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

Ah, false-skeptics…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, where to begin…

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

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

Here’s where it gets hilarious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My relief is palpable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Anyone Say “Hypocrite”?

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

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

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

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

Here’s the comment:

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.csba.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Tuned for Another Dull and Smug Post from Gorski and his Mumbling Meatheads

This is a short post today. Using my oracular powers, I predict a smug and self satisfied post from Dorkski within the next few days concerning a study released today that supposedly “exonerates” the mercury/autism hypothesis (it doesn’t).

I’ll reserve my comments for his misrepresentations, except to say that he will blindly and most assuredly praise the poor science represented within this study as “legitimate" and “sound.”

Stay tuned…

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.

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!!

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.

Introductions Are in Order, and An Asinine Post on an Anti-Science Blog

by Gambolputty

Hello, everyone. Our dear friend MySocratesNote has stepped away from this lovely little blog and has passed the reins to moi. Some of you may have noticed my posting recently under this name, but I assure you that I have been posting online, countering the misinformation of those like Orac, Steve Novella, Stephen Barrett and others for quite some time (though under a different moniker). Now, I believe a little introduction is in order.

I have chosen to remain anonymous, and this is for a number of reasons. Firstly, I love my job, and I don’t feel comfortable revealing too much about where I work or what I do. Seeing what has happened to my friend here, I feel that it is best for me to maintain my anonymity. I will tell you that I am a teacher (among other things), and I will just leave it at that. For some time, I have been a silent contributor to this blog. So when MySocratesNote left it to me, he did so in the hopes that I would continue with his legacy and take the time to point out the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the false skeptic community.

So that is it, in a nutshell. Unlike some, I do not have the time or energy to post here daily (or in some cases hourly *cough* Kim Wombles *cough*). I will post infrequently, or when the mood suits me. But you can be assured that I will continue to try to post with the same amount snark as Craig did, but mixed in with my own humour and British witticisms.

Now, on to what I wanted to discuss.

Today, I glanced over at Mr Gorski’s (I refuse to give him the honorific) misinformation site and noticed that he is disturbed by an article written on Age of Autism. Then again, when is he not?

His latest excrement, “A Disturbing Post on an Anti-Vaccine Blog” is yet another tour-de-farce of logical fallacies and delusions of grandeur masquerading as a martyr complex.

The gist of this not so remarkable piece of fiction is that he his afraid; he’s concerned that Kent Heckenlively is promoting violence against some unnamed entity. He thinks that Kent has dropped off the deep end, and should be carefully monitored:

“Notice how Heckenlively refers to "Dark Forces." Not "dark forces," but "Dark Forces," capitalized, as though it's name or these Forces are so malevolent that they need to be capitalized, much as the Force in Star Wars was so important and powerful that it needed to be capitalized as a formal name. Worse, the imagery is downright paranoid. These Dark Forces, according to Heckenlively, are out to destroy the activists and "scientists" who have bought into the idea that vaccines cause autism, rather than the real situation, which is that they are trying to guard public health against the return of vaccine-preventable diseases that will occur if vaccination rates fall due to the sort of propaganda that AoA promotes.”

Notice how Gorski refuses to acknowledge that there have indeed been cases of corporate interests destroying the livelihood of those who threaten their profits. Tobacco did this for years. Pharmaceutical corporations have also been caught in the act of doing exactly what Mr Heckenlively said. “We need to find them and destroy them where they live.” What is so humourous about this is that Dave doesn’t seem to realise that this is commonplace in today’s corporate environment. He tries to paint Kent as a conspiracy monger and accuses him of paranoia and seeing shadows in dark places.

Oh, the irony.

“I have a hard time characterizing Kent's post as anything other than disturbing, if not downright scary. Think about it this way. When someone starts to view his opponents as "wicked people" deserving to be wiped out by God (or, as other translations of this particular psalm put it, to be "destroyed for their wickedness"), it's just a short hop to thinking that perhaps believers should take matters into their own hands and start smiting the evildoers themselves, thinking it doing the Lord's work. In any case, it's very clear that Heckenlively is, at the very least, praying to God to "deal with" those whom he considers to be "wicked people out there trying to keep our children from getting better." In the context of the psalm, "dealing with" these wicked people clearly means to destroy them.”

