David Gorski is Spouting More of his Nonsense, and his Anti-Science Stupidity Induces…Laughter

Ah, false-skeptics…

If there is something that is a repeated theme to my blog, it’s pointing out the hypocrisy and unscientific behaviour of people who claim to be “science based” or “skeptics.” In fact, it was such an amusing diversion that, for a time, I had too much material to blog about. And then, I realised that I was way too busy in my own personal life that I really didn’t have time to focus on making fun of these hypocritical and duplicitous douche-bags. And before I knew it…6 months had passed since I had updated my humble little blog.

Then, yesterday, an announcement was made. The NVICP awarded two children compensation for injuries that resulted from a vaccine. Both of these children were fine prior to vaccination, and both children developed an encepalopathy post vaccination that resulted in seizure disorders. One was diagnosed with ASD, the other with PDD-NOS.

I’ll get more into that later. Right now, I want to discuss the reaction.

Predictably, David Gorski had to say something. And his dismissal of these two children is so mind-numbingly stupid that I was contemplating watching “Jersey Shore” or “Honey Boo-Boo” to find something more intelligent.

In David’s latest shart-fest, “David Kirby’s back, and this time his anti-vaccine fear mongering induces…ennui,” Gorski begins his shrill and foaming-at-the-mouth rant with his usual logical fallacies, i.e. poisoning the well.

“I sense a disturbance in the antivaccine Force, which is, of course, by definition the Dark Side.

Whenever I sense such a disturbance, there are a number of possible reactions that it provokes in me. One such reaction is alarm, as when antivaccine activists say something that is just clever enough to sound plausible enough that it might cause trouble. It never is, of course, but it often takes a close reading and some research to figure out what the game is and deconstruct the nonsense. Sometimes, my reaction is amusement, as when an antivaccine activist says something that is so hilariously dumb, so over-the-top in its scientific ignorance that it provokes chuckles or even guffaws as I read it, as, for instance, whenever Vox Day jumps into the antivaccine fray. Such excretions have a tendency to provoke some amused not-so-Respectful Insolence; that is, when I’m in the mood. Sometimes, my reaction is boredom, pure ennui. Such reactions are generally reserved for antivaccine nonsense that is so unimaginative, so derivative of lies and misinformation that antivaccinationists have been flogging before, that I’d really prefer to let the cup pass. However, I can’t, because I feel duty-bound, knowing that supporters of science-based medicine opposing the quackery that is the antivaccine movement are about to be buried in a tsunami (word choice intentional) of utter nonsense.

You know such a moment is fast upon us whenever David Kirby decides to address the vaccine-autism manufactroversy.”

A disturbance in the force? Seriously? Are we really sure this guy is a doctor, much less an adult? Then he starts wailing about how the nonsense is “unimaginative, so derivative of lies and misinformation” that he’d prefer not to talk about it. But poor David, who is such a busy “doctor” and “researcher” that he writes on his hate-blog daily, is such a martyr that he has to do this. Oh yes he does. Let’s not mention the heaping dose of hypocritical bovine faeces regarding lies and derivative misinformation. Observe.

“Of course, David Kirby is so 2005 or 2006. That was back when hardly a week passed without a dropping by Kirby appearing on that wretched hive of scum and quackery, The Huffington Post. These days, he rarely dips his toe into the antivaccine pool, but when he does he twists the catch phrase of the “most interesting man alive” from “stay thirsty my friends” to “stay stupid my friends,” which is just what he’s done this time. In a way, it’s oddly comforting to know that, even after all these years David Kirby can still bring home the stupid, flaming like napalm, and bring home the stupid he does in a post on—where else?—HuffPo entitled Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism. He begins with what is, in essence, a bait and switch that is apparent in the title. You can see right there that what Kirby is going to try to convince people is that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) through the Vaccine Court has “admitted” that vaccines cause autism by compensating children for vaccine injuries that include autism. We’ve heard this ploy time and time again. The routine is well-established and trotted out every so often to convince the credulous that somehow the government is “hiding” the “truth” that vaccines cause autism while paying off the parents of vaccine-injured autistic children.

It’s a transparent ploy for a variety of reasons. For one thing, the standard of evidence for the Vaccine Court is what has been referred to as “50% and a feather.” Basically, it’s the same standard of evidence as any other civil court: a preponderance of evidence.”

Ah, where to begin…

I love how Gorski accuses Mr Kirby of being so “2005 or 2006.” Certainly ironic considering that Gorski has been spewing his idiocy for how long? I also enjoy how he calls HuffPo a “wretched hive of scum and quackery” (Weeee!! Another childish Star Wars reference…how trite). But, of course, his site is totally science-based and unbiased, correct? Finally, notice the final comment there…a preponderance of evidence. This is very important in this case because we have all heard, time and time again, that Gorski is evidence-based. Except when there’s evidence that contradicts his previous bias. In other words, he’s “science and evidence based,” except when he doesn’t like the evidence.

He begins discussing Mr Kirby, throwing out his usual fallacies and vapid insults, then goes to the actual meat of the article (after about 1000 words).

Here’s where it gets hilarious.

“In addition, although Ryan clearly has neurological problems, as Catherina points out there is no evidence of actual autism. In fact, if you go and look up earlier records, you’ll find that the child did not demonstrate any ASD behaviors on CHAT screenings:

On May 10, 2004, at Ryan’s sixteen month well-child visit, Dr. Armstrong completed a Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (CHAT) screen. Ps’ Ex. 4 At 25. That CHAT screen indicated that Ryan was interested in other children, pretend play, peek-a-boo, points with index finger, makes eye contact, and brings object for show. Id. On January 25, 2005, Dr. Armstrong examined Ryan for his twenty-four month well-baby check. Ps’ Ex. 4 at 31. During the visit, Dr. Armstrong conducted another CHAT screen, and again Ryan postively (sic) performed each of the listed behaviors.”

