap) immunity wanes after a period of time and periodic (in the case of the Tdap, every 10 years) boosters are needed.

I agree with Julian Frost's comment (#183), and I would add that some pharma companies would make MORE $$ if there was no flu shot. When the flu shot is a poor match for the predominant circulating strain of influenza (like it was in the flu season of 2014-15), Roche and GSK, which manufacture Tamiflu and Relenza, respectively, make more $$, so no flu vax at all would mean that Tamiflu and Relenza sales would skyrocket and Roche and GSK would make far more $$.

Is that simple enough for you to understand, NWOR?

the vaccine opposition is being controlled

Ah, the "controlled opposition" trope. Have we ruled out the possibility that NWOR is part of the Controlled Opposition herself, working hard to discredit the antivax cause even as she pretends to be part of it?

Lawrence,
I've noticed the large size + low functioning reference also.
His pediatrician estimates he will be 6'7" by the time he is fully grown.

"Two doses of MMR (which DO prevent Measles, Mumps and Rubella) are a mere fraction of the cost of treating even one case of any of those diseases in hospital." LOL. But nowhere near as funny as "...some pharma companies would make MORE $$ if there was no flu shot." You guys are hilarious!

Measles, mumps and rubella almost never require hospitalization--at least they didn't before the vaccine. And the flu vaccine cannot prevent most cases of "flu" even it worked, since most cases of eyeball diagnosis "flu" do not test positive for influenza at all--when people bother to seek a doctor's care for it.

But it is true a lot of the 'rewards' of vaccination for the oligarchy are in the long-term iatrogenic damage, and the obedience training. :)

Nice use of reversal, herr doktor himler. Rather predictable, but I still got a chuckle out of that "controlled opposition" thing. :D

Measles hospitalised 1 in 4. In the US, in the 21st century.

Have we ruled out the possibility that NWOR is part of the Controlled Opposition herself, working hard to discredit the antivax cause even as she pretends to be part of it?

I'm surprised she can even type with Rappoport's dong hanging out of her mouth.

@NWOR-You wrote "Measles, mumps and rubella almost never require hospitalization"-this is yet another blatantly false claim that anti-vaxxers often make. It is also a claim that is very easily refuted.

The reality is that, the last time the U.S. saw a major measles epidemic (between 1989 and 1991), 55,000 people contracted measles, 11,000 of them required hospitalization, and at least 123 of the 55,000 died.

Philadelphia was especially hard-hit by this epidemic, and 9 children, all from two fundamentalist Christian churches that rejected vaccination, died of measles. The situation in Philadelphia became so bad that a court order was eventually obtained to vaccinate children against their parents wishes. Even the ACLU, which is known for it's willingness to defend extremely unpopular causes, refused to represent the parents who were refusing to vaccinate their children.

Also, in addition to the well-known complications of measles (e.g., pneumonia, acute encephalitis, and SSPE), it appears that after having measles, one is more susceptible to other infectious diseases for the next 2-3 years-in other words, if you get measles, you may recover fully, but 1 or 2 years later, you might become severely ill from a different infectious disease that you wouldn't have contracted in the first place if you'd hadn't had measles.

So no, measles is not "mild".

With Rubella, the most serious concern is its devastating impact on a developing fetus-there was a major Rubella epidemic in the U.S. between 1964 and 1965, and as a result, 20,000 children were born with Congenital Rubella Syndrome.

Hey, Orac, why didn't my last post go through? I linked to the Just the Vax blog, but I have posted links here before and the comment has posted. What's up?

Hmm, it looks like you can't link to Just the Vax here. That's odd.

For the NWO Troll, I dare you to read this paper:
Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.

NWO Reporter:

Measles, mumps and rubella almost never require hospitalization–at least they didn’t before the vaccine.

ORLY?

In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

Before the vaccine was introduced, there were 48,000 hospitalisations a year for Measles.
To quote Mhairi Black, a Member of the Scottish Parliament:
"Ye talk shite, hen."

@NWOR-Once you are done reading the above link, you should also read the below links.
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofw194.81/263771…

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/192/10/1686/875860/Subacute-Sclero…

One of the things missing from this study is interviews of friends and family. I really have to wonder how much of the avoidance is just due to anti-vaxxers (especially upper middle class suburban ladies of the sneery variety which dominate that movement) simply being awful people with awful children. I mean, seriously, would people like their children to play with Barron Trump or NWOReporter's kids, or Anne Dachel's kids?
The late/hesitant vaxxers would be more likely to be pleasant people.

Don't blame the children for what their parents have done, or the ideas they have.

Actually, PGP, I haven't heard anything negative about Barron, so I'd be willing to let my children play with him if he was UTD with vaccines. Same with NWOR or Anne's kids. However, if they are horrible brats, then even if they are UTD I would oppose my children's contact with them.

Since NWOR's children/grandchildren are unvaccinated, the question is moot. They would not be welcome.

Renate: Yes, but at some point you do have to take responsibility for your own child's safety. Would you let them play at the home of a known molester or peeping tom? A Nazi? Would you cheerfully send your daughter with severe allergies (to say beestings or something?) over to a house where you know the mother is more likely to pray then call 911 or use an epipen? Even if the kids of all these people had haloes reserved?

MIDawn: Well, see my question to Renate. During a playdate, interaction with the other child's parents is unavoidable, and then there's Barron's dad's record of behavior around women and children. (The POS used to throw rocks at toddlers. I don't know if you knew that.) So you have one extremely volatile parent with no boundaries and one ghost.

Out of respect for the child (he didn't get to pick his parents), I'd like to consider them outside of this conversation, if you please.

@MI Dawn-I actually suspect that Barron Trump may have autism, and his father blames it on vaccines.

President Trump has very few consistent positions-for example, he used to be pro-choice, now he's anti-choice, during the campaign he said he opposed arming Syrian rebels and opposed attacking the Syrian government, then less than 100 days into his Presidency he ordered airstrikes on Syrian government forces, he once stated (more than 15 years ago) that he supported universal healthcare, he once even praised Hillary Clinton (I think in 2007) and said that the economy did better under Democratic administrations, etc etc, yet he has been consistently opposed to vaccination, and has blamed autism on vaccines, for years now, and I suspect that it's because Barron Trump has autism and President Trump thinks it's because of vaccines.

Barron seems a little "off" to me, and the fact that he and the First Lady didn't move into the WH as soon as President Trump was inaugurated is also odd.

Also, it would makes sense since President Trump would have been 59 or 60 when Barron was conceived, and advanced paternal age is a well known risk factor for autism.

I could be wrong about this, but I've seen a number of other people who have also suggested that perhaps Barron Trump has autism.

In any case, regardless of whether Barron Trump is autistic, his father's statements about vaccination indicate that he is probably not up to date on his vaccines.

By the time the measles vaccine came out, measles was considered such a benign disease in the industrialized world that most people never sought medical attention for it at all. Only about 10% of an estimated 3.9 million cases in the US each year were ever reported.

Among those that did seek medical attention for measles, this doctor described it in 1959: "In the majority of children the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week, from the prodromal phase to the disappearance of the rash, and many mothers have remarked ‘how much good the attack has done their children’, as they seem so much better after the measles." Measles: Reports from General Practitioners, British Medical Journal, February 7, 1959.

There are always going to be exceptionally weak people who are vulnerable to pretty much everything. That's not a reason to subject the entire country to invasive medical procedures they don't need, which always have risks--some of which are not even known or understood.

@NWOR-That is just plain ridiculous-but I shouldn't be surprised, since most if not all of your posts here are. As I mentioned last night, of the 55,000 people who contracted measles in the 1989-91 epidemic, 11,000 required hospitalization and at least 123 died. 9 children died of measles in that epidemic in Philadelphia ALONE.

And this statement "many mothers have remarked ‘how much good the attack has done their children’, as they seem so much better after the measles." is absolutely nonsensical. In sharp contrast, measles leaves you MORE susceptible to other infectious diseases for a 2-3 year period following measles infection.

Also, in the pre-vaccine era, measles caused 5-10% of cases of acquired deafness.

@NWOR-Mark Twain would disagree with you-he wrote, in "A Turning Point In My Life": "The summer came, and brought with it an epidemic of measles. For a time a child died almost every day. The village was paralyzed with fright, distress, despair. Children that were not smitten with the disease were imprisoned in their homes to save them from the infection. In the homes there were no cheerful faces, there was no music, there was no singing but of solemn hymns, no voice but of prayer, no romping was allowed, no noise, no laughter, the family moved spectrally about on tiptoe, in a ghostly hush. I was a prisoner. My soul was steeped in this awful dreariness–and in fear. At some time or other every day and every night a sudden shiver shook me to the marrow, and I said to myself, “There, I’ve got it! and I shall die. Life on these miserable terms was not worth living, and at last I made up my mind to get the disease and have it over, one way or the other. I escaped from the house and went to the house of a neighbor where a playmate of mine was very ill with the malady. When the chance offered I crept into his room and got into bed with him. I was discovered by his mother and sent back into captivity. But I had the disease; they could not take that from me. I came near to dying. The whole village was interested, and anxious, and sent for news of me every day; and not only once a day, but several times. Everybody believed I would die; but on the fourteenth day a change came for the worse and they were disappointed."

Are you still going to try to claim that measles was widely viewed as "benign"?

@NWOR-13 in 1,000 measles patients develop acute encephalitis, and 1 in 10,000 will eventually develop SSPE, a uniformly fatal complication of measles that on average develops 7-10 years after the initial illness. For infants who contract measles, the risk of later developing SSPE is much higher-probably about 1 in 600, based on research published last year.

That is yet another reason why high vaccination coverage is so important-to protect infants who are too young to have been vaccinated, who face a much higher risk of SSPE if they do contract measles.

There was a terrible case in Germany in 2000 when an unvaccinated child with measles went to his pediatrician and infected 6 other children-3 of them infants. While all 6 children initially appeared to recover fully, 3 of the 3 infants years later developed SSPE, and both have since died of the disease. If the parents of the unvaccinated child had made the right choice and had him vaccinated, those 2 children would be alive and well today.

Jonas, encephalitis can be caused by the MMR vaccine, too. Other serious adverse reactions that have occurred during clinical trials of the vaccine are vasculitis, pancreatitis, diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, leukocytosis, anaphylaxis, arthritis, pneumonia. nerve deafness, retinitis and death--to name a few.

I could be wrong about this, but I’ve seen a number of other people who have also suggested that perhaps Barron Trump has autism.

Yah. Protip: Everybody else has seen this shіt, too (AoA was on "the case"). Half-assed horseshіt is bad enough per se, but babbling about the kid is just putrid.

"Reported Adverse Events" - that's a completely different thing.

Sure, Lawrence. "We made no attempt to prove those adverse reactions were caused by the vaccine. So just assume they weren't." LOL. :D

You're an Ed Gein wannabe, Ginny. Deal with it.

@NWO Reporter:

“We made no attempt to prove those adverse reactions were caused by the vaccine. So just assume they weren’t.”

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

@NWO Troll #206: Of course, you neglect to consider that there was no measles vaccine in 1959. You also neglect to consider that this is a general letter, not any kind of research study. It doesn't matter if mothers really thought their kids were the better for measles since this doctor didn't follow how well these kids did long term and report back on that in the BMJ.

Basically, you're suggesting one anecdotal letter somehow surpasses everything else we know about measles. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

So, NWO Troll is relying on anecdotes, how droll. Well here is another:
http://www.roalddahl.com/roald-dahl/timeline/1960s/november-1962

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/05/07/404963436/scientist…

It's amazing how research continues & we discover exactly how bad measles was.....

There are always going to be exceptionally weak people who are vulnerable to pretty much everything. That’s not a reason to subject the entire country to invasive medical procedures they don’t need, which always have risks–some of which are not even known or understood.

"What do Earth men offer you? What have you obtained from them in the past? Powders and liquids for the sick? We Klingons believe as you do. The sick should die. Only the strong should live."

When you start knocking out the pillars on which anti-vaxers base their arguments, they quickly find themselves left with nothing but a foundation of sand:

1) These diseases are / were beneficial - nope, measles infections have been found to be related to an increased overall mortality rate, leading to the hypothesis that the measles virus "resets" or wipes away immunity, leaving children vulnerable to other diseases (with plenty of evidence to support this hypothesis - read the paper above).

2) Getting "life-long immunity" - so, kids have to get sick to not get sick again? Not exactly a logical argument.

Plus, some percentage of the population, infected naturally, won't sero-convert & will still be vulnerable to re-infection later on. Also, diseases such as Pertussis don't grant life-long immunity anyway, so people get re-infected down the line.

3) Vaccines don't grant "real immunity" - which is one of the stupidest arguments, since the body doesn't care if the antigens it reacts to come from the disease or the vaccine.

Plus, without vaccines, diseases would re-emerge as soon as enough non-immune people exist within a given population. The cyclical nature of epidemics was caused by the increased number of babies (non-immune) added to the population until the threshold was reached where the disease could once again circulate freely.

Diseases which only have humans as hosts (like measles, polio, smallpox, and others) can be eradicated simply by denying the disease "fertile ground" or non-immune people to infect.

Smallpox was eradicated because all known cases were tracked & everyone within the immediate area (sometimes for miles around) were vaccinated, denying the disease anyone else to infect.

Diseases aren't like animals - they can't just hang around in the open, they require a host to replicate. Deny them that host, and then they die.

Immunology and Epidemiology are amazing branches of science & it pains me to see such ignorant anti-vaxers who can't even recognize the disease life-cycle & why vaccines are so important to break that cycle.

@Narad-I didn't see it on AoA (which I don't read). And it's just pure speculation.

But I did see an article on MSNBC that described how, when Trump visited a school, he, completely unprompted, stated: "So what’s going on with autism? When you look at the tremendous increase, it’s really – it’s such an incredible – it’s really a horrible thing to watch, the tremendous amount of increase. Do you have any idea? And you’re seeing it in the school?”

Of course, that statement was false-there is no evidence that the true incidence of ASDs has increased-it's most likely just broader diagnostic criteria and more awareness-but I think we both know that Trump routinely makes assertions that have no basis in reality.

That, in combination with the meeting with RFK Jr. after the election and Wakefield before the election, makes me wonder if Barron Trump has autism and he incorrectly blamed it on vaccines.

On the other hand, Trump has also praised Alex Jones, called global warming a hoax, claimed that former President Obama wasn't born in the U.S., and made numerous other claims not grounded in fact both before and during the campaign, and as President, so it's also entirely possible that paranoia about vaccination is just another crazy "theory" he latched onto.

@Lawrence (#219) I will add that, in addition to the increased risk of other infectious diseases after measles, at least one study has found that pertussis increases the risk of later developing epilepsy-so measles isn't the only VPD that has long-term detrimental effects even in those who appear to recover fully.

Here's the link: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2467554

Epilepsy is a rite of passage. It only affect the poor & weak.

</NWOTroll>

Lawrence: Here's the thing: at school and in neutral territory, (playgrounds, daycare, camps,zoos) the parents don't matter. However kids like to play at each other's houses, so sooner or later the character of the parents and sometimes the siblings does come into play. Unless a third party takes charge of the kids.

IE: One or both sets of kids has a nanny and the parents never meet each other or the kids.

PGP - we know you're an ass. A barely tolerated one, but an ass regardless.

Try not attacking children for the sins of the parents.

Again, if the kids are going to be under the supervision of a parent who has questionable beliefs/is prone to violence what's wrong with saying 'your friend can come here, but you can't go there?" No one's punishing anyone in that context.

FFS, Lawrence, do you know how parenting WORKS?

A lot more than you, it seems. Personally, I don't bring someone's kid into the conversation, even if it is Trump.

Jonas,
I am familiar with both the head circumference research & the age of father research.
They are both applicable in my son’s presentation. His father is 12 years older than I & was 48 when he was born. The head circumference research is interesting because they found that children with Autism are actually born with heads that are smaller than average circumference & by age 2, measure as macro-cephalic.
This would mirror my son’s statistics also; he DID have a smaller than average head circumference at birth but after age 2 his skull grew so rapidly you could see his scalp through his hair.

Given that this is a noted scientific finding, I find the recent research regarding the prenatal “Autistic Brain” to be of high interest. I’m not sure if this was the study you mentioned but I will reference:
:http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1307491?query=featured_home#…

... In which fresh-frozen postmortem cortical tissue blocks from children, 2 to 15 years of age, with autism (case samples) or without autism (controls) were studied.