That seems pretty bleeding paranoid, doesn’t it? Notice how poor little Dave tries to milk as much drama from this as possible by saying that some translations of Psalm 94 call for the wicked to be destroyed, all in an obvious and transparent attempt to color Mr Heckenlively in the worst possible light. Only paranoid conspiracy theorists pray to God to destroy the wicked! Notice how he tries to twist the meaning of what Kent wrote and claim that Kent is praying for God to destroy the evil-doers. He says that “dealing with” these wicked people means that they must be destroyed. I’m quite certain that if Mr Heckenlively meant to use that particular translation of Psalm 94, he would have. No, it’s not clear that Kent is praying for them to be destroyed; he’s praying for them to be punished. But the half-witted twit has to make this more menacing, more ominous, by changing the meaning of the words to suit his own agenda.

Ah, poor Dave. So persecuted. Such a drama-queen.

“Heckenlively and I are clearly on different sides of the autism-vaccine issue. Even so, I have never wished ill upon him. Hell, I've never wished ill upon even J. B. Handley, even though he has frequently attacked me. Well, maybe just a little bit of ill, such as embarrassment for his ridiculous statements and his promotion of anti-vaccine quackery and that his efforts to harm public health fail. Certainly I have never wished that God Almighty destroy him or Heckenlively for his wickedness or publicly wished ill upon him. Yet here we have Kent Heckenlively praying to God publicly to destroy his enemies. Presumably, that would include me, plus a number of people who are my friends, acquaintances, and fellow travelers in promoting vaccination and refuting anti-vaccine pseudoscience.”

Smell that? No no, you don’t need to scratch your computer monitor as I am more than certain you can smell it from where you are sitting. That, my friends, is called Bullshit! He’s never wished ill on Kent or the people at Age of Autism? What about wishing that they would all go to jail for their beliefs? Or using one of his masturbatory fantasies that he describes as a “meme” to go after the anti-vaccine movement (chomping their brains)? Yes, I understand that it is his poor attempt at humour, but we all know that deep down in his cold, barren, childish and bent little mind that he fervently wishes for this to come true. Repeatedly, he twists Kent’s words to get as much drama as possible, all so that Orac can seem more saintly. Yes, Dave is such a martyr! Oh, what he goes through to distribute his moronic drivel to his drooling arse-lickers. I’m sure you can all hear him sighing with his burden. Also, it would appear as if Mr Gorski has a bit of a guilty conscience, yes? Orac’s paranoia is so deep seated that he thinks that Kent is actually calling out for violence to be done against him, that he should be destroyed for his wicked ways.

Then he closes with this shart:

“I don't know what is going on in Heckenlively's life right now that has brought him to this. The pain in his writing is palpable; he really does sound like a man on the edge, a man who is ready to break. I can only hope he finds a way to deal with whatever is going on in his life right now and return to a state of normalcy. We might be opponents when it comes to the issue of vaccines and autism, but, unlike Kent, I don't want God--or anyone else--to destroy anyone over this.”

Nor does he care. He’s too self absorbed in his own narcissism to care what happens to anyone outside of his myopia. Once more, he promotes the myth that Kent is praying for God to destroy him, all so he can make himself more saintly. I swear, reading this, you’d think that he was in line for a beatification.

Building Communities by Exclusion: Or, I accept everyone…except you. I don’t like you.

I promised myself I would back off from blogging for a while. I swore that I would focus on my work and my family and not get drawn into the stupidity and arrogance of the false skeptics and the pseudoscience nutjobs. We all know them. They are the ones who ridicule parents like myself because we believe that our children were injured by vaccines. They are the ones who laugh at parents of vaccine injured children, proclaiming that we have all the answers and that we think we know everything, all while arrogantly proclaiming to have the answers and that they know everything. They are the ones who make a game of mocking parents of vaccine injured children, then they become all offended that the parents fight back. They are the ones who cling so desperately to flawed epidemiological studies, and laugh that parents of vaccine injured children have no science to defend their hypothesis. And, when the parents offer a hypothesis, they refuse because they claim that there is no more to learn and that they already know what will be found. The same ones who laughingly mock a father who writes about his son’s first words in 5 years and how that made him feel.

And so I found myself clicking on a link that one of my Facebook friends sent me. Lo and behold, it was an article from a well known false skeptic, Kim Wombles. Yep, I’m sure you’re all familiar with her.