Which is exactly the point. Ryan did not show signs of an earlier ASD. After his reaction, though, he certainly did. Gorski implies, without evidence, that Ryan did not actually have autism.

“Ultimately, the Vaccine Court ruled to compensate Ryan’s family because he appeared to have suffered a “table injury” of encephalitis. Why it decided to do this is unclear, but Kirby hints at dark conspiracies (in his usual fashion), pointing out that “something changed,” implying that it was new evidence under seal that did it. Maybe. Maybe not. What is clear is that, whatever the reasoning for the court’s final decision, the court did not compensate the Mojabi family for Ryan having an ASD. From the evidence that is publicly available, it doesn’t even sound as though Ryan has an ASD.”

Ryan, indeed, has a diagnosis of ASD, according to his mother and his doctors. He was diagnosed with ASD in 2005. All he is doing here is speculation that he is trying to present as fact; a common occurrence with Mr Gorski

Next is the case of Emily Lowrie. Here’s what the moron has to say:

“The second case discussed is Emily Lowrie, whose mother is Jillian Moller. Kirby, as is his wont, presents this case as David versus Goliath, with the government fighting to crush the child and her mother. (It is David Kirby we’re talking about, after all.) The story is actually somewhat different from that of Ryan Mojabi in that there was actually fairly convincing evidence that Emily suffered symptoms within two weeks of having received her vaccinations. She probably did suffer encephalopathy in close enough temporal association with vaccination to be, as the court ruled, a table injury. But evidence of vaccines causing Emily to become autistic? There is none. In fact, unlike the case of Ryan Mojabi, autism or autism spectrum disorder isn’t even mentioned in the ruling.”

First off, I laughed heartily at his description of Mr Kirby’s representation of the case. How many times have we heard how Gorski is attempting to topple the “pseudo-science propaganda?” Project much, Mr Gorski?

I was genuinely surprised that he agreed with the evidence that Emily suffered a vaccine reaction. It was a pleasant surprise. But I wonder if he somehow thinks that since she did receive an encepalopathy from the vaccination and subsequent brain damage, it’s ok as long as it isn’t autism.

My relief is palpable.

He then proceeds to rail against Mr Kirby for repeating the mother’s words in regard to her testimony and the subsequent judgment, calling it “conspiracy mongering.”

It’s a sure fire bet that whenever someone calls you a conspiracy mongerer, they have no interest in addressing your comment in any logical or reasonable way. It’s a way to poison the well and dismiss your claims without actually addressing the substance of the claim.

“This is lame, even for David Kirby. It’s pure hearsay, the mother complaining about being “badgered” on the stand. That’s how the legal system works, and I understand how uncomfortable it can be. Your opponent’s lawyers can cross-examine you on the stand, and it can be very uncomfortable; then your lawyers get to cross examine your opponent’s witnesses. From the transcripts I read, there was at least one respondent witness who likely had a hard time on the stand. I realize that it might not seem fair that parents with a special needs child has to be subjected to cross examination, but that’s the way the legal system works. It would be nice if there were a better way, but even various review boards would rely to some extent on a bit of an adversarial system. More importantly, however, what we have here is a plaintiff claiming that her lawyer told her that the judge became very angry that she would have to compensate Emily once she was diagnosed with autism because she didn’t want to give antivaccinationists hope. Seriously? The judge would have to be pretty careless to say something so utterly stupid in front of a plaintiff’s attorney, or even where attorneys could overhear.”

But of course, using the mother’s own words to describe her experience is bad. That’s conspiracy mongering! And, how does he know that the judge didn’t say what she said? Was he there?

“Besides, having followed cases going through the Vaccine Court since 2005 or so, I smell hyperbole. In every case that I’ve examined, not only have the Special Masters (who do most of the questioning of parents) not been confrontational, but they’ve bent over backwards to give parents a chance to tell their stories in as non-judgmental a manner as possible. True, various parents’ expert witnesses don’t always fare so well (given that more than a few of them in the Autism Omnibus were anti-vaccine quacks, that’s not surprising), but the parents themselves, as far as I’ve been able to tell, have not been subjected to the same sort of questioning. One wonders if Mrs. Moller simply can’t take having her story questioned even gently.”

This, right here, is the most telling statement in this entire article, and also the most thought provoking. Allow me to explain.

There is documented evidence that priests in the Catholic Church were abusing children. When this was first brought to the attention of law enforcement, the Church tried to dismiss these claims in the following ways:

1. By dismissing the claims, calling the parents of the children conspiracy mongerers, thereby marginalising the parents and families. They would excommunicate the families.
2. By claiming that the children were only trying to extort money from the church (read the above comment where Mr Gorski implies this exact thing)
3. By claiming that there is no solid evidence that this was occurring (covering it up).

There are others, but those three are the most familiar to parents of vaccine-injured children.

Seeing Gorski’s reaction to the revelation of the two cases, I can’t help but wonder why anyone still thinks that this utter and complete fool is considered to be “science and evidence based.” His entire belief structure is based on faith; the belief that vaccines are safe and effective. It’s never the vaccines, and no amount of evidence will ever convince him otherwise.

Can Anyone Say “Hypocrite”?

I’d been meaning to discuss this previously, but got entirely too busy and had to put my thoughts concerning this on hold for a while. So, here it is for everyone’s amusement.

One thing that never fails to amuse me about the false skeptic community and the “Science-based” bloggers and their squealing groupies is the laughably outrageous hypocrisy they spew. In fact, this is the very reason that my predecessor created this site, and the very reason that I continue it. What better to show just how unreasonable, unscientific and un-skeptical a group is? Point out their hypocritical and non-scientific behaviours to show the world just exactly what they are dealing with.

