Vaccines and Religion…Just Not How you Think

A couple of weeks ago, I was having a discussion with an old friend of mine. He and I were remarking on the similarities between the vaccine zealots (those he calls Vaccine Wackos) and religious extremists.

As you all know, I’ve discussed this observation many times on this site. However, I thought that I would delve further into this observation and reveal how my friend and I came to this conclusion. He and I have been working on this post for several days now, and considering that Gorski has sharted out his usual verbal Montezuma’s Revenge regarding how anti-vaxxers are cultists (and he does a very poor job of trying to compare the two), I felt it was a good time to look at the similarity of vaccine zealots and religious orthodoxy from a sociological standpoint as opposed to Gorski’s biased attempt at pigeon-holing.

So first, let us define what a religion is. In the simplest of terms, a religion is a group of people with similar views and beliefs who develop practices and reverence for the same things. Religion is not really practiced by a single individual (it wouldn’t be a religion if it was), so often, there are hierarchies and followers. Priests and their flocks, if you will.

Now, from this brief description, let’s look and see how that applies to the Vaccinators.

Are they a group of people with similar views and beliefs who develop practices and reverence to the same things? This is a very resounding “Yes,” when it is regarding vaccinations. Do they have a hierarchy? Absolutely! Doctors like Offit and Gorski are considered to be the priests, the gatekeepers of knowledge. What about followers? Yep! This is evident in the congregation of fawning arse-lickers who infest Gorski’s slime-pit, and those who collect together on various social media sites to attack and harass unbelievers.

Now that we’ve established a definition, let’s delve further into their belief structure. Religions are characterized by their beliefs. These beliefs are respected and held sacred by all members of the religion. These beliefs also come with a set of practices and morals that are considered very important to the congregation; if these beliefs, practices, and morals are not followed, then the member is considered to have “sinned.” These beliefs and morals are not up for debate, and they should not be questioned.

For the Vaccinators, their belief is that vaccines are the single most important medical breakthrough in history. It is immoral to deviate, even a little, from the doctrine of the sacred Vaccination Schedule, and getting vaccinated is treated with reverence, a sacrament similar to baptism in the Christian religion. It is your moral obligation to vaccinate your children. You should not show questions or concerns regarding this sacrament, and any deviance from the established dogma will result in cries of anti-vaxxer.

Which leads to our next part of religion; veneration of certain acts and things, and a clear definition of things that are evil or profane. Christianity venerates the death of Christ on the cross, and the cross is a reminder of this veneration. Things that pertain to, or are connected to, good acts that the church venerates are considered sacred. Things that they consider blasphemous, or profane, are considered evil. Those performing these types of acts are shunned, cast out, and scorned by the congregation. Often, they are called cultists, devil worshippers, or athiests.

Now, compare that to Vaccinators. All vaccines are sacred. Getting yourself and your children vaccinated will save you and your children, just like going to church and proclaiming your love for Christ will save your immortal souls. Speaking about vaccine injury, or selectively vaccinating, is blasphemous. Those who do so are shunned, cast out, and scorned by the Vaccinators. Often, they are called cultists, anti-vaxxers, and child killers.

In many churches, only the priest can understand, interpret, and teach about the Bible. Normal people within the church are incapable of understanding the true meaning behind the teachings of Christ, so should consult with their priest whenever they read the Bible. Similarly, Vaccinators believe that Doctors are the only ones capable of reading and understanding studies regarding vaccination and that anyone who reads them on their own and comes to their own conclusions is too stupid to understand the Science.

So, as you can see, Vaccine Wackos are clearly religious zealots, at least from a sociological viewpoint. Their beliefs and behaviours are consistent with religious zealots and their reactions to heretics and blasphemers are just as consistent. Oh, I can hear the Vaccine Wackos now…

“But we have SCIENCE on our side!!!!”

No, you have your biased and imperfect interpretation of science on your side. Science, I might add, that is paid for and controlled by organizations that have a vested interest in the outcome of that science. They never critically evaluate the science that supports their paradigm. Also, notice the religious reverence to Science.

The deification of Science is an abomination, and it should be ridiculed.

So, to test our theory that Vaccine Wackos are just religious zealots, let’s do a little test. My friend and I spent several days perusing the internet, reading comments left on pro-vaccine sites and on religious sites. We’ve compiled a list of comments. Some of them, we’ve left alone, and some we’ve changed only one or two words. See if you can determine which comments below are from Vaccine Wackos, or which are from religious zealots.

1. Your opinions are based on a lack of faith and the garbage you ingest from atheist blogs.

2. You are against God because you plug into atheism and don't have any education in basic religion...a poor substitute for faith.

3. Offit said he was hated. It's a strong sign we are on the right track.

4. You're just another crank blogger who is a satanist.

5. Priests are uniquely qualified to understand the theory behind religion and you are not.

6. That's a common anti-vax lie. Everybody doesn't have different interpretations. How can there be different interpretations? It's right there in the Science.

7. He's reading from a script in an attempt to pander to atheist groups. Why would you ever assume he is spreading "the truth"?

8. You're the ones claiming that there is no God. Show us the proof that there is no God!

9. There are no unanswered questions about God and creation....the questions have all been asked and answered, repeatedly.

10. It is the obligation of pro-science vaccinators everywhere to put the cup of Science to Anti-vaxxer's lips, and cause Anti-vaxxers to drink it. And you will drink it!

11. God has spoken!

12. Jesus has saved humanity!

13. We know this to be true because the Bible says it's true

14. Your baby's salvation is in jeopardy if they are not baptized

15. I don’t have to “prove” anything. You see, I have this wonderful thing called “faith” and with that I have no need of proof.

16. Just calmly and maturely present your side of the argument. Some of my friends are athiests. Doesn't mean I have to delete them from my life. It just means it's my duty to inform them otherwise.

17. Yet you don’t go to church, or only believe certain teachings? You do realize that makes you an atheist, right?

Post your answers in the comments, and we’ll reveal the answers in a few days.

Jenny McCarthy Strawman Fallacies, Take Two

This has been an interesting week, has it not? First, there was the Zimmerman trial and the outrageous response to his acquittal. Then, there was news of Gay marriage being legalized in England.

Then, there was news that was so outrageous, so shocking, so contemptible that it forced the entire Quackosphere ™ to creep out from under their bridges and organize a massive campaign to speak up against this atrocity.

That’s right; Jenny McCarthy has joined The View.

This is criminal! I mean, how dare they hire a beautiful woman who is openly outspoken about how she thinks her son was injured by vaccines! The gall!

Oh, and the furor is truly spectacular. The rhetoric has reached hysterical proportions. The amount of butt-hurt is truly epic.

Salon says that having her on the view will kill children. Just the fear-mongering in the title alone is enough to send the Pharma reps into fits of money-grubbing glee. Pareene vapidly opines:

“Parents have been convinced by McCarthy and the people she works with and promotes. They have forgone vaccination for their children. The result has been the recurrence and spread of preventable diseases. It’s incredibly irresponsible for a broadcast television network to think Jenny McCarthy should be on television — in a position where her job is to share her opinions — every day. It should seriously be a major scandal.”

His proof of this? Citations, please. Has this been peer-reviewed?

He goes on and essentially calls Ms McCarthy a dumb blonde.

Oh, the comments are wonderful, too. One commenter tells Anne Dachel:

“Fuck off and die, you anti-science cunt. I bet your kid deserved it, too.”

That’s lovely, yes? Truly a testament to the science community. This reminds me of some of the rhetoric that the Westboro Baptist Church spews out on a daily basis. Fortunately, Salon removed the offensive comment (and Dachel’s comment, too). I guess they wouldn’t want anyone to accuse them of being biased…

Oh, it gets better. The various media outlets have a field day and express some fine examples of misogynistic hatred.

Fox News: “Jenny McCarthy is blonde, beautiful, a former Playboy playmate, a published author, a prominent comedic actress, and a Weight Watchers spokesperson.”

USA Today: “In recent years, McCarthy has become as well-known for her claims that vaccines cause autism as for her roles as a late-night host on VH1 and a 1993 Playboy model.”

Notice anything common? That’s right, mentioning that she formerly posed nude. Since she’s posed nude, she must clearly be wrong.

Even Gorski had something to say. In one of his shorter posts (only 2000 words or so), he laments and whines about such a horrible choice.

Believe it or not, though, this isn’t actually what I wanted to talk about.

No, it has to do with the very title of this article. That’s right, it has to do with another strawman fallacy that is so laughable, so uninformed, that it actually brought my good friend MySocratesNote out of retirement to help me write this article.

Here it is, ladies and gentlemen, in all of its misinformed glory:

“Jenny McCarthy said that her son never had Autism to begin with. He had an unspecified seizure disorder/Landau-Kleffner syndrome. She’s been lying all along, so you can’t believe anything she says!”

The origins of this myth actually sprang from an article from 2009 (which is no longer available, sadly). Fortunately, many different venues have repeated this lie, including one Left Brain/Right Brain.

Observe:

“In After Vaccine-Autism Case Settlement, MDs Urged to Continue Recommending Vaccines (June 5), Dawn Fallik correctly cites Jenny McCarthy as a celebrity fanning the flames of the vaccine-autism link. McCarthy also makes parents think that autism can be cured with unproven treatments – as she claims is the case with her son – documented in her much publicized book, Louder than Words: A Mother’s Journey in Healing Autism (Dutton 2007).

Unfortunately, what the public does not realize as well as perhaps McCarthy is that her son was most likely misdiagnosed with autism in the first place. His disorder began with seizures and, subsequently, with the seizures treated, he improved. This would be more consistent with Landau-Kleffner syndrome, which often is misdiagnosed as autism.”

Notice the language here: “most-likely.”

Here’s the thing. The quote listed above is from a doctor who has never examined Evan. Nor has the doctor even seen his medical records. The quote above is just speculation that has been repeated over and over as fact.

However, that does not stop the pseudo-skeptics from using this misinformation in their quest to hate all things Jenny. Observe one of Gorski’s more rabid and foaming-at-the-mouth sycophants, lilady (whose credentials have morphed from a retired R.N. to a retired R.N. epidemiologist):

“I am angry at Jenny McCarthy on two fronts.