After reading her article titled, “The Reinforcements That Community Brings: Anti-Vaccine Narratives Provide More Drama,” I spent some time laughing uproariously…I mean, it tells you everything you need to know about bias and how illogical her article will be when she starts it off in the title with an insult and a generalization fallacy. I mean, my goodness, calling someone anti-vaccine and full of woo does so much to help build community and promote meaningful discussion, don’tcha know? So, I will point out what’s wrong with her article and then discuss what was said in the comments.

So, the basic essence of her article is that the online autism community has polarized itself. For the most part, I agree. People have taken sides in this discussion, and all sides think they are the right one. Though, personally, I don’t feel I’m on anyone’s side but the children's. I don’t agree with many of the things AoA does, and the same goes for the false-skeptics. So, I guess you would say I’m somewhere in the middle. That doesn’t matter to Kim, though. I’m either with her or against her.

However, there is more to what Kim is saying here. She has already decided that she is right and that everyone who doesn’t agree with her paradigm is wrong. She blithely continues to say that those that she has determined are wrong are not open to new evidence that contradicts their world view, so they should not be reached out to; i.e. they should not be made part of the community. Because she says she is “science-based,” then, to her, that means she is superior to those she opposes. So she should try to reach (read that as brainwash) those who are on the fence or who are moderate. These people can be persuaded to not think critically about what the Pharmaceutical industry publishes and tries to disguise as science and that they should believe everything they are told without question.

In other words, she has already made it clear that she is not open to new evidence that contradicts her world view. She creates polarization by claiming that those who do not agree with her are anti-science, anti-vaccine, or a dumbass, a tactic we see all to often in the false-skeptic community. She doesn’t even acknowledge that the tactics she is using are what created the whole polarization in the first place (“My child was injured by a vaccine.” “Correlation is not causation, so stop spreading anti-vaccine fears, dumbass.”). She accuses those who disagree with her of being like a religion who hold fervently to their beliefs. But, if you read this blog post carefully, you’ll clearly see that her and the rest of the false-skeptics are as well. I’ll get to that in a minute. But first, I will continue with my analysis.

She continues with a brief discussion about how Jamie Bernstein and Ken Reibel were removed from the recent Autism One conference. She goes on to say that the removal was due to Ken being recognized. Of course, I will give the benefit of the doubt to Ken and Jamie in that that may very well be how they perceived what happened because of their personal biases. However, the reality is quite a bit different than the perception, and this is something that Kim, I think, deliberately failed to disclose in her article. By their own admission, Ken and Jamie were breaking the rules of the conference by taking photographs of the event. The Autism One terms and conditions specifically state that no photography is allowed. Don’t believe me? Read the link. But Kim didn’t provide that info, did she? Reading her article, she leaves the impression that what Autism One did was wrong, and that those on “her side” wouldn’t do anything like that. And yet, she leaves out the part about the rules and how they were broken. Then, she claims that the “Science-based” side is more reasonable, and I tend to agree with this statement. However, it’s pretty clear that she, and those she associates with, aren’t actually science-based. I tend to think of people like PassionlessDrone as being someone who is actually science-based. Again, more on that in a moment.

Then she discusses (or rather complains) that “anti-vaccine” narratives are compelling, and that is what is causing their ranks to swell. She goes on to discuss how some at AoA complain about how those that claim to be “science-based” just try to discredit the speaker and don’t really address the science. I will step up and agree with Kim here and say that AoA does this too. And they can be pretty mean and nasty about it, just like Kim’s “science-based” nutjobs can be. She then makes a very curious statement.

“I don't know of any evidence-based individuals who have alleged that Wakefield is a nut. Dishonest. Unethical. Fraudulent. Greedy. But not a nut. And we really shouldn't care if McCarthy is a slut (not a phrase I've seen used against her unsubstantiated claims, by the way). If her claims are backed by evidence, whether she gets around or not is irrelevant. I think the argument has been that she's a Playboy bunny who doesn't know what she's talking about (and since she thinks antifreeze is in vaccines, it's fair to say she doesn't), but that's not the same as claiming she's a slut and should be ignored.”