This study discusses a finding of abnormal neuron growth in the brains of children with Autism that subsides by young adulthood & notes that macrocephaly does not continue past young adulthood. They state:
" Our data are consistent with an early prenatal origin of autism or at least prenatal processes that may confer a predisposition to autism."

If children with Autism are born micro-cephalic & start a pattern of neuron overgrowth around age 2 & become macro-cephalic; I feel this is indicative of an environmental trigger. But I’m not a research scientist. And yes, I admit I could do better with staying on top of the latest research.

I’m a mom. And not a “new” mom either nor a “beginner” mom. My son with Autism was # 11; I’m extremely well versed in developmental milestones & have spent decades being “right” about each individual child’s reactions to everything from sleep cycles, foods, medications & their specific personality assets & flaws … I think I know the difference between forwards (neurotypical) & backwards (regression) by now.
My son was going “forwards” as of 11/17/2005. And by 11/29/2005 the “whatever it was” that made him go “backwards” had already started & it was hitting him hard. And the only thing that was different in his world between the 17th & 29th was: birthday cake, ice cream & a double dose of vaccines.

So interviews with doctors about their experience with measles patients are mere anecdotes, worthy only of disregard. Similar to the attitude toward parents who observe their children deteriorate physically and mentally after vaccination. Or who observe growth spurts and other indications of improved health after natural infection and recovery from something like measles.

When the facts are not on your side, as is the case with vaccine dogma, the only alternative is deception and manipulation. There is ample psyence to facilitate it, and ample opportunity for people who are short on ethics and long on smug arrogance and obnoxious incivility to earn a little (or a lot of) extra scratch purveying it.

"So interviews with doctors about their experience with measles patients are mere anecdotes, worthy only of disregard."

Not necessarily. Physicians are trained experts in diseases and conditions. Their collective opinions are weighed more heavily versus people who, like you, get most of their information/education/knowledge/wisdom from non-accredited, non-validated sources.

@NWOR-Measles is a potentially very serious illness. The fact that you refuse to even admit that, despite the fact that a number of people here have described the potentially devastating complications of measles, and have pointed out the fact that measles appears to induce a 2-3-year long period of "immune amnesia", suggests to me that you are just trolling, and have no interest in a real conversation.

@Ren-Saying that NWOR gets her information from "non-accredited, non-validated sources" is an understatement-I bet she gets most of her "information" from conspiracy theory-obsessed websites.

@Jonas - she "runs" a conspiracy theory-obsessed website.

Can't say I'm surprised...

It's pretty easy to find, just do Google Search on her "name."

I think I found it-it's "NWO Report", right?

"I think I found it"

Why would you want to find it? Some things are better left buried: nuclear waste, corpses, CT sites, et cetera.

NWO Reporter wrote of

improved health after natural infection and recovery from something like measles

It happens that, since measles virus infection produces a powerful immunosuppressive effect that lasts for months or years due to depletion of B and T lymphocytes, reports of "improved health" following recovery from measles should be considered in the light of the extensive evidence that shows increased risk of both infection due to other pathogens and all-cause mortality increase following measles infection.

Mina MJ et al. Long-term measles-induced immunomodulation increases overall childhood infectious disease mortality. Science. 2015 May 8; 348(6235): 694–699.

Karp CL, et al. Mechanism of suppression of cell-mediated immunity by measles virus. Science. 1996;273:228–231.

Hahm B. Measles virus-induced immunosuppression. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. 2009;330:271–287.

Schneider-Schaulies S, Schneider-Schaulies. Measles virus-induced immunosuppression. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. 2009;330:243–269.

de Vries RD, et al. Measles Immune Suppression: Lessons from the Macaque Model. PLOS Pathology. 2012;8:e1002885.

I guess just to see how far gone she is...I almost feel sorry for her, after looking (very briefly) at that website, it is abundantly clear that she is totally and completely out of reality.

@Brian-Indeed. Plus, there is also this meta-analysis that conclude that measles vaccination decreased all-cause mortality: Non-specific beneficial effect of measles immunisation: analysis of mortality studies from developing countries, 1995, BMJ

And on top of that, it also appears that vaccination decreases the risk of SIDS (the opposite of what anti-vaxxers claim): Do immunisations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis, Vaccine, 2007

FYI-I tried to link to these studies, but for whatever reason my comment didn't "go through" when I included the links, so I'm re-posting my comment without the links.

Gosh, how dare we (as NWOdiot says) ignore the word of a doctor regarding the severity of measles? How about this one (and I didn't have to dumpster-dive into a 58-year-old medical journal to find his comments)?

"Roughly one quarter of cases will have some sort of complication as a result of measles. These complications range from ear infections and diarrhoea to pneumonia and encephalitis. While in developed countries less than 1% of cases die, fatality rates can rise to 3-5% in some African and Asian countries. Complications are more likely in children less than 5 years of age (in up to 40% of cases) and in adults (in up to 30% of cases), and are more severe in those with malnutrition, HIV, or immune deficiencies. Before the first vaccine was licensed in 1963, measles killed more than 2 million children globally each year."

"Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to man and anyone exposed will develop measles, unless they are immune from prior disease or vaccination. Vaccination is typically done from 9-12 months of age and again in the second year of life, as two doses of vaccine are needed to ensure adequate protection."

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20130204/Measles-an-interview-with-Dr-…

@ Jonas

Replies with multiple links appear after they are released from automatic moderation.

NWO Reporter,
How in the heck does one go about “to destroy the credibility of the Antivaccine concept”??

If I’m to blame for that it had to be the easiest “destruction” I’ve ever been responsible for.

Let me be clear; Autism is no blessing. I left the employed world for a life at 200% below poverty level because I KNOW I’m the best person to care for my son. My boy can’t ride a bike or a skateboard but he wants to. He wants friends & to be invited to birthday parties but he has none & doesn’t. He can’t answer when I ask him “Where does it hurt”. He can’t play outside because he will just run … run into/over people, into roads & towards water. He can’t toilet himself.

I take him to playgrounds at 10pm so he doesn’t scare or injure “little” kids with his “bull in a china store” affect. He makes paper “valentines” for girlfriends he will never have. Travel plans right down to Google Maps street view directions for vacations we’ll never be able to afford to take. Thousands of pages of illustrations for his future “job” at Nintendo that he’ll never be hired for. It’s heart-breaking. And so NOT a blessing.

But HE is a blessing.

Would it further serve to disenfranchise myself from the Anti vaccine “concept” for me to announce that I don’t use experimental alternative/biomedical therapy for my son? He has two things that make him happy: A day organized by his little “routine” that is not cram-packed with appointments & Pepperoni Pizza. I’m not taking that away from him.

I’m still an Antivaxer. I won’t be vaccinating until I’m taken seriously by scientific research that is relevant to “me & mine”.

And I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories that the U.S. Immunization policy/program is fueled by de-population Eugenicists. And Orac’s followers are not “in on” any conspiracy; that’s counter-intuitive to think that a conspiracy could be maintained by your average doctors, lawyers, media & scientists; numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
What IS a factor as to “why” started almost 60 years ago. It didn’t start with Autism & it won’t end by Autism. And I will now step off those toes.

There; now I’ve gone & done it. I’ve destroyed my credibility as an Antivaxer. (??)

@NWO Troll:

"So interviews with doctors about their experience with measles patients are mere anecdotes, worthy only of disregard. Similar to the attitude toward parents who observe their children deteriorate physically and mentally after vaccination. Or who observe growth spurts and other indications of improved health after natural infection and recovery from something like measles."

In the letter you mention, yes, it is mere anecdote because they don't rise to the level of case history, where extensive details of the case are provided to the reader. Case histories are the weakest form of data, but they often form the basis of further scientific inquiry. Your letter doesn't even rise to that level.

"When the facts are not on your side, as is the case with vaccine dogma, the only alternative is deception and manipulation."

Then why you do keep doing this? Is it because you are getting some of the scratch you mention? After all, there must be some reason you put yourself in the position of a ridiculous fool on such a consistent basis.

The Paypal "Donate" button provides a clue. What a way to make a living!

So are you an official representative of Panacea Biotec? You make an appropriate rep for the corporate rep. You should post your company financials, instead of lying about donation buttons.

Similar to the attitude toward parents

I am reminded of "The Force", who was all about “believe the parents”… until the parents don’t share theForce’s intuition that “their chidren were vaccine-damaged”. Then the story becomes “Ignore what the parents say, they were brainwashed! What would they know? -- their experience is worthless.”

Like NWOR, 'TheForce" claimed to believe in CIA Parker's fabrication of a special diagnostic high-pitched “encephalitic cry”, unknown to paediatrics.

So many parents have noted a distinctive high-pitched scream in the hours or days following vaccination. What do YOU call it (other than "nothing to worry about")?

Lawrence: Fine. Than how about Mr. Crosby or the adult Palins, who are horrible people raised by other horrible people? Would you really want to have them as your neighbors? Would you let your children play with theirs?

NWO reporter's youtube cartoon take on our evil leader was highly amusing though.

@PGP - as adults, they've made their own choices & the choices of the parents are, in fact, relevant - but please, keep the kids out of it.

Bloody hell, that (NWOR) Stoner woman's off her head, isn't she?

Of course she is - it takes a special kind of crazy to be like that.

And also, at one point I took pity on the Gnat - but with his recent foray into the worst areas of the alt-right movement, I no longer feel anything but complete disgust.

What do YOU call it (other than “nothing to worry about”)?

"Just another rectally-sourced fabrication" is the term that comes to mind.

So are you an official representative of Panacea Biotec? You make an appropriate rep for the corporate rep. You should post your company financials, instead of lying about donation buttons.

I'm not easily impressed, Ginny, but that there was some outstanding creation of a speech action directly from raw medulla oblongata input.

@NWO Troll: Wow, struck a nerve there I see. So are you actually trying to say you DON'T have a Paypal donate button on your website? Now who's lying.

I never heard of Panacea Biotec before today. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that a nurse might use the 'nym Panacea, because of the history of the word (from the Greek "cure all"), and the Greek goddess who cures disease, and not have anything to do with some small little start up in India (I live in Ohio btw)?

Although, actually, Panacea is the name of my superhero nurse with super strength and flight in Hero System 5th Edition who lives in the fictional city of San Angelo, CA. I like the name of the character so much I started using it for my professional 'nym to seperate it from my 'nym I use for fun stuff.

Given that you continue to lie about me having a donation button, I wonder if you are also lying about your association with Panacea Biotec. But you seem to be a chronic liar, so it's pointless to expect a straight answer from you about anything. You probably think a panacea is built on lies.

Yes, that must be why when I clicked on the donate button, it led to an email address for "nwo report world news" from YOUR website.

I saved a screenshot, but I'm not handy with Word Press. Any of our regular and sane readers have a suggestion?

There has never been a donate button on my website. Nor have I ever asked for or received donations from anywhere. So either you've been looking at the wrong website all this time (LOL), or you are lying again. I'll bet on the latter. You lie like a rug. You lie like a con artist whose living depends on it. By why mess with euphemisms?

No wonder you are so secretive about your identity. With your prolific and singularly obnoxious vaccine proselytizing all over the web, you are doing more single-handedly to destroy the credibility of the vaccine paradigm than I could ever hope to achieve. Keep up the good work! :D

This does raise some interesting questions. If you have been looking at the wrong website, how could you have doxed me like you have? Either you just made up a lie about the existence of a donate button, or someone has fed you the information you needed to dox me. Let me know if I can help you with that screen shot. ;)

So many parents have noted a distinctive high-pitched scream in the hours or days following vaccination.

NWOR seems to have backed quietly away from the original fan-fic about an encephalitis cry, in preference for "distinctive".

What I especially like about the "encephalitic cry" story-line is the way that the ThinkingMoms and NVIC numpties and CIA-Parker-Wannabees like to dress up in white coats and pretend to be paediatricians... solemnly assuring one another that "it is called the 'encephalitic cry'", and exchanging medical-sounding definitions for something that they know they made up.
Some would say "Munchausen's by Proxy", but I could not possibly comment.

So, are you claiming that parents have not reported a high-pitched scream in the hours and days after vaccination? Or do you acknowledge that such reports have happened, but claim the parents don't know what they're talking about?

This does raise some interesting questions.

Hey, Ginny, is the seahorse implanted in your head working well enough for you to get back to your bitching and whining over here, or did you "decide" to cut your losses or something?

Some would say “Munchausen’s by Proxy”, but I could not possibly comment.

Just as well, as it could start firing 'Christina England' rules in the Mouse Trap.

* Bonus track.

it could start firing ‘Christina England’ rules in the Mouse Trap.

Yes, I recall that Christina was second link in the human centipede of "encephalitic cry" fabulation.

#39 NWO Reporter, June 15, 2017

I think you just nominated yourself as an entry in the "What is an “altie”? list.

You mean that desperate attempt to to paint everyone who questions the supremacy of Rockefeller medicine as an idiot? Oh, horrors! I'd better spend the afternoon genuflecting at the CDC shrine to prove my devotion. :D

Too bad that cute derogatory name never caught on. Considering some the foul names I've been called on this site, "altie" sounds like a term of endearment. :)

Rockefeller medicine?

What does that even mean?

A book on this subject was written in the early part of the 20th century called Rockefeller Medicine Men. A reprint is available on Amazon.

Didn't you know that the Rockefeller's merged with the Rothschild's back in the 1920's to form the modern version of the Illuminati which controls a substantial portion of the world's wealth & is constant battle against the Reptillians and Greys for control of the planet?

Oh, and supposedly they also control the medical / military industrial complex as well......

Actually, the book Rockefeller Medicine Men was written long before there was any discussion about so-called Illuminati, Reptilians, Greys, or the military industrial complex. But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of an opportunity for derision. I trust it boosted your opinion of yourself. :)

Intimate knowledge of CT literature is not something to boast about.

A book on this subject was written in the early part of the 20th century called Rockefeller Medicine Men.

* Gets up from chair *
* Takes elevator to B-level *
* Pulls R152.B730 c.2 *

No, you shіthead, it was written in 1979. I'm holding a fυcking copy.

P.S. Am I the only one that gets a bit creeped out between between movable bookstacks in an empty library basement?

I saved a screenshot, but I’m not handy with Word Press. Any of our regular and sane readers have a suggestion?

Imgur.com?

I am SHOCKED that posters here continue to be distracted by futile loon-shaming, when HOLISTIC doctors continue to be murdered IN COLD BLOOD while the pharmaceutical establishment CACKLES with glee.

The latest holistic doctor murder (alertly reported by HealthNutNews and Mike's like-minded Nutnural News) occurred around Memorial Day in Boulder, Colorado. And while local reporters try to paint the death as fueled by jealousy, testosterone and ordering too much food at an organic restaurant, we all know what's really behind it.

http://kdvr.com/2017/06/01/suspect-in-fatal-boulder-restaurant-shooting…

Not sure how high the body count has to climb before we agree that something has to be done, like pointing and laughing.

Narad @50 "Am I the only one that gets a bit creeped out between between movable bookstacks in an empty library basement?"

Not at all! Especially if they're automatic condensed shelving. If they're the manual kind I'd rather be alone. I once had someone start to close a set on me and couldn't hear me shouting because of their headphones.

A book on this subject was written in the early part of the 20th century called Rockefeller Medicine Men. A reprint is available on Amazon

Quite precocious, for an author who was born in 1942! It is almost as if NWOR is citing a book when her knowledge of it is limited to skmming a faulty Amazon review.

Actually, the book Rockefeller Medicine Men was written long before there was any discussion about so-called Illuminati, Reptilians, Greys, or the military industrial complex..

Are you going to stick to the date, or just run away from it like everything else?

All this kerfuffle because CJTX asked: "Rockefeller medicine? What does that even mean?" I assume the book reference alone cleared that up. :D

Yeah, looks like I was mistaken about the published date. I didn't recall the date, and pulled up one of the versions on Amazon that said "This book was originally published prior to 1923..."

Therefore, I guess stigmatizing "undervaccinated" children must be okay. Because Richard Brown published Rockefeller Medicine in 1979, after Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex, but before the promotion of Reptilians by the Illuminati. Under traditional vaccine doctrine, that means vaccines are safe and effective and saved the world. :D

Am I the only one that gets a bit creeped out between between movable bookstacks in an empty library basement?

I do hope that the possibilities of the moving stacks have featured in a horror movie some time.