This remains true in David Gorski’s rant, A school board president abuses his position to promote an antivaccine movie. Honestly, it’s nothing new that anyone who is familiar with Gorski’s odious verbal butt drippings would be in the least bit surprised about. In it, he injures his arm trying to pat himself on the back. In fact, the majority of his rant is a recant of a post he made several months ago. The man is so caught up in his narcissism that he has to link to his own drivel to stroke his already enormous ego. Really, I’m not kidding. The man is just that caught up in his own self absorption.

However, surprisingly, this isn’t what I really wanted to talk about. I wanted to discuss a comment made on this article from one of his more ardent and vicious sycophants named lilady. I’ve discussed my encounters with this particularly dim-witted lickspittle previously, so I won’t pull a Gorski and regurgitate it here again for my own self-gratification. Instead, I will replicate her idiocy and then comment on how hypocritical it is, giving examples from her very idol to prove my point.

Here’s the comment:

“Orac, I spent the better part of yesterday looking into this letter writer and confirmed the Mr. Marvel, is indeed, the president of board of the San Ramon Unified School District.

I also sent an email to the District's school superintendent, Steven Enoch, objecting to Mr. Marvel's personal agenda, written on school board stationary.

Mr. Enoch, via return email, requested my phone number, which I provided along with your blog that reviewed "The Greater Good" film, and he called me to discuss the matter.

Mr. Enoch stated he was unaware of the letter and that it certainly did not represent school district policy. I, in turn, provided some information about AoA, its political arm (the Canary Party) and their anti-vaccine activities.

Due to my involvement with many school boards in my State, I offered up my opinion that Mr. Marvel abused his office and should be sanctioned by the California School Boards Association:

http://www.csba.org/

Mr. Enoch will be speaking directly to Mr. Marvel about this letter and I will be following up, either at the district level or with an email to the California State School Boards Association.

I located this website for immunization rates for Contra Costa County, where San Ramon is located:

http://www.baycitizen.org/data/immunizations/

Rates for complete immunizations for school entry are (relatively) high for Contra Costa County, compared to some adjacent counties. I'd like to see that those rates remain high.”

I’ll leave that here for a few moments to discuss something that happened to Mr Gorski a while back. Gorski was (rightfully) appalled at a comment left on Age of Autism where someone encouraged other commenters to contact Mr Gorski’s place of business and discuss with them Mr Gorski’s moonlighting activities. His sycophants moaned and cried about how horrible the people at AoA are for doing something like that. In fact, one of Gorski’s more dull-witted morons that goes by the name of Ren (epi-ren) still cries(almost a year later) about how one of those mean, evil anti-vaxxers tried to get him fired.

Yes, this is horrid behaviour. Yes, I agree with Gorski and Ren that it is disgusting.

Which is why I’m currently laughing myself silly by lilady’s comment. Notice the hypocrisy? Notice that she called the school board in an attempt to get Mr Enoch reprimanded or fired? It goes even further; in a later comment, she encourages other commenters to contact the said school board to file legal action against Mr Enoch:

“@ Liz Ditz and the RI Regulars: You are amazing Liz and have been very busy this past weekend.

I just sent the SkewedDistribution link to Mr. Enoch, School Superintendent and requested a time frame for the retraction of that letter, by Mr. Marvel.

IANAL...but I checked legal opinions about school board members' sanctions at the California School Board Association. There definitely are legal precedences concerning cases that deal with a school board member that has either stated publicly...or written a letter, that misrepresents the position of the school board. In fact, the Association has sent amici curiae briefs to various California courts, supporting the ability of a board of education to sanction the person who misrepresented school board policy.”

Do as I say, not as I do, right? Again, I will reiterate how loathesome and disgusting I find this sort of behaviour. In fact, that is the main reason I choose to remain anonymous with my activities, specifically because of what happened to my good friend and because of repulsive little twits like this lilady person.

Here’s a comment that lilady made on Dave’s hate-site that had me laughing so hard, I ruptured something:

“@ Sauceress: You made my day! I love their defense of Wonder Boy Jake's latest foibles by attacking Orac, Marc, Chris, Reuben and me and delight that I am in such company.

The lead in to the blog was a classic about the the little cartoons that they consider "humor" and our indignity about the sheer filth and disgust that any website would even consider publishing them.

No, we don't libel researchers, we don't start letter writing campaigns to destroy anyone's career and we don't encourage people to threaten any of their quack doctors.

Any repercussions to their pathetic careers is an "inside job"...they sow the seeds of their own lack of credibility and their own destruction by their words and their deeds...pathetic.”

Don’t libel researchers? Don’t start letter writing campaigns to destroy anyone’s career? Don’t encourage people to threaten doctors? Oh, my word…I haven’t laughed like that in a long, long time.

If anything, it’s an amusing diversion to laugh at these revolting, small-minded hypocrites.

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.

False Skepticism

I know it’s been a while since I’ve written a substantial post about the king of the anti-science shitheads, David H. Dorkski. Today, however, I’m taking a different approach and instead of attacking his insipid, drudging and puerile blog posts, I think I will address his beliefs and the falsehoods behind them. In fact, you can easily take what I am about to discuss and apply it to all of those who follow Doucheski’s vapid talking points.

Orac, and those who worship him, espouses himself as a skeptic. I think that to understand what this means, we must first look at the definition of the word and why he would believe himself to be a skeptic.

What does this mean, though? What is a skeptic?