- Her use (pimping), of her child’s seizure disorder to revive her moribund career as a D-List celebrity…and her statements that she *recovered* Evan.

- Jenny, being handpicked by J. B. Handley to be the spokesperson for Generation Rescue and the annual Quack Fest.

Yes, I’m angry that any TV program would even contemplate rewarding this creature, by giving her a slot on The View…to gin up the ratings”

Such hatred! Such venom!

I wonder if Ms McCarthy has received death threats, too. We can certainly see that she’s been stalked, harassed, and censored because people don’t like what she has to say. How far have they taken it? It’s difficult to tell because, unlike some (*cough* Offit *cough), she doesn’t whine about it.

To me, it’s extremely interesting to see the parallels between Christianity and the Church of the Immaculate Vaccination. I mean, think about it. Look at the reaction to Ms McCarthy; the hatred, the bile. She’s the Church of the Immaculate Vaccination’s Whore of Babylon!

Does that make Paul Offit their prophet (see what I did there)?

One thing that is clear; there is a whole hell of a lot of misogynistic hate going on here. It is extremely interesting to see so much stubborn and complete intolerance of any belief or opinion that differs from their own.

Hey, that looks familiar. Yes, it is familiar. That is the very definition of bigotry!

Congratulations, Pseudo-Skeptics! You’re all a bunch of chauvinistic bigots.

You have absolutely no leg to stand on here, pseudo-skeptics. None. Your vapid and spittle-flecked rancor toward Jenny McCarthy is your own doing. It is fueled by fear mongering and misinformation that is being stirred by idiots like Gorski. It is unscientific!

Addendum

lilady has commented on another Huffington Post article, spewing her hatred and vile bigotry for all to see. She is also being soundly schooled upon the difference between the words cure and recovery. See, apparently, since she’s a “retired R.N.” she is incapable of understanding the difference between those two distinct medical words. The fail that ensues is truly inspiring. Enjoy!

Tactics and Tropes of the Anti-Science False Skeptics

It never fails to amuse me when a false skeptic reveals himself for what they truly are. It’s even more amusing when they admire and praise someone for pointing out flaws in the logic of those they claim are “anti-vaccine” when the false skeptic is guilty of the same flaws in logic.

One of the defining tropes of the Pseudo-Science false skeptics is their extraordinary hypocrisy. Seriously, it knows no bounds.

Take, for example, David Gorski’s latest shart-fest “Tactics and Tropes of the Anti-Vaccine Movement." In it, David praises the author of a recent article, “Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement,” for calling out the common “tropes” of the anti-vaccination movement. The abstract of the article essentially says that the false-skeptics and pseudoscientists should work harder to ban together to prevent those with stories of vaccine injury from having a say. Oh, I know, it doesn’t actually say that, but it is easy to see that this is the direction they are going, as shown by recent attempts to prevent the NVIC from having an advertisement in Times Square. Or, the recent Slate article that references this report that calls for internet search engines to flag sites that discuss vaccine injury. Or even the recent removals of Jake Crosby at public events.

Which is also a false skeptic tactic. They claim they are against censorship, but actively encourage censorship of parents who have stories of vaccine injury, all while claiming they “refudiate” anti-vaccine messages (there’s a subtle jab at them in there somewhere…see if you can find it). More on this in a moment.

David begins his rant discussing how long he’s been dealing with that mean old anti-vaccine movement.

“I've been an observer and student of the antivaccine movement for nearly a decade now, although my intensive education began almost seven years ago, in early 2005, not long after I started blogging. It was then that I first encountered several "luminaries" of the antivaccine movement, such as J.B. Handley, who is the founder of Generation Rescue and was its leader and main spokesperson; that is, until he managed to recruit spokesmodel Jenny McCarthy to be its public face, and Dr. Jay Gordon, who, although he swears to high heaven he is not antivaccine, sure could have fooled me. At the very minimum, he is a credulous apologist for the antivaccine movement. Then there were many more through the years: Barbara Loe Fisher, Sallie Bernard, various bloggers from the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism, and even the new generation of antivaccine activists, such as Jake Crosby, who is, if anything, even more annoying than the old generation.

Why am I mentioning this? The reason is simple. Over the years, I think I've come to learn just about every antivaccine trope, canard, strategy, and argument there is. At least, I know all the major ones, many of the minor ones, and even quite a few of the obscure ones. I'm rarely surprised anymore, even when of late antivaccinationists have taken to referring to supporters of science-based medicine as "vaccine injury denialists," a term antivaccine activist Ginger Taylor notably used in "The Role of Government and Media," a chapter in the anti-vaccine book Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, which was edited by Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland, and now uses frequently on her blog. (That actually might be a topic for another post entirely.) So when I see people writing about the tropes and tactics favored by the antivaccine movement, I know I'm quite qualified to judge whether they know what they're talking about or not, as I've spent nearly a decade in the trenches on Usenet and in the blogosphere.”

Wow…this man is so completely and utterly clueless to his egotism and hypocrisy that a psychoanalyst would go into apoplectic fits trying to diagnose him.

I want to take a moment to comment on something Dave wrote here. He mentions that “antivaccinationists” have taken to referring to supporters of science-based medicine as vaccine injury denialists. This is an interesting comment, isn’t it? First of all, they don’t actually do this to those who actually follow science-based medicine; they do this to false skeptics and pseudoscientists like David. People like David adamantly declare that they believe that vaccine injury is real, but when a parent says their child suffered from a vaccine injury, the first thing out of Dave’s mouth is a flat out denial, saying that their child didn’t have a vaccine injury…without even seeing the child or their records. Yes, he is that confident in his faith. In other words, he “believes” in vaccine-injury, but it just didn’t happen to your child. If that isn’t a vaccine-injury denialist, I don’t know what is.

Which leads me to my next false-skeptic tactic. Whenever a parent mentions that their child was injured by a vaccine, they are met with a small selection of responses:

1. “Correlation does not equal causation” – This is the standard response they will fall back on. However, they are never able to come up with a logical explanation for why so many parents observed things like encephalopathy and loss of milestones so soon after a vaccination. They also fail to mention that such correlations should be further studied. When a parent of a vaccine injured child says this, the response is usually “It has been ask and answered.” What they fail to mention is that there have never been any studies that actually LOOKED at these children so that a possible determination of what actually caused the injury could be done.
2. “Vaccines are safe and effective; there’s no way your child was injured by a vaccine” – A logical fallacy that precludes any argument. This falls back to the faith argument; it has been asked and answered, and God…I mean Science…says it is so. They will try to inundate the conversation with link after link to numerous studies that show how vaccines are safe and effective. But they fail to mention that there are studies and actual records of children being seriously injured by vaccines. In many cases, these injuries just happen to be remarkably similar to autism.
3. “You are a disease promoter; you want diseases like smallpox to return” – This is a common response when anyone questions vaccinations. Not only is it a non-sequitur, but it is also an ad hominem. But, of course, we all know that those who are truly science-based do their best to refrain from using such logical fallacies. Given that Dave and his sycophants use this argument on a regular basis further adds to the evidence that David is not actually a proponent of science-based medicine.

He then discusses the paper, lamenting on the fact that so much information is now readily available to the public when, before, it should only be in the hands of people like him. He gives the impression that everyone else who is not a doctor or scientist is too stupid to understand what science is, so therefore should not have access to it.

He then starts discussing the author’s description of tactics of “anti-vaccinationists.” I will respond to each in turn.

“1.Skewing the science. This involves cherry picking studies, denigrating science that doesn't support an antivaccine viewpoint, and endorsing bad science that supports antivaccine agendas.”

This is a good one. Of course, David could never be accused of cherry picking studies, denigrating science that doesn’t support a pro-vaccine viewpoint, and endorsing bad science that supports pro-vaccine agendas, could he? How often does he refer to the Madsen study? How often does he claim that the Fombonne Canadian study is actually good science? If it supports his bias, then it must be good science. Hypocrisy, my friends. So, according to Anna Kata, David also uses this tactic.

“2.Shifting hypotheses. Otherwise known as moving the goalposts, this involves continually changing the standards of evidence deemed necessary to convince antivaccinationists of vaccine safety so that they can't be met and constantly coming up with new causation hypotheses that share only one thing in common: it's always about the vaccines.”

This one actually happens to be my favorite. Whenever they are presented with evidence that vaccines have caused injuries that are very similar to autism, they shift the goalposts, saying that “it’s only one case,” or they say, “That’s not actually Autism, so vaccines are safe and effective.” Or, they claim that autism is caused by old parents, or cold moms, or genes that they can’t find, or too much TV, or being too close to a highway, or low birth weight, etc. All of these share only one thing in common: it’s never the vaccines. More hypocrisy, and once again, David uses the same tactic.

“3.Censorship. This is an extreme characteristic of the antivaccine movement. For instance, Age of Autism does not allow dissenting comments. The Autism One yearly quackfest routinely kicks out those its organizers perceive as enemies, even though they follow the rules and don't disrupt anything. In the meantime, they go absolutely--if you'll excuse the term--apeshit when one of their own is asked to leave a scientific function. We're seeing this in action right now, as AoA and its hanger-on Ginger Taylor are both going nuts over Paul Offit's and Seth Mnookin's having asked AoA's one trick pony irritant to leave and Offit's accurately characterizing him as a "stalker." I'd take their complaints slightly more seriously if the antivaccine movement didn't so ruthlessly censor its perceived enemies and refuse to let them anywhere near their crank venues.”

This one made me laugh out loud. I happen to know for a fact that both Mr Gorski and Mr Reibel both selectively change and remove comments from their blogs if they don’t like the message. David only allows comments that he thinks his sycophants will enjoy. Then, he turns them loose like a pack of rabid dogs. But those that actually are meaningful responses, well documented and referenced articles included, and that refute his bias are mysteriously not allowed through the “filter.” Now, the comment about the Autism One conference is missing a few pieces of evidence, like how Mr Reibel was breaking rules (this was discussed in the comments here), stalking and harassing Dr Poling and his wife and recording their conversations without their permission. I’m certain if he wasn’t such a little twit, he would have been allowed to stay and participate. Also note that Aut-One was a sponsored event done by independent parties that had the right to throw whoever the hell they wanted to out, including that little douche-bag. And, if I recall, I remember a certain false-skeptic going absolutely—if you’ll excuse the term—apeshit when one of their own was asked to leave a conference for breaking rules. Contrast this to Jake Crosby’s being kicked out of not one, not two, but three PUBLICALLY SPONSORED EVENTS! For just asking questions. For this, he is labeled a stalker (which I fail to see how; all three events were relatively close to his home, and he was interested in getting answers to his questions), but one of their own, who endlessly hounded, harassed, and forced a father of a vaccine-injured child to go into hiding, is somehow not considered a stalker.

