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!

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.

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.

Why a Biased Pseudo-Skeptic and False Scientist Should Not Publish a Scientific Review on a Subject He Knows Nothing About.

Some of you may be wondering why I’ve been so quiet lately. In all honesty, I’ve been busy. However, that does not stop me from doing research on various subjects, nor does it exclude me from finding an interesting research article and waiting to see what happens.

Early last month, a new study was released that correlated a link between aluminium adjuvants in vaccines and a surprising number of auto-immune disorders, including Autism. You can read the abstract of the study here.

I waited and watched to see who would try to discredit this study, and how they would try to do it. Our good “doctor” David H. Gorski was the one, and he did not disappoint. Now, I get to have fun picking apart his rambling and monotonous diatribe.

People wonder why I accuse Dr Gorski of pseudo-science and crankery. The answer is simple; he pretends to be a knowledgeable scientist, when in fact, he has no training or legitimate background in many of the subjects he discusses, all while giving the impression that he does. Not only that, but as you’ll see from the below deconstruction, he falls into the exact same traps and fallacies that he accuses others of. Allow me to demonstrate.

In his rambling and spittle-flecked rant entitled And global warming is caused by the decrease in the number of pirates or: Why an inorganic chemistry journal should not publish a vaccine epidemiology paper, he begins with a mocking dissertation on how much fun he’s been having with “anti-vaccine cranks” over the past few days. Observe:

“In my eagerness to pivot back to an area of my interest after having had a little fun with anti-vaccine cranks, I ignored a paper to which several of my readers referred me over the last few days. Many of them had first become aware of it when everybody's favorite smugly condescending anti-vaccine crank, Ginger Taylor, started pimping it on her blog.”

While he smugly and condescendingly does the same. Continuing:

“Before that, it apparently popped up on the only anti-vaccine site almost as loony as Age of Autism, namely SaneVax, and it wasn't long before this paper started making the rounds of the anti-vaccine crankosphere, showing up at Gaia Health, and then just yesterday the anti-vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism. It was at that point that I decided that I had made a mistake in not taking a look at this article; so I was more than happy to do so.”

I’m sure you can all see what he’s doing here and I’ll allow you the opportunity to read that paragraph again, knowing that he is attempting to color his readers’ opinions on what the article will contain. Poisoning the well, anyone?

He duplicates the abstract, and then follows with this:

“I thought I knew all the major quackery websites out there, but somehow I had never come across this one before. It appears to be a doozy, posting a glowing review of the anti-vaccine movie whose misinformation and pseudoscience I deconstructed three weeks ago, attacks on Brian Deer for his exposing Andrew Wakefield for the fraud he is, and, in a classic case of crank magnetism, a heapin' helpin' of anthropogenic global warming denialism.

Already, things aren't looking too good.”

Indeed, Dave, they are not. Look here, my friends. He further attempts to color his readers’ opinions on what the article actually contains, not even bothering to discuss the actual science. Moving on:

“Still, I pride myself on always going straight to the source when examining studies like this that are being bandied about the anti-vaccine underground. Who knows? Maybe I'll find something to change my mind. True, it's highly unlikely, but you never know (Gambolputty – Oh, dear…I got a lovely chuckle out of that one!). I was, however, curious just who the authors are. Christopher Shaw, I had heard of before. He was featured in the anti-vaccine propaganda movie The Greater Good and gave a talk at the anti-vaccine conference in Jamaica featuring Andrew Wakefield in January. His co-author Lucija Tomljenovic is apparently a postdoctoral fellow who was also a speaker at that very conference, giving two talks there.”

More of what I mentioned above. And that is just the introduction! Not only that, but we have a heaping helping of an ad hominem fallacy and guilt by association mixed in, don’t we?

Already, we see that he has established that he is biased against the paper. A real scientist would read the paper objectively, not with the antagonistic bias we see here.

“So let's get to the meat of the article, such as it is. Personally, after reading it a thought kept going through my head, namely that chemistry journals (particularly journals devoted to inorganic chemistry) probably shouldn't be publishing medical articles. The editors and peer reviewers, so enamored with an apparently strong correlation, fell for the oldest crank gambit in the book: Confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps the most irritating part of the article is how Tomljenovic and Shaw misuse and abuse Hill's criteria, a famous set of nine criteria postulated by Sir Austin Bradford-Hill for assessing the plausibility and likelihood of a particular correlation indicating causation. I discussed Bradford-Hill's criteria before when Andrew Weil also misused and abused them.”

Finally, he starts discussing his interpretation of the science. Notice his sneering contempt for a legitimate research journal. Can anyone see the huge and glaring error he made in the above paragraph? Don’t scroll down until you can see what it is.

That’s right. He accuses the authors of the article of confusing correlation with causation. Let’s look at the relevant sentences that state what the authors concluded, shall we?

“The application of the Hill's criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.”