First off, let us look at the meaning of the word as defined by several English language dictionaries. We will further compound this definition by examining their philosophical outlooks. Then, we will compare that with Orac’s interpretation and see if they match up.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of Skepticism is as follows:

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

2a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain

b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

Let’s start with point one. Does Orac exhibit an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object? For the most part, I will say yes. But, this only goes so far. Before I explain why, let me continue with our analysis.

Looking at points 2a and 2b, does he follow the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain? Does he follow the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics? Consider the following statements that I’m sure that you’ve all seen Orac say on numerous occasions:

“The Science has spoken. Vaccines do not cause autism.”

Ding ding ding!!!! We have a winner, folks!

Now, re-read points 2a and 2b. Is he following the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain (he claims with absolute certainty that vaccines cannot cause autism using flawed studies)? Does he follow the method of suspended judgment, etc. (the science has spoken…there is no more need to look further)?

Before I go any further, let me go back to point 1 again. Does Orac exhibit an attitude of doubt, etc.? As long as it does not defend his personal bias, yes he does. Anything that opposes his personal views, whether it be alternative cancer treatments, mercury dental amalgams, or the vaccine/autism link, then he is extremely doubtful and critical of it. But, when it defends his personal bias, then he does not turn a critical eye to it. Does that fall under the definition of skepticism? No, it does not.

Really, this is a human failing. I do not fault him at all whatsoever for having this selective skepticism because we all have a tendency to defend things that correspond with our own biases. AoA does this, I do this, and most people I’ve seen online do this. But where I take exception is when I see him mock and ridicule someone for being biased. As I have clearly demonstrated, he is just as biased. And I take great glee in pointing out such hypocrisy. This type of double standard is pathetic and should not, in any way, be taken seriously. But, Orac’s feeble-minded and drooling lickspittles soak it up as if it is a gift from the Gods. Disgusting and laughable.

Anyway, let’s move on. Let’s have a look at the Skeptic philosophy and the skeptic movement in general, and then we’ll see if this applies to David.

The closest approximation to Dorkski’s paradigm would be Scientific Skepticism. These types of skeptics are off-shoots of the philosophical skeptics from ancient Greece who believed that they should critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge. Scientific skeptics are very similar, but they use the scientific method and critical thinking as a basis for testing the truth of their knowledge.

I’ve already addressed David’s lack of critical thinking skills, so let’s bypass that and verify whether or not he meets the definition of a scientific skeptic.

Let us begin by clarifying what we know about scientific skepticism.

Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on anecdotal evidence. Ok, good so far. I can certainly acknowledge that David follows this rationale.

Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Ok, again, I can say that David does this. However, things start going into the grey area here. For instance, he doesn’t question or criticize any claims or studies that defend his paradigm when those claims and studies are clearly contradictory.

Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand, but rather they argue that claims should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity. And, here we see the flaw in his mindset. Scientific skeptics do not make definitive claims without reviewing as much evidence as possible. David rejects the possibility that autism and vaccines could be linked in some cases, but he hasn’t seen or reviewed all of the evidence. He hasn’t looked at the medical records of the children of the parents making these claims. Hell, he has never once in his life even seen an autistic child, most likely. How can he make such definitive claims without reviewing all of the evidence? By going on the incomplete studies that have been funded by parties with vested interests? The same studies that call for more inquiry? But, Doucheski says that more study is unnecessary. The science has spoken!

That doesn’t sound like scientific skepticism, does it? It’s more like a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. That’s not science; that’s religion.

Let’s move off on a tangent for a moment. Trust me; this is related to my point. I feel it is necessary to share with you an email I received from the good “doctor” a few months back when AoA posted his personal information. What does this have to do with my observation on his pseudoskepticism? I’ll get to that in a moment. Enjoy the email.

Craig,

As much as you despise me, never let it be said that I don't notice and voice appreciation when someone sticks to their principles on my behalf, as you did in the recent slimefest in the comments of Jake's idiotic post. (There's so much wrong there that it would easily take an Orac-length post to deal with it all.) You are absolutely correct. It is cowardly and despicable to take a blog disagreement, no matter how heated, into trying to make trouble for someone at their school or place of work. You may recall that I said as much standing up for Jake against David Brown.

The irony is that I stood up for Jake in the comments of my own blog, even though he despises me and I'm not too thrilled with him, either. Then Jake repays the favor by being complicit in trying to do exactly the same sort of thing that I defended him against. Never let it be said that a good deed goes unpunished. Here's hoping your good deed is an exception to that rule.

David

P.S. As much as you don't believe it, we are not enemies.

Now, dear readers, I’ll leave it to you to formulate an opinion as to the sincerity of his email. Personally, I didn’t feel it was very sincere. David saw that I was “taking his side” and wanted to cultivate a potential ally in these online autism wars.

However, what I see here is someone who is supremely arrogant and full of himself. He is ultimately proud of his knowledge and gladly and gleefully throws his credentials and assuredness in the face of anyone he talks to. He’s a doctor, damnit, so you had better listen to him because he knows more than all of us combined.

But, this isn’t science (ah, now he gets to the point!). Science is defined by an intense curiosity about the world around us. One of my favorite authors and scientists (and someone who David and I share considerable admiration for) Carl Sagan, to me, epitomizes what a scientist should be. He was knowledgeable. He was intensely curious about the world around him. And he was awed and humbled by what he did not know. Arrogance was not part of who he was because arrogance is the antithesis of science. He followed the philosophy of “the only thing I know for certain is that I don’t know everything.”

That, my friends, is what a scientist should be. Does this apply to David H. Gorski and his mob of mindless minions? I’ll let you be the judge of that.

Once More Into the Fray

Ok, this is my last post concerning the Hannah Poling concession, but there are a few more things I’d like to point out concerning this.