Yes, the hypocrisy is strong with this one. And, another tactic that Dave and his bum-lickers all use.

“4.Attacking the opposition. The antivaccine movement is particularly incessant in this tactic, in my experience. I've lost track of how many times I've been attacked or had antivaccine cranks try to cause me annoyance at my job by e-mailing my bosses. A year and a half ago, a bunch of antivacicne cranks, "inspired" by a false accusation of an undisclosed conflict of interest from Jake Crosby, tried to get me fired from my job through a campaign of e-mails, phone calls, and letters to the board of governors at my university. And what I've experienced is minor indeed compared to what someone like Paul Offit has experienced.”

I already partially covered this earlier, but David and his lickspittles all do this, too. They’ve attacked Dr Poling and his wife, called cps on parents for not vaccinating, said they wish parents of vaccine injured children would all die of preventable diseases, called a parent’s medical insurance to try to get the insurance company to drop coverage, and have wanted all of us to be thrown in jail or put on a remote island. They attack anyone and everyone who does not conform to their view, and my friend Craig can certainly attest to that (apparently, threatening phone calls and messages sent to his site don’t count). And that thing about Dr Offit and those death threats? Yeah, still waiting to see proof of that.

And here’s further proof of my previous statement:

“One tactic I think Kata left out is one that I've noted before. It's not a tactic unique to the antivaccine movement, but antivaccinationists certainly use it. I'm referring to crank conferences gussied up to look like legitimate scientific conferences. For example, we have the yearly quackfest known as Autism One every year in Chicago around Memorial Day. Recently, Autism One has joined forces with the health freedom movement, combining an Autism One conference with the Health Freedom Expo from March 2-4, 2012 in Long Beach, CA. In this, we might be seeing an even more obvious sign of the scientific bankruptcy of antivaccinationists in that Patrick "Tim" Bolen will be featured on a "Vaccine Panel." I thought that having Dan Olmsted chair a panel called Malfeasance in the Media that includes Tim Bolen, David Lewis, and Andy Wakefield was bad enough. After all, that's a group that could give the masters' how-to-do-it course on media malfeasance.”

Attacking the opposition. Need I say more?

Whew…a whole world of hypocrisy right there. So, since Dave and his arse-kissers are guilty of every single one of the tactics mentioned above, that must mean they are anti-vaccine!

Note: When dealing with false skeptics, hold them to the same standards that they hold everyone else.

Now, let’s take a brief moment to discuss the “tropes” that Dave mentioned.

“1."I'm not antivaccine; I'm pro-safe vaccines." Yes, indeed. This one is the biggest, baddest, most irritating trope of all, repeated by everyone from Jenny McCarthy to J.B. Handley to Barbara Loe Fisher. A variant of this is to liken vaccines to cars and say that "I'm not 'anti-car,' I just want safer cars." Not a good analogy. A better equivalent would be if they demanded absolute safety of cars and refused to use them unless GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, et al swear that they'll never be injured in a car crash.”

David and his fart-sniffers are horribly guilty of misusing the “anti-vaccine” label. Anyone, to them, who questions or has reservations about the safety of vaccines is a heretic (sorry, “anti-vaccine”). One of the things I teach in school is etymology, or the study of words. The prefix “anti” means opposed or against. So, someone who is truly anti-vaccine is completely opposed to vaccination. Many people they label as such are not opposed to vaccination; in fact, many of them actively encourage vaccination, but have concerns about the safety of so many vaccines given in such a short time. So, label this as a false skeptic trope.

“2.Vaccines are toxic. A.k.a. "the toxin gambit."

This falls back to the thiomersal argument. And, we all know how many of the safety studies on thiomersal are circumspect. If you don’t know the minimum safe dose of a highly toxic substance, then how can you definitively say that it is not toxic in doses that are well above the EPA safety limit? I call this trope “Dosage makes the poison.” Since there are no safety data on how a six pound child will react to a toxic substance, then they have no way to determine what the proper dose is.

“3.A demand for absolute safety.

4.A demand for absolute "proof" that vaccines are safe.”

This is a misrepresentation of what is actually being called for, in my opinion. All many of these parents want is for vaccines to be SAFER! That is a huge difference between safer and absolute safety. And, if you believe the cup-cake lady, then safer vaccines are bad, Mkay?

“5."Vaccines didn't save us," one of the more intellectually dishonest of many intellectually dishonest tropes used by these cranks.”

I slightly agree with him here. Vaccines are useful, but claiming that vaccines are as effective as they say they are is also dishonest. I think that the core of this argument is that vaccinating for so many diseases is having unforeseen consequences; like the recent evidence that the increase in varicella vaccinations during childhood is causing cases of shingles in young adults and adults after their immunity wanes.

“6.Vaccines are "unnantural(sic)."

This is a disingenuous argument from Dave. The issue is that they are trying to enforce a one-size-fits-all approach to a complex and highly diverse bodily function, the immune system. Everyone’s immune system acts in different ways, and trying to claim that all vaccines will illicit the same type of immune response in everyone IS unnatural.

“7.Choosing between "vaccine injury" and disease. Jenny did this famously when she said vaccination are a choice between autism and infectious disease and that she'd take the measles.”

This is an example of blowing things out of proportion and misrepresentation (hey, another trope!). The problem here is that measles in the United States is rarely, if ever, a serious condition. And, again, we see a clear implication that Dave is denying that vaccine injuries are real. The choice becomes clearer to those who have had children injured by vaccinations; they were injured because the parent did the right thing.

He then makes the following statement:

“Such a statement is a reminder that finding common ground with those who question, fear, or crusade against vaccines is no easy task. Their arguments are constantly shifting and evolving - this has been furthered by the fluidity of the Internet and social media. While acknowledging and correcting flawed arguments is important, an approach that moves beyond providing "the facts" is likely needed. With the anti-vaccination movement embracing the postmodern paradigm, which inherently questions an authoritative, science-based approach, "facts" may be reinterpreted as just another "opinion". This issue is as much about the cultural context surrounding healthcare, perceptions of risk, and trust in expertise, as it is about vaccines themselves. For these reasons it is possible the minds of deeply invested anti-vaccine activists may never be changed; therefore it is for both the laypersons with genuine questions or worries about vaccines and the healthcare professionals who work to ease their fears that keeping abreast of the methods of persuasion discussed here is essential. Recognizing anti-vaccine tactics and tropes is imperative, for an awareness of the disingenuous arguments used to cajole and convert audiences gives individuals the tools to think critically about the information they encounter online. It is through such recognition that truly informed choices can then be made.”

Dave will never be able to find common ground because he doesn’t try to talk to a person, discovering what their questions and fears are. Instead, he bullies, attacks, and ridicules their legitimate concerns. And the reason why David’s “facts” are construed as opinions is because David is not an expert; his bias makes his interpretation of the “facts” an opinion. Furthermore, it’s difficult to determine what the actual facts are when the organisations creating those facts are the same organisations that are creating the products, the same organisations that have been caught lying and faking the results of their studies.

In conclusion, I will reiterate that the biggest tactic/trope of the vaccine injury deniers is that they are hypocrites; they criticise others for the very behaviours they pride themselves in.

ADDENDUM: I just read an extraordinarily humourous comment from someone named Kruuth on David’s Den of Misinformation, Lies, and Sycophants:

“I've never gone to Ginger's blog before. After reading the front page I thought that I was reading something written by a ten-year-old. Once I saw that she's an adult, and one with a child as well, I just sighed. If she needs a reason why anyone in the real medical field doesn't take her seriously she needs to look no further than her own blog. “

Oh my word; I actually spit out my coffee laughing at that one. One wonders if he has ever read Dave’s blog; irony meters, brain chomping Hitler zombies, talking about himself in the third person, pretending to be a computer from a defunct and downright awful Sci-Fi television show.

Yes, hypocrisy.

The Hannah Poling Decision, and Hilarity Ensues.

There’s been quite a bit of buzz around the interwebz about a certain decision concerning a beautiful little redhead and the money she’s been paid by the government for her vaccine injury.

Now, many of the autism sites are talking about it. Most of them agree that the payout was substantial and just. $1.5 million dollars, and, according to some sources, about $500,000 a year (I’m not saying they are incorrect, but I would like to see where it says so). This is a good thing! It’s about time the government got their thumbs out of their asses and helped an autistic child. I am truly happy for Hannah and her family, and I fervently hope that they can use that money to get Hannah the help she needs. Bravo, Poling family!

But, I’m not here to talk just about that. I’m actually here to talk about what some of the people are saying about this decision.

It’s interesting to see some of the reactions. Take this comment left by the utterly clueless Mark Probert on Sharyl Attkinson's CBS Blog for example:

“What is weird about the award, though, is the "pain and suffering". I know a lot of autistic kids and none of them are in pain, and none of them are suffering.”

Then he obviously has never met a child like my son. He probably knows lots of higher functioning autistic children, so he has no clue that the lower spectrum children tend to have gastro-intestinal problems, very painful ones! And then, he obviously is unaware that many children like my son and Hannah are unable to speak and lack the ability to convey their wants and needs in a way that people can understand. This tends to frustrate them, and they suffer from a lack of communication. And, on top of that, he's using an anecdote as data. Ah...such hypocrisy from someone who claims to be "science and evidence based."

Here’s another comment from the same idiot in response to a person posting the vaccination schedule today compared to 20 years ago:

“It is not the number of vaccines, but the number of antigens, which is way down to a small fraction. Check it out.
Note the AoA mouthpiece does not mention this. They never do. If they did, they would have a lot of explaining to do.”

No, idiot. It’s not the number of antigens, but the number of adjuvants, which is up a considerable fraction. Adjuvants, I might add, that the manufacturers have admitted knowing little about. Check it out. Note that the Scientist poseur does not mention this. They never do. If they did, they would have a lot of explaining to do.