The emphasis is mine. It’s interesting…they say that the correlation requires more study, and that the correlation may be causal, not that it is causal. Notice how he twists and manipulates what is actually said in the conclusion. In any study that comes to this sort of correlation/conclusion, it is an excellent idea to study the correlation more concretely. His invocation and interpretation of the Bradford-Hill criteria will be approached further down. Keep in mind that Gorski’s interpretation of the criteria is, in his monochromatic view, the only interpretation that matters. Let us continue.

“Perhaps the silliest aspect of this article is Table I, in which Tomljenovic and Shaw try to convince you that the inflammatory aspects of various autoimmune diseases share aspects with inflammation provoked by aluminum adjuvants. Of course, I'd be shocked if some autoimmune diseases didn't share some aspects of inflammation provoked by aluminum adjuvants or even vaccines in general. Inflammation is a common process that can be provoked by many things. I could tell you that the cytokine profiles that Tomljenovic and Shaw point to as being so "similar" to cytokine profiles due to aluminum adjuvants are the same sorts of cytokine profiles that result from almost any sort of injury. If, for example, as a surgeon I cut open your abdomen in order to rearrange your anatomy for therapeutic intent, I bet I could find studies with cytokine profiles that I could tenuously compare to cytokine profiles due to vaccination with aluminum-containing vaccines.”

This is an interesting argument. However, the fact that these markers were present is cause for concern. These markers should not be present in anyone if vaccines were as safe as Mr Gorski would like you to be brainwashed to believe. The authors even go so far as to provide links to previous studies that corroborate their reasoning. I’ll get to those shortly. For now, we will continue with Gorski’s analysis.

“In fact, perusing the chart I'm struck by how tenuous the resemblances between inflammation due to autoimmune diseases and inflammation due to aluminum adjuvants is. Presumably this is the best these two could come up with, and their best just isn't all that convincing. None of this stops the not-so-dynamic duo from including autism and Gulf War Syndrome on their list. The latter they characterize as being "specifically recognized as 'Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants," which is news to me given that I thought the emerging consensus was that Gulf War Syndrome probably doesn't exist as a single distinct syndrome but rather as many health problems with different etiologes, much less is it recognized as some sort of autoimmune syndrome caused by vaccine adjuvants. After all, none of the anthrax vaccines soldiers received prior to going to the Gulf used squalene adjuvants. Meanwhile, autism spectrum disorders are listed in the chart as being "linked to Al-adjuvanted vaccines." I suppose that's true in the literal sense in that anti-vaccine activists have linked ASDs to Al-adjuvanted vaccines, but what Tomlijenovic and Shaw are doing is what lawyers like to call assuming "facts not in evidence." Again, there is no solid evidence linking vaccines, whether Al-adjvanted or not, to autism, and several large epidemiological studies that have utterly failed to find a link between vaccines and autism. Where were the peer reviewers here?”

Ok, this will take a little bit of time to deconstruct. Bear with me here.

Let’s begin with GWS, or Gulf War Syndrome. He states that none of the vaccines given to veterans before going to the Persian Gulf contained squalene-based adjuvants. He gives no reference to this, of course, but fortunately I was able to track down what he was talking about, which was an IOM funded study released in 2006. What he fails to mention (or deliberately omits) is that an FDA investigation in 1999 found 5 specific lots of Anthrax vaccines that contained squalene adjuvants. So, there is some controversy there.

However, let’s give Gorski the benefit of the doubt and say that his statement is somewhat true. Even if we take that position, then the authors’ statement is also true in that there has been evidence of adjuvants having been linked to GWS and autoimmune disorders in gulf war veterans.

Taking this position, then we can also say that there has been some data linking autoimmune dysfunctions in autistic children and that these dysfunctions have been linked to vaccines. Need I mention a certain beautiful little redhead we all know and love?

“The "evidence" in the paper consists mainly of Tomlijenovic and Shaw comparing increasing ASD prevalence to the increasing number of vaccines in vaccine schedules in various countries, their argument being that increasing doses of aluminum through vaccines correlates with increasing prevalence of ASD. Basically, they collected data on ASD diagnoses for children from ages 6-21, from 1991-2008 from the US Department of Education Annual Reports for ASD prevalence. Next, they tried to correlate the autism prevalence in this group with the cumulative aluminum dosage they received before age 6 through the pediatric vaccination schedule. They then basically did the most simplistic analysis imaginable, plotting the minimum, mean, and maximum aluminum exposures against ASD prevalence. Can you say "ecological fallacy"? Sure, I knew you could.”

It’s fortunate that the authors used very simplistic means to plot their data. It clearly and succinctly shows a distinct correlation that in no way can be refuted. Dave attempts to do this in the most hilarious and hypocritical way; by invoking the Ecological Fallacy. He’s even kind enough to define that for us.

“To recap, because I haven't had to discuss it in a while, the ecological fallacy can occur when an epidemiological analysis is carried out on group level data rather than individual-level data. In other words, when the group is the unit of analysis, the chances of finding a false positive correlation go way, way up”

Can any of you think of any epidemiological studies released by the CDC and the Pharmaceutical industry that falls into this fallacy? Can you say all of them? Sure, I knew you could.