Over on Lisa Jo Rudy’s site, About.com, there is a very heated discussion on the decision and what it actually compensated Hannah for. Several people showed up, including Kev from LB/RB, Twyla from AoA (who was kind enough to give me a link…appreciate that, Twyla), Paul Offit’s puppet Allison Singer from the Autism Science Foundation, and the witless wonder.

Kev, of course, again says that Hannah does not have autism. This was taken apart not once, but twice.
Someone named Sandy-2000 pipes in with this comment:

“Hannah Poling did have symptom’s prior to those vaccines, but most parents or doctors don’t always do genetic testing unless those symptom’s present as very severe. And like the show Mystery Diagnosis, diagnosis sometimes takes a while to get.
Encephalopathy causes can be a few things, one of them mitochondrial dysfunction.”

Where is her evidence for this? There is none. According to the Polings, she had no symptoms prior to vaccination.

Then we have the ever arrogant and condescending White and Nerdy blather with his usual idiocy and hypocrisy:

“The situation has become completely surreal.

We have this long history of completely bogus character assassination of legitimate scientists.

On the other hand, we have a long list of the most egregious moral failings on the part of the vaccine critics which we are suppose to ignore.

So Dr. Poling acted unethically and flagrantly dishonestly to his co-works and his editor.
His apology (http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/23/9/1090.full.pdf+html) is a remarkable read.

1. his excuse is the forgot he was suing.

2. He complains about third-parties divulging his child’s identity. Wouldn’t that be Mr. Kirby acting completely unethically by publishing without permission a minor’s confidential medical information?

3. Just to set the record 100% straight, Dr. Poling tells us exactly what the concession was: encephalopathy. Not autism.”

He complains about bogus character assassinations against legitimate scientists, then he proceeds to character assassinate Dr. Poling. Oh, the hypocrisy! Or, is this a No-True-Scotsman fallacy? Hard to tell. I’ll talk more about the medical information comment a little later, but let’s talk about what Dr. Poling ACTUALLY said.

Dr. Poling has gone on the record saying that Hannah has Autism, and that her autism was the result of a vaccine-induced encepalopathy.

At one point, Terri Poling shows up and soundly smacks down Ms. Singer for trying to present speculation about Hannah’s condition as fact. Then, we get to some interesting comments.

The Witless Wonder chimes in and demands Hannah’s medical records to end the speculation. Then, several other people echo this notion, as well as asking why Dr. Zimmerman has not been released to speak about the case.

These people are such morons! Why should she release her daughter’s records? She has the right to privacy, just like everyone else. She doesn’t have to release or reveal anything to intrepid pseudo-reporters and Science Poseurs if she doesn’t want to. But of course, Moron Supreme takes that and twists it, insinuating that she is lying and has something to hide (his usual tactic). He somehow feels he’s entitled to her personal medical history!

Several times, it’s mentioned that if David Kirby has access to these documents, then everyone should. David had access to the concession documents, not the medical records. Concession documents != Medical Records. Can we all hear the resounding “Duh?”

Even if she wanted to release her daughter’s medical records, she can’t. Why?

Because it was the Government who sealed the case, not the Polings. This is also why they can’t let Dr. Zimmerman speak about this case.

Now, I will take the time to mention a much-deserved kudos to a former friend. She also mentions this article and is rightfully appalled and some of the things said there:

“The Poling case is irrelevant to the larger population; it is a specific case that applies to one person. And it isn't any of our business what the details are; it really isn't, and if you think you have a right to it, you don't. It's a court case that was settled as a table injury and it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

The Polings were diligent, they followed through, and their case was settled. It is not okay that it took them so many years to reach a resolution. For something that was set up to be a quick and fairly painless process to provide parents whose children have been damaged by vaccines, it failed here, especially since it was a table injury.”

Well done, Kim! It is absolutely none of our business. You may want to tell your buddy, Moron Supreme (aka the Witless Wonder).

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?

Oh, the Hypocrisy is Rich!

Orac's brothel has a new post today. I know it seems that I'm picking on him quite a bit lately, but he just makes it too easy! Besides, he deserves it. And this is way too good to pass up. It practically begs for my own special brand of critique.

He is again writing about the American Rally for Personal Rights, which I tore him apart for a few posts ago. This time, though, he is criticizing Michael Belkin and his new band, The Refusers, and their song Vaccine Gestapo.

Now, before I begin, I must make an admission. Michael may be the nicest guy there ever was, but Vaccine Gestapo is just plain bad. I mean REALLY bad. As in Gawdawful bad. The song sounds (remotely...well, within a few miles, anyway) like Neil Young trying to do punk. While you try to wrap your brain around that concept, I'll move on.

Orac is apparently disturbed by the song. He links to Moron Supreme's article on HuffPo, where the idiot goes on to compare the people at AoA and those doing the AutismOne and American Rally for Personal Rights to the Tea Party. He is appalled by these lyrics...I mean, how DARE someone compare them to the Gestapo!

And here's what is so damned funny. The hypocrisy of these shitheads is so profound, so astounding, that there are no words in the English language that could describe it.

Moron Supreme did this shitty parody of a movie called Downfall. It's about the fall of the Third Reich. In his parody, he put Der Fueher in as J.B. Handley, and Kim Stagliano and a few other prominent names in as his generals. AoA wrote an article about it (Here). Mercifully, the awful parody has been taken down on YouTube due to copyright violation. As a result, I have a feeling that Moron Supreme has his panties in a wad.

Back to Orac. He closes his whining rampage with the following:

These lyrics are so idiotic that I briefly flirted with the idea of doing a Hitler Zombie piece on this and ultimately decided that the undead Führer has more taste than that.