And a third:

“No, both sides are not right and wrong. One side is right. Vaccines do not cause autism. There is no evidence what-so-ever that shows that "combining" vaccines causes any problems. Not all of us know that vaccines can cause an allergic reaction since there is no proof of that. As for the imagined increase in autism, it is just that: imagined. The change in vaccine schedule over the years also parallels the widespread use of Wi-Fi, flourescent bulbs and more frequent space shuttle fights. Correation is not proof of causation.”

Let’s pick this apart.

“Vaccines do not cause autism.”

Such a definitive statement is unscientific when all of the evidence is not present. He cannot so definitively make this claim without knowing what CAUSES autism. Such extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Besides, Probert, aka DuhProbe, aka FreeSqueaker, is not a scientist, not a doctor.

“There is no evidence what-so-ever that shows that "combining" vaccines causes any problems.”

That’s the point, you frikkin’ moron! There is not science proving otherwise! And if you’re going to continue increasing the vaccination schedule, then clinical follow-ups on this would be necessary. Are there any? No!

“Not all of us know that vaccines can cause an allergic reaction since there is no proof of that.”

Ah, so using this logic, that means that everyone can eat peanuts and not have an allergic reaction. Good thing we have Mark “Not a Doctor, Not a Scientist” Probert easing our fears. At least he pointed out to another commenter that the "idiot parents" of Hannah Poling are Doctors (well, one of them is; the other is a Nurse and Lawyer). Maybe he hasn't been completely assimilated into the Oraccolyte collective.

Now onto other sites. Here’s an interesting comment left over on LeftBrain/RightBrain:

“No. Hannah had a mitochondrial disorder, not autism.”

This was actually said several times in the comments. She doesn’t have autism, according to these clowns. Just “features” of autism.

And this is the meat of what I wanted to talk about.

To understand what autism is, we must first define it. This includes how it is diagnosed, and what behaviors, or features, it entails.

Let us start with the DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria:

(I) A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C)

(A) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction 2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level 3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people) 4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or "mechanical" aids )
(B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime) 2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others 3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language 4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level
(C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus 2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals 3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements) 4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:

(A) social interaction (B) language as used in social communication (C) symbolic or imaginative play

(III) The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder

The key item here is the first sentence. To be diagnosed with Autism, a person must meet a minimum of 6 criteria from all 3 groupings, with at least 2 criteria from the first group and at least 1 each from group 2 and group 3. If they meet those criteria, they are given a diagnosis of Autism.

According to Hannah Poling’s father, a Doctor, Neurologist, and Scientist, she meets those criteria. Therefore, SHE’S AUTISTIC!

So, if an encephalitis causes brain damage, and the brain damage causes behaviors that fit into the above criteria, then the person with the brain damage IS AUTISTIC!

Autism is ONLY defined by behaviors, or features. If a person has those behaviors or features, then they are autistic.

Let me repeat that for clarity. If a person has those behaviors or features, then they are AUTISTIC!

Dr. Poling made an excellent analogy on the Huffington Post last year in response to moron supreme.

“Let me give you an example we commonly encounter. Let's say, hypothetically, that a year ago you recovered from a gunshot wound (GSW) to the head that only damaged your right frontal lobe. You made a full recovery except for some unusual behavior, like going to conferences and secretly recording others’ conversations, and maybe some weird perseverating commentary on blogs.
However, tonight you have a grand mal epileptic seizure and go the ER. At the same time a 20 year old student also goes to the ER with her first epileptic seizure, likely from genetically inherited epilepsy. I get called and treat you both with Dilantin. Both of you do fine and your seizures stop if you remember to take your medicine.
So Ken, do you have epilepsy? Both of you exhibited the same type of seizure behavior. No, in actuality you have a seizure disorder secondary to your frontal lobe GSW. Hold on, since epilepsy is genetic, GSWs to the head don’t cause epilepsy. This is the same type of circular reasoning you espouse on the autism issue and its pure nonsense.”

Well said, Dr. Poling. Well said.

So, since autism is only defined by behaviors, we can now understand why children with Down’s Syndrome are also diagnosed with autism. And, honestly, I can see why the increase in autism diagnoses are confusing the scientific poseurs so much. I think that the first thing we need to do is investigate how many cases of idiopathic autism there are. We do know that the increase is real and not explainable by the tired old, “It’s better diagnosis” screed.

This Orwellian double-speak from the Scientific Poseurs got old a long, LONG time ago. Is it any wonder why so many people are distrustful of them and their dogmatic adherence to a false religion?

Yet Another One in the Revealing of Orac's Stupidity; And, a Countering to Countering.

I don’t often get the time to blog. It’s a nice diversion and all, but I find my time is far better spent with things that I find more important; things like work and family. I honestly don’t see how so many people have the time to blog once, maybe twice (or more) a day. Take Orac, for example. He’s a surgical oncologist, yet he somehow has plenty of time to blog several times a day with work, his marriage, and being sodomized by his enormous ego. Or Kim “Orac-in-a-Skirt” Wombles, who has a family, school, work, and somehow manages to blog several times a day.



But, occasionally, they provide me with interesting fodder for my blog posts. Sometimes, their stupidity and hypocrisy is so profound that I have to say something. So, today I will provide you, my dear readers, with a double-shot of my sarcastic wit that I gleefully aim at 2 different opponents.



Let’s start with Mr. Gorski’s latest case of the verbal Aztec two-step.



Time and time again, anti-vaccine activists respond to charges of being "anti-vaccine" with a self-righteous wounded whine that goes something like this: "We aren't 'anti-vaccine.' We're pro-safe vaccine." Alternative claims are that they are "vaccine safety watchdogs" and that they'd vaccinate if only the government would "green our vaccines" or "space them out" or that they think the government isn't listening to them or whatever. Of course, all of these are smokescreens for their true agenda, which, at least among the activists, is anti-vaccine to the core.






In fact, so engrained are anti-vaccine attitudes in the movement that claims that vaccines cause autism against all scientific evidence that strongly argues otherwise, that its members frequently make inadvertent slips when writing that reveal their attitude. Examples include J.B. Handley crowing about "bringing the U.S. vaccine program to its knees" and Julie Obradovic advocating in essence destroying the vaccine program in order to save it.



David’s little mewling diatribe here starts with a concept that is known as poisoning the well. Essentially, he is pre-emptively posing his own biased interpretation of what Mr. Handley and Ms. Obradovic are attempting to accomplish so that he can ridicule and discredit anything that is being said by these individuals. Not only is this a logical fallacy, it is also a very good example of argumentum ad hominem. But, as we’ve all come to learn, this is one of Mr. Gorski’s normal tactics when writing about anyone he disagrees with.



Here is yet another in the annals of such quotes. This time it comes from Anne Dachel "Media Director" at the anti-vaccine crank blog, who is gushing over Dr. Mayer Eisenstein's new book on vaccines. (Oh, goody.) In her post, Dachel writes:



And as someone who's been active in the national autism community for a long time, I've seen tremendous changes. More and more people are speaking out. We are now an organized and united group, thanks mainly to the power of the Internet. Our message has severely eroded confidence in the cornerstone of health care: THE CHILDHOOD VACCINE PROGRAM.



She says that as though it's a good thing, as though she's proud of it, just as J.B. Handley was clearly proud of "bringing the U.S. vaccine program to its knees." Fortunately, this is hyperbole, but unfortunately "eroding confidence in" and "bringing to its knees" the U.S. vaccine program are clearly what Dachel and Handley freely admit to be their goal. If it wasn't, why be so proud?



That's because she, like J.B. Handley, is anti-vaccine, all the denials notwithstanding.



I’ve deconstructed this before. David is of the mind that he can magically predict and read the minds of people like Ms. Dachel and determine their motivations. Not only is this laughable, it is incredibly narcissistic. Essentially, he is saying that because Orac says it is so, then it must be so. Let’s not forget the veiled “No Real Scotsman” fallacy that he hurled at Dr. Eisenstein; according to Orac, no real doctor would question vaccine safety.



Mr. Gorski is under the impression that Ms. Dachel, Mr. Handley, and anyone with whom Orac disagrees, is anti-vaccine; i.e. they want to get rid of vaccines entirely. Ms. Dachel is not saying that the erosion of the confidence in the vaccine program is a good thing; she’s saying that this confidence needs to be shaken. She’s saying that the vaccine program is corrupt and interested in profits more than they are in the health and well-being of their consumers. She, like Mr. Handley, is pointing out the flaws in the system, and THAT’S what is eroding the confidence in the Vaccine industry. That is not a good thing, but a necessary thing. She is calling for more oversight, more accountability, and better control of the vaccine industry. They are not anti-vaccine, but anti-vaccine INDUSTRY.



But, as we can plainly see, Orac is opposed to the dreaded accountability (Oh, the Horror!). He is opposed to better oversight (Oh, the humanity!). He despises better controls over the corrupt Pharmaceutical industry (Oh, I feel faint!!).



If I'm in the mood, maybe I'll address the canard of the VAERS reports. Or not, given how many times I've pointed out before that VAERS reports are unverified, self-reported "complications" of vaccines and how easily it is distorted by litigation and the anti-vaccine movement.



This is just him being lazy, so I won’t expound. Since I refuse to give that moron any hits, I only put it here for the sake of completeness.



Some of his commenters are just as ridiculous. Check out these two:



I don't even have the energy to go through all the selective VAERS citations, but it seems to be the usual song and dance.
 AoA: "#298905: A 6-month-old boy received a flu shot and collapsed while eating breakfast the next day. He was rushed to the hospital and pronounced dead."

VAERS: "Patient collapsed while eating breakfast at home. He was taken to the ER and pronounced dead. 12/18/07 Reviewed hospital ER records which reveal patient in usual state of health on 11/27 when coughed & then collapsed at home. Was unresponsive in ER & resuscitation unsuccessful. ER COD stated as sudden cardiac death. 1/21/08 Reviewed autopsy report which states COD as complication from congenital cardiac disease (probable arrhythmia."

Simple.