“Add to this the fact that, for all the authors' claims that they controlled for confounding factors, by falling for the ecological fallacy they allowed huge confounders into their analysis. Even worse, they appeared to make no attempt to control for birth cohort other than to remove vaccines from their calculations that hadn't been introduced into the schedule at the time the children were vaccinated. (How nice of them.) In any case, although the diagnostic criteria used for autism and ASDs were set in 1994 in the DSM-IV, screening in schools, increased availability of services, and decreasing stigma to a diagnosis of autism led to an explosion in autism diagnoses. The way to control for this would have been to examine much more narrowly defined birth cohorts. They didn't. They used a single 15-year period. They also did nothing more than look for a linear correlation between aluminum dose and autism prevalence, citing r = 0.92, instead of calculating r2. The authors are incredibly impressed by this (and apparently so were the reviewers), even though it's not so hard to produce high Pearson coefficients for a lot of seeming correlations that in fact don't have anything to do with each other. The most heinous example I can recall is a ham-handed attempt to correlate abortion rates with breast cancer incidence.”

This is a somewhat absurd argument, isn’t it? This is a single correlative study that looks at a particular hypothesis and investigates correlations between a potential cause and effect. It is certainly not uncommon for such a preliminary study to congregate such data into a single cohort. In fact, plotting the data year by year (as was done here…I’ll post the chart shortly) reduces the chance of the same statistical manipulations that we saw in the Madsen studies. Here’s the chart:

Click for larger pic

Hard to refute the numbers, yes?

“Given how common papers like this are from anti-vaccinationists are, I sometimes think it would be fun to play a game I'd like to call "Name That Correlation!" What other correlations with the increase in autism diagnoses can we find over the last 20 or 30 years? Let's see. Personal computer use has been rising since the 1980s. Perhaps that's the cause of autism! More similar to Tomlijenovic and Shaw's time frame, Internet use has exploded since the early 1990s. Back in 1990, few people had Internet access or e-mail addresses. (As hooked in as I am now, believe it or not, I didn't have Internet access back then, either.) Now almost everyone does, and Internet access has become truly mobile via smartphones like the iPhone, Blackberry, and Android handsets. I bet a nice correlation between Internet usage and autism diagnoses could be constructed. Come to think of it, mobile phones, although first introduced in the 1980s, didn't really begin to take off until the mid-1990s. In the early 1990s, mobile phones were uncommon because they were so expensive and coverage was very spotty. Now, the nearly everybody owns one. The time frame of Tomlijenovic and Shaw's study fits the time frame of the rise of mobile phone use almost perfectly!”

Funny he should say this. My friends and I have created a game that is quite similar. We take these studies that show a correlation between vaccines and autism, and then take bets to see who will be most accurate with how the pseudo-skeptics and false scientists will attempt to refute it. The most humourous aspect of Gorski’s comment is his attempt to refute the evidence based on other things that could be responsible. The problem is, internet usage and cell phones have never been known to cause encephalitic reactions in children within hours of usage. I can certainly think of something that has, though. Can’t you?

“Finally, Tomlijenovic and Shaw misuse and abuse Bradford-Hill's criteria. For example, they list criteria numbers one and two as being satisfied for aluminum and autism. Those are strength and consistency. The problem with these criteria is that they aren't supposed to be evaluated by one study. They conclude their association is strong because they have a high Pearson correlation coefficient, but their study is an outlier. It's not correct to say that the correlation is strong based on the totality of the evidence. Ditto for consistency, as, again, their study is an outlier, and, quite frankly, citing DeLong's execrably embarrassing study as a study that found a correlation between vaccine uptake and autism does not help their case. They also try to convince readers that one of Bradford-Hill's other criteria, such as biological rationale and coherence, have been met because of their attempt to make the tortuous vague resemblances between cytokine profiles they constructed seem like strong evidence for biological plausibility. Even worse, they try to use their confusion of correlation with causation as an argument that there is a temporal relationship between the purported cause and the effect. No, it's not. In fact, they have not convincingly met any of Bradford-Hill's criteria, much less eight out of nine.”

Ah, we finally get to Gorski’s biased interpretation of the Bradford-Hill criteria. I’ll give him the point that criteria one and two should not be determined by just one study, however, the Bradford-Hill criteria do not specify that the study shouldn’t be an outlier; this appears to be Dave’s own interpretation. But let’s go one step further and evaluate what is stated in the study.

Under Strength, they say that the association is statistically significant (consistent with the Bradford-Hill criteria for strength (here)). Looking at their data, then this falls within the criteria, so they’ve marked it as a “Yes”

Under Consistency, they say that several studies have found an association between vaccines and autism (true). Following the criteria (replication in other studies), then this is also given a “Yes.”

They gave sufficient reason for biological rationale in that there is a demonstrable association between auto-immune dysfunctions and cytokine response (this is a verification of Dr Poling’s work).