Finally, what's that again about AutismOne, Age of Autism, and the "vaccines cause autism" movement not being "anti-vaccine"? In any case, this is so hilarious that anyone who can score me a copy of the complimentary Refusers CD being passed out at the anti-vaccine rally in a week will earn Orac's eternal gratitude. I'd really love to see the artwork.

LMAO!!! Oh no! He was going to unleash one of his teenaged wet dream fantasies on The Refusers. And, really, do I need to repeat my rebuttal to his claim about AutismOne and AoA being Anti-vax?

I must say, if anything, Mr. Gorski is awfully fun to ridicule. I laughed.....a lot!

Novella Gets it Wrong Big Time, part deux

Again, I would like to take the time to thank our guest blogger, Schwartz, for his time and effort in taking down Novella's shameful display of ignorance. Schwartz, I do hope to see more of your writing here. Thank you again! -MySocratesNote


In Part I of this series, we examined an interaction between Dr. Novella, and Mr. JB Handley regarding a new study on Autism. You can re-read the exchange here, here and here


The study being discussed is A Prospective Study of the Emergence of Early Behavioral Signs of Autism.


In the first segment we went through Dr. Novella’s last post and examined in detail his arguments. A close examination reveals almost all of them to be light in evidence and logic, and heavy in biased or erroneous opinion.


In this second segment, we’re going to drill in a lot deeper into the cornerstone of Novella’s primary argument and the unsupported assumptions his arguments all hinge on.


Let’s start with looking back at Novella’s key point in his final conclusion:


In the end, all that matters is the science, which clearly shows that there is no association between vaccines and autism. This one study has minimal implications for an alleged connection, except that it clears the most often implicated vaccine – MMR. It also supports other evidence that the onset of autism is earlier than many parents observe and much earlier than formal diagnosis, which calls into question any casual observations about the timing of onset to any potential triggers.



All of these conclusions rest primarily on one key assumption which is repeated by Novella throughout his opinion pieces.


As we now know, from multiple studies, true clinical onset (biological onset is likely earlier) is between 6 and 12 months.



I noted in the first segment that this assertion was unreferenced by Novella. This is certainly true in the second segment of the series which we looked at. When we look through the whole series, Novella’s hypothesis changes a bit over time and he discusses it in more detail in prior postings. Let’s review some segments from his first piece:



Retrospective studies, largely involving review of home movies, have suggested that autism can be diagnosed as early as 6-12 months,…


...

 

But what these results indicate is that clear signs of autism emerge between 6 and 12 months of age.


In this segment, he provides some references which we’ll go through a bit later.


Prior studies using home movies have shown that signs of autism can be detected between 8-12 months. A study looking at head circumference found statistical differences prior to 12 months. And one study looking at movements found differences between 4-6 months. So it seems the consensus of current evidence is that objective and detectable signs of autism emerge between 6-12 months. This study does not support detection prior to 6 months, but other studies do suggest this might be possible.


...


The true onset of autism in most ASD children likely began a year or two prior to the vaccines that are blamed as the cause.


...


The current study adds nicely to the growing consensus that the true clinical onset of ASD is between 6 and 12 months of age.



This shows an interesting progression:



   * He starts out with suggesting that autism can be diagnosed as early as 6 months.

   * Then we have clear signs emerging between 6-12 months.

   * a couple more studies later (which we’ll examine in more detail later) and suddenly we have a consensus that detectable signs of Autism emerge between 6-12 months

   * all of a sudden true clinical onset is most likely in the first year of life

   * now we have a growing consensus that the true clinical onset is between 6-12 months

In the second segment we see:

As we now know, from multiple studies, true clinical onset (biological onset is likely earlier) is between 6 and 12 months.


...


Now we know the age of clinical onset is between 6 and 12 months…



He has now progressed to definitive onset being known without any further evidence: “The true clinical onset is known to be between 6-12 months.”


I’m going to point out and list the assumptions inherent in Novella’s assertion. Our astute readers will already realize Novella’s assertion is really a hypothesis, and infers the following assumptions:

    1. There is a consensus about the age of the clinical onset of Autism

    2. The “consensus” has changed from some earlier consensus or lack of consensus

    3. The clinical onset of autism is consistent within a narrow range of 6-12 months

    4. The onset is early and uniform, consistent with genetic causes

Keep these in mind as we review the evidence that Novella is using and ignoring to form his opinion.


After the current study under question, Novella’s first reference is his own opinion piece here.


Once you stop laughing, I’ve done the work for everyone and linked and summarized a couple of the studies his older opinion piece references.


Rate of Head Circumference Growth as a Function of Autism Diagnosis and History of Autistic Regression.


Summary of study findings:


    * retrospective study of 28 boys with ASD and 8 with developmental delay

    * measured the rate of growth of head circumference and compared to reference population data published by CDC

    * in 60% of the autistic boys, they had accelerated growth prior to the onset of the symptoms of autism (7-10 months old)

    * in the children who’s parents reported regression the results were similar – unknown if the sample size here was large enough to allow those results to be considered significant



This small study noted that in children that were ultimately diagnosed with ASD, there were biological differences from the general population at 7-10 months of age. However, these differences were not coincident with the onset of Autism as described by the studies authors in the conclusion:

Findings from this study suggest that the aberrant growth is present in the first year of life and precedes the onset and diagnosis in children with autism spectrum disorder with and without a history of autistic regression.

Summary of conclusions:


    * identifies possible predictors of future onset of ASD

    * does not suggest the onset of autism is coincident with accelerated head growth

    * does not suggest an onset of Autism prior to 12 months of age

    * suggests that head growth is similar in regressive vs non-regressive Autism

    * despite significant differences, the results were not overly consistent or homogenous (60% with a small sample size)



Novella is implying that observed correlation of increased head circumference growth is coincident with the onset of Autism and thus it supports his assertion that the “true onset” of Autism is earlier than the reported onset of actual ASD symptoms. This study in no way suggests that increased head circumference growth causes or is equivalent to the onset of Autism.