Really? She hasn’t? She’s never seen Orac make statements that essentially boil down to, “She showed her bewbs, and I’m a doctor…you gonna believe her over me?” Or, maybe she’s seen people call her a killer? Naw….her “side” never does that…

Then she mentions how AoA focuses on Thorsen and his role in the extortion of a few million dollars, and then AoA’s focus on the fact that Seth Mnoonkin is a recovering heroin addict. Here’s what she has to say:

“The first is relevant and it's fair to ask what role he played in the studies themselves; the second is an actual attempt at an unjustified discrediting.”

And here, I will agree with her 100%. Nothing bad to say to this statement.

But then, she screws up the whole thing with this:

“How do you reach parents to show support and get there before those with more compelling, dramatic explanations convince parents that there are answers for why their kids have autism and that they can be healed if you just try the right mining chelator or other quack treatment? How do we create a vibrant, supportive community that lets parents feel comfortable in the absence of certainty while having the courage to withstand the temptation of promises of instant cures? How do we make our narrative more compelling than the vaccine-injury's?”

So, in other words, how does she prevent parents who have children who suffered from a vaccine injury from telling their stories? How does she censor their pain? How can she deny that these children exist and help these poor, stupid parents who are questioning vaccines understand that all of these stories that these crazy people talk about are all fake and never happened (Disclaimer: I am in no way implying that these questioning parents are stupid, just that this is how Ms. Wombles is coming across)? She talks about creating a vibrant, supportive community, but not if she calls you a dumbass…then, she is not interested in having you in her community. Then, she makes a wonderful generalization fallacy, i.e. that if you believe that vaccines cause injury, then you must be someone who uses mining chelators or quack treatments. And her final question, how to make their narrative more compelling? As long as she continues to treat those she disagrees with the way she does, she won’t. As long as she continues to claim that the vaccine injuries that these children experienced are somehow not real (oh, I know, if she ever reads this, she’ll say that she never does this. She’ll say that she believes that vaccine injuries do exist….but it didn’t happen to their kids), then it looks like she is in denial and is afraid of these parents and children. That does absolutely nothing to help her cause. In fact, this is the main thing that turns people away. The mocking, the ridicule, the snide comments about these parents who have vaccine injured children…yeah. That would compel anyone to join her “side.”

Now, onto the comments. I’ll begin with the one that caught my attention; a comment that a friend of mine left. He pointed out that Kim was being a bit hypocritical in her article (she was) and that it was downright funny that she claims to be science-based. She then returns, with no evidence, that he must be anti-vaccine. My friend responds with the observation that since he doesn’t agree with her, then in her book, he’s anti-vaccine, and such a comment without evidence is preposterous (it is…but I’m paraphrasing). She then accuses him of being someone else (without evidence again). At this point, I jump in (under a pseudonym, but I wasn’t really hiding who I was), saying that, using her logic, since she thinks he’s an anti-vaxxer, he must be so. And, since she thinks he is this other person, then he must be so. His next argument boils down to the fact that scientists don’t make definitive claims in the absence of all the relevant data (again, I’m paraphrasing). What follows is a highly entertaining exchange that I will copy here for your perusal.

This comment is from some nameless moron (Well, maybe he has a name, but he was so boring that I’ve forgotten it):

“A comment like that is simply a twisted version of reality. Of course, scientists accept the possibility of being wrong, unless they're not wrong. How can they tell? Its called data. Scientists don't wonders if Newton's theories are wrong, every time they perform an experiment. They don't wonder if the laws of chemistry will hold up today. These are things that are known, and they are not going to be questioned, nor will any scientist consider the possibility that they are wrong.

This is typically a subterfuge to allow all manner of crackpot ideas in, because if they aren't taken seriously, the accusation is leveled that one is not being "scientific" by considering the possibility. However, that's not true. Science requires evidence and the evidence doesn't support the opposing views of the anti-vax crowd. Now, if someone can produce actual evidence and not simply anecdotes, or claims that others don't know what they're talking about, then perhaps there would be a basis for a scientific discussion.
So, your comment is disingenuous, since it isn't about producing additional evidence. You can argue that I don't know you, or don't know anything about you, but I don't really need to, since you've clearly identified the kind of person you are in your posts. You aren't interested in having a realistic discussion .... you simply want to post your agenda and "laugh" about it. Well, I hope you're amused, because anyone that thinks any of this is amusing, is truly the fool.”