Here’s the table that shows how the authors demonstrated the Bradford-Hills criteria:

Click for larger pic

It’s clear to me that Mr Gorski does not like the results of this study. In fact, it’s quite clear that he began his analysis without an objective mind and used his own bias and misinterpretation of the Bradford-Hills criteria to make his own judgment on what the article is actually saying. For example, he repeatedly accuses the authors of confusing correlation with causation, when the authors do nothing of the sort. They clearly state that Aluminium adjuvants may be associated with autism and auto-immune disorders and give statistics and data to show how they came to this conclusion. I always enjoy how Dave likes to build strawmen and put words in peoples’ mouths.

In conclusion, I’d like to give you a definition of a pseudo-scientist and a crank.

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts. (Gorski gives the firm impression that he’s an expert, and he dismisses anyone who disagrees with his view, despite them being real experts)
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important. (Gorski insists that all scientists agree with him, and any scientists who does not agree with him is not a real scientist)
3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial. (Self explanatory)
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions. (How often does he blog? And the last half is self explanatory.)

I’d also like to add another; a crank dismisses evidence that does not conform to their pet theory, or evidence that they dislike. They will attack this evidence with an unmitigated rage.

Doesn’t this sound familiar? Any questions as to why I say David H. Gorski is a crank and a quack?

An Anti-science Slimeball Destroys an Immature and Witless Concept

I don’t often get to write on my blog. I’m sure most of you can understand this. The majority of us have jobs and other duties that require our time and effort, things that are far more important that blogging several times a day (I’m sure you can all tell that last dig was pointed at a certain doctor we all know and despise). However, I did promise that I would maintain this page and continue to point out the hypocrisies, lies, and general nastiness of those who are pseudo-skeptics and false scientists. People new to this debate need to see what type of people they are dealing with.

Such is the case for Dr Gorski’s latest childish screed entitled An anti-vaccine activist destroys my irony meter. Oh, where to begin? There’s so much irony and hypocrisy in this article…

Apparently, Jake Crosby was evicted from a recent conference where Seth Mnookin was holding a presentation. When the question and answer period came around, Jake took his turn, grabbing the microphone and asking a challenging question to Mr Mnookin about some of the more recent revelations concerning Dr Wakefield. Instead of answering the questions, Mr Mnookin asked for Mr Crosby’s removal.

Jake wrote an article about it on AoA, of course. He told his side of the story, and gave the reason that he thought he was removed. Several commenters offered their support of Jake, praising him for his tenacity.

Fast forward a little bit, and we have Orac and his bumlickers discussing this removal. Here’s what he has to say:

“While I'm having a bit of fun with the anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism, I notice that its Boy Wonder Jake Crosby, the one-trick pony whose trick is playing "six degrees of separation" in order to try to link anyone who supports the science of vaccines with big pharma, the CDC, the FDA, or any other company or regulatory agency he doesn't like, has a new post up at AoA. In it he complains about being kicked out of a conference, the Research Ethics Book Group Lunch and Book Signing at the annual Advancing Ethical Research Conference held by Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIMR). The book being discussed was The Panic Virus by Seth Mnookin. From previous times when Jake has tried to ask what he calls "challenging questions," the impression that I keep getting is that he tends to ramble a lot and monopolize the microphone, rather like the the Royal Rife guy did at the Trottier Symposium where I was a speaker in 2010.”

I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Pseudo-skeptics and false scientists don’t like it when you question them. They don’t like to be challenged; they hate to be contradicted. Anything that falls outside of their safe, happy little pseudo religion is heresy and should be shunned. Any person who speaks against them gets the treatment that Jake received in the comment above. Any scientist who disagrees with the false scientists are excommunicated, thrown from the fold and ridiculed endlessly. You do not question the consensus!!!

“Whatever happened (and I'd love to hear Seth's version or an account from someone who was at the lunch of what really happened, given Jake's propensity to see things only in a way that makes him seem like a persecuted iconoclast and hero), Jake was apparently asked to leave. None of this is particularly remarkable, given that he was parroting the same nonsense about David Lewis having "exonerated" Andrew Wakefield that AoA has been pushing. In fact, I wasn't even going to mention Jake's post, given that getting himself kicked out of such conferences has apparently become an essential part of his anti-vaccine schtick.”

Much like getting kicked out of Autism One conferences is an essential part of his buddy Ken Reibel’s anti-science schtick. It’s ok when pseudo-skeptics do it, though, because they are doing it in the defense of the Holy Science! He doesn’t even bother to question whether or not there was a legitimate reason for Jake’s removal; he merely assumes that Jake was being disruptive and deserved to get kicked out. Of course, with no evidence. Oh, sure, he says he wants to hear the other side of the story. But the funny thing is, even if others corroborate Mr Crosby’s story, he’ll still say that Jake deserved it. Why? See my mantra above; you do not question or challenge the consensus!!!

Dear Dave then goes off on a rant about a comment made by Ginger Taylor. Essentially, she says that those who speak the truth are unafraid of the truth, and they welcome challengers and those who disagree with them to debate it with them. He begins:

“What caught my eye was a comment after Jake's post by everybody's favorite example of someone who thinks far more of her knowledge of science than any objective measure could justify, Ginger Taylor”

David is of the firm belief that if you are not of the elite priesthood that he belongs to, then you have no right to speak your mind against The Doctrine.