So, are you claiming that parents have not reported a high-pitched scream in the hours and days after vaccination?

I don't actually give a fuck.
You started out by claiming, as an unambiguous fact, that there exists a "high-pitched encephalitic scream after vaccination". You have now wimped out to the mere assertion that infants sometimes make a "high-pitched scream" -- this will not be news to most parents! -- whle putting that claim in the mouths of unspecified "parents" because you do not have the guts to stand by it yourself.
But please proceed, say whatever you feel will bring the lols.

Some people call it the "encephalitic cry" because it is similar to the high pitched scream observed in children with encephalitis. Some theorize it is caused by a swelling of the brain following vaccination. But herr doktor himler assures us he doesn't care in the slightest (in more vulgar terms, to emphasize his point). Sieg heil vakzine!

Some theorize anti-vaxxers imagine it is caused by a swelling of the brain following vaccination.

FTFY, NWOR.

"Still a better story than Twilight."

#44 NWO Reporter, June 15, 2017 seems to be a second nomitation for the "you might be an altie" list, in the form "You might be an altie if you can write

attempt to to paint everyone who questions the supremacy of Rockefeller medicine as an idiot?

with a straight face.

You might be an altie if you can write

Oh, horrors! I’d better spend the afternoon genuflecting at the CDC shrine to prove my devotion.

without ROFL.

I'm waiting, counsel flunkie.

I saved a screenshot, but I’m not handy with Word Press. Any of our regular and sane readers have a suggestion?

Just post the URL and maybe the date. The Wayback Machine has a long memory.

Yeah, Panacea--post that link. Because I'm still wondering whether you repeatedly lied about that donate button, or you were looking at the wrong site, and got the info you needed to dox me elsewhere. :)

Is this the twilight zone? Plenty of the regular vipers here obviously know my website. It's not a secret site. Entering my screen name in your favorite search engine should pull it right up. Anyone can look it up on the Way Back Machine. There's never been a donate button on my site. I've never solicited or accepted donations.

Not that there's anything wrong with donations, BTW. They're totally voluntary. It's not like vaccines, where your children might be denied an education, or your public benefits might be taken away, or your arms might be otherwise twisted if you don't contribute to the cause. :)

They’re totally voluntary. It’s not like vaccines,

Vaccination is voluntary, in all cases. Just like telling the truth is voluntary: things just go better, in general, when you do it.

where your children might be denied an education,

Your kids are never denied an education. Unvaccinated kids may be denied access to schools in places where the social contract is considered important, but the education is still the parents' responsibility.

or your public benefits might be taken away,

Gime, gimme!! I want benefits from the public treasury without needing to do my part to keeping the public healthy or doing my part of the social contract.

or your arms might be otherwise twisted if you don’t contribute to the cause.

Please explain whose arms get twisted for being the greedy, self-centered types you're arguing in favour of.

A social contract? Give me a break. Lemme guess--you're a brave knight enforcing that "social contract." No doubt it's rewarding. And you get to wave your toy sword around at anyone who won't sacrifice their children for the King's "Greater Good."

Greedy and self-centered? Right. All people in Australia receive the child benefit. That is, unless they decline to fully vaccinate their children, in which case it's taken away. Get informed before you start waving your toy sword around.

Nice to have the means to home school your children. That's the only option now in California for parents who won't sacrifice their children to the King.

You should be careful about your air of desperation. Knights with toy swords who sound desperate don't get many supporters.

A social contract? Give me a break.

No more breaks. Those of you who want all the benefits of society while denying all responsibility to society have already taken all the breaks you're entitled to, and then some.

Lemme guess–you’re a brave knight enforcing that “social contract.” No doubt it’s rewarding. And you get to wave your toy sword around at anyone who won’t sacrifice their children for the King’s “Greater Good.”

Nope. No sword; no king; no sacrifice. Just paying one's debts rather than taking benefits without offering anything in return.

Greedy and self-centered? Right.

Tank you for your self-awareness.

All people in Australia receive the child benefit.

Presumably limited to those with children—or do the greedy without children demand yet another benefit for themselves?

That is, unless they decline to fully vaccinate their children, in which case it’s taken away.

No, it's not taken away: it's not given in the first place to those who just demand the benefit without the responsibility.

Get informed before you start waving your toy sword around.

The great-grandkids that hang around here have tpy light sabres: would that count?

Nice to have the means to home school your children. That’s the only option now in California for parents who won’t sacrifice their children to the King.

No king; no sacrifice. Public school is available for the unvaccinated when it's a matter of health, not when it's just a matter of parental greed&mdashparents who don't mind endangering the kids who can't be vaccinated.

You should be careful about your air of desperation. Knights with toy swords who sound desperate don’t get many supporters.

No sword; no desperation. No need to desperately invent conspiracies to try to justify any greed.

Vaccines have not saved us from any deadly diseases. None. Nada. Your proposition is ridiculous in light of that. No one has a "social contract" to "protect" themselves against diseases that are not a serious threat in the first place--particularly when people who want the vaccine are free to get it, and "protect" themselves if they think the vaccine works, and is less of a risk than the disease.

And if you want to protect those "vulnerable" few--buy them a bubble. It's the only thing that could arguably help protect them, as they are at risk from everything.

NWO Troll @68

Seriously, you're dull.

Assertion after assertion with nothing approaching the slightest bit of evidence.

Thousands and thousands of doctors and researchers and scientist involved in thousands of studies involving perhaps millions of people are wrong.

Make your case. You've been challenged before and never come through. Put up or shut up.

LOL. Right. You're not interested in the case against vaccines, you know that--you're interested in convincing people not to examine it objectively and closely. People who are interested in learning about the case against vaccines are not going to come here. And they undoubtedly understand that their deeply held lifelong beliefs are not going to be changed by a blog comment. :D

so nothing? you'vw got nothing, you're just going to keep shrieking untrue things at us. got it.

FYI, "LOL" does not mean "shrieking" in common internet parlance--it means I'm laughing out loud at your blatant attempts at manipulation and deception. But I realize it must be difficult for you, with only psyence on your side. :)

FYI, “LOL” does not mean “shrieking” in common internet parlance–it means I’m laughing out loud

Your reply here also means you don't bother reading what others have to say, that you're too greedy to endanger your religious beliefs with facts.

at your blatant attempts at manipulation and deception.

What might those "attempts at manipulation and deception" be? Are you looking in the mirror again?

But I realize it must be difficult for you, with only psyence on your side.

No, CJTX and the rest of us have reality, evidence, and science on our side. If we knew what "psyence" might be, we might consider it, too.

Deflection.

Here, I'll make it easy. Give us the title of a book, a blog post, ANYTHING that you would say is persuasive evidence to support your absolutely, completely BASELESS assertions.

(And thanks for the textbook example of ad hominem)

Thanks for reminding me...I forgot reversal--accusing others of the fallacies you utilize yourself. That's a big one in your tactical manual that deserves specific mention.

"forgot reversal–accusing others of the fallacies you utilize yourself."

I could say the same about you - just now. Oh, if only there were some objective measurement to settle this dispute. "My kingdom for a fact."
Oh well, nevermind.

"That’s a big one in your tactical manual that deserves specific mention."

II have apparently misplaced my tactical manual...wait, I never had one.

PROOF! EVIDENCE! Something besides assertions..gives us something or go away.
No? Still nothing? Thought so.

Where and how, specifically, has CJTX used "reversal–accusing others of the fallacies you utilize yourself", specifying the fallacy or fallacies you accuse CJTX of?

LOL. Right. You’re not interested in the case against vaccines,

We would be if you actually had one. It appears that your "case against vaccines" consists of wild claims and accusations, along with excuses for not having any actual evidence.

you know that–you’re interested in convincing people not to examine it objectively and closely.

The people who hang out around here are the people who are most interested in examining actual evidence closely and objectively.

People who are interested in learning about the case against vaccines are not going to come here.

That's right, since this blog is one of those that works with evidence, not wild claims and excuses.

And they undoubtedly understand that their deeply held lifelong beliefs are not going to be changed by a blog comment.

Yes, we challenge people who come here with their religious beliefs, like you, who wouldn't be interested in reality. We don't challenge them with mere blog comments, either, like yours: we provide evidence.

You don't provide evidence. You provide (cherry-picked) 'evidence' (notice the sneer quotes), with a generous helping of derision, ridicule, straw men, ad hominem attacks, and every other logical fallacy in your tactical manual.

You don’t provide evidence.

What claims have I made that require evidence not already provided, specifically.

You provide (cherry-picked) ‘evidence’ (notice the sneer quotes),

What's the difference between "evidence" and "'evidence'", specifically. You must imagine that there is some significant difference, otherwise your second sentence flatly contradicts your first.

with a generous helping of derision,

I prefer being a generous person, particularly with well-deserved ridicule and scorn.
I'll admit that nearly everything I've read from you is ridiculous, and thus deserving of my scorn..

ridicule,

Ridicule is redundant, since it's a part of derision.

straw men,

What straw men, specifically, have I set up?

ad hominem attacks,

I admit to attacking your ridiculous claims and opinions, and to drawing obvious inferences from them. How does this constitute out-of-bounds ad hominem attacks?

and every other logical fallacy

Where, specifically, have I needed to employ any (I won't insist on 'every') logical fallacy in addressing the silly stuff you're claiming?

in your tactical manual.

Vaccines have not saved us from any deadly diseases. None. Nada.

You're making a serious claim here. You therefore have a serious responsibility to provide irrefutable, sound, credible evidence to support it. You will not be able to, in this universe (only in the NWO Conspiracy universe), so you have the responsibility to yourself, any ethics you may have, and reality to withdraw it.

Your proposition is ridiculous in light of that.

When [***snorfle***] you present your evidence (not just CT babblings) we'll discuss "ridiculous".

No one has a “social contract” to “protect” themselves against diseases that are not a serious threat in the first place–particularly when people who want the vaccine are free to get it, and “protect” themselves if they think the vaccine works, and is less of a risk than the disease.

The social contract includes taking steps to avoid endangering others. Such steps include co-operation in eradicating dangerous diseases. The only known way of doing so is vaccination. The fact that you may be protecting yourself in the process is just a side benefit to you.

And if you want to protect those “vulnerable” few–buy them a bubble. It’s the only thing that could arguably help protect them, as they are at risk from everything.

Herd immunity is another side benefit of disease eradication, a step on the way to eradication. Claiming that those who are especially protected by herd immunity are somehow less than human, and don't deserve to be treated as real people but as animals belonging in a bubble is nothing more than a demonstration of the greed of the anti-vaxxers.

Please review, Gindo.

^ Hey, remember when SM and Chris were the same person? Good times, Ginny.

Are you going to stick to the date, or just run away from it like everything else?

Running away from claims is what Ginny specializes in.

I start to worry about whether there is something unusual put in the water in Austin.

Sad blockquote fail.

"Some" also believe that they've been kidnapped by extraterrestrials.....

And "some" believe whatever they're told to believe. And "some" pretend to, for the right price.

So are you a Troo Believer™ in the conspiracy theories you peddle, or just a paid shill for them?

Some people call it the “encephalitic cry” because it is similar to the high pitched scream observed in children with encephalitis.

Tell us more about this "high pitched scream observed in children with encephalitis". I repeat the invitation to cite any medical or paediatric textbook or paper that lists "high-pitched screaming" as a symptom of encephalitis in infants.

No, wait, there is no such source, as this "high-pitched screaming = encephalitis" link does not exist outside of the diseased heads of CIA Parker and her human centipede of followers.

Some people call it the “encephalitic cry” [...] Some theorize

Citing the authority of "Some people say" is the epitome of cowardice. I don't give two tugs on a dead dingo's dick what "some unnamed, nebulous people" might say or theorise, I am wondering what you believe.

The organ-grinders aren't here so I'm asking the monkey.

Why am I so not surprised that NWO doesn't understand what the social contract is?
At this point, when I think of NWO I think of the line from the Weird Al song "If I'm bit by a zombie, probably not telling you".
Tacky.

You keep describing yourself, to a tee.

Again, this blog turns into the Twilight Zone. :D

In The World According to Lawrence, the idea that vaccines are designed to keep humanity sick, weak and obedient is being thrust upon us by all the major media, government health agencies, 'official' experts--even our own doctors! "Don't take the vaccines!" they plead. And I, in my naivete, believe them.

But brave free-thinker Lawrence and his comrades are bucking consensus reality. Against all odds, they rally the vaccine flag! :D :D :D

Your blathering betray your ignorance.

Why don't you go back to the Gnat's site?

He could use no commenters.

New commenters

Vaccines have not saved us from any deadly diseases.

It's nice to know that there are no deadly diseases, then.

Seriously, little baby-child, you're gonna say smallpox isnt extinct in the wild? If it's still out there, why don't we still feed kids sugar cubes with pink drops on them? It was a common tactic of the evil doktors to pop a sugar cube in us kidz mouths, then stick us with mecury filled syringes just so they didn't have to listen to our "encephalitic cries".

(Please forgive my spelling. NWOR seems to like silly spellings, and I'm trying to relate to the kids. I may be old and in the way, but, hey, while your only young once, you can be childish your whole life.)

FYI, “LOL” does not mean “shrieking” in common internet parlance

No, it means that one is an imbecile. See "September, Eternal."

I assume the book reference alone cleared that up.

In the sense that you barfed it up purely Because Title?

^ More blockquote fail on my part.

Your blathering betray your ignorance.

Why don’t you go back to the Gnat’s site?

He could use no commenters.

I think you were more right the first time. Who would be wanting to share a platform with Hans Litten/White Rose?

All people in Australia receive the child benefit. That is, unless they decline to fully vaccinate their children, in which case it’s taken away

No no no no. I realise the effort involved, but you really should take the effort to educate yourself about what you are talking about, before, umm, talking about it.
Perhaps you are confusing the Australian Child Benefit options with the Australian Child Care Benefit, and Child Care Rebate, the last two being available for children in child care, and contingent upon the child not spreading diseases to other children using the same child-care options.

Perhaps you should consult an Australian about this rather straighforward distinction? Or perhaps you would rather remain in ignorance, with the additional options for uninformed shouting that are thereby available?

"Seriously, little baby-child, you’re gonna say smallpox isnt extinct in the wild?"

But of course smallpox still exists. Doctors on PHarma's payroll employ rule #32 in their Tactical Manual, covering up smallpox cases by calling them something else - acne, eczema, Lyme disease and so on. Concealed smallpox is what causes those encephalitic cries.

Does anyone realize that many of those murdered Holistic Doctors were intentionally given similar diseases by covert vaccine injection? It's all in the Manual.

All people in Australia receive the child benefit. That is, unless they decline to fully vaccinate their children, in which case it’s taken away

What you are ignorantly referring to is Family Tax Benefit Part A Supplement. This is an amount up to $726.35 per child paid to families at the end of the tax year provided they meet the requirements. These include a combined taxable income of under $80,000 and the immunization requirements.

If you don't meet the immunization requirements, the money is not taken away, as it has not been given. The purpose of the payment is to incentivise childhood vaccination, so those who don't vaccinate are not entitled to the payment.

Reading the rules is easy.

^ Hey, remember when SM and Chris were the same person? Good times, Ginny.

Blimey, what's with these anti-vaxx gobshites? Just because they run about creating socks to pat themselves on the back doesn't mean the rest of us do.

I know, right? Just look at all the pats on the back I get when I come here--it's not fair! :D While poor Science Mom has to bravely stand alone in the battle for mass vaccination. :D

Just look at all the pats on the back I get when I come here–it’s not fair!

Well, you are the fυckwit making up the sockpuppet shіt, after all. Doesn't Julian also get that moronic treatment in your Xtranormal Nawmal brain dropping?

Just look at all the pats on the back I get when I come here–it’s not fair! ?

So true - if by "pats on the back" you mean "pats" on the lowest part of your back administered with a foot. Yet here you are, again and again.