Posted by: Otto
June 16, 2010 12:57 AM


@Otto: but, but, but you don't understand!!!! The EEEEEEVVVVVIIIILLL vaccines caused the congenital cardiac disease!!! The baby was totally healthy and developing normally until then! /end AOA mind

 Ooowwwww. I think I gave myself a headache trying to think that way. I am so glad that my employer blocks AOA or I'd be tempted to read the post and really get a headache - or burst out laughing hysterically which would really confuse anyone who is here at this time.

 Posted by: MI Dawn
June 16, 2010 6:52 AM



Funny how they so callously dismiss this horrible tragedy. Not only that, it’s just remarkable how this child’s congenital cardiac disease was completely unapparent until several hours after vaccination. These coincidences are just astounding, yes?



And then MI Dawn’s response is so laughably ironic that I had to comment on it. Yes, the eebil vaccines. But they are so holy and sacred and pure that they could never ever cause such problems. They are made of unicorns and rainbows and sparkle in sunlight. Any of the hundreds of thousands of adverse reaction reports are simply coincidence. It’s never the vaccine.



Now, I must comment on Kim’s blog post. This post of hers just reinforces my theory that she is completely unreachable and has completely sunk into the depths of Orac’s unreasonable megalomania.



Dear Lord (oh accidental cosmos, I like to call it Lord, and I mock it not. I am an atheist who prays. I figure, let's say there is a god. He listens at least as well as my children, husband, and various students, which is to say: not at all--seriously, I asked the boy to START the coffee yesterday, and he dumped the fresh coffee grounds in the trash. I asked him to go to his grandma's and start his chores, and he brought me a paper towel. I guarantee you my accidental cosmos listens better. But I digress).



First off, that doesn’t make you an atheist. An atheist is someone who denies altogether the existence of God. You're an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists. But I digress


Dear Lord, can you please give the nutty AoAers something to do off the interwebz for a couple days? Please? Because they are currently engaged in so much mind-glaring stupidity that I just can't keep up (and tomorrow I must begin the not-so-fun prep for Thursday's not-so-fun procedure). Not even Orac can keep up with them. Between Orac and me, alone, over the last couple days, several posts were written on the AoAers' shenanigans. Add in all the other wonderful people, like Todd who writes a blog to post censored comments, and all the awesome, on the ball, commentators over at Orac's who take the time to read the (I'm sorry, two days in a row, I've said this) batshit crazy over there at AoA, our irony meters are surely pegged out.



Since she disagrees with everyone over at AoA, then they are all batshit crazy. Of course, she fails to see the irony in her comment when she declares that there is so much “mind-glaring stupidity,” then follows it with a comment about irony meters. Yes, I do love irony.



I know, I know, the inaccurate and the outright crazy must be challenged. Not all can be left to slide. But, couldn't they take a break? It's summer, after all. Don't they have better things to do, like picket McDonald's or something, for not offering gfcf products?



Don’t you have something better to do? I don’t know, like taking care of your kids? I mean, it’s summer, after all.



Ah, well. Perhaps if I write my wish on a balloon and float it away, it will come true. Or mayhaps, I pray for the wrong thing. I now mentally revise my image of my personified accidental cosmos into giant Thelma and Louise goddesses with big-ass purses and hearts overflowing with compassion. I pray to the almighty T and L of the accidently comsos, purse smack some wisdom into the AoAers, so that they might realize what complete asses they are. And take a big swipe at a certain someone in Maine who proves she's lost it with posting a video of what mercury does to aluminum on her blog, because she really thinks that's happening inside children when they get vaccinated. That kind of misinformation takes hard, hard work. It'll take an all-powerful deity to knock that right out of their heads.



Oh, good grief! Yes, we see how much her heart is over-flowing with compassion. Really, we do. And Kim is just so full of wisdom that she fails to see that there are no safety studies on the effects of mercury plus aluminum within the human body. That kind of misinformation takes hard, hard work. Her love and "kick-ass kumbaya" is so readily evident that we can all see how loving, compassionate, and reasonable it is to call someone a dumbass or bat-shit crazy when they disagree with you. He caring demeanor is so apparent when she laughs about a commentor mocking a father for celebrating his non-verbal autistic child's first word. Not only is this woman an idiot, she's a fucking hypocrite.



Anne Dachel has to, has to, has to, because she just can't help herself, name drop all the authors and truly great wackawoos she now knows, over at AoA, before she gets to introducing the latest wackawoo she calls an acquaintance, Mayer Eisenstein. Dachel, a big fan and believer of conspiracies, writes "Despite the fact that he's up against the powerful mainstream medical community, financially backed by the pharmaceutical industry, he doesn't stop." Oh noble, maverick doctor, we bow before your wisdom, your willingness to blah blah. You get the picture. Yeah, sure, read his book. Has the site degenerated into solely skewering any and all vaccines and being used for "buy my magic products" and "buy my awesome mavericky book"?



Yes yes, like you drop the name of Dr. Offit. We get it, we really do. Go buy his book! Oh, and don’t forget the ad hominem at Dr. Eisenstein there. Wait, right….Kim is so far above all of that! She’s holier-than-thou, don’tcha know? And has her site degenerated into solely skewering anyone she disagrees with?



She goes on to talk about how AoA’s article about the Gene study in Nature was wrong. To be honest, I thought the study was fascinating, as I do with any study that finds a small link with possibilities as to the potential causes of autism. The article in question discusses the Conflicts of Interest in one of the authors of the piece, and while I don’t agree with John Stone as to the relevance or impact of the author in question, I agree that undisclosed COI’s can call the results into question. But, as long as the studies remove Vaccines as a potential culprit in the causation of Autism, then the studies, no matter how riddled they are with COI’s, are perfectly fine and perfect and fart moonbeams. Not only that, but Kim completely misrepresents the results of the Nature study and says that it just gives more of a genetic basis for autism. What she fails to mention is that the study acknowledged that the genes they were looking at weren’t always present and mutated spontaneously, which implicates an external source that could be the potential cause of these mutations. Something environmental.



She closes her satirical post with this comment:



Please, accidental cosmos, please, let the AoAers think they've done so well, are so superior, know so much more, that they all collectively go on vacation to celebrate how well they absolutely prove the Dunning-Kruger effect.



Please take the time to read the hypocrisy in that comment. Then read it again to let it sink in. She is accusing the people over at AoA of being so superior, who know so much more, when she, herself, shits out stuff like this? Oh…my…goodness! If I believed in an all-powerful deity, I am pretty sure he/she/it would reach down and slap that stupid woman upside her head…after pulling her head out of her ass, of course. Since her blog post is so moronic, so over the top, it makes me wonder if she’s actually pulling a Poe’s law.

 
This woman has the audacity to call the people at AoA batshit crazy? Look in the fucking mirror, lady!

Countering Someone who Claims to be Science-Based

I’ve taken a little bit of time away from the blogging due to a couple of things. 1) I’ve been entirely too busy and 2) I’ve been a little under the weather. Nothing specific, just a bad case of the Blah’s.


However, I wanted to take the time to take apart a post I recently saw on the blog of someone I used to call a friend. I almost never go there anymore because she has grown increasingly hostile, hypocritical, arrogant, and unwilling to listen. In other words, a female version of Orac.

So I popped over there to get a glance of what she has been up to, and I read this horrible piece that she concocted to counter a comment left by one of her readers. Now, the reason I’m taking the time to pick this apart is because my former friend has become representative of those I call the Oraccolytes. They claim to be science and evidence based. They claim to tell you the truth. In actuality, they only tell you part of the truth. They leave out the portions of the truth that counter or weaken their arguments, which means that they are not science-based, as they claim to be.

What I’m going to do is just post her responses to the commenter and pick those apart. No, I won’t link to her because I’ve determined that she is just Orac in a dress and that she doesn’t deserve any hits. I'm sure that anyone who is familiar with the vaccine/autism argument will recognize who I'm talking about.

“Why isn't it plausible to believe that giving 36 vaccines to a child might not be safe?”

You do recognize that the sheer number of pathogens we are exposed to makes the 16 diseases protected against by the recommended US vaccination schedule look like chump change, right?


It makes every bit of sense to help our children avoid illnesses that can be through vaccination. Just because you may not remember these diseases or you remember everyone you know getting them and recovering doesn’t mean that they didn’t once affect, maim, and kill many and have the potential to do so again.

Her response is only partially true. What she doesn’t tell you is that while the number of antigens has decreased, the adjuvants have increased. Adjuvants like Thimerosal (which, despite vociferous protests from the Oraccolytes, is still in vaccines) and aluminum. No one knows, really, what effects these adjuvants will have on a newborn immune system (not even the vaccine makers). No one has studied this. No one knows what synergistic effect these will have, either. But Kim doesn’t tell you that, does she?

The second paragraph is, again, only partially true. It does make sense to prevent diseases, and I agree whole-heartedly. But what she doesn’t tell you is that many of the numbers used to boost the fear-mongering of the vaccine zealots are over-inflated. Also, the current CDC vaccination schedule has never really been tested as a whole (in combination) for safety. Oh, I’m sure she will point to the recent study that looked at delayed vaccinations versus on-time vaccinations and how there is no difference between the outcomes. But what she won’t tell you is that this study is just a re-wording of another study that excludes autistic children as criteria for the study. But let’s not confuse her with facts since she’s already made up her mind.

“Why is it not plausible to believe that giving 36 vaccines to All children is safe?”


This is a strawman argument. There are individuals who are immune compromised or who have allergies to ingredients in the vaccines who cannot receive vaccines. There are infants too young to get protected who benefit from herd immunity, from healthy people in the society getting the vaccinations so that there is less likelihood of these vulnerable populations being exposed.






“Why is the vaccine schedule a one size fits all program?”


This, too, is a strawman. It’s not. These are the recommended vaccinations; an individual with his doctor will decide what and when.

I lumped these two together because the counter to the argument fits both points. While the gist of her argument is correct, she neglects to mention that there is currently no testing done to tell if these children are immune compromised before the vaccination is given. They give vaccinations for HepB on the day the child is born (in most cases) and don’t do testing for potential contraindications until a child has a reaction to a vaccine.

“Why did the autism rate start to soar (1991) when the vaccine schedule had doubled in size?”