“Let's see. If what Ginger says is the case, then one of her favorite anti-vaccine conferences Autism One must not love truth. In fact, the it must hate truth. After all, its organizers have kicked out people who disagree with its anti-vaccine message each of the last four years. Let's see. It was Ken Reibel in 2008, Chicago Tribune reporter Trine Tsouderos in 2009, a department of health employee from a western state and an independent filmmaker in 2010, and Ken Reibel (again) and Jamie Berstein in 2011. During the last of these, the organizer of Autism One brought in the Lombard, IL police to expel Ken and Jamie. It was a case of massive overkill in the name of trying to prevent discussion and debate with someone who disagrees with them and knows how to dismantle their arguments.

Truly, my irony meter has been fried, fricasseed, and melted to the point of vaporizing. To hear Jake whine about being asked to leave a conference and then to see Ginger opining in her usual nauseatingly self-congratulatory smug fashion about how "lovers of truth" like her and her buddies in the anti-vaccine movement don't do this sort of thing were just too much for it. I wonder if there's some sort of titanium protective case I can buy for the next one.”

Oh dear…the irony meter comment. The good doctor is, one can assume, an adult. And yet, he repeatedly spews this nonsensical and immature garbage. It’s quite humourous, actually. But it does make me question his sanity.

However, since the good doctor was so kind as to provide us with links to his drivel (personally, I believe that he constantly links to himself due to his narcissistic ego masturbation), let me get to the point of this article. This has to do with what Orac and his arsekissers have to say about kicking people out of conferences.

Orac has this to say:

“Remember how I've said time and time again that the anti-vaccine movement is very much like a religion, a cult even? One of the key attributes of religion is an intolerance for heretics, apostates, and unbelievers. The usual approach to unbelievers is either to try to convert them and then, failing that, to shun them (fortunately in most civilized countries Inquisition-like reactions are no longer common) or to skip the attempt to convert them and jump straight to the shunning. More evidence of just how true that is was presented on a silver platter to me at the anti-vaccine quackfest Autism One that will be wrapping up today in Lombard, IL.”

Wait a second…did you just read that? Why, yes, he did! He just admitted that Seth Mnookin is anti-vaccine! Why? Because Seth was intolerant of Jake as an unbeliever. He couldn’t convert Mr Crosby, so he shunned them. And, since Dr Gorski agrees with this policy when it applies to pseudo-skeptics and false scientists, then by his very definition of a crank, that makes him anti-vaccine by default.

Good job, David!

“As I've said time and time again. Despite the claims of the anti-vaccine movement and the sponsors of Autism One (which, as you recall, include Generation Rescue) this is not the behavior of an intellectually honest and open movement that wants to persuade based on science and reason. It is the behavior of a group that has something to hide, that prefers shunning and expelling those who aren't afraid to criticize it to open engagement and attempts to persuade based on the evidence. It is also the behavior of a group that thinks its members can't stand up to challenges and therefore need to be protected from criticism or contrary views”

Oh, thanks for clearing that up, Dave. So, you admit that Seth,and by association you (and your pseudo-skeptic community) are also being intellectually dishonest.

Hey, don’t look at me; I’m merely holding him to the same standards as he holds those he labels as pseudo-science or anti-vaccine.

“[T]he behavior of the conference organizers is indicative of fear, fear of being seen doing what they do, saying what they say, and selling what they sell. Scientific meetings are not like this. Skeptical meetings are not like this either; indeed, at last year's TAM, a moon hoax believer managed to get to the front of the line to challenge Adam Savage about the Mythbusters episode on moon hoaxers. He was not expelled; in fact, Savage respectfully answered him and he was later seen at various other events at TAM. At the Lorne Trottier Symposium last year, a believer in Royal Rife quackery asked about it. The panel only started to ask him to leave after the man wore out his welcome by dominating and monopolizing the question and answer session to the point where people waiting in line behind him were denied an opportunity to ask their questions due to time constraints. In other words, he got his say and was not asked to leave until he had reached the point of showing an extreme lack of consideration for his fellow audience members waiting to ask questions of the panel.”

So, he admits that real scientists do not kick people out of conferences for disagreeing with them. In fact, they welcome debate and disagreement. So, Orac is admitting that Seth Mnookin is not a real scientist (I agree), and that he (Mr Gorski)is also not a real scientists because he is agreeing with Seth kicking Mr Crosby from the presentation. Thanks for clearing that up, Mr Gorski!

“Given this behavior, all I can ask is: What is Autism One afraid of[?]”

Yes, given this behaviour, what are Mr Mnookin and Mr Gorski afraid of? Are they afraid that they could be wrong about something? Oh, the horror!

I promised myself I would never do this. I promised myself that I would refrain from using one of Orac’s childish nerdisms that my good friend Craig bastardised. But I must…I absolutely have to.

The Hypocrisy! It Burns with the stupidity of a Thousand Oracs!!

A Cornerstone of Vaccine Safety Research?