You all know me…I so enjoy responding to comments like this:

“Hmmm...what agenda? The fact that he was pointing out that Kimmie was being a hypocrite means he has an agenda? Brilliant!!

And I think you're missing the point. No, I'm wrong...you are missing the point. From what I can gather from your post, you are saying that science has looked at all possibilities with vaccines and autism and that vaccines do not cause autism. This is an unscientific statement simply because of the fact that a scientist will not make such a claim without all of the evidence. If they haven't actually studied the children who are alleged to have developed autism from a vaccine, then the data is incomplete. No subterfuge involved in that whatsoever. Maybe a bit of paranoia on your part, though.
The amusement, in my opinion, is that those like Kimmie who claim to be science based and who then laugh about these parents who claim that their children were injured by vaccines, dismissing their claims without reviewing all of the evidence are the true fools, and that they deserve nothing but the same scorn and ridicule that they aim at those they disagree with.”

At this point, Kim jumps in with a comment that completely confused me:

“"Kimmie?" Ouch. I'm mortally wounded now, especially given how you read the piece on my personal blog about name-calling just a couple days ago. :-)

Yeah, yeah, we got it, you don't like me. I deserve your scorn. What's new?”

I hadn’t read her personal blog. I expressed my confusion, and she makes a childish innuendo about keeping secrets and that the post was a good one with “lots of flowers".” I told her she was being childish and I had no idea what she was talking about. Here’s her response.

“Ah, here and I thought I was protecting your privacy and all.

Nah, I'll just share one of my favorites. Mint is lovely, isn't it, when it flowers?

Not only do you have the lovely scent, all the little blooms are gorgeous, and the bees and other insects love it. They flock to it.
Listen, you've obviously got some temper issues and I'm sure it's a tremendously liberating feeling and all to let that rage spew over and everything, but maybe you could go stand in a corner and tantrum instead? It'd probably be more productive for you. I hate to think of your blood pressure rising over my posts.

See, I've read rants like that before. A lot. And since you're not going to offer anything substantive other than to ratchet up the name calling and vitriol (nice work), then what's the point? Those kinds of rants don't work to get me irritated, just as the condescension you offer doesn't move me.
Didn't you get that's the whole point of this post? Neither side is going to be moved by the other side. Both sides have people on them who really despise the other side. We know that; it's not new. It's not changing. So why keep doing it? Unless it's nothing more than a solitaire game to you?
If you've read my first blog and have history with me (and you made that abundantly clear in what you've written here), then you know that I always from the get-go acknowledged vaccine injuries occur and that we need to do everything we can to make sure vaccines are as safe as possible. Why I even had someone (ahem) share his story because I think it's important people don't forget that vaccine injuries do happen.

 
What cannot be denied is that people change their memories, usually unintentionally, to match their current belief system. Memory is malleable. I'm not interested in arguing personal narratives (says so right on my blog on what I believe and why); with memory being so faulty and with the internet allowing records of changing stories, it just isn't worth it: the truth can't be figured out at a personal level. Not after the fact, and maybe not even during. Our biases cloud everything. At least when we're talking about how two events relate. We're good at making illusory correlations. Really good. Hey, maybe I'm even doing it now!

So, instead I'd prefer to focus on the scientific studies that show no evidence of a link between autism and vaccines. If 15 cases of

intussusception can be detected and linked to the first rotavirus vaccine through the VAERS reporting system, causing the vaccine to be taken off the market quickly, then why do you think a link between vaccines and autism couldn't be found?

Much more productive than rants and name-calling, especially without any substantiation. Of course, I'm a hypocrite, so what do I know?”

Wow! So much to pick apart there. I’ll leave my rebuttal for a moment and point out something. Notice how she complains about ratcheting up the vitriol and name calling? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

So then, I explain that my calling her “Kimmie” was not done consciously, especially since my wife’s first name is Kim (well, Kimberly, but she goes by her middle name), and I call her Kimmie to tease her sometimes. Writing that in my earlier comment was entirely unintentional. Then, it occurred to me that Ms. Wombles was so paranoid that she had to go and track down and see who was commenting on her site and where they were commenting from. So, since I accessed the site from work, and someone from where I work likely accessed her site, then that person just had to be me. So, I gave her a brief explanation about how many corporate networks run, and that there are thousands of people who work in my company, and any one of them could have accessed her site and it would look like they were accessing it from one location. Such simple things are obviously beyond her. Then, I explained that what she perceived as a rant (she’s so touchy, natch…going off half-cocked at the littlest thing) was just me being highly entertained by her stupidity.