Novella refers to some studies that looked at home videos and found some possible signs of autism as early as 12 months, but the link is broken. At any rate from his own description, these do not support a “true onset” from between 6-12 months of age.


The next study is from Philip Teitelbaum:


Movement analysis in infancy may be useful for early diagnosis of autism


Summary of study findings:

    * retrospective study of 17 children diagnosed with Autism

    * they found detectable movement disorders in all of the children including some issues visible at birth

    * a wide range of different movement issues occurring at different ages were discussed

    * based on 17 cases, the authors suggest that their diagnostics procedures could be used to provide an earlier diagnosis of autism



This is a very interesting study as they research a number of infant movements is explicit detail and find problems in each of their test cases and in some of the cases, very early ages. Here as well, we find a leap of assumption by the study authors similar to that of Novella:


Furthermore, because these movement disorders always could be detected with our methods as early as 4–6 months of age and sometimes as early as the first few days after birth, we suggest that the study of movement disorders in infancy may serve as an earlier indicator than presently available methods for diagnosing autism in children.



That wording is pretty bold as they state it can be used to diagnose Autism at such a young age. However, when we read on, it is tempered by a later discussion (emphasis mine):


The fact that such early diagnosis is possible now highlights the need for the development of earlier therapies that will be effective in the treatment of potentially autistic children. Because diagnosis was not generally possible so early, no systematic methods are currently available for the treatment of infants at risk for autism. Our findings should provide the impetus for systematic search for such treatment methods.



Yet another quote:


By combining movement analysis in infancy with MRI analysis, it may be possible eventually to diagnose differential areas of brain involvement in different subtypes of autism.



Novella has clearly focused on the text that supports what he seems to desperately want to believe: biological onset of autism occurs in the first months of life and pre-determined by genetics. Although Teitelbaum suggests this in one section, the bulk of the discussion appropriately limits the scope of his conclusions.


This study was published in 1998 and there was a single follow-up in 2004:


Eshkol-Wachman movement notation in diagnosis: The early detection of Asperger’s syndrome.


In this study, they find similar results as the first.


In the present article, using Eshkol–Wachman movement notation, we present evidence that abnormal movement patterns can be detected in AS in infancy. This finding suggests that AS can be diagnosed very early, independent of the presence of language. As shown earlier by us, almost all of the movement disturbances in autism can be interpreted as infantile reflexes “gone astray”; i.e., some reflexes are not inhibited at the appropriate age in development, whereas others fail to appear when they should. This phenomenon appears to apply to AS as well. Based on preliminary results, a simple test using one such reflex is proposed for the early detection of a subgroup of children with AS or autism.



Again, we get some strong but ultimately conflicting language. A few more observations come to mind here. This research is quite old, and yet, there has been no follow-up to validate these findings in a prospective, or larger study. I’ll also note that these studies were published in PNAS. Although it is peer-reviewed, they allow member authors to select their own referees and manage the referee process. This may explain the conflicting and sometimes overreaching statements. I also found it interesting to note that the members of second study group were recruited personally by the authors at conferences, the internet, and through advertisements.


Study Conclusions:


    * the authors find a correlation between autistic children and detectable movement disorders in some cases at an early age

    * sample size is very small – 17 children

    * the results do not support a uniform or consistent onset of symptoms

    * the use of these finding as a diagnostic tool is untested despite the results being quite old



Unfortunately, the sample size is very small, so leaping to any conclusions regarding the “true onset” of autism is clearly premature.


In this opinion piece Novella makes the following statement based on the first two studies we just looked at:


Taken together there is copious evidence that autism is a primarily genetic disorder that is present at birth, with subtle but increasing signs that separate ASD children from non-ASD children as they age.



I’ll just note quickly, that in the comments on Novellas blog we see a familiar pattern: Novella hasn’t even read the original study. In fact, he doesn’t even link to it, he just links a press release. I’m curious how anyone – let alone a scientist – can consider two retrospective investigations of a total of 45 children copious amounts of evidence of anything.


(A side note: it is not lost on me that the original Wakefield Lancet study was a retrospective case study with a small number of cases and a key criticism is that the cases were recruited by the doctors…)


I’m also unclear what evidence is presented here to indicate that Autism is genetic in nature or that the onset actually occurs when some of these early signs are present. The only way to draw a genetic conclusion based on these studies is to assume that the early biological signs and movement disorders found in the first months of life are caused primarily by genetic defects. His assumption of early onset of Autism implies that the biological cause of autism is present and also causing the early signs observed in these two studies.


There is no evidence in either of these studies to support that hypothesis as they are only noting a correlation in a very small retrospective sample. Without a prospective study of a larger size, that conclusion is a giant leap of faith, unless you assume that the cause is genetic. Of course in that case, Novellas argument now looks circular because he uses these assumptions to state that the “true onset” of Autism is uniform and in the early years of life consistent with genetic disorders.


Early and fairly uniform onset is consistent with genetic causes of ASD, rather than environmental causes.



These studies do not provide any evidence of uniformity in timing or signs and symptoms.


Let’s get back to the study that started the whole series.


A Prospective Study of the Emergence of Early Behavioral Signs of Autism


In an editorial in the same journal (Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), Tony Charman, PhD discusses the study:


To date, less than a handful of studies have reported in terms of early signs that predict autism outcomes. The study by Ozonoff and colleagues [1] is the first to do so on a sample as large as 25 siblings who went on to receive an autism spectrum (ASD) diagnosis at 36 months.



On one side we’ve got Novella throwing around “copious” amounts of evidence and from the expert we have a handful of small retrospective studies.