Why did the autism rate soar when the internet really got going? When satellite television took off? When cell phones really became popular? This is not science; this is faulty conjecture that is worse than meaningless. It shows a paucity of interest in how science is conducted and in what scientists have learned.

Again, only partially true. What she doesn’t tell you is that the same faulty conjecture is used to support the whole “Autism has always been around in these numbers” crowd. Their reasoning is based on very little evidence, and that evidence has been countered in recent years by new studies that show that the increase in diagnoses for Autism is actually real and not diagnostic substitution as they would have you believe.

“Why are countless parents thought of as crazy when they say "my kid was typical" and then started to show autistic behaviors shortly after the MMR?”


Misguided, incorrect, guilty of illusory correlation, but I’ve never thought a parent was crazy for making the connection when so many others feed that idea into their heads, and when it’s such a neat and tidy explanation, and you’ve got a suave, dapper doctor telling them that.


I reserve crazy for folks who are off-the-deep-end, batshit crazy.

What she fails to mention is that many of the parents who witnessed their child regress shortly after a vaccination have been around since before this “suave, dapper doctor” was around. Many parents had not even heard of Dr. Wakefield until well after they had already come to the conclusion on their own. But, Kim has rewritten history to suit her purposes by claiming that Dr. Wakefield was the instigator of the anti-vaccine movement. She doesn’t mention that the Urabe strain mumps vaccine caused all kinds of problems (like meningitis). Nor does she mention the serious and sometimes fatal DTP vaccine reactions that helped to form the basis of the NVICP.

“Why did the gut dysbiosis, seizures, sensory disorders, loss of speech, etc start after so and so shot. Why can't can't it be a possibility that scores of parents observed something that merits investigation?”


It has received ample, exhaustive attention over the last decade and study after study have shown no connection between autism and vaccines.

What she neglects to tell you is that all of these studies that have looked at this connection have looked at only two things; the MMR vaccine and Thimerosal. How many vaccines are there? How many ingredients? She also doesn’t mention that these studies were performed and funded by the very same industry and organizations that promote vaccination; the very same companies that have been caught, repeatedly, lying about the safety of their products. Oh, right…we can trust them.

“What if a child has an inability to detoxify the formeldehyde, aluminum, thimerosol (traces still count), and all the other preservatives in the vaccines?”


Since formaldehyde is produced in our cells, the kid would be thoroughly screwed, even without the vaccines. Thank gods the formaldehyde is used in the production of the vaccines to kill viruses and other things we really don’t want growing along with the vaccine, right? It’s aluminum salts, not aluminum, and unless you’ve made darn tooting certain that you don’t eat anything made with baking powder with aluminum in it, don’t eat or drink from food and beverages stored in aluminum cans, don’t cook with aluminum cookware, I’d say you have bigger problems. I guess it’s a really good thing there are ample studies showing no connection between thimerosal and autism, huh?

Again, she only tells you part of the truth. I’ll agree with her about Formaldehyde, but the aluminum and Thimerosal bear a response. Let’s start with the aluminum first. She mentions that they are salts (true), but doesn’t mention that there have been no studies that clarify the safety of injecting said salts into the body. She goes on to mention that things like baking powder, beverages and foods in aluminum cans, etc. all contain aluminum as well. But she doesn’t seem to understand the difference between ingested versus injected. Yes, I know…2 little letters, but there is a huge difference between them. The body’s digestive tract is designed to help prevent things like metals from entering the bloodstream. But, injection bypasses that defense mechanism. Oh, and about the thimerosal? Yeah, mentioned that earlier.

“Why can't we do testing to identify those kids and hold off on the most important shots until the immune system is more fully developed?”


Because the thousands of pathogens children are being exposed to daily are far more dangerous than the vaccines.

Partially true. What she doesn’t tell you is that the thousands of pathogens children are exposed to daily are far more dangerous than the vaccines for most people. Since there are no studies that have been done to detect children that could have serious reactions to vaccines (other than one, and the Oraccolytes reject it because it shows that there are children who could have potentially serious reactions to vaccines), we can’t safely say that a process that is designed to kick a child’s immune system (which very little is known about) into overdrive is safer than the pathogens they are exposed to. Oh, and not to mention that the numbers that the CDC and Oraccolytes use to say that vaccine reactions are safer than the pathogens are gathered from a database (VAERS) that fewer than 10% of doctors and patients report reactions to.

“What is your explanation of why the autism rate in this country is 1 in 100 and more in boys?”


Well, thankfully it’s science-based, having reviewed the studies dealing with autism and prevalence. It’s way better than relying on pseudoscience and woo.

The irony and hypocrisy in this statement is so astounding that I had to read it several times to comprehend it. The “science” has, for years, been saying that the increase in diagnoses for autism is because of diagnostic substitution and is based solely on speculation and conjecture. So, in essence, she is saying that it is pseudoscience and woo. Yes, I had a great chuckle on that one at her expense.

“Why are children recovering and improving with biomedical intervention if this is a "psychiatric" genetic problem?”


I think this sentence demonstrates your completely inadequate knowledge base of autism. It isn’t a psychiatric problem. It’s a neurological disorder in which a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to how it manifests.

Now, I’ll gloss over the insult in her first sentence and move to the gist of her argument. For the most part, the most true statement in her little diatribe. Kudos to Kim for making such a relatively truthful comment. What she leaves out is that vaccines ARE an environmental factor.

“Why is one of the more prominent pediatricians (Dr. Sears) not closing the door on the link between vaccines in his new book, "The Autism Book" and writes about biomedical intervention? (There's actually a picture of him and Dr. Wakefield smiling broadly at a recent biomedical conference - oh no -!!!)”


Because he’s pandering to parents in order to line his pockets? Because he’s also a dumbass? Take your pick.

She offers no evidence of her claims. She offers no counter to the argument. This is an ad hominem fallacy, plain and simple. Oh, and because Dr. Sears (a trained doctor) disagrees with Kim (a nobody) then he must be a dumbass. Yay logic!

“Why is Dr. Offit so revered when he clearly has a vested interest in vaccines and has never treated an autistic child or done any investigations or studies regarding autism as a medical condition?”


He’s not; in fact the evidence-based crowd doesn’t put Offit on a pedestal and make him a saint. He is an infectious disease expert who is eminently qualified to discuss vaccine safety. He wasn’t pretending to be an autism expert, something Wakefield is, by the way.

Well, maybe not those that are TRULY evidence based. But the Oraccolytes certainly treat him like a saint. I agree with the fact that he is an infection disease expert and qualified to discuss vaccine safety, but I also take into consideration that many of his arguments are tainted by his own bias and the fact that it influences his livelihood. These things must be taken into consideration when any expert talks about their own product. Of COURSE he’s going to say they are safe, especially when he makes money off of them. And I have never once seen Dr. Wakefield claim he was an autism specialist. The only thing I have ever seen him claim is that some of the neurological problems evident in autistic children can be attributed to gastrointestinal problems. And, I do believe he is a gastroenterologist, is he not?

“History has shown that pioneers and people forcing a truth that is going to turn things upside down/rock the boat are demonized, maligned, and forced into silence.”


Oh for gods sake; it’s also shown that nutter-butter bars are too. Yeah, Wakefield isn’t being “demonized, maligned and forced into silence.” He’s an opportunist who has managed to cash in on desperate parents.

The first part of her comment; huh? That makes absolutely no sense! The second part of her comment may be true. But what you need to take into consideration is that Dr. Wakefield’s “trial” was publicized all over the world, more so than any other trial that has stripped a doctor of his license. Name one doctor that has gotten the publicity he has. Can you name any of the doctors in the Vioxx scandal? Didn’t think so. How many people did they kill? Did they lose their licenses?

“If not Dr. Wakefield, then someone else would have come along to force the discussion of vaccine safety. Get ready. It's coming-- because 1 in 100 and counting is a very, very scary thing. So, like he said, "These children aren't going away, the parents are not going away, and I am most certainly not going away." --Dr. Wakefield”


Wakefield isn’t concerned about vaccine safety.

And where is her evidence? I thought she was evidence based. Can she prove that Dr. Wakefield isn’t concerned about vaccine safety?

“Ya can't hold back a tidal wave forever!”


You’re right, there is, in fact, an endless stream of dumbasses.

Ah, again, since this person doesn’t agree with Kim, then this person must be a dumbass. And, as I’ve clearly demonstrated, it is quite apparent that Kim is a member of those “endless stream of dumbasses.”

As I said, Kim is representative of the mindset of the Oraccolytes. Most of her arguments (and Orac’s) are based on partial truths and prevarications. And, as I said before, this does not make one “Science-based.”

In the immortal words of Tyler Durden, “Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!”

Destroying Another One of Orac's Brainless Posts

Oh look! Another Orac rant! More verbal diarrhea. And I get to pick it apart? Awww…I didn’t get Orac anything!


Today’s crapfest, titled “Destroying the vaccine program in order to save it” is just like the rest of his rants concerning vaccines and autism. So, why do I pick them apart, you ask? Why do I torture myself so by dealing with his odious personality and the banality of his multitudinous brain-washed servants? Several reasons, actually. I think it’s important to show that those who claim to be “Science-Based” like Mr. Gorski continually does are not actually science-based. It’s important to show that his reasoning is flawed on so many levels. Orac is one of the go-to guys of the “science-based” movement, and it’s relevant to show that he is biased, close-minded, and hypocritical, all of which are not the qualities of someone who claims to be a critical thinker. I’ll get into that a little later. And most importantly, I do all of this for you, my dear readers, so you don’t have to.

So, let’s start with his article, shall we? His latest tirade begins with the following:

Last week, I did three posts about the anti-vaccine movement. (What? Only three? Well, last week was slower than usual on the anti-vaccine craziness front. It happens.) Two of them were variations on a theme, namely how the anti-vaccine movement vehemently, desperately does not want to be seen as "anti-vaccine, even though that's what many of them are. First, I pointed out how the "health freedom" movement is teaming up with the anti-vaccine movement next week in Chicago to hold an anti-vaccine rally in Grant Park as part of its annual autism quackfest known as AutismOne. My second post asked a simple question: Why, if Age of Autism is about doing better for autistic kids rather than being anti-vaccine, do the the bloggers there spend so much time and verbiage ranting about Gardasil, which, even if the vaccine-autism connection were true, couldn't possibly cause autism because it's given a decade after the typical first onset of autistic symptoms?