By Gambolputty

 

I remember earlier this year when the Wakefield scandal reached its head. Craig and I poured endlessly over the GMC hearings, checking, rechecking, trying to determine where and what was wrong with the ‘98 Lancet study. He and I both realized that Wakefield was sloppy. Yes, I understand that many of my regular readers will disagree with this. I also share Craig’s opinion of Dr Wakefield, and I am unable to deny the fact that he was slovenly in his research. Did he fake his data? I’m still not completely convinced of that, but the evidence and motive for doing so is certainly compelling. Needless to say, the media had a field day. They celebrated the destruction of Dr Wakefield’s career. They applauded a biased hack journalist with an obvious vendetta. The airwaves were flooded for months with every lurid detail of the investigation. The false skeptics and pseudo-science windbags that infest the various “science-based” websites bragged and preened, saying that they knew all along. They crooned that the “anti-vaxxers” were too stupid to read the science and understand it. You see, they knew the study was faked, and they read the report with that preconceived notion in mind because that is how science works. Dozens of studies by prestigious organisations have shown over and over what the false skeptics have been saying all along. The matter was settled, the science has spoken. Vaccines do not cause autism.

I’m sure some of you are wondering why I bring this up. Not to worry, my point will be evident shortly.

Today I read an intriguing article about the 2003 Danish Thiomersal (or Thimerosal) study. This study is thought to be the cornerstone of the hypothesis that the mercury based preservative had nothing to do with the increase in autism. The study shows that after Thiomersal was removed from Danish vaccines, the incidence of autism continued to increase. So, the false skeptics said, that means that it is not in the least bit possible for vaccines to cause autism (yes, I know…big leap in logic there). The matter was closed, etcetera, etcetera.

Those of us who believe that vaccines can cause neurological damage often return to this study. If you truly read the study, and not the abstract of the study or its conclusion, you would see that the numbers just don’t match up. It’s quite fascinating, if you don’t mind me saying. During the course of the epidemiological investigation, Denmark changed its diagnostic criteria for autism. Not only that, but the inclusion criteria changed mid-study; where, before, autism cases were only included on an in-patient basis, after 1995, they were changed to include cases on an out-patient basis. The authors of the study claim to have accounted for these statistical artifacts, but have never released the raw data to show how they were able to account for this.

But today, an article shows a different story being told. Emails reclaimed through the Freedom of Information Act show that CDC scientists (who claim the fore-mentioned study was independent) and the study authors manipulated and omitted data to show that there was an increase in autism diagnoses after the removal of Thiomersal from vaccines. In fact, these emails show that the CDC knew that the cases of autism were actually decreasing! That’s right…after the removal of Thiomersal, autism cases actually went down in Denmark. Which tells us that the mercury based preservative does, indeed, have a statistical impact on autism diagnoses. This, in fact, further supports Verstraeten’s emails that discuss the increase of autism from TCV’s (Thiomersal Containing Vaccines) that stated that he couldn’t make the association “go away.” And, the CDC lied about it to protect the vaccination program.

The emails, heavily redacted, show that the CDC was aware of the decrease in autism post removal, and wanted to discuss this with the authors. The reply, from lead author Dr Madsen, says this:

“I am not currently at the university, but I will contact you and Poul tomorrow to make up our minds.”

I’m sure you are all familiar with who Poul is, aren’t you? That’s right, Poul Thorsen, who is currently being indicted on fraud and embezzlement. At the time, Dr Thorsen was in residence at the CDC while writing this article. Remember, the CDC claims that this study was independent, and one of their resident researchers was working for them while writing this paper. Which, to the CDC, means that the researchers who wrote this paper were independent researchers. Soon after, Dr Thorsen made a request to the director of the National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (an office of the CDC) to expedite the paper into publication.

What’s interesting to me is how the false skeptics continue to praise how “good” the science is in this study because it supports their belief that vaccines aren’t associated with autism. Here is proof that the CDC and the authors covered up the fraud in their paper. Now, let me ask you this; are the airwaves rife with the sound of reporters covering this development? Are they shocked about the duplicity and fraud of the CDC scientists who misrepresented this study and its importance on the health of our children? Are they dragging the authors of this study through the mud like they did Dr Wakefield?

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I will mention it again. The hypocrisy of these false skeptics utterly fascinates me.

Now, I’m sure there will be cries of “Conspiracy Theorist” forthcoming, but I will take the time to mention this. It isn’t much of a stretch to come to the realisation that the CDC is doing everything in its power to protect the Vaccination program. Because, if it were to become wide-spread knowledge that they have been covering up information about the safety of childhood vaccines, falsely claiming that they are safer than they let on, then the faith in doctors, scientists, and the pharmaceutical giants would be shattered irrevocably.

Isn’t this, to you, a compelling reason to fake and manipulate data so that it shows that vaccines are as safe as they claim?

If they’ve lied about this, what else have they lied to you about?

The Perils of Engaging Pseudo-Scientific False Skeptics

By Gambolputty

 

Hello, my friends. It’s been some time since I have had the pleasure to be blessed by your presence and enjoyed your comments and thoughts. As I said in my previous post, I would update this site infrequently. But, there are times when a tidbit comes down the wire that I find too irresistible, too juicy, to not pass up. All I have to do is look no further than our resident brothel of misinformation and pseudo-skeptical hypocrisy; Respectful Insolence.