Narad @ #105

Although I earlier thought your description of Ginny as a 'f*ckst@in'* was appropriate I've reconsidered. An actual f*ckst@in has information and reflects reality - proof that something happened, possibly who was involved. However, Ginny's posts have no information whatsoever - a null set - and any relationship to reality is purely coincidental.
.
I'd therefore like to apologize to the trillions of male gametes who left only a f*ckst@in to document their existence. They deserve better than to be compared to Ginny.
.
On a more serious note, I've been exposed to a woo-natic for years; he's married to my sister. He, Ginny and the Gnat have one characteristic in common which I find noteworthy: They are all failures.
My brother-in-law has sipped ever more deeply of the fountains of woo as he slid from comfortably middle-class to borderline poverty-level. He started out thinking that mildew was a health concern, worked his way through Wakefield true believer status and now is liable to spout German New Medicine and Hulda Clark in the same sentence.
The Gnat is unable to survive on his own, without funding from his parents. To make matters worse, every check comes from the two people whose genes probably contributed to his neurological issues and he can't admit it to himself.
Finally Ginny is apparently a failure in two careers. Her 'fine art' is anything but, as a cursory look at her website reveals.. An attorney working for a private IV-D agency is about like a Culinary Institute of America graduate dropping fries at McDonalds. She's in the legal field and the CIA graduate is in the culinary field, but neither one has anything to be proud of.
My working hypothesis is that failure drives them to search for competence, and since they can't achieve that in real life they construct a reality in which they are competent. It would all be fine but they insist on inflicting their alternate reality on the rest of us.

*Although, for the record I still think that "Ginny F*ckst@in and the Stoners" would be a great band name.

Since we seem to be on a first and last name basis here instead of our chosen screen names, why don't all you charming intellectuals provide yours? Seems like the regulars here make a habit of doxing dissenters, while hiding behind their own anonymity. :)

However, Ginny’s posts have no information whatsoever ...

Strictly speaking, I'd disagree. I've often found her post to be the opposite of established fact as I know it to be true, so I just assume everything she says is a lie. I do agree with your assessment of her artistic abilities, and wonder if there is anyone who has paid more than $7.00 USD for anoriginal of her work.

And I'd provide my last name, but it wouldn't help you, Ginny. According to http://howmanyofme.com there are 1346 in the USA with 'Johnny' and my last name, so I'd have to tell you the town also, but that wouldn't help, because my real name is John and that adds another 22K+ to the mix (I go by Johnny, because my whole life I've been surrounded by up to 3 other Johns, and it was an easy way to avoid confusion).

It may interest you to know that there are 388 Virginia Stones in the US, according to the same site.

I'm sure you could clarify who you are, regardless how common the name. But I don't blame you for not wanting to--I can imagine the embarrassment. :D

Johnny: "Look how good I can insult people online, Mom!"
Mom: "Oh, Johnny, I'm so proud of you!" :D

I'm an old guy, and I don't Facebook or anything like that, so I'd have to post my address, and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. The anti-vax loons are, well, loons. I've been retired a few years, but I wouldn't put it past 'em to show up and bother the neighbors.

And Mom (and Dad) are dead, but Mom probably wouldn't be much impressed - low degree of difficulty, and all.

You must be young at heart, considering the way you embrace online anonymity to reject old school civility.

Johnny does seem young at heart, and he's quite civil, at least to those who merit traditional civility.

I’d therefore like to apologize to the trillions of male gametes who left only a f*ckst@in to document their existence.

Sexist.

Seems like the regulars here make a habit of doxing dissenters, while hiding behind their own anonymity.

One can't "dox" someone whose name is an advertisement for their own site (and sad-trombone Twatter presence) when they contain the fυcking information in the first place, you puddle of anaerobic decay.

Sounds like you need to look up the definition of doxing, Narad. Who are you?

In what respect would Narad's IRL identity matter? are you "reporting" to an enforcer of your conspiracy religion?

NWOR, if you were doxed, it was you that did the doxing. Blaming Narad won't change reality.

Now, Narad, you can't really expect one who follows and proselytizes for a conspiracy religion to actually understand the way the world works and what words really mean.

Since we seem to be on a first and last name basis here instead of our chosen screen names, why don’t all you charming intellectuals provide yours?

Seriously?

Why does it matter who is writing? What matters is whether what they write is correct and has value. Something you have failed to achieve on either count so far.

The fact that you have a website for splashing your opinionidiocy around and use the name of that website as your screen name does make people wonder what other idiotic ideas you are proud of.

NWOR:
All people in Australia receive the child benefit. That is, unless they decline to fully vaccinate their children, in which case it’s taken away. Get informed

I just want to repeat this down here at the bottom of the thread, to make it easier to look at it and laugh.

Of course herr doktor finds it hilarious that benefits are being withheld from the poorest families in Australia unless they subject their children to vaccination. No doubt Merck and company find it hilarious, too. Sieg heil vakzine!

In other news from the Land of Conspiratorial Pseudoscience, Dan Olmsted will soon be reaching out from the grave with a new book (warning, shield your irony meters):

https://www.amazon.com/Denial-Refusing-Epidemic-Children-Families/dp/15…

And the societal cost of unchecked diseases?

Certainly far more than whatever is withheld from those who knowingly put the lives of others in danger by not vaccinating.

Your comment presumes vaccines reduce all cause morbidity and mortality. At best, that's unproven, and may very well be entirely false. Your comment implies that vaccines don't necessarily protect those who get them. That's true. Your comment also implies that very weak children will be saved if all the healthy children are subjected to vaccination. That's false. The very weak are at risk from everything--it wouldn't be possible to vaccinate for most of those risks, even if vaccines would necessarily protect from those risks, which they don't.

Still no proof, evidence, or even a citation I see.
Somethings never change.

It is not possible to produce a citation to prove that a claim is unproven. No citation is needed to prove that vaccines don't always work--it's common knowledge, even the manufacturer's acknowledge it. And as for weak children being at risk from everything--it's common sense, and common knowledge.

1) I didn't ask for proof, I asked for evidence.
2) Researchers demonstrate the non-effectiveness of a treatment all the time - Dr. G. talks about them, they're called studies. He's gone through many studies that show things like reiki and acupuncture show NO demonstrable benefit.
3) If you're going to claim that ALL the studies that have been done showing demonstrable benefit of vaccines, then you need SOMETHING to back that claim up. You have nothing.
4) Common knowledge is not nearly as common as you seem to think and very often not useful. See the use of tobacco, lead, mercury, heroin, asbestos, etc etc etc.

It is not possible to provide evidence that a claim is unproven, only to point out the absence of evidence. There are no long term studies comparing the overall morbidity and mortality of fully vaccinated and fully vaccinated children, where "overall morbidity and mortality" includes not only the illnesses they were vaccinated for, but also SIDS, cancer, epilepsy, chronic allergies, asthma, diabetes, neurological disorders, and other common conditions.

So you dispute the claim that vaccines don't always prevent the disease they were intended to prevent? In other words, you contend the vaccine always prevents the disease? I just want to be sure you dispute it before I take the time to provide evidence of a claim that even vaccine manufacturers agree with. :)

Also, just to be clear, you dispute the claim that weak children are at greater risk of virtually everything, not just so-called vaccine-preventable diseases? Again, I don't want to waste my time until you confirm that you dispute this.

Oh, and she skirts right on the line of openly advocating that "weaker" children just be allowed to die of preventable diseases....

Actually, I'd favor providing them with bubbles to live in if they so desire. Certainly they are not gong to be safer by wandering around vaccinated people--especially those who are known to be infected because they were recently vaccinated with a live virus vaccine.

Perhaps we can get our resident troll to give us her dissertation on the disappearance of Rinderpest?

You know they're delusional when they start throwing about "It's common knowledge."

Common to whom? Certainly one like yourself should be able to provide ample proof of your statements, right?

Surely you can't be serious with regard to the 3 propositions I stated. You actually dispute them? :D

Posted for informational purposes, and not cause I think it'll make somebody's head explode (metaphorically):

June 19, 2017
Michele Gorman
Posted with permission from Newsweek
Amid a measles epidemic spreading throughout Europe, the Italian government approved a measure to fine parents who don’t seek medical help on vaccinating their children. The measure even puts parents at risk of losing custody if they don’t vaccinate their kids.

Related: Zika vaccine headed to Phase 2 trial

Despite objections, Italian officials in May ruled that children must be vaccinated against 12 common illnesses—including polio, tetanus, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, chicken pox and whooping cough—before they can enroll in state-run schools, the BBC reported. Parents reportedly will face steep fines for sending non-vaccinated kids to child care facilities or schools.

Public health officials point to extensive research showing vaccines protect the common good and that adverse side effects are rare, and numerous scientific studies have failed to find a connection between vaccines and autism. But concerns about a direct relation have lingered.

Measles, a preventable disease, is still common in many parts of the world, including some countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Pacific. It’s hitting Europe hard this year, mainly in Italy and Romania, according to the World Health Organization. Romania has reported more than 3,400 cases and 17 deaths since January 2016, with the majority of cases concentrated in areas where immunization coverage is especially low. Italy has seen a sharp rise in cases, with at least 400 already this year. Experts predict the outbreak will only get worse.

Amid the measles outbreak, other countries have tightened their laws. In Germany, for example, parents who don’t seek medical advice on whether to vaccinate their children could face fines of up to about $2,800, the BBC reported.

The CDC recommends that travelers to Italy protect themselves by ensuring they are vaccinated against measles, particularly infants ages 6 to 11 months and children 1 or older.

So, measles isn't "fatal" until it is......I ask anti-vaxers to let us know exactly how many kids have to die before they consider it unacceptable.

How many children have to die or suffer serious injury from the measles vaccine before you consider it unacceptable?

She's just hopeless.....

Lawrence @ 135:

So, measles isn’t “fatal” until it is……I ask anti-vaxers to let us know exactly how many kids have to die before they consider it unacceptable.

All of them, Charlie.

To repeat:

"What do Earth men offer you? What have you obtained from them in the past? Powders and liquids for the sick? We Klingons believe as you do. The sick should die. Only the strong should live."

None would be a good start - which is why vaccines are tested, and re-tested, and tested again through multiple stages of clinical trials & then tracked by multiple vaccine safety methodologies, includes VAERS & the vaccine safety datalink to ensure that they remain safe.

Diseases aren't "safe" and there is no way that they ever would be.....

Vaccines aren't "safe" and there is no way they ever could be. The entire paradigm is fundamentally flawed.

Vaccines aren’t “safe” and there is no way they ever could be.

The evidence for this statement would be what, exactly? It's not necessary to demonstrate 100% unsafty, just show that vaccines are more than 1% as "unsafe" as the diseases they address.

The entire paradigm is fundamentally flawed.

On what basis is the communicable disease vs vaccine paradigm "fatally flawed"? What evidence do you adduce to demonstrate this/these fatal flaws(s)?

It's useless having a conversation with an idiot conspiracy theorist who doesn't even understand the fundamental basics of immunology.

Obviously, it's easier for her to run a conspiracy website and regurgitate the same old lies and misinformation than it is to crack open a textbook.

The vaccine theory of disease prevention is totally outside of usual training in immunology. Vaccines introduce disease to the body in a way that does not occur in nature, and the immune response is very different than it would be for a naturally introduced pathogen.

The vaccine theory of disease prevention is totally outside of usual training in immunology.

Are you referring to the body's "usual training in immunology" or the immunologist's "usual training in immunology"? In either case, evidence (not just unsupported claims) is required that the claim is true and that the difference has any sigmnificance whatsoever.

Vaccines introduce disease to the body in a way that does not occur in nature,

How does he pathogen or antigen not "occur in nature"? How are any such differences of any significance whatsoever? (We can ignore the obvious, that the antigen is not capable of causing the disease that the pathogen usually causes—here we can also ignore cowpox vs smallpox.)

and the immune response is very different than it would be for a naturally introduced pathogen.

How is the immune response different for the antigen vs the pathogen? In what respects might such difference(s) be at all significant?

And she gives herself an easy excuse for her own ignorance "the textbooks are all bought or filled with fake info" - therefore she never has to face up to the fact that she's nothing more than a uneducated buffoon.

Vaccines introduce disease to the body in a way that does not occur in nature

Inhalation and swallowing do not occur in nature? I am seriously concerned about NWOR's metabolism.

Working on those aerosol vaccines, herr doktor himler? How's that going? Are you spreading them by plane now, to get the job done without the pesky need for consent? Inquiring minds want to know!

PS: Which vaccines are swallowed? Is that some kind of nanotech that can slipped into our food and water supply on the down low? :)

Wow - you really believe that the body's immune system cares where the antigens come from?

You really are a complete imbecile.

Oh, really. I suppose you think people naturally acquire measles by injection into muscle tissue, instead of through mucus membranes, too. And that the immune response is the same in both cases. :D

I suppose you think people naturally acquire measles by injection into muscle tissue, instead of through mucus membranes, too.

What distinction does the immune system make between various routes of entry of the pathogen? If it did, why would not one would logically expect the immune system to respond more vigorously to the "unusual" route than to the usual one.

And that the immune response is the same in both cases.

What evidence do you have that the immune system responds in ways that are significantly different? (Unsupported claims, as always, are nonresponsive.)

I'm not here to convince you. This is not the right forum for people who want to learn the other side of the vaccine story, and there are many experts who can explain it far better than I can. :)

oooh, give us the name of just a few of these "experts."

It's the closest you've ever come to anything resembling support for your (bizarre) positions.

Nope. They're easy to find. Once people review their work, they can come back here better prepared to accurately assess your proclamations that they've been "discredited" or "thoroughly debunked." :D

So another big whiff...cause there are no experts, are there?
I've been Lucy'ed!

They’re easy to find.

In that case, you'll have no problem citing them as partial fulfillment of your burden of proof.

It's only partial, since your burden of proof (that your claims have some substance to them) can only rely on evidence, not on somebody you know will just parrot them.

I’m not here to convince you. This is not the right forum for people who want to learn the other side of the vaccine story, and there are many experts who can explain it far better than I can.

In other words, you admit that you have no evidence, but you have some silver-tongued salesmen who you'd prefer to palm us of on.

We don't care about your designated authorities: we're interested in evidence, since the evidence—all of it—is the best, the only, reflection of reality.

Ginny said: "The vaccine theory of disease prevention is totally outside of usual training in immunology. Vaccines introduce disease to the body in a way that does not occur in nature, and the immune response is very different than it would be for a naturally introduced pathogen."
.
It's easy to see why you're a failure as a lawyer, if your respect for legal precedents resembles in any way your attitude toward medical/scholastic references.
.
If we apply Ginny's 'logic' to a closing argument in a criminal case she'd end up with something like this: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the defense has based their entire case upon the concept that, under American law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is absolute balderdash. It's common knowledge that guilty people have no protection against self-incrimination. It's common knowledge that there is no such thing as an illegal or unconstitutional warrant for people who are guilty of crimes. The cases the defense has cited, Miranda v. Arizona, United States v. Jones, Riley v. California, never happened. The defense is fabricating bogus Supreme court decisions because they don't have a defense otherwise. It stands to reason, therefore, that the defendants would not have been charged with a crime had they not been guilty. I rest my case."

What's your name, Opus?

Of course herr doktor finds it hilarious that benefits are being withheld from the poorest families in Australia unless they subject their children to vaccination. No doubt Merck and company find it hilarious, too. Sieg heil vakzine!

Squirm, Mason, squirm.

The vaccine theory of disease prevention is totally outside of usual training in immunology.

Do go on.

^ Blockquotes again.

hilarious that benefits are being withheld from the poorest families in Australia

I feel inspired to point and laugh when some numptie flips between "All people in Australia" to "the poorest families", while lecturing everyone else on the need to educate themselves. Pointing and laughing at Australians is also part of my national heritage but it doesn't seem applicable in this case.
How's that search going, for evidence that "a high-pitched scream" is a diagnostic symptom of encephalitis?

Nice attempt to deflect the issue: That you find it hilarious that benefits are being withheld from the poorest families in Australia unless they subject their children to the full vaccination schedule. :)

I suppose you think people naturally acquire measles by injection into muscle tissue, instead of through mucus membranes, too. And that the immune response is the same in both cases.

Perhaps you could use your doubtlessly exquisite knowledge of "usual training in immunology" to explain how the responses differ, O talentless cartoonist.

It's a good thing that the mind is not needed to direct immune responses, or NWO would be in serious trouble.

How things change, in the past my pro-vaccine stance was because of having lived through many of the diseases that are now easily preventable (for most children). I am now going to become a step-father (at my age) in about 3 months. My stepson (probably but not quite sure yet) will have every vaccine available to protect his/her health.

Dribbling idiots like you NWOR need to learn what the real world is like. Living is hazardous to your health and you must do everything you can to protect your health.

I recently had prostate cancer. Researchers are now showing a probable link between HPV and prostate cancer. It very possible that if HPV vaccine had been available when I was young, I would not had to deal with all the issues of prostate cancer. So shut the f up until you actual know something.