My answer is that it's always, first and foremost, about the vaccines, not autism.






Every so often, though, the anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism provides me with an insight to how the anti-vaccine movement thinks. This time around, Julie Obradovic serves that purpose with a post entitled How to Actually Save the Vaccine Program. My first impression was that, it's very, very nice of die hard enemies of the vaccine program to give public health officials advice on how to "save it." In essence, the post is a list of what Ms. Obradovic thinks public health officials should do before the the anti-vaccine movement will listen to them. In doing so, she demonstrates perfectly exactly why it's virtually impossible to reason with die-hard anti-vaccine loons. She also demonstrates the utter sense of entitlement that so many of them have, a sense that the world must cater to her.

His first paragraph is just treading over old ground. I addressed one of his posts on a previous blog entry, so I won’t rehash. Do notice that he continues to use the word “quack” in his spittle-flecked rant. I would say that he is projecting, but even those who are really quacks have standards. The second part of his introduction discusses AoA’s aversion to Gardasil, and here I will have to step up and say that I agree with him somewhat.

“What?” you say. “Craig agreeing with Orac?”

Before you run outside to see if the world is coming to an end, keep in mind that I am just acknowledging a point, which reasonable people do (and since Orac consistently fails to acknowledge the valid points from us, what does that tell us about him?), though I’m not acknowledging his point in the way that he thinks.

The reason that AoA focuses on vaccines so much is because so many people who read and post on AoA witness a significant and life-altering event in their children so soon after a vaccination. While Gardasil may not be associated with Autism (I agree), it does have an unusually high record for adverse events. Since many people think that Autism in their children was caused by adverse reactions, or events, to one or more vaccinations, then it is reasonable to say that by showing the high adverse event rate for Gardasil and proving that it is unsafe, then it would call other vaccinations into question. Again, this looks like they are attacking vaccines. However, it goes further than that. This is not an attack on the vaccine; it’s an attack on those that make the vaccines. If Gardasil can be proven unsafe (and I think that will happen soon), then further scrutiny into Vaccine maker policies can be enforced. They can try to force the Vaccine makers to make safer vaccines. But, of course, Mr. Gorski thinks this is a bad thing.

His second paragraph discusses Julie Obradovic’s article that she posted on Age of Autism a few days ago (here). He begins with a false assumption (this tells him how anti-vaxxers think) and moves immediately into ad hominem and hypocrisy (they are loons that are incapable of being reasoned with). Of course, Mr. Gorski has repeatedly demonstrated that anyone who doesn’t follow his point of view is anti-science (or anti-vaccine…they are really the same in his book). This clearly implies that he is also incapable of being reasoned with. Later, he accuses Ms. Obradovic of having a false sense of entitlement towards public health officials and those who make vaccine policies.

It isn’t a false sense of entitlement because the various agencies are supposed to be working for the people. The FDA and CDC are government agencies, and the US Government is a government that is allegedly for the people by the people. The Vaccine Industry are corporations that are dependent on sales and income from products sold to consumers. If that doesn’t entitle Ms. Obradovic to offer suggestions to these agencies, I don’t know what does. Obviously, however, Orac is completely opposed to that simple concept that is a cornerstone of our Democratic society.

Let’s move on. In the following paragraphs he discusses some of the things that Julie thinks would help the various agencies. I’ll skip the portions where he quotes Julie (I’ve linked the article) and just get to the meat of his sniveling. Ms. Obradovic’s first point discusses transparency on the part of the FDA, CDC and Vaccine Industry and discusses how honesty would be integral to regaining the trust of many people. She discusses the limited studies performed by scientists with numerous Conflicts of Interests on the safety of one vaccine (MMR) and one ingredient (Thimerosal) and then calls a spade a spade by saying these agencies are lying about the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines (and they are).

Of course, it never occurs to Ms. Obradovic that the scientific community has been telling the truth. She's also good at building up straw men of burning man size and then aiming the aforementioned flamethrower of burning stupid at it, incinerating it. No one has said that "all vaccines in any child at any time" are completely safe. What science says is that there is no good scientific evidence that vaccines given according to the current vaccine schedule cause autism and that there is a lot of evidence that they are not at all correlated. She claims that mixing mercury with aluminum causes problems because of "high reactivity," betraying such an ignorance of basic chemistry and pharmacology that it is really, really hard not to be snarkier about it than I've been.

David goes into a clear state of denial in the very first sentence. He says that the scientific community has been telling the truth. If this were true, they would have removed Thimerosal completely from vaccines as early as 2001, when they said they would. But, as can be seen from my earlier link, Thimerosal was still in the formulations of many childhood vaccines as late as 2007, and is still in many formulations of the Flu vaccines today. Not only that, he wants us to take it on faith that the Pharmaceutical Industry, which has on numerous occasions in the recent pas; 1) lied about the safety of their products, using ghost writers to publish fake studies and paying doctors to sign off on them (Vioxx); 2) sold HIV tainted drugs to foreign countries (Bayer); 3) wrote fake journals to publish the fake studies about the safety of their products, then threatened the livelihood of any doctor or scientist who spoke out against these studies by “destroying them where they live” (Merck). The list is a mile long. But David expects us to take it on faith that they couldn’t possibly lie about the safety of vaccines. Riiiight. More on that Faith thing later.

Orac’s second sentence clearly shows his utter lack of maturity and again makes him look like a teenaged boy who has just discovered that he likes boobs. He goes on to moan about how no one is saying that “all vaccines in any child at any time are completely safe.” That doesn’t stop Pediatricians and doctors from grabbing the next child and stabbing them with a needle, does it? Do you think they have all the data on whether or not a newborn child being injected with the HepB vaccine may have a condition that could cause problems or contraindications? Do they know if the child is allergic to a component of the vaccine? No, they do not. Doesn’t stop them from sticking the needle in, though, does it? His next statement is a good example of sophistry. What science has shown is that the science of vaccines and autism is incomplete. The evidence that shows a lack of correlation is done by scientists who have a vested interest in showing a lack of correlation (Verstaeten, who went to work for GSK in the middle of the now famous Danish study; Thorsen, etc.). Does that invalidate their research? No, but it does call the objectivity of the researchers into question. And finally, Mercury and Aluminum are highly reactant to each other, and even the vaccine manufacturers have gone on the record to state that they are unsure about exactly how the adjuvants work.

David then cherry picks a few quotes from the article (hey, I thought science and evidence based people didn’t do that!). Julie’s next quote talks about how the scientists and researchers employed by the Pharmaceutical industry, and those employed by the CDC should acknowledge their bias and lack of objectivity. Orac’s pathetic response?

I call a strawman and raise you a "pot, kettle, black."

And, I see your “pot, kettle, black” and raise you one deluded, narcissistic, egomaniacal asshole. From reading that cesspool that David calls a blog, it is easy to see that he is NOT objective and IS very much biased.

Mr. Gorski gets amused by Julie’s next point. Essentially, she asks that they quit going to Dr. Offit as the spokesperson for vaccines. While I see her point (he’s biased), I don’t necessarily agree with her. More of that in a minute. First, Orac’s response:

I bet the anti-vaccine movement would like it a lot if Dr. Offit gave up, if he refused to do battle with the anti-vaccine movement anymore. He is arguably the single most tenacious and effective combatter of anti-vaccine nonsense there is. Of course the anti-vaccine movement would like to see him removed from the battle!

I don’t think that Dr. Offit is particularly effective. Nor do I see him as tenacious. He certainly has experience with infectious diseases, but he’s also biased in favor of vaccines. Personally, I have no problem with him continuing as the voice of the “grab ‘em and stab ‘em” movement. He has failed to demonstrate the safety of the product he’s defending and has failed to come across as a reasonable, unbiased supporter of his science. He has failed to provide those “death threats” that he goes on and on and on about. The only thing he has done is made himself look foolish and made himself out as a whiner because no one will listen to him. Oh, and isn’t he on the Merck payroll? I wonder if that has something to do with it…

The next comment from Ms. Obradovic I will write in full, because I want there to be no misunderstanding about what Mr. Gorski turns the comment into.

Here is Julie’s comment:

Understand that you are under investigation by the parent community for a crime: medical negligence. Understand that no amount of self-investigation will ever be good enough to convince them of your innocence.

And here is David’s response:

Actually, no amount of investigation, period, will convince someone like Ms. Obradovic that vaccines don't cause autism. It doesn't matter who does it. It doesn't matter who funds the research. It doesn't matter how bulletproof the research is from a scientific standpoint. It won't convince Ms. Obradovic. It won't convince J.B. Handley. It won't convince Jenny McCarthy. It won't convince any of the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement. The best way to illustrate this, should you ever get into a discussion with a die-hard vaccine rejectionist, is to ask that person to tell you in very specific terms exactly what evidence would make her change her mind and vaccinate her child. Then follow up on the questions. Inevitably, what you'll find is that no evidence will. Either that, or the level of evidence will be so unrealistically high that science could never provide that level of certainty.

Now, Julie’s comment does not say what David thinks it says. Julie says that no amount of self-investigation (emphasis is mine) will convince her. This is true. Right now, the CDC and the Pharmaceutical industry have a nice, incestuous relationship going on. The only people who are investigating them for the medical negligence that Julie proposes are themselves. That’s right…they are investigating their own alleged crime. And we are supposed to take it on faith that the results are unbiased and true. And I’ve mentioned how Orac’s next canard is wrong, i.e. the asking “what evidence it would take” thing. What happens is, when we give what evidence it would take (a retrospective study on the neurological health outcomes of unvaccinated children done by an independent researcher), we are told “It can’t be done.” This, as I mentioned in my last post, is known as a Burden of Proof fallacy. Additionally, he again throws out the “No evidence will ever convince you” hypocrisy.

Ms. Obradovic’s next comment is quite reasonable. It asks the medical community and researchers to reach out to those who criticize them. Listen to their stories, because their dismissal of these parents’ stories makes these parents feel betrayed.

Orac’s response?