From the study itself (Ozonoff et al) we see they talk about conflicting evidence from different patterns of the onset of autism:


Recently, the adequacy of a dichotomous classification of onset has been questioned,17 based on emerging results from studies that provide evidence of other onset patterns. Some parents report that their child displayed neither early signs of autism nor regression, a phenomenon that has been called developmental plateau17,18 or stagnation.19 Other studies have found evidence of both early signs of ASD and regression simultaneously present in the retrospective histories of children with ASD.9,11,12,20



The introduction of this study discusses the various onset patterns in autism and references no less than 20 different studies. Apparently Novella must have skipped or missed this part of the study because it’s pretty clear right from the introduction that there is no consensus on the question of onset of Autism(s), let alone “true clinical onset”. In fact, many of the different Autisms are classified by the differing timings of actual onset. There is certainly no evidence of uniformity. The authors confirm this in the discussion section and even diverge from the traditional classifications of the Autisms:


The present findings suggest that existing definitions of onset patterns will need to undergo further development. One possibility is that we need to expand the number of categories used to describe onset. For example, perhaps there are four rather than two categories of onset, including groups characterized by developmental plateaus and by mixed features of early symptoms plus later regression, as we have suggested elsewhere. 17 The prospective data acquired in the present investigation suggest another possibility, however. We hypothesize that symptom emergence may better be considered dimensionally, as a continuum characterized by the amount and timing of regression.



They are not describing consensus at all. In fact there is little consensus in the prevailing classifications and these authors are suggesting yet another point of view. However, this point of view is not consistent with Novella’s assumption of uniformity of onset. That is clear in the following quote:


In this conceptualization, at one end of the continuum lie children who display loss of social interest so early that the regression is difficult to see and symptoms appear to have always been present. At the other end of the continuum lie children who experience losses of social interest and communication skills so late that the regression appears quite dramatic.



So this study has already torpedoed two of Novella’s key assumptions, let’s tackle the “true clinical onset” at 6-12 months assumption. Looking at the abstract we see the following in the results:


Group differences were significant by 12 months of age on most variables.



The fact that significant differences were noticed at 12 months does not imply uniformity and is not evidence that the “true clinical onset” is uniform and occurs between 6 and 12 months. Reading the conclusions from the abstract:

These results suggest that behavioral signs of autism are not present at birth, as once suggested by Kanner, but emerge over time through a process of diminishment of key social communication behaviors.



The authors specifically avoid listing a timeline and that is consistent with the discussion we reviewed above. It appears that Novella might have gotten one assumption right: that the old consensus – genetic disorder present at birth as per Kanner – is no longer considered valid. If we go back to Tony Charman we see he also makes another important note when it comes to old preconceptions:


Ozonoff et al. suggest that regression might be the norm and not the exception in autism. A similar suggestion was recently made by Pickles et al.8 based on retrospective parental report. They found not only that regression was very specific to autism, as it was almost never found in children with language impairment without autism, but also a strong association between age of first words and likelihood of undergoing regression. That is, frank loss of language skills was associated with switching from the most advanced early language to being among the slowest (in terms of eventual onset of phrase speech).



He implies that Autism is unique compared to other developmental disorders involving language impairment. At first blush, that doesn’t seem consistent with uniform genetic disorders. He goes on:


We do not know what the nature and causes are of the neurodevelopmental perturbations that underlie regression but the existence of such “high-risk” prospective studies offers an opportunity to investigate these questions.



This pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of Novellas hypothesis masquerading as fact. Without knowing the causes or the nature of the neurodevelopment signs we’re seeing at a young age in some children, we can’t know whether they are genetically caused or whether they’re predictive of an autism diagnosis later in life.


Dr. Charman closes with this statement:


Ten years ago, the prospective study of the emergence of early or even prodromal signs of autism would not have been considered possible or practicable. These two studies exemplify the new science of “autism in infancy.”



The real Autism scientists are talking about small new groundbreaking Autism science in it’s “infancy” and the “scientist” Novella is spewing opinion about copious amounts of evidence and a conclusive understanding of the “true” clinical onset from genetic causes.


Conclusion:


In this segment, we investigate in detail the cornerstone of Novella’s argument against vaccine causation and for the genetic causation of Autism. Not surprisingly, we find it completely unsupported by the evidence he provides. Even worse, most of his implicit assumptions contradict the evidence he references.


Walking through his arguments which move from a “suggestion of early signs” to a conclusive statement of “true clinical onset” of autism reveals that his interpretation of the evidence and application of logical arguments is seriously compromised. It is bordering on nonsensical. It appears he makes his definitive statements based on a few select lines from study abstracts and press releases. From this “selective hearing” – my apologies to Alan Golding and his video about Brian Deer – he makes giant leaps of assumption and produces what he and Gorski consider “scientific reference” material for doctors.


It certainly doesn’t take a degree in Neurology to understand the scope of these small case studies. If Novella makes so many errors of interpretation and leaps of assumption in these simple cases, it makes me question what he and Gorski are doing when they look into the far more complex epidemiology studies that form the basis of his vaccine safety arguments.


I can’t decide which of his bias’ he is so desperately trying to protect: the quickly dying idea that Autism is purely genetic or the idea that vaccines have no part in the autistic regression of many children. Perhaps if he declared his conflicts of interest, we would gain some insight into the true source of his bias?


I found a lot of details that have interesting implications when reading these studies. They point to a large variance in onset and early signs and symptoms which leads us farther away from a pure genetic cause and explains why there is a growing consensus that environmental influences have a key role to play in the causation of Autism. This new information certainly does not exonerate vaccines or MMR.


Perhaps I’ll write a third segment pointing some of my observations of the science.


Potential Conflicts of Interest: None