I'm sorry to hear about your cancer. Life is certainly a learning experience. I also lived through many of the usual childhood diseases without any problems, as did everyone I knew and went to school with. When I first heard about the chickenpox vaccine as an adult, I actually thought it was a joke.

I know that people recover naturally and fully from the vast majority of HPV infections, often without realizing they have it. I know there are dozens of HPV strains, and the HPV vaccine claims to help prevent only a few of them, and the duration of the claimed protection is unknown. I know that HPV infection can occur in childhood or even in the womb, and getting the HPV vaccine after prior infection with HPV could actually increase your chances of developing cancer. I know the HPV vaccine has not been proven to have prevented a single case of cancer. I know the HPV vaccine has not been tested for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential. I also know the HPV vaccine has one of the highest reported incidence of serious adverse reactions of any vaccine. It certainly doesn't sound worth pining for a lost opportunity to take it.

NWO Reporter, how do we know you're not in the pay of the big Pharma companies? Prevention of diseases is nowhere near as profitable as treatment.

Vaccines are far more profitable. Not just the administration of the vaccines, but from the wide range of iatrogenic illnesses caused by the vaccines, many of which are chronic and lifelong. By contrast, many of the once common childhood diseases are so mild, they often don't require medical attention at all. By the late 1950s, only 1 in 10 cases of measles was even being reported, for example. It was likely much lower for chicken pox.

Vaccines are far more profitable.

Evidence is required for this claim, which we fully expect to be as spurious as your other claims.

Not just the administration of the vaccines, but from the wide range of iatrogenic illnesses caused by the vaccines, many of which are chronic and lifelong.

Evidence is required for these claims, as to prevalence, duration, and profitability of vaccine-caused conditions..

By contrast, many of the once common childhood diseases are so mild, they often don’t require medical attention at all.

In the 1940s, my chicken pox, rubella, and mumps did not get medical attention, because it was well known that there was no medical treatment available. For my measles, in the 1950s, the family doctor did show up to evaluate me. He decided that unless I got worse before he came back, that I was safer not being transported to the hospital.

By the late 1950s, only 1 in 10 cases of measles was even being reported, for example.

How is this significant? Is it actually true (supported by evidence)?

It was likely much lower for chicken pox.

Of course, in a conspiracy religion like yours, "likely" is a synonym for "certain", with no evidence needed for the claim, right?

NWO Reporter, do you know how many scientists in the 60's said tobacco was harmless? Two. Both paid by Philip Morris. Which possibility is more likely:

1) Every single scientist on the planet in being paid off and hiding the truth.
2) You are being paid off to spread fear and doubt.

Ridiculous. Most doctors and scientists and social manipulators believe what they've been taught to believe. They don't question it, because they can't fathom how it could have been taught to them by all those smart people unless it were true. That's how deception is easily perpetuated in academia. Some may begin to discern the truth at some point, but choose to remain willfully blind out of self-interest.

There are definitely mercenaries, though--willing to peddle anything for money. They're all over the web. Some are in government and academia. A small number at high levels know the real purpose of vaccines is to keep the population sick, weak and obedient--and they want it that way.

WOW, that's dumb.

Your response on the other hand...BRILLIANT! Can I quote you? :D

It's the response your comment deserves.

You refuse to believe in facts, evidence, and logic, so I'm just using mockery now.

Well, yes...I assumed it was a rudimentary attempt at mockery. I'd say my own mockery topped yours, but I suppose I'm biased. :D

Nope.

You really are wrong about EVERY THING, aren't you?

There are definitely mercenaries, though–willing to peddle anything for money. They’re all over the web.

As you so noisily exemplify.

Most doctors and scientists and social manipulators believe what they’ve been taught to believe. They don’t question it, because they can’t fathom how it could have been taught to them by all those smart people unless it were true. That's why there has never been any progress in medicine or science, ever. All the science-type people have been taught that everything there is to be known is known so there's no use doing anything original, no use doubting that the ancients—"all those smart people"—knew it all.

Oh, wait a sec...you're describing religion, including conspiracy religion, not "[m]ost doctors and scientists". Carry on.

NWO Reporter, if everyone has a price, what's your price?

Everyone doesn't have a price. :)

Everyone doesn’t have a price.

So the mercenaries you were just babbling about don't exist? Or maybe they're not counted in "everyone". Or maybe you don't just logic very well.
"I'll take door number three".

I suppose you think people naturally acquire measles tetanus by injection, instead of through mucus membranes, too. And that the immune response is the same in both cases

Fixed for additional entertainment.

Well, that's true. But even if someone believed the tetanus vaccine were safe and effective, the ones available are combination vaccines.

But even if someone believed the tetanus vaccine were safe and effective, the ones available are combination vaccines.

What evidence to you offer us that this is somehow of some significance?

A small number at high levels know the real purpose of vaccines is to keep the population sick, weak and obedient–and they want it that way.

Oh, man! And I was just about to catch a flight to my Illuminati meeting, too! Sleep well, NWO Reporter, on the night of 23 July.

Is that some kind of threat? Or does that date have a particular meaning for you?

@NWOR: If VPDs were so benign, how come people were put into quarantine when they got them? How come my grandfather, a GP, was so very pro-vaccine when they cut into his income immensely (it was far more profitable to make house calls for 6-7 days than give one shot). As for your claim that vaccines lead to all sorts of chronic diseases...prove it. Prove that the vaccines increased the diseases rather than let people LIVE long enough to GET the diseases. None of the disease are new. Diabetes used to be a death sentence. So was leukemia. Now we can treat them and keep the persons alive, rather than dying.

Of course, you apparently figure that because YOU and your family didn't suffer from sequelae of the diseases, no one else counts. You are so self-centered.

Not quite--no such traumatic experiences with those illnesses for me, my family, anyone I know, or anyone I went to school with grades K-12. I will say, though, that I've heard an extraordinary number of such tales from the commenters on this blog. :D

no such traumatic experiences with those illnesses for me, my family, anyone I know, or anyone I went to school with grades K-12. I will say, though, that I’ve heard an extraordinary number of such tales from the commenters on this blog.

Maybe, just maybe, you'll recognize that reality is so much broader than your personal experience. Maybe, just maybe, you'll begin to see that what you've taught to imagine about vaccines does not conform to reality.

Or maybe, since you're a Troo Believer™ in your conspiracy religion, you'll decide that since reality conflicts with your chosen imaginings, that reality must be wrong.

Sure. Broader than all the thousands of people who've had the same experience I have. And all the doctors in the 1950s and 1960s. And all the data that shows deaths from common diseases declined by 95% prior to widespread vaccination. And that children were much healthier, with not nearly as many cases of autoimmune disorders and neurological problems. There just happens to be an extraordinary abundance of exceptionally vulnerable people on blogs devoted to extolling the wonders of vaccination. That's "reality" for you. :D

Sure. Broader than all the thousands of people who’ve had the same experience I have.

But not broad enough to encompass people whose experiences differ from yours.

And all the doctors in the 1950s and 1960s

"All the doctors"? Evidence required that The Wife's cousin did not experience, despite medical care, measles encephalopathy that left her disabled for the past sixty years.

. And all the data that shows deaths from common diseases declined by 95% prior to widespread vaccination.

Yes, dear, we've seen the data that shows how the medical system learned to save many, but not all, e.g. measles patients. We've also seen the data that shows the effective eradication of these diseases and their associated deaths as a consequence of the vaccination programs.

And that children were much healthier,

Evidence definitely required.

with not nearly as many cases of autoimmune disorders and neurological problems.

Evidence required, with adjustments or other elimination of confoumnders like recognition of the listed disease states and their separation from the undifferentiated problems. Adjustment is also needed to account for those people who would have died from VPDs, but didn't because of vaccines.

There just happens to be an extraordinary abundance of exceptionally vulnerable people on blogs devoted to extolling the wonders of vaccination.

But you, possibly due to your religion, are not vulnerable? Or maybe it's only your ego that's invulnerable; while your body was protected by herd immunities?

That’s “reality” for you.

Look into your claims; maybe you'll find some reality underneath.

Oh, crud. Typed a long comment that hit moderation due to our old sock-puppet friend figuring out the other email.

Orac: sorry...using another computer and didn't realize it auto-entered the other email. Please feel free to delete; I'll copy/paste the comment below.

@NWOR: If VPDs were so benign, how come people were put into quarantine when they got them? How come my grandfather, a GP, was so very pro-vaccine when they cut into his income immensely (it was far more profitable to make house calls for 6-7 days than give one shot). As for your claim that vaccines lead to all sorts of chronic diseases…prove it. Prove that the vaccines increased the diseases rather than let people LIVE long enough to GET the diseases. None of the disease are new. Diabetes used to be a death sentence. So was leukemia. Now we can treat them and keep the persons alive, rather than dying.

Of course, you apparently figure that because YOU and your family didn’t suffer from sequelae of the diseases, no one else counts. You are so self-centered.

Athlete's foot ordinarily won't kill you--why bother to wash your socks or clean the locker room floor?

Working on those aerosol vaccines, herr doktor himler? How’s that going?
Not my personal area of research, but nasal-spray vaccines are common.

PS: Which vaccines are swallowed?
I am surprised that you have never heard of the Oral Polio Vaccine; or the numerous oral vaccines in a veterinary context. But that is what these exchanges are good for, to learn from one another.

NWO Reporter: So, where are all the honest, intelligent doctors who are against vaccines? Which is more likely:
1) Every doctor on the planet is stupid, greedy, or cowardly, or
2) You are mistaken.

Oh, there are many of them--dozens of doctors, immunologists and scientists who are fairly well known, and lists of doctors who respect vaccine choices. It's easy to find them. All people have to do is ignore proclamations like "Dr. X has been discredited!" or "Dr. Y's theories have been thoroughly debunked!" They should simply read or listen to those people for themselves, and exercise their own judgment. :)

Oh, there are many of them–dozens of doctors, immunologists and scientists who are fairly well known, and lists of doctors who respect vaccine choices. It’s easy to find them.

We know that religions, including conspiracy religions, based their arguments on authorities—people the religiosi designate because (a) they seem to have credentials, and (b) can be said to agree with the idea being promoted.

The difference between those religiosi and people who like to live in reality is that we work from evidence—both for and against the idea—and use our judgement there instread of on proclaimed credentials.

All people have to do is ignore proclamations like “Dr. X has been discredited!” or “Dr. Y’s theories have been thoroughly debunked!”

That's right: listen to my choice of authority and ignore the evidence.

They should simply read or listen to those people for themselves, and exercise their own judgment.

IGNORE THAT EVIDENCE!!!! Listen to MY authority!!!!

It's hilarious you're referring to conspiracies as a religion. Vaccines are the most insidious religion out there. Suggesting to a true believer that vaccines may not actually be safe and effective as we've all been raised to believe is like telling a lifelong devout Christian that Jesus is a myth. The emotional reaction to what should be an objective issue is immediate and intense, as if an atheist walked up to the pulpit to deliver the Sunday sermon. :D

It’s hilarious you’re referring to conspiracies as a religion.

How do conspiracy religions differ, in any essential degree, from any other non-theistic/non-deistic religions?

Vaccines are the most insidious religion out there.

How can vaccines, with their base in reality, data, and evidence, be honestly characterized as a religion? Where is the unfounded faith that is essential to religion to be found in vaccines?

Nice attempt to deflect the issue: That you find it hilarious that benefits are being withheld from the poorest families in Australia unless they subject their children to the full vaccination schedule.

As I have pointed out once before on this thread, with a link to the rules, that benefits are not being withheld. This particular payment is structured as an incentive for vaccination. Those who choose not to vaccinate their children have no entitlement to it.

It is much like someone complaining that the old age pension is being withheld from 25 year olds.

Clearly some minds are immune to data.

For comparison purposes, consider an actual instance where a misleading journal reference and profit-driven medicine led to disaster: The opioid epidemic. Now that the truth is known, more are more doctors are taking notice, and the CDC is actually warning doctors against prescribing them carelessly:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2503508

This is something that can potentially make more money than vaccines, easily, and yet, there's nothing close to a cover-up. Wonder why?

Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead. Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack

Nice attempt to deflect the issue:

Come now. I am sure that everyone else here can handle more than one issue at a time.
So this rhetorical strategy of proclaiming that (a) ridicule directed at your elective ignorance about Australian policies is really ridicule directed at Australians, and (b) this redirection is now "the issue" (leaving you free to squirm away from previous outbursts of Dumbth)... whom is it supposed to convince? Does it fool you?

NWO Reporter asked:

Is that some kind of threat?

As ususal, you're a bit slow on the uptake, Ginny. A more astute conspiracy theorist would have recognized that as an indication of the first available timeslot for black helicopter action. (You'll be among the first to know if we have a cancellation.)

So...yes, it was...emboldened by anonymity, and punctuated with sarcasm. Creep.

I’m not here to convince you. [therefore no need for evidence]

Yes, readers have worked out that NWOR does not really come here for the hunting.

I’m sorry to hear about your cancer.

Sure you are.
I'm sorry about your thought disorder, although I have more sympathy with those who end up reading your drivel.

Ginny, think about it; Illuminati, black helicopters. . . . Now tear yourself away from Info Wars and try to crawl back to reality. It will be difficult--perhaps the hardest thing that you've ever done, since you have so far to go-- but you can do it if you try.

Stay away from me, creep.

It's interesting to see how a person who teases you about your NWO religion gets to be a creep. When will it be my turn?

Ms. Kincaid: "I’m still an Antivaxer. I won’t be vaccinating until I’m taken seriously by scientific research that is relevant to “me & mine”."

So has your family joined https://sparkforautism.org/ to compare the genetic sequences between your son, his father and yourself? Considering you, as parents, were both much older than forty years old when he was born there is a very high chance of a de novo mutation.

Remember, not only will you be actually helping the science of autism, but you may find a pathway to treatments that are actually relevant.

When I first heard about the chickenpox vaccine as an adult, I actually thought it was a joke.

Yes, because chickenpox is such a joke; never mind the amount of suffering it causes for children, even if it is rarely fatal.

I had chickenpox something awful in kindergarten, and I still remember it. It was at least a week of misery, lying in bed or on the couch, stiff and incredibly itchy, but forbidden to scratch, feverish and out of it. It stand out very well in my memory.

Why do you want children to have to go through that when it can be prevented? Are you a sadist?

Vaccines introduce disease to the body in a way that does not occur in nature
-- Tetanus
Well, that’s true. But even if someone believed the tetanus vaccine were safe and effective

Huzzah! Progress!
Not to forget rabies and some forms of hepatitis as more cases where vaccine and pathogen are both introduced through the skin. Nor should we forget FluMist and OPV. If it is such a big deal when isolated antigen and disease enter the body and encounter the immune system in different ways, can we agree that these are good vaccines?

But first, perhaps we should address the casual question-begging intellectual dishonesty of "Vaccines introduce disease to the body".

Obviously it is unnatural for vaccines to be injected into our soft tissues, seeing that germs only gain natural entry into our bodies by ingestion or inhalation, never through cuts, scrapes and penetrating wounds. If the latter occurred, our immune systems might have evolved to cope with it...

Re. chickenpox, the NZ health funding people weighed up the expense and the benefits, and decided that it is cost-effective to offer free vaccination for 11-year-olds and younger.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/93662545/kids-under-11-offered-f…

So, let's watch the troll ignore all evidence that contradicts her narrative:

1) Massive decline in disease incidence rates in Third World countries after vaccination.

2) Vaccines which were removed from the market (or never approved) for concerns about safety - like the DTP, the original crop of Lyme vaccines, and the original Rotavirus vaccines.

Not to mention every HIV vaccine so far - none of them got approved, because they couldn't pass clinical trials. If it was all one big conspiracy, why wouldn't they have been approved anyway?

3) Eradication of Rinderpest - anti's can never explain this one, since it blows their whole sanitation argument out of the water.

4) Every nation on Earth supports vaccinations - which means that countries which have a vested interest in not supporting the United States (or Western nations in general) or multi-national corporations either, still readily vaccinate.

All of these little "inconvenient" facts just get glossed over and ignored by the likes of the trolls, because they have no explanation....

An earlier mention of the Gnat has prompted me to enquire; is his site down? I can't access it on this public WiFi.

Nope - unfortunately his site is still up, for as long as his parents decide to pay the electric bill.