It never fails to amuse me when those who subscribe to the “Skeptic” canard fall into the same accusatory rhetoric that they accuse their opponents of. For example, they foam at the mouth when someone draws devil’s horns on Dr Offit. They caterwauled and beat their breasts (and still do..and what has it been? 2 years now?) when Age of Autism posted an off-color picture of several “Skeptic” heroes having a Thanksgiving dinner that made allusions to cannibalism. They wailed and gnashed their teeth when someone makes a suggestive comment about a doctor being under the table servicing Dr Offit.

And then you have Orac’s latest crapfest, entitled “The Perils of Engaging the Public.”

Mr Gorski laments the fact that Doctors sometimes speak in public venues. He doesn’t like the fact that, when speaking publicly and allowing a period of questions and answers, that there may be someone who disagrees with their stance. Here’s what he has to say.

“People wonder why scientists involved in controversial areas are reluctant to address the public. Courtesy of our favorite band of anti-vaccine bloggers at the anti-vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism, we see yet another reason why. Yes, AoA's resident attack poodle Jake Crosby decided to disrupt the Q&A session of a public talk (videocast here) by the editor-in-chief of The Lancet, Fiona Godlee.”

Resident attack poodle. Man, that’s classy, yes? Attributing a young man with diagnosed Asperger’s Syndrome to a yapping animal? Since I am someone who is diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, I am utterly and completely offended by this. But, let’s continue with the discussion:

“This is how cranks behave. They ramble on, monopolizing precious Q&A time without regard to the rest of the audience, and then, when the exasperated moderator asks them to get to the point, they "continue, undeterred." In this, Jake reminds me a lot of the Royal Rife guy who "continued undeterred" at the Trottier Symposium last year in Montreal after multiple requests that he get to the point and then, later, more pointed requests that he yield the microphone in order to give someone else a chance to ask a question. I will, however, thank Jake for mentioning Respectful Insolence. I like to know I'm making a difference in a young man's life.”

Oh, I love this. Since Mr Crosby found some of Fionna Godlee’s presentation inaccurate and mentioned those inaccuracies, then he’s “monopolizing precious Q&A time without regard for the rest of the audience.” And I doubt he is having any influence on Mr Crosby, other than derogatory amusement and a clear example of how doctors and scientists are not supposed to act.

The comments in Mr Gorski’s rabid diatribe are even better. For example, someone named lilady (whom I have reprimanded several times on various websites under another guise) opines:

“I viewed the video...it was even "better" than I thought...Boy Wonder Cub Reporter Crosby starts his harangue at 54:06 into the video and continues his nasty rambling attack on Fiona Godlee for a full three minutes.

I stated it before and I am stating it again Jake does not have Asperger Syndrome. He blogged about his past experiences of being on prescribed zonking medication and receiving special education services when he was "misdiagnosed". IMO, Jake was probably diagnosed correctly with ADD or ADHD...and when he heard of the disease dejour- autism-he and his warrior mommy had him re-diagnosed with the Asperger Syndrome label and he became the poster boy for AoA.

He is just a nasty kid with an inflated ego fed by the sycophants at AoA.”

This is gold, isn’t it? I also viewed the video, and I’m having a difficult time seeing anywhere in the video where Mr Crosby was anything but unfailingly polite. It was clear that he was nervous, and I applaud him for coming forward and defending someone and something he believes in. The above commenter, though, believes that since Mr Crosby disagreed with Ms Godlee, then he was making a “nasty, rambling attack.” This is a simple, elementary concept that she is apparently unable to grasp. As I mentioned before, I’ve called her on it before. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean they are attacking you. This is obviously too difficult for her to comprehend, sadly. Not only that, she makes a completely evidence free statement, saying that Mr Crosby doesn’t have Asperger’s Syndrome, that borders on libel (since it is clearly meant to damage Mr Crosby’s reputation). And her final statement? Pure hypocrisy since Mr Gorski is just a nasty big kid with an inflated ego fed by the sycophants at Respectful Insolence. Keep in mind, also, that she claims to be a registered nurse.

Here’s another gem from a lickspittle named Marc:

“Wow--I think it's been a long time since I've seen such a diatribe as Jake's "heroic" recap of himself taking on Big Pharma directly. Incredible! Aside from referring to himself in the third person in the title (always a great sign that entertainment will follow), he misrepresents himself at the talk (he wasn't representing GW--he was representing AoA and hiding that makes him a fraud in my book)!”

How is he misrepresenting himself? He is a student there, yes? Doesn’t that mean that he is with GW? I highly doubt that Age of Autism sent him there. In fact, I can say with relative certainty that he went on his own. Mr Crosby has fixated on the Vaccine/Autism connection, Dr Wakefield’s part in it particularly, and he is pursuing that to the best of his ability. Those with Asperger’s do tend to fixate on certain interests, do they not? This, too, borders on libel in that it is clearly meant to harm Mr Crosby’s reputation.