Actually, been there, done that. What makes Ms. Obradovic think that the public health community hasn't reached out to its loudest critics? I once criticized a friend for naïveté for proposing exactly the same thing. In doing so, I pointed out several examples of scientists and public health officials doing just what Ms. Obradovic claims that she wants to see. Not only did it not work, but at every turn representatives of the anti-vaccine movement took advantage of the gullibility of those trying to "reach out" to them in order to cause more trouble.






This is not to say that we shouldn't reach out to parents. Of course we should! Parents who are confused, parents who keep hearing that vaccines cause autism and are afraid, parents who don't know the science and don't know whether they can trust their doctors, these are the people we should reach out to. These are the people whom we should treat with respect. The J.B. Handley, Julie Obradovics, Kim Staglianos, and Jenny McCarthys of the world, not so much. The reason is that they have shown themselves over a long period of time to be about as close to unreachable as can be.

I’m sure all of you can see what’s wrong with these 2 paragraphs, yes? In the second paragraph, he says that the scientific community should reach out to parents who are frightened by the bloated vaccination schedule, but contradicts himself in the first paragraph by saying that he criticized a friend for doing just that. He doesn’t want to reach out to anyone; he only wants to insult those who don’t adhere to his narrow-minded paradigm and marginalize anyone who disagrees with him. This is further reinforced by his insults to J.B. Handley, Ms. Obradovic, Kim Stagliano and Ms. McCarthy. To him, they shouldn’t have a say, nor should they be reached out to. And then, he further calls himself a hypocrite by saying that they are unreachable.

I once reached out to him in an attempt to turn him from his treatment of parents like me. You can all see how he reacted to that, I’m sure.

He then mentions some of the comments posted on Julies article, then ends his article with this gem:

It's not the current vaccination program that it madness. Far from it. Rather, it's the anti-vaccine movement that is madness. It is madness to try to pursuade parents not to vaccinate based on fears born from fear and ignorance and suckled on pseudoscience and conspiracy mongering. What Obradovic seems to want is for scientists to "destroy the vaccine program in order to save it." She doesn't want "dialog," at least not any meaningful dialog where both sides listen. Her post makes it abundantly clear that she wants to be heard without listening. Rather, what she is in essence demanding is unconditional surrender of the "enemy" to the demands of the anti-vaccine movement as a precondition for negotiations. Under such circumstances, it would be madness to give in, because, as Ms. Obradovic has shown us in no uncertain terms that anything less than total capitulation to what she wants is unacceptable! "Reaching" out to such people runs the very real risk of giving up more and more ground in a futile hope that a reasonable accommodation can be reached, until one day everything has been given up and there is nothing left. What the anti-vaccine movement wants is nothing less than the utter destruction of the current vaccination program. After all, her leader J.B. Handley himself has said as much!






The sad thing is that Ms. Obradovic, for all her spewing of anti-vaccine canards, misinformation, and pseudoscience combined with a sense of utter entitlement, is, compared to the commenters on AoA, about as close to reasonable as anti-vaccinationists come.

Whew!! There is a lot of bullshit in those two paragraphs. I’m going to have to deconstruct his argument sentence by sentence.

It's not the current vaccination program that it madness.

The current vaccine schedule was made with the convenience of the parents and pediatricians in mind. There is nothing that looks at potential contraindications prior to vaccination; no tests that determine if a child has conditions that could cause injury. So yes, it IS madness.

Rather, it's the anti-vaccine movement that is madness. It is madness to try to pursuade parents not to vaccinate based on fears born from fear and ignorance and suckled on pseudoscience and conspiracy mongering.

Strawman. There are very few people who are saying “Do not vaccinate.” Not once has Ms. Obradovic said that. Nor Ms. McCarthy, nor Mr. Handley. And I call a conspiracy reductionist gambit on Orac here. And who, exactly, is doing the fear mongering? How many times have we heard Orac and the rest of his talking heads go on, ad nauseum, about the dangers of teh eebil Chicken Pox? Oh…we’s all gonna die from teh Chicken Pox. (Disclaimer: this is just satire. I understand that chicken pox has rare cases that can kill a child, but this is mostly in 3rd world countries where this happens). The truth is that he is just as guilty (if not more) of fear-mongering as those he is accusing.

What Obradovic seems to want is for scientists to "destroy the vaccine program in order to save it."

So, asking for transparency; asking for the scientists to listen to the parents who have children who regressed after a vaccination; asking for independent research into Vaccines and the claims of the CDC; asking for an independent oversight committee into the Pharmaceutical companies’ practices and their vaccine policy; asking for the CDC to open the VSD to independent researchers; asking to remove known neurotoxins from vaccines; all of that is bad in David’s book. All of that will “destroy the vaccine program.” I think you all get the point.

She doesn't want "dialog," at least not any meaningful dialog where both sides listen. Her post makes it abundantly clear that she wants to be heard without listening.

And I call hypocrisy. Mr. Gorski has clearly shown that he is completely uninterested in meaningful dialog and that he should be heard without him having to listen. His only interest is in insulting those who don’t agree with him, and with being right.

Rather, what she is in essence demanding is unconditional surrender of the "enemy" to the demands of the anti-vaccine movement as a precondition for negotiations. Under such circumstances, it would be madness to give in, because, as Ms. Obradovic has shown us in no uncertain terms that anything less than total capitulation to what she wants is unacceptable!

And so has David. He has clearly shown that he thinks that we should all capitulate to him because, by golly, he’s a SCIENTIST and he’s smarter than everybody else. He demands that we listen to him, but doesn’t want us to question or think for ourselves.

"Reaching" out to such people runs the very real risk of giving up more and more ground in a futile hope that a reasonable accommodation can be reached, until one day everything has been given up and there is nothing left.

No, that’s your interpretation. In any argument between reasonable adults, people give ground until there is a point where equilibrium is reached. Since Mr. Gorski thinks that there should be no reason to even listen to Julie’s requests, then he is showing how unreasonable he is. That goes back to my whole point about the “critical thinking.” More on that in a minute.

The sad thing is that Ms. Obradovic, for all her spewing of anti-vaccine canards, misinformation, and pseudoscience combined with a sense of utter entitlement, is, compared to the commenters on AoA, about as close to reasonable as anti-vaccinationists come.

No less so than Orac and some of his commenters. Hell, I’ve seen people over there saying that they hope that parents like me all die of vaccine preventable diseases. Or, how Orac mocked parents saying that he didn’t become autistic after his vaccines. And then, his drones all jumping into the comments saying the exact same thing. For someone who claims to be science-based and a critical thinker, he sure fails to realize that people react differently to different things. For instance; not everyone can eat peanuts. But, Orac thinks they can, according to the logic above! Not everyone can safely take Penicillin. But Orac thinks they can! Oh, I know…if he reads this, he will say that I’m building a strawman. No, I’m taking the stupidity of his mindset and showing how ridiculous and preposterous he is.

Now, onto the critical thinking part. Here is a good list of what a critical thinker should be, and I will post whether or not we see these qualities in Orac.

Assuming that critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do, a critical thinker:



1. Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives (Nope)

2. Tries to be well-informed (Nope)

3. Judges well the credibility of sources (Uh uh)

4. Identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions (Since most of his reasoning is based on assumptions? No)

5. Judges well the quality of an argument, including the acceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence (Again, no)

6. Can well develop and defend a reasonable position (No, he just hurls insults and ad hominems against those he disagrees with)

7. Asks appropriate clarifying questions (I’ve never seen him do this)

8. Formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well (Yes…when he discusses his expertise area, i.e. cancer)

9. Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context. (Yes…again, when he’s discussing cancer)

10. Draws conclusions when warranted, but with caution (HAHAHAHA…Definitely not)

11. Integrates all items in this list when deciding what to believe or do (Not at all)

Critical Thinkers are disposed to:



1. Care that their beliefs be true, and that their decisions be justified; that is, care to "get it right" to the extent possible. This includes the dispositions to

    a. Seek alternative hypotheses, explanations, conclusions, plans, sources, etc., and be open to them (Nope)

    b. Endorse a position to the extent that, but only to the extent that, it is justified by the information that is available (Absolutely not)

    c. Be well informed (Heh)

    d. Consider seriously other points of view than their own (HAHAHAHAHAHA)



2. Care to present a position honestly and clearly, theirs as well as others'. This includes the dispositions to

    a. Be clear about the intended meaning of what is said, written, or otherwise communicated, seeking as much precision as the situation requires

    b. Determine, and maintain focus on, the conclusion or question

    c. Seek and offer reasons

    d. Take into account the total situation

    e. Be reflectively aware of their own basic beliefs

    (I’ve seen him do this when he talks about Cancer)



3. Care about the dignity and worth of every person (a correlative disposition). This includes the dispositions to

    a. Discover and listen to others' view and reasons

    b. Avoid intimidating or confusing others with their critical thinking prowess, taking into account others' feelings and level of understanding

    c. Be concerned about others' welfare

(I will allow all of you time to read this and think about if you’ve seen Orac do this. And then, please take the time to compose yourselves. Please try not to rupture something while laughing).

We’ve all seen Orac say, definitively, that there is no connection between Vaccines and Autism. The science has spoken. This sounds an awful lot like faith, doesn’t it? We are supposed to take it on faith that the Pharmaceutical industry is telling the truth. We’re supposed to take it on faith that their studies are unbiased. We are just supposed to shut the hell up and take our medicine! That sounds like a religion…not science.

My good friend Hellbilly wrote this little tune about such blind faith. It’s sung to the tune of George Michael’s “Faith”

Well I guess it would be nice

If I could vaxx your baby

I know not everybody

Has got a baby like you



But I've got to think twice

Before I collect my pay

And I know all the things you’ll say

Because Jenny says them too



Oh but I

Need some time off from that commotion

Time to pick my needle up off the floor

And when that vaxx comes down

With excessive promotion

Well it takes a straw man baby

But Orac’ll be a good whore



'Cause I gotta have faith...



Baby

I know you're asking me to wait

Say please, please, please, don't vaxx today

You say I'm giving you the flus

Maybe

You mean every word you say

Can't help but think of yesterday

And how easy it was without Thimerosal rules



Before this river

Becomes an ocean

Before AoA shows everyone the score

Oh no I won’t reconsider

My greedy notion

Well I need another Mazarati

So I can be like Offit some more



Yes I've gotta have faith...



Ok…Shower time...again. I feel so…defiled!