Chris @210 wrote "So has your family joined https://sparkforautism.org/ to compare the genetic sequences between your son, his father and yourself?"

She should, in my opinion. I actually know the principal investigator for that study in the Northern New England region, Dr. Matthew Siegel.

I also agree that it is very likely that Christine's son's autism is the result of him having been born to older parents. A 40-year old father passes on more than double the number of de novo mutations that a 20-year old father would.

It is very unfortunate that she incorrectly blames vaccines for her son's autism, rather than what is clearly the most likely cause-advanced parental age (from what I understand, the father's age is more important than the mother's age when it comes to the risk of autism).

I will also note that the king of socks has posted a Jake's place under his Lord Windemere name.

It's a good place for him - he could be Jake's dumber, but just as offensive, brother.

@JP-Chickenpox can be fatal even in previously healthy patients. Yes, death from chickenpox in previously healthy patients may be uncommon, but it can happen.
http://www.immunize.org/reports/report004.asp

Also, why isn't the NWO covering up the opioid epidemic? Surely they would benefit heavily from a population hooked on painkillers.

Once you start picking apart her carefully constructed narrative, the entire thing just collapses under its own weight.

Globally, vaccines generate just a little over $30 Billion in revenue (not profit, just revenue) - when you figure in the R&D costs, personnel costs & other overhead, the profits from vaccines probably amount to only a few billion (at best), spread across multiple companies, globally.

Let's compare that, to say, Exxon Mobile, who managed to, in a single quarter some years back, to generate more than $70 Billion dollars in PROFIT.

Vaccines are chicken feed compared to any other type of successful pharmaceutical produce - yet they have the exact same overhead - meaning that the money spent on R&D doesn't generate nearly the profits as say, another Viagra.

Anyone with even a passing education in economics understands this & again, why these grand conspiracy theories fall apart under even the most basic observation.

It's sad really.

I know Lawrence-I mean if you compare profits from, say, statins, to profits from vaccines, there is simply no comparison.

I also pointed out to NWOR, a few weeks ago, that if there wasn't a flu vaccine, some pharmaceutical companies (GSK, Roche) would make MORE $$ since demand for Tamiflu and Relenza would go way up. As I expected, she ignored it.

Oh...I accidentally posted a comment using my full name.... on my tablet, it automatically includes my full name. ("chrome autofill settings, or something automatically includes my last name). That comment is awaiting moderation since it looks like a new commenter... I don't know if Orac can remove my last name from that comment or not and just approve the comment without including my last name...?

This is the comment I accidentally posted under my full name:

"I know Lawrence-I mean if you compare profits from, say, statins, to profits from vaccines, there is simply no comparison.

I also pointed out to NWOR, a few weeks ago, that if there wasn’t a flu vaccine, some pharmaceutical companies (GSK, Roche) would make MORE $$ since demand for Tamiflu and Relenza would go way up. As I expected, she ignored it."

Chris,

but you may find a pathway to treatments that are actually relevant

Maybe that's because I spend a gigantic time being overloaded (Am moving out and getting my own apartment sometime around next week as a fix to that situation) but I'm curious about the possible treatment modalities enabled by gene research but I'd say, two possible hypothesis are gene therapy as well as psychological therapy based on the research finding done by a computational approach of cognition inferred by a large scale brain simulation like the human brain project and other, lower scale of the same approach (brain column and minicolumn based).

Any other hypothesis?

Alain

Once you start picking apart her carefully constructed narrative, the entire thing just collapses under its own weight.

Indeed. One of the reasons it fails is that Medical Insurers, who would be prejudiced if vaccines are ineffective or harmful, vigourously support them. My Medical Aid provider not only lets me get the flu shot for free every year, it awards me points for getting it.

NWO Reporter: So, where are all the honest, intelligent doctors who are against vaccines?

It’s easy to find them. All people have to do is ignore seek out proclamations like “Dr. X has been discredited!” or “Dr. Y’s theories have been thoroughly debunked!”

FTFY.

I've got to say I'm deeply amused by NWO's belief that scientists don't ask questions, or question the things they are taught.
LOL
Being a scientists means asking questions, picking apart conclusions (your own and other people's)and generally arguing about everything.

So, NWO, you hate vaccines. How do you feel about antibiotics? Soap?

Of course, you are more than happy to drag the reputation of any scientist who challenges consensus reality through the mud in the course of your duties. And you breezily pretend that scientists don't live and die by funding. Soap, which has been around for thousands of years, is good. Therefore, vaccines are good. Classic.

Of course, you are more than happy to drag the reputation of any scientist who challenges consensus reality through the mud in the course of your duties.

When will you be posting evidence that this actually happens, and that JustaTech participates or is even gladdened? I won't hold my breath, of course, given your displayed propensity for making unsupported accusations and claims and changing the subject when challenged.

Yes, yes...a peer reviewed study published in a reputable medical journal establishing that Justatech feels 'happy' when he belittles scientists who step outside status quo paradigms will soon be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, the excruciatingly literal Espol will cautiously defer any opinion about Justaech's feelings, and send others scrambling to compile a thesis on his comment history while Espol catches up on Super Friends reruns.

the excruciatingly literal Espol

Thank you for noticing that I have this habit of assuming people to be honest and forthright in their utterances unless they give some hint that they're joking around. It's perhaps funny that I have no problem with people who actually are, unlike you, honest and forthright.

I was being honest and forthright, and I was not joking around. Yet still, your interpretation was excruciatingly literal. :)

So you were being "honest and forthright", not joking at all, when you wrote

a peer reviewed study published in a reputable medical journal establishing that Justatech feels ‘happy’ when he belittles scientists who step outside status quo paradigms will soon be forthcoming.

Thank you for showing what an antivax propagandist considers "honest and forthright".

It's also telling that NWOR considers being taken seriously as "excruciatingly literal". But NWOR is an honourable man "honest an forthright".

The phrase you quoted above is called satire, Espol. I'll let you look it up yourself. :)

The phrase you quoted above is called satire, Espol.

Which phrase is satire? I quoted a couple phrases: "honest and forthright" and "excruciatingly literal". On what basis can one recognize either one as satire? Or perhaps it's just another case of a religioso screwing up and calling it a jpoke when called on it.

I’ll let you look it up yourself.

Which phrase should I look up, and why?

a large scale brain simulation like the human brain project
Do not expect any results from the HBP itself. Its continued existence is a demonstraton of the power of institutional inertia in science funding, but that's all it's good for. Everyone in the EU funding establishment seems to accept that it's a billion-Euro boondoggle, but they have to go on funding it anyway rather than accept that the previous investment just went down rat-holes.

if you compare profits from, say, statins, to profits from vaccines, there is simply no comparison.

All the longer-established anti-vaxxers accept that vaccine development / production is only marginally profitable, so they pin their hopes on Trump repealing the vaccine-court legislation so that ambulance-chasing lawyers can drive pharma companies out of the US market.
From the conspiratorial perspective, this may demonstrate that all the anti-vax 'establishment' are all Controlled Opposition, mere dupes of the conspiracy

NWO Reporter: "Of course, you are more than happy to drag the reputation of any scientist who challenges consensus reality through the mud in the course of your duties."

Take a look at the list of Nobel Prize winners. Note the number who got their award for challenging the consensus.

NWO @233: I was not in any way shape or form saying that if soap is good then vaccines are good. That's just silly, not to mention illogical.
Let me spell it out more clearly. I am trying to figure out if you don't like 1) just vaccines, 2) modern medicine 3) germ theory.
I know you don't like vaccines. So I asked how you feel about antibiotics to elucidate your feelings on modern medicine. I asked how you feel about soap to see how you feel about germ theory.

So, being completely blunt and transparent:
NWO, how do you feel about antibiotics? How do you feel about any other part of modern medicine?
NWO, do you think that germ theory is a robust explanation of infection and disease?

@ Gray Falcon

Long before he received the Nobel Prize for challenging the consensus in chemistry, Peter Mitchell would sometimes include in his talks a slide with an upward-trending line plotted with the X axis labeled in years and the Y axis labeled with something like "scientists who accept the Mitchell Hypothesis."

Do not expect any results from the HBP itself. Its continued existence is a demonstraton of the power of institutional inertia in science funding, but that’s all it’s good for

I had this sinking feeling...basically, I checked out the number of publications by the Markram couple on autism and the only result they got are from mice studies and not that many at that. It seem (my own impression) that they are both really busy over, one the one hand, the HBP (H. Markram) and on the other hand, frontiers publishing (K. Markram).

Alain

On a remotely similar topic to #238, I'm involved (personal pet project) into the buildup of an intel core2 (old) computer with a brand new 1TB hard drive and a decent nvidia card. I also downloaded the entirety of the pubmed database (26GB in compressed xml form) as of last weekend to do text mining research assisted by the nvidia graphic card and tensorflow.

Should I get a slight bit of money available (got an appointment at my bank on Thursday for a credit card), there will be a bump in ram and a few other hard disks to delve into genetic mining.

Alain

bucking consensus reality.
any scientist who challenges consensus reality

I expect scientists to challenge our understanding of "consensus reality". Questioning the existence of "consensus reality" is best left to poets and surrealist painters.

Alain,
I checked out the number of publications by the Markram couple on autism and the only result they got are from mice studies

I think the back-story went something like this:
1. The EU science-funding establishment decided to pour all the research money into a few ambitious, blue-sky projects (inspired by the moon-shot and the Human Genome project), on the theory that even if the goals were missed, the spraying-around of money would stimulate new technologies.

In effect they decided to throw colossal budgets at whichever scammers and charlatans came up with the most grandiose promises. But it let them pay themselves larger salaries.

2. The Human Brain Project, to simulate a complete human cortex and deliver AI by 2020. Promised by someone who can't even simulate the functioning of a single neuron. Linked to the 'Frontiers' academic Ponzi scheme.

3. Total debacle.

4. The HBP is still going, though under new management, and without any actual objectives (except the continued acceptance of money). Too big to stop.
https://forbetterscience.com/2017/02/22/human-brain-project-bureaucrati…

HDB,

Retroscope notwithstanding, I should obey my instinct a bit more often. From memory, I remember reading the papers coming out of the blue brain and finding them really hard to dissect as to what they ended up describing and had some self doubt that I needed more training / learning (yeah, I'm working on that).

But, what I'm thinking now is that they haven't done the due diligence of curating the needed paperwork (paperwork == scientific publications in this context) on the physics, chemistry and chemoinformatics field to build a functioning neuron (and yeah, I did test their software, couldn't figure out how it worked).

<sarcasm>I think I got my career set out in accounting...pardon, scientific accounting</sarcasm>

<more seriously>With the spare computer, I'm starting out with pubmed but over the next few years, I'll investigate other databases in the stem & computational stem field.

Alain

Alain: "... but I’m curious about the possible treatment modalities enabled by gene research... "

It has more to do with diet, similar to the issues with phenylketonuria. I can't find my notes but one pair of mutations had to do with sodium channels, one required more sodium and another required less sodium. Plus there are other similarities between children with certain genetic variations, so there are now online forums of families based on specific genetic variations to keep up with research, etc.

Searching on PubMed I found these:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28321286
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28287497

There are several others.

The violent rhetoric of the antivaccine movement: "Vaccine Holocaust" and potential impending attacks on journalists

oracknows — Wed, 17 May 2017 04:00:39 +0000

The violent rhetoric of the antivaccine movement: "Vaccine Holocaust" and potential impending attacks on journalists

After yesterday's post about how antivaxers were utterly losing their mind about an ill-chosen idiom that appeared in a Boston Herald editorial last week. In it, the editor concluded by saying that how antivaxers have been preying on the Somali immigrant population in Minnesota, feeding them antivaccine misinformation that has resulted in two measles outbreaks, one in 2011 and one this year, which is up to 58 victims, a number that continues to climb, should be a "hanging offense." In my post, I emphasized the hypocrisy and disingenuousness of the response of antivaxers, who took an offhand use of a questionable idiom and turned it into headlines blaring that the Boston Herald is advocating death squads to undertake the mass murder of antivaxers. Basically, antivaxers routinely use imagery on a daily basis far more violent than an offhand quip about a "hanging offense," such as photos in which antivaccine mothers brandish large caliber weapons to defend their children against depraved pro-vaxers, idiots like Del Bigtree say that antivaxers should take up arms to resist the new California law eliminating nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine requirements (which he hilariously walked back when called on it), and all manner of antivaxers liken the vaccination program to rape, the Holocaust, Nazis, the Titanic, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and a tsunami.

In fact, I couldn't help but laugh when I saw a particularly odious antivaxer, Ginger Taylor practically beg her fellow antivaxers not to threaten violence or use antisemitic language criticizing the Herald's editorial page editor Rachelle Cohen. Cohen, not surprisingly, has gotten a lot of hate mail, including (predictably, given her name) antisemitic hate mail, complete with a large volume of antisemitic calls and e-mails, leading her to observe drolly (and quite correctly), “Discussions that begin with how sorry folks are I’m not headed for ‘the ovens’ [are] not likely to be fruitful.” (prominently featured was a comment about how disappointed an antivaxer was that she wasn't being sent to the ovens). It amuses me to no end how antivaxers so gleefully make my points for me. Ginger basically has to beg her readers to knock it off with violent imagery far worse than the poorly chosen quip about a “hanging” offense that she now finds oh-so-offensive, coupled with Nazi level antisemitism. Hilarity indeed. I’d almost feel sorry for Ms. Taylor, but she brings it on herself—with gusto—and her Dunning-Kruger arrogance of ignorance is off the charts. However, compared to what's going on now, Ms. Taylor is merely an amusing sideline, as you will see. I realize that some of this will be a little repetitive of yesterday's post, but I consider this important enough to cover again, but from a different angle.

While it was fun to focus on the hypocrisy, what was less fun was what I learned later in the day and only mentioned in addendums. Specifically, it's a very conscious campaign on the part of antivaxers, led by Mike Adams, to threaten and intimidate journalists criticizing the antivaxers who have been spreading misinformation among the Somali community. To give you an idea where he's coming from, he's recently set up a website that he calls Vaccine Holocaust. (Obviously, anything resembling subtlety or good taste was never Adams' strong suit.) At the top of the headlines last night when I perused the website was More children harmed by VACCINES than from GUNSHOTS, government statistics reveal. It's a truly hilariously dumb article in which someone named Lance D. Johnson (who deserves all the ridicule he can get for writing this) takes a look at the horrific statistics on gunshot injuries and deaths among children in the US and compares them to the number of adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, the vast majority of which are minor and many of the rest not even related to vaccines because lawyers have been encouraging parents to report "vaccine injury" for a long time. Basically, it's comparing data from a verified database (the National Database of Inpatient Stays for Children) to that of a database where the reports are not verified (VAERS) and parents can report that vaccines turned someone into the Incredible Hulk and have the report entered.

The stupid, it burns.

But Vaccine Holocaust is about more than just flaming stupidity. It's about naked intimidation; that is, if Adams actually goes through with his threats. As is his wont, Adams claims to have reported the editorial staff of the Boston Herald to the FBI, the Massachusetts Attorney General, the Boston Police, and more. Not surprisingly, the Attorney General didn't take him seriously (as well he shouldn't have, given the First Amendment). I'm sure there were many chuckles in the Attorney General's office though, likely coupled with a whole lot of facepalming. From this Adams, again, as is his wont, concludes that it's the beginning of a huge conspiracy to murder antivaxers based on the raving of an equally deluded antivaxer, Jeffery Jaxen:

Beta testing, sometimes referred to user acceptance testing, is defined in the computer world as a technique in which hardware is subjected to small trial environment before full implementation. Establishment media outlets and government health agencies have ramped up the pressure and targeting of families, parents, and children over the past few years. Vaccination, once a choice after careful deliberation over the dangers by way of full informed consent, has been painted as an authoritarian demand by the state. The removal of full informed consent, public health debates and medical choice has been superseded to make way for the ever-expanding profit margins of pharmaceutical corporations.

Media outlets now regularly attack and dehumanize anyone who does not subscribe to what can only be described as a religious-like dogma of the failing tenets of the medical-industrial complex. Humanity has witnessed governments and their mouthpieces, often with corporate collusion, attempt to divide and conquer their populations for the purpose of greater control and, in extreme cases, extermination. The slippery slope practice of painting innocent subgroups of society, often used as scapegoats for failed government policy, as a danger to the collective is well-documented and extremely dangerous.