Here’s another one from someone named Chris:

“I object to "attack poodle" because standard poodles are wonderful dogs. They are intelligent water retrievers (the cutting of their curly fur is to keep the joints warm while making it manageable). Unfortunatel dog breeders decided to "play" with the breed and created the "toy poodle." Those little yappy things are an abomination, especially the one that belonged to my paternal grandparents.

Young Master Crosby would be better described as an "attack toy poodle."”

Such classy people over at RI. True paragons of society, these.

Then someone named Reuben issues this following comment which sounds quite threatening to me:

“Oh, he goes to George Washington alright. And his professors are well aware of his representing himself as being from there without clarification of being just a student. They are not happy.

I personally can't wait to show up at his masters project presentation and ask some questions.”

Not only does that sound threatening, but Reuben clearly has intent to harm Mr Crosby’s reputation.

And lastly, Orac the Quack makes this statement:

“I have a lot of readers who are "on the spectrum" and rely on them to tell me when I've gone too far, which, fortunately, is rare. However, unlike Young Master Crosby, when I screw up and it is compellingly pointed out to me (i.e., pointed out in a way that persuades me), I do change course and try to make up for my mistakes.”

No, David, it is not rare. Nor would you listen if you were told you went too far. You don’t perceive this as a mistake because Mr Crosby disagrees with you. And you will continue to make denigrative comments as long as you are cheered on by your mindless sycophants.

So, in conclusion, Mr Gorski, who exalts himself for being someone who is a proponent of free speech, does not like it when people disagree with him. In fact, he thinks that people who disagree with the established paradigm should not have a say, nor should they be allowed to defend themselves or others. When speaking publically and allowing Questions and Answers, then those whom he disagrees with should not be allowed a say.

Why, that sounds remarkably like censorship, doesn’t it? This goes back to what my friend used to say. Do not question; do not disagree.

I am more and more convinced that Orac’s definition of Skepticism is nothing more than a fanatical religion trying to hide under the skirts of “legitimate” science.

 

Addendum:

Apparently, my post yesterday ruffled a few feathers. The responses were extremely amusing.

Someone named Sauceress had a sniveling tirade concerning my posting (and refused to link…hey, I linked to Dave’s drivel. At least Dave has the decency to link to the sites he quotes). She spends a good portion of her regurgitation taking my comments out of context and misrepresenting what I was actually saying. Not surprising in the least considering that this is their typical Modus Operandi. Then, she brings forth the completely mature and totally sane reference to the Irony Meter. Oh dear…

She concludes her rant with this:

“So in Gambolputty's eyes, showing up to ask questions infers intent to harm Mr. Crosby's reputation.”

No, but the tone implied in Reuben’s comment certainly did. Doesn’t help that she took the comment out of context and misrepresented what I actually said. Particularly the part where I mentioned that it “sounds threatening to me.” Oh well, I expect no less from Orac’s drooling brown-nosers. And here I was hoping that my post would meet their approval. After all, that is my greatest goal in life; to be adored and cow-towed to in the same way as their great and powerful master, Orac. Oh, whatever will I do, knowing that they don’t approve of my point of view? Oh, woe is me.

Reuben then chimes in, commenting that he in no way meant his comment as an attempt to attack Mr Crosby’s reputation, which is reassuring. However, he takes one step forward and two steps back with this:

“If that blogger has qualms about what is written here or elsewhere, why not come over for a chat? We can give them the dictionary definition of libel and let hilarity ensue.

The difference between this comment thread and their echo chamber is that bullshit is not tolerated. Had any of us been threatening to him, the rest of us would have called them on it.”

Why not come over here for a chat? No one is stopping you, and I don’t moderate. The difference between my comments and Orac’s is that a) I DO tolerate bullshit and promptly make fun of it and the person doing it and b) I don’t have a cadre of fawning arse-lickers trying to ingratiate themselves to me. And the definition of Libel is pretty easy to understand:

• A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation
• The action or crime of publishing such a statement
• A false and malicious statement about a person (claiming that Mr Crosby does not have Asperger's implies that he is lying about his condition. This is inherently defamatory)
• A thing or circumstance that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation (claiming that Mr Crosby was misrepresenting his status as a student of GW, claiming that he was using it to claim he was a representative, meets this criteria).

One of the reasons I don’t post over there is because I want Mr Gorski to have as little information about me as possible. The previous blog owner had considerable trouble with someone stalking, threatening him, and forcing him to go into hiding. I’d rather not have similar things happen to me, and I prefer to keep both my location and my employment a secret, especially knowing that these self-proclaimed “skeptics” are as petty and underhanded as those they ridicule.

Oh well…at least Orac’s mindless flunkies are completely predictable and entertaining in their own sadly pathetic way.

 

Further Addendum:

Someone named Antaeus Feldspar goes into a lengthy diatribe regarding my understanding of libel. While his comment is lengthy and somewhat informative, it suffers from a serious and quite obvious flaw; I stated, quite clearly, that it borders on libel. I never once said that it was libel.

Reading comprehension fail…alas.