To pave the way for California Senate Bill 277, marinated in Big Pharma money and political corruption, The LA Times ran the article titled "Rich, educated and stupid parents are driving the vaccination crisis." Such a headline now seems tame in today's accepted media landscape ever since the Boston Herald labeled public debate about questionable health practices and parents talking about their children's vaccine injuries "a hanging offense."

You can guess what's coming next. Jaxen cites Anthony Mawson's terrible study that was retracted from not just one, but two, bottom-feeding predatory pay-to-publish "open access" journals without mentioning the little bit about the retraction, and concludes that more fascism in the service of "forced vaccination" is on the way. Not surprisingly, Adams eats this up. Unfortunately, though, he takes it in a truly ugly direction. Based on the Attorney General's recognizing a crank when he sees one (or, quite possibly, a bunch of cranks if several more antivaxers complained), Adams thinks himself justified to do this:

In other words, the Massachusetts government has just told anti-vaxxers that you must now take up your own self-defense against journo-terrorists, since the “authorities” in government refuse to apply the law to those who work at the Boston Herald. Your lives are now in danger. You are being targeted by the Boston Herald and any number of psychopaths who may be motivated by the Herald’s call for mass murder. The government has now declared it will do nothing to stop the calls for murder by “journalists” as long as they are targeting people who oppose toxic vaccine ingredients.

It’s time to start publishing the home addresses of journo-terrorists who escalate violence against concerned parents and independent scientists

This all explains why I plan to publish the home addresses of the journo-terrorists working at the Boston Herald, in order to warn local Bostonians that they might be living next to murderous, sociopathic mental health miscreants who are a danger to society. Since the Massachusetts government refuses to take any action to protect the public from these dangerous psychopaths, it’s obvious that we must take action to protect ourselves. The right to self-defense, after all, is one of the most sacred rights we possess.

Our non-profit division is also launching the public education site VaccineHolocaust.org where journo-terrorists who deny that vaccines harm children will be named and shamed, providing a permanent record of their crimes against children and humanity.

There is a "protest" planned for tomorrow at the Boston Herald being publicized by a local antivaccine group, Health Choice Massachusetts. As of last night there were 23 saying they were going, a whole five up from the night before. In any case, at this "rally," Adams is urging people to do this:

Bring your cameras to the protest! Natural News plans to publish photos of Boston Herald staff members walking to and from the building, their vehicle license plate numbers and other details, to the extent allowed by law. If you attend this rally, be sure to take photos and send them to Natural News for publication.

If anyone attending the rally can bring an audio recorder, attempt to interview Boston Herald staffers and ask if they support government-run execution squads of so-called “anti-vaxxers.” If they answer yes, ask them if they plan to do the killing themselves, or if they want government to do the killing for them. Find out if they plan to use lethal injection, hanging, machetes or guns. After all, history has shown there are all sorts of ways for genocidal factions of society to run mass murder campaigns against the people they don’t like. We’re wondering which method the Boston Herald favors.

You might also ask them whether they think killing children with toxic vaccine ingredients is also ethically justifiable, since they’re also advocating the mass murder of naturopaths, scientists and journalists who oppose mercury in vaccines. Find out if there’s any other group they also think should be murdered, such as “climate denialists” or people who grow herbs. Maybe they hate “man boobs” and want to murder men with breasts.

You know, whenever I think Adams can't sink any lower or become any more ridiculous, he always proves me wrong. As much as I like to laugh at his ridiculousness in urging antivaxers to pretend they're Michael Moore or Geraldo Rivera asking "gotcha" questions, his threat to the journalists of the Boston Herald is anything but funny. For one thing, a lot more people work at a newspaper than just journalists, and only a relatively small number of people put together most editorial pages. Even fewer still actually write the editorials. Neither is this the least bit amusing:

The sheer cynicism is breathtaking. Here you have a group of people, nearly all white, latching on to one of the most shameful parts of American history, the lynchings of black people, mostly men, that took place over many decades after the Civil War and claiming to be on the side of the Somali immigrants, who are also black. The condescending racism is beyond belief. So is the obsessive use of hanging imagery, be it Ms. Taylor's use of an illustration of women being hung after the Salem witch trials or Adams' use of an old photo of the lynching of a black man to try to claim he's on the side of the Somalis, or the many photos of nooses obsessively included in posts and articles on various antivax blogs and websites. It's almost as though they really, really like (or are fascinated) by the imagery of hanging.

I also can't help but point out here that, first of all, the press is not attacking the Somalis. Racist xenophobes (but I repeat myself) are attacking them, using the measles outbreak as a convenient excuse and ignoring how it was American antivaxers who fed them misinformation that vaccines cause autism, who frightened the Somalis into not vaccinating. If there were no measles outbreak, the same people would just continuing to demonize the Somalis as a fertile recruiting ground for ISIS. Rather, most journalists in the mainstream press realize that the Somalis are victims of American antivaxers and, of course, the British fraud who inspired them, Andrew Wakefield, and that's at whom their ire is being directed, not the Somalis—and appropriately so. Again, the Somalis are the victims, and antivaxers are the perpetrators. Meanwhile, the public health officials trying to combat the antivaccine misinformation being spread by the antivaxers are the heros, and the journalists are documenting it all.

These are the reasons why I scoff when antivaxers claim not to be antivaccine. I mean, seriously. Think about it. Not only do they liken vaccination programs to all those horrible things I discussed above, but they think nothing of using obvious intimidation tactics to attempt to frighten critics who have the temerity to call them out into silence. I first noticed that 12 years ago when I was a new blogger and my true identity was actually not one of the worst-kept secrets on the Internet. Antivaxers and other cranks were obsessed with finding out who I was. That's because they have no science and therefore can't win when science is the basis of the discussion. Instead, they seek ways to attack their critics, either through ad hominems or through the threat of actual physical attacks (and, let's face it, that's the undertext of Adams' plans). Discovering who their critics are, digging for every bit of dirt they can on them, publicizing anything negative they can find, and harassing critics at their jobs or schools are the first preferred techniques of dealing with criticism, not the use of evidence, science, and reason to persuade. Adams' plan to dox employees of the Boston Herald and other provaccine advocates who criticize antivaxers is nothing new. It's how antivaxers operate. It's how they've always operated since I first discovered that there are people clueless enough to view vaccines as dangerous.

oracknows Wed, 05/17/2017 - 00:00

Categories

Social Sciences

Just when you thought Adams couldn't sink any lower, he goes out and proves everyone wrong in magnitudes greater than expected.
I certainly hope the Boston Herald takes the "protest" seriously enough to protect their employees from the doxxing and hate mail the antivaxxers would happily send to them....we all know the antivaxxers are so polite that way.
Of course, if the Herald does ask for police to monitor the protest, we can all bet on the fact that Adams will seize on that as preventing "freedom of speech" - only allowed when it's his, not anyone else's, by the way. It's OK to doxx anyone you disagree with, in his mind (and many antivaxxers), but heaven forbid anyone do it to them.

Doxxing per se is not illegal. But stalking and harassment are.

Adams is walking a fine line. He'd better watch his step, or the local prosecutors may indeed take an interest . . . just not the one he wants.

@Panacea: I know doxxing isn't illegal. But we all know that when the antivaxxers doxx someone, they don't leave it at that, they write to friends, neighbors, employers and threaten families. And since they aren't brave enough to put their names on the harassment, it's very difficult for law enforcement to manage.

I haven't listened yet, but I wonder if Ms. Taylor, talking about this yesterday, distanced herself from Mr. Adams' implied threats.
http://www.robertscottbell.com/show-archives/

Jaxen cites Anthony Mawson’s terrible study that was retracted from not just one, but two, bottom-feeding predatory pay-to-publish “open access” journals without mentioning the little bit about the retraction, and concludes that more fascism in the service of “forced vaccination” is on the way.

Weirdly, the fact that both surveys were retracted is evidence to the irrational worldview of anti-vaxxers that "we" are somehow frightened of this information and also feeds into their persecution complex. It is this persecution complex and irrationality, along with a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance that allows them to justify harassing their critics with the same methods they accuse their critics of employing.

The first study appears to be back on the OAT website...

@Science Mom: Nothing weird about it, it's how conspiracy theorists operate. The paper was published? Evidence of a conspiracy. The paper was retracted? Evidence that a conspiracy is suppressing the evidence. It made no difference to the anti-vax crew what happened to the Mawson et al. paper after it was submitted.

A minor point on the original post: Not only does the VAERS database overstate the incidence of vaccine injury (by not verifying the claimed injuries), but the National Database of Inpatient Stays for Children almost certainly understates the incidence of gun injuries to children. Assuming that the latter database is exactly what it says on the tin, it would exclude (1) children who died before being admitted to a hospital and (2) children whose injuries were not severe enough to merit hospitalization. The CDC is actually prohibited from investigating the incidence of gun injuries, because certain politicians who are in the pocket of the gun lobby don't want to find out the answer. And I have the impression that, among his many other proclivities, Mike Adams is a gun nut.

MI Dawn: yes, I get that. But Adams is effectively inciting the behavior. They don't have to track the doxxers. They can go to Adams. That's why I said he should watch his step.

The first study appears to be back on the OAT website…

At what ransom I wonder.

Re: Johnson's use of the VAERS information.

This is a continuing fetish of data abuse on the part of the anti-vaxxers. If I recall correctly, there are several warnings about the data collected by VAERS, explaining that it is unfiltered, unverified, and unreliable for anything other than possible more reliable investigations. One page even makes visitors acknowledge reading disclaimers before getting to the actual information. For any one with basic reading comprehension, this is about as close as a government agency is likely to get to shouting "Don't go data diving here for anything approaching reliable information!"

I think a phrase I learned in college back in the early 1960s says it all:

"L'hypocrisie est un hommage que le vice rend à la vertu."

"Hypocrisy is an homage that vice pays to virtue."

François de La Rochefoucauld
(September 15 1613 – March 17 1680)

For any one with basic reading comprehension, this is about as close as a government agency is likely to get to shouting “Don’t go data diving here for anything approaching reliable information!”

Of course, some people will still fall for the Schmuck Bait. Mr. Johnson, whose surname just happens to be a slang term for "schmuck", would be among them.

Not too long ago I ran across a comment (don't recall where) from someone who moaned about all that up-front effort required to get into VAERS and how it seemed like a deliberate attempt to keep people out - then proceeded to cite VAERS entries in a manner warned against.

Bring your cameras to the protest! Natural News plans to publish photos of Boston Herald staff members walking to and from the building, their vehicle license plate numbers and other details

Does anyone know the car registrations of Adams, Taylor &Co?
How delicious if those who worked at the Herald drove in tomorrow with a mock up of Adams' and Taylor's numberplates on their cars.

all manner of antivaxers liken the vaccination program to rape, the Holocaust, Nazis, the Titanic, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and a tsunami

From the Department of Idle Curiosity, it turns out that the first appearance of this one at AoA that G—le coughs up is from February 2008.

Eric,

Oh yes, Mikey makes sure to mention at any opportunity that's he's always armed. When the "holistic doctors are being murdered" conspiracy reared its ugly head, he pointed out that anyone who tried that on him would face a barrage of bullets.

He's also said that had he been in the audience in the Colorado movie theatre during the "Batman" shootings he would have taken down the shooter with his firearms prowess.

I see what you're trying to do here, but using an actual Holocaust photo and one depicting a real lynching? in very, VERY poor taste. Shame on you.

anyone who tried that on him would face a barrage of bullets

Not that we needed any more evidence that Adams is delusional, but this only works if he is able to draw his gun and shoot it before the "bad guy" perforates him. Which, if said "bad guy" were intent on harming Adams, would not be the case.

he would have taken down the shooter with his firearms prowess

If I ever became world dictator, one of my actions would be to take guns away from idiots like this. Because that is one heck of a dangerous fantasy. Suppose you are a "good guy with a gun" in a situation where a "bad guy with a gun" starts shooting, and somebody else starts shooting back. Or suppose you are a police officer arriving on the scene where this scenario is taking place. Which shooter is the bad guy? My guess is that if I were in that scenario, I would have a 50-50 chance of guessing wrong, and I suspect the same is true for almost all civilians and many cops. (Not to mention the risk of hitting an innocent bystander, as I am under no illusions about my marksmanship in this scenario.) However, I don't suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, at least on the subject of firearms. Far too many gun nuts do. The Second Amendment does specify that the militia should be "well-regulated".

@Melissa: So, Orac using public photos to demonstrate the rhetoric of the antivaxxers (because they have compared giving vaccines to the Holocaust, and rape, etc, as noted above) is horrible and very poor taste? What do you have to say to the AV'ers who use the language? Who threaten to "meet you at work and blow your head off" or other threats? I suppose those are free speech and OK, right?

Or would you have also condemned the infamous Thanksgiving picture that AOA posted a few years ago?

Somehow, I don't quite get Melissa's outrage over the use of a Holocaust-era photo (which appears to show prisoners being liberated from Auschwitz) to illustrate the profound cluelessness and insulting imagery to which antivaxers stoop when they invoke the Holocaust for their purpose.

And perhaps she should direct the rest of her ire at Mike Adams (whose lynching photo was reproduced here).

Somehow, I don’t quite get Melissa’s outrage over the use of a Holocaust-era photo (which appears to show prisoners being liberated from a camp) to illustrate the profound cluelessness and insulting imagery to which antivaxers stoop when they invoke the Holocaust for their purpose.

And perhaps she should direct her ire over the lynching photo of the person who first posted it (not Orac).

I don't get it either. Now, I did think about whether to reproduce the photo used by Mike Adams, but in the end I thought that illustrating just how vile Adams' imagery is outweighed the possibility that some might be offended. However, regarding the Auschwitz picture, I am at a loss. I've written about the use of Holocaust analogies by historically ignorant antivaxers more times than I can remember, and I frequently illustrate such posts with a Holocaust-related photo, like the train line to Auschwitz, the Auschwitz gate shown in the photo I picked for this post, photos of the ruins of the krema (crematoria) or of the gas chambers, or photos of Hitler or marching Nazis. I've never gotten a complaint on that basis. Methinks there's a bit too much sensitivity here.

For one thing, a lot more people work at a newspaper than just journalists

Carefully disguised in yellow pants, no doubt.

there are several warnings about the data collected by VAERS, explaining that it is unfiltered, unverified, and unreliable for anything other than possible more reliable investigations. One page even makes visitors acknowledge reading disclaimers before getting to the actual information

That is why NVIC offer their own mirror of the database for people who don't want to know about the disclaimers.
http://www.medalerts.org/

@Eric Lund #28, I actually know my level of proficiency with firearms, courtesy of training and experience provided by the US taxpayer.
One thing that has awakened me in a cold sweat, was a nightmare of being in a crowd while a shootout began.

As for the movie theater shooting, I know what I'd do in that situation as well - hide with pride. The notion of being in a large, dark theater and trading shots with someone, all in the midst of a panic ridden crowd is something that I'd heartily recommend the one suggesting said notion have his or her head examined for emptiness.*

*Many years ago, I did have a concealed carry permit. One evening, while having to clean the pistol, yet again, of all of the gunk accumulated from carrying it, I pondered how sporting a criminal would have to be for me to avail myself of that weapon.
"Oh, excuse me, Mr Criminal. I have a firearm as well, can you hold on a second while I get mine out and we're even?"
Yeah.
Into the safe it went and stayed.

As for doxxing, been there, done that, got the "I've been doxxed" tee shirt. One, being exceptionally enterprising, both doxxing me and threatening to come to my home, murder my family, rape my wife, then murder me. It didn't enter his equation that I'd not agree to observe passively.
Which, I disabused him of, quite graphically and mentioning that I'd only use a firearm against an invader of my home if I were feeling charitable - which would be highly unlikely, but that I am proficient with edged weapons, of which I have aplenty.
Which is quite true, I use my old bayonets and fighting knives that I still retain (I gave most of them away when I retired) for yard work. That'll teach those pesky dandelions!

A little over ten years ago a young man in the army killed in the middle east, he was from a small town (about) in the county I worked in.

That Baptist church from the mid-west threaten to protest at the burial (they were banned from entering the cemetery).

I knew the volunteer fire chief and we hatched a plan to take care of their protest. We would start a small fire between the protesters and the burial. No direct violence would have done to the protesters, they just by chance be in the wrong place at the right time.

The volunteer fire department would be called out to put the fire. They would have unfortunately sprayed the protesters with lots of water. It was winter time and the temp was hovering around 10F. Unfortunately the protestors didn't show up.

I think it would be great fun to do something like this to these protesters. Unfortunately, it is a lot warmer Boston right now than it was in the small town I was talking about.

Wzrd1,

I showing my Claymore off the other day and it is still by my chair.

I still remember the line from one of Crocodile Dundee movies: you can that a knife.

@Rich Bly,
"They can take our lives, but they can never take our -" Zzzzzt! "light fixture..."

Yeah, I know. Not in the house.

Does anyone know the car registrations of Adams, Taylor &Co?

One could always ask.

"Hate speech and harassment (which is the personal, rather than group-focused, cousin of hate speech) impose costs on others for speaking. In so doing, they limit speech to those most able to pay those costs. This is the simple secret behind harassment campaigns, especially ones on the Internet. It’s also why “real name” policies have no effect on abuse: the offenders generally get social credit in their communities for doing so. (There are plenty of communities in which being an asshole not only costs you nothing, it’s a way to show off. Vide Trump.)"

https://extranewsfeed.com/free-speech-and-hate-speech-17a1eaf1e78

Orac@23
The gnat did it before Adams.Probably where Mikey got the idea of using a photo like that.

That Baptist church from the mid-west threaten to protest at the burial

If you are referring to the group I think you are referring to, then they have been in my neck of the woods at least a couple of times. The first time, almost 20 years ago now, was after a nearby high school's senior class named a lesbian couple as "class sweethearts". Apparently things were so hunky-dory in their back yard that they could protest at a high school some 2000 km away. They were mostly ignored at the time. But they were not, at least at the time, gun nuts.

That group eventually forced out their (since-deceased) leader because he wasn't extreme enough for them.

At present the only violence from the anti-vaxers is in the rhetoric, and attacks on journalists are potential. When this topic is raised here, I always wonder why the actual violence and real attacks on health care providers are so easily ignored when they are directed against abortion providers. I can only suppose that you don't want to open this particular Pandora' box, but it seems odd to be so concerned about potential violence when members of your profession are frequently threatened and sometimes killed, while the conservative side of the political spectrum encourages the violence.

Sigh. This comment is basically a "Why don't you blog about what I think you should blog about?" comment. Regular readers know that I never take kindly to such comments.

Cloudskimmer @34: We tend to stick to vax/anti-vax topics here, so a more apt comparison might be the groups internationally who specifically target vaccine workers in places like Pakistan.

Thankfully here it is still just rhetoric, whereas there it is actual killings.

I also recall several choice words towards anti-abortion groups on this blog, even without articles directly talking about the murder of abortion providers.

If one thinks anti-vaccine propaganda is just dangerous for the unvaccinated children, think again.
In August last year a lady who blamed her childs autism on vaccinations, stabbed a pediatrician in the head. The pediatrician survived, but is unable to work.
Alas I can't find anything about this in English, so I just post the Dutch link. Perhaps Google translate can help.
http://nos.nl/artikel/2174794-vier-jaar-cel-en-tbs-voor-insteken-op-kin…

The Somali measles outbreak in Minnesota: Thanks again, Andy (and American antivaxers), for the measles

oracknows — Fri, 12 May 2017 06:30:12 +0000

The Somali measles outbreak in Minnesota: Thanks again, Andy (and American antivaxers), for the measles

Normally, I like to mix up my topics, but it's been one of those weeks where basically discussing the antivaccine movement has taken over. Sometimes when that happens, I just go with the flow. Besides, there really is one more story involving that antivaccine movement that I want to comment on. Remember last week, when the story of how the antivaccine movement had targeted Somali immigrants in Minnesota, with a resultant plunge in MMR uptake among that population over the last decade. Completely unsurprisingly, given that MMR uptake among the Somalis fell from 92% to 42% in over a decade, the Somalis in Minnesota endured a measles outbreak in 2011 and are now at the center of the biggest measles outbreak Minnesota has seen in decades. It's all thanks to American antivaxers who targeted this population when there was a cluster of autism cases among them in 2008 and were "inspired" by (not to mention aided and abetted by) the most infamous antivaccine quack of all, Andrew Wakefield. These antivaxers are continuing to target them, even in the midst of this latest measles outbreak, which, the last time I checked, has reached 50 cases, many hospitalized.

There is a telling and educational article by Julia Belluz published by Vox.com, in which Belluz interviews a public health official in Minnesota, who explains how Minnesota lost the battle with antivaccine campaigners. It's a sad tale, but it reveals just how persistent antivaxers have been in targeting this vulnerable community and how incredibly difficult it will be for public health officials to rebuild trust in vaccines, now that it is lost. The first thing we learn is that this was a concerted effort (something that those of us who've paid attention to this story already knew) by several antivaccine groups:

Minnesota is currently battling its largest measles outbreak in nearly 30 years, with 50 confirmed cases. And it’s become a case study in how difficult it can be to slay vaccine misinformation once it takes root.

What makes this outbreak so astounding is that it is nearly a decade in the making. In 2008, anti-vaccine advocates — including the Organic Consumers Association and Andrew Wakefield, a British doctor who falsified data suggesting vaccines are linked to autism — began targeting local Somali Americans who had concerns about autism among their children. The activists saw an opening, offering an explanation of a cause when the health department couldn’t provide one.

Why am I not surprised that the Organic Consumers Association is antivaccine? It's probably because anyone who's looked at the antivaccine movement for as long as I have knows about anti-GMO and antivaccine go together like dog feces and poo bags. It didn't take me long searching its website to find articles like Vaccine Studies Debunked, which touts a white paper released by the equally antivaccine ANH-USA released in conjunction with Brian Hooker, the biochemical engineer turned incompetent antivaccine (but I repeat myself) statistician and epidemiologist whose "simple" reanalysis of a 2004 study of MMR and autism helped fuel the "CDC whistleblower" conspiracy theory three years ago. Other examples include an article entitled How Mainstream Media Insults the Public’s Intelligence on Vaccines that is chock full of practically every antivaccine trope in the book. If you want to know how far down the rabbit hole of antivaccine propaganda the OCA has gone, just check out its article on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s risible "vaccine challenge." Such challenges, as I like to put it, are practically the sine qua non of a crank. Basically, the fact that OCA republishes a whole lot of material from Joe Mercola on vaccines should tell you all you need to know about its stance on vaccines.

Belluz spoke to Kristen Ehresmann, director for infectious diseases at Minnesota’s Department of Health, who has been working with the Somali community for nearly a decade. First we learn how the antivaccine movement got traction:

In 2008, there was a news article — based on people’s perception and observation — that a disproportionate number of Somali children were taking advantage of special education services in the Minneapolis public school system. Once that news piece was done, word got out that there appeared to be a disproportionate number of Somalis with autism [which is not true]. And that was the opening point.

Right from the very first meeting that the Department of Health and some community members coordinated, the anti-vaccine folks were there [through public lectures and outreach]. They have been actively working in the community. Andrew Wakefield, the discredited British doctor [who falsified data suggesting vaccines cause autism], has met with the community on at least two occasions.

I discussed this history in depth two weeks ago, with a blow-by-blow of how the antivaccine movement swooped in during 2008 to spread antivaccine misinformation. I also pointed out how the "opening" for antivaxers to do this was a series of stories that appeared that year about an "autism cluster" in the Somali community in 2008. The existence of this cluster was was not confirmed in subsequent studies, the latest of which found that Somali children born in the US were no more likely to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder than American children. This study is brought up later in the interview, and Ehresmann is asked if it had any effect. The answer, predictably, is no:

The perception is so strong [that autism rates are higher] in the [Somali] community there was almost a distrust — “You’re just saying the rates are the same.” So that [report] didn’t make a huge difference. I think this outbreak has really provided a good opportunity to try and clarify messages and get more concerted messaging from within the community and from community leaders.

I hope that's the case. Ehresmann does highlight the most difficult problem skeptics and science advocates have: Countering personal perceptions with data. Human beings are pattern-forming, storytelling apes who prize the word of people in their community and their immediate circle over data and science. I've discussed more times than I can remember how unshakable the belief that vaccines cause autism is among parents whose children exhibited their first symptoms of autism within a few days of vaccines and as a result have come to blame vaccines for their children's autism. It doesn't matter how many large, high quality studies you cite demonstrating that vaccines have no correlation with autism risk; they believe their eyes and their human tendency to fall prey to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and confuse seeming correlation with causation far more than they believe dry scientific studies. Again, it's human nature. It's also human nature that, once an impression or narrative becomes established, it's incredibly hard to change it with data and evidence.

There's another human trait that puts Minnesota public health officials at an extreme disadvantage:

Over time, we have modified our approach. First we were focusing a great deal on vaccines, and we realized that it’s not enough to say vaccines aren’t the problem. You really have to address the concerns about autism as well. Over time we’ve increased the involvement of the [Somali] community as well as made sure we’re addressing both issues.

One of the big challenges we face is that autism is extremely complex and there are multiple factors that have been identified and that may play a role. And the community really wants an answer — they want to know that X causes autism. We try to explain the level and type of research that’s needed [and that we don’t have answers about the causes of autism], and that was perceived of as, “You don’t care about us.” I don’t think we did a good enough job of conveying that we did care.

Humans crave certainty. I've discussed this aspect of human nature on more occasions than I can remember, citing the lyrics to a David Bowie song, "I don't want knowledge, I want certainty." It's a disadvantage that those of us who advocate for science have compared to cranks and quacks like antivaccine activists. Science is nuance. Quackery is certainty. Human nature is to crave certainty. It doesn't matter if it's certainty in vaccines, cancer treatment, or cancer screening. That's why we lose so often.

It's especially difficult for Minnesota public health officials when the antivaxers who got this impression established in the Somali community are doing their damnedest to reinforce it:

They have redoubled their efforts during this outbreak. They are putting more and more energy ... into promoting their message. They scheduled a community meeting on April 30 — it was “an educational community resource meeting,” but it was really an anti-vaccine meeting. The anti-vaccine groups presented their viewpoints... some Somali parents spoke about their concerns about autism. And a number of physicians got up and refuted the information provided.

I discussed this meeting in depth as well. Basically Mark Blaxill, antivaccine activist originally associated mostly with SafeMinds but now most active in the antivaccine political party The Canary Party and its "charitable" offshoot Health Choice rolled into town to lay down a heaping' helpin' of antivaccine misinformation, all spiced up with conspiracy theory fear mongering and, in essence, a plea to the Somalis not to let the health authorities "bully" them into "giving in" and vaccinating. Yes, antivaxers are just that depraved and despicable. In the midst of a growing measles outbreak in which children have been hospitalized, they're still deceiving the Somali community.

Worse, Ehresmann describes how, although Minnesota public health officials are doing the right things, they can't do them enough because they don't have the resources:

We’ve hired Somali staff to do outreach, and one of the important things is addressing [the community’s] concerns about autism. We have one Somali outreach worker whose job it is to make sure [concerned parents] are aware of resources they can have for their children if they do have [autism] concerns. Then we have an outreach worker who is focused on providing information on immunizations. We have created a Somali health advisers group and pulled together leaders in the Somali community to get their input. The challenge is we need to be doing this 10- or 100-fold more than what we’re able to do.

All of these actions are good approaches. Unfortunately, even if Minnesota public health officials had adequate funding to do what needs to be done, they would still be facing an uphill battle, thanks to human nature.

As frustrating as the whole situation in Minnesota is, it's important to remember that the Somali immigrant population refusing MMR vaccination is the victim here. They come from a very poor country with little medical infrastructure, and white, privileged—and, above all, American—antivaxers have targeted them with misinformation and pseudoscience, aided and abetted by a British fraud who got the whole scare blaming the MMR vaccine for autism started in the first place. As a result, not only are the Somali immigrants in Minnesota suffering a large and growing measles outbreak that is endangering the health of their children, but they're now also being made scapegoats by nativist racist idiots like this one:

Minnesota is facing a bit of a measles crisis, with nearing 50 confirmed cases in the last four weeks — a level that hasn’t been seen in three decades or so.

But the blame for this crisis is being wrongfully cast on anti-vaccination activists, and not on open border folk, where it more rightfully belongs.

It should be noted these cases came primarily from the Somali community of Hennepin County. They also come from a state with a massive refugee acceptance rate.

It's the same old time-dishonored narrative about immigrants that racists and xenophobes have been repeating since before the dawn of the republic, that "those" immigrants bring filth and disease into our nice clean white country. But they don't and the Somalis didn't. Eleven years ago, they vaccinated at a rate equal to or even higher than that of the local American-born population. Then American antivaxers (and a British fraud) took advantage of exaggerated news stories about an "autism cluster" to blame autism on the MMR vaccine and frighten Somalis into not vaccinating. They succeeded. MMR rates plunged precipitously and continue to plunge a decade later, with no bottom yet in sight. Now they're being demonized for having been the victim of an antivaccine con. It doesn't help that our President, Donald Trump, has targeted the Minnesota Somali immigrant community, falsely portraying the community as a hotbed of terrorist sympathizers and a fertile breeding ground for ISIS recruiting:

During a rally in Minnesota on Sunday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump reiterated that he would block refugee resettlement in the United States — and specifically targeted the Somali communities in the state.

“Here in Minnesota you have seen firsthand the problems caused with faulty refugee vetting, with large numbers of Somali refugees coming into your state, without your knowledge, without your support or approval,” Trump said against the backdrop of an airport hangar at the Minneapolis International Airport.

“You’ve suffered enough in Minnesota,” he added.

Meanwhile, over at WorldNetDaily, which is just a hair short of Breitbart when it comes to xenophobia, they're ranting about the Minnesota outbreak, blaming Islam and calling it the "Muslim measles":

Andrew Bostom, M.D., an academic internist specializing in general internal medicine who has also authored several books about the history of Islam, said Muslim communities often prove difficult to convince that vaccinations are appropriate for their children.

“The case against vaccinations is first an Islamic one,” he said, citing a 2011 article by Dr. Majid Katme, spokesman for the Islamic Medical Association in the United Kingdom.

“We are giving our innocent children haram [forbidden] substances and harmful chemicals that destroy their natural immune systems, causing disease, suffering and death,” Katme wrote.

No, it's not. This is the same anti-Muslim rhetoric that xenophobes trotted out when certain Muslim communities resisted polio vaccination programs. I discussed the very article by Katme being cited by Bostom (who, as a perusal of his website will really demonstrate, is a ranting Islamophobe, which is no doubt why WND likes to cite him). In essence, there's nothing uniquely (or even particularly) "Islamic" about antivaccine views. Indeed, we have plenty of Christian antivaxers who use fundamentalist versions of their religions to justify their antivaccine views. I also pointed out, for example, that most Muslim authorities support vaccination and mentioned the example of Iran, a Muslim theocracy, where vaccination rates have traditionally been consistently high for many years. I also can't help but note that the WND article notes that, although the Minnesota Somali community is the largest such community, there are "other large enclaves in Columbus, Ohio; Seattle; San Diego; Atlanta; Fargo, North Dakota; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Portland and Lewiston, Maine; and Nashville, Tennessee. If it were Somali Muslim beliefs that were responsible for antivaccine views, then we'd expect to be seeing outbreaks in several, if not all, of these communities as well. We don't.

The seed was planted by nativists who fear immigration and fertilized by our President when he was a candidate, and these same nativists have seized upon the measles outbreak in the Somali community as a convenient excuse to indulge their hatred of Islam and invoke the ancient false fear of immigrants bearing "disease" to attack the Somali immigrant community in Minnesota and use it as an example of why the US should shut down immigration and stop letting refugees in. The examples I picked are mild, too. Just peruse the comments after the WND article and you'll see some naked, undisguised bigotry and hatred that will nauseate you to read.

Nearly a decade ago, long before the rise of the alt right or Donald Trump, there was a seemingly anomalous "cluster" of autism cases in Minnesota among the community of Somali immigrants who had settled there after fleeing the chaos and violence in the failed state that claimed to be their country. Antivaxers, in their unshakeable faith that vaccines cause autism, saw a population just begging to be converted, and, unfortunately, they succeeded in converting them. The result is our current situation. To compound the injury to the Somali population, many of whom fled poverty and in the hope of building a better life in the US, our own homegrown racists are now using the measles outbreak that our own homegrown antivaxers (and one Brit) tricked them into inviting.

'Merica!

oracknows Fri, 05/12/2017 - 02:30

Tags

Organic Consumers Association

Somali

Vaccine Safety Council of Minnesota