But what makes me laugh the most at her comment was when she started talking about rants and name calling without substantiation. Look above to see her rant, and look at my earlier comment to see how I substantiate my name-calling (I explain why I think they are fools).

So, then the idiot from earlier accuses me of being arrogant:

“Sorry, but you're simply an arrogant fool. I have neither the time or patience to waste with someone that understands science so poorly and thinks the whole issue is simply amusing.

This is an unscientific statement simply because of the fact that a scientist will not make such a claim without all of the evidence.

.. and you think telling stories is evidence? This is precisely why such discussions are a waste of time with people like you. You think that it's productive to keep pursuing avenues of investigation for which no connection exists, because you stubbornly assume that a connection must be there. Instead of recognizing that there is more to be learned, you insist on the validity of data which doesn't exist. The scorn and ridicule isn't based on disagreement. It's based on someone using pseudoscience as a vehicle for introduce crackpot ideas and even worse .... promoting agendas where people can profit off of others desire to obtain help and/or solutions.

 
Just as the point of Raun Kauffman mentioned earlier. Here is an individual that has supposedly found a solution, but instead of sharing it, seeks to personally profit from it. A series of thousand dollar seminars .... just as if he were telling you the secrets of buying real estate. Yeah, that's real credible.

If you truly had evidence, then you'd present it (and not simply more anecdotes from others that think science is wrong). If you truly had evidence, then you wouldn't be laughing about it and think its hilarious that others don't know the "secret". Instead, by your mere attitude, I can already tell that you're simply someone that likes to blather on and on about what science is, or should be without actually being capable of contributing anything yourself.”

Hilarious, yes? I take great glee in pointing out that he’s the pot calling the kettle black, and that he is making a claim (vaccines don’t cause autism) without looking at all of the evidence. You know, like the kids who actually got sick?

The rest of the article and comments are all there for you guys to enjoy. Do feel free to give her a piece of your minds.

Now, lets go back to what I was talking about in regards to her comment concerning religion. I’ll approach this from a different angle, though.

So, the scientific consensus is that vaccines do not cause autism, am I correct (well, no, not entirely, but let’s say yes for the sake of argument, shall we)? Anyone who disagrees with that statement, or is not completely convinced, is obviously anti-vaccine, and I am certain that you all would agree with that statement (using their logic, mind you). So, that would mean that the scientific consensus is considered “Orthodox” or “mainstream” and those that disagree with this orthodox view would be in variance to that doctrine.

So, what would you call someone who has an opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system?

A heretic. And how would those who follow that orthodox view treat those who oppose them?

Well, in medieval times, heretics were usually executed. Then, they were outcasts of society. So, tell me how many times you all have heard the false skeptics say that parents who believe that their children were injured by vaccines should be separated from society? Or put on an island somewhere so that they could die out? Or that they wish we would all die of diseases?

The false skeptics worship Science. They give it an almost mystical reverence, and they rarely question any dogma that comes from their hierarchy. They cling to it and are so devout in their true belief and conviction that anyone who questions their God is treated with utmost derision and scorn. Isaac Asimov said it best:

“Endoheretics are appropriately credentialed scientists. If the person is outside the scientific community or at least outside of his specialty, he is an exoheretic. If a person is an endoheretic, he will be considered as eccentric and incompetent, whereas if the person is an exoheretic, he will be regarded as a crackpot, charlatan, or fraud.”

Sound familiar?

Why do I point out her hypocrisy, you ask? Because hypocrisy is dishonesty in the purest sense of the word. She is being dishonest to herself and her readers, and those people she is trying to win over to her “side” know it.

I admit that sometimes I do suffer from hypocrisy; we all do. I usually try to catch myself and apologize when I do. But, the difference between me and the rest of the false skeptics (except for Orac…you know where you stand with him, I’ll give him that) is that I will let you know where you stand with me. I make no secret about my opinion of you, and you’ll always know where you stand with me. I won’t try to lull you into a false friendship, then secretly laugh behind your back about your beliefs or about how you feel when something good happens to you. If I don’t like you, you will know it because I will tell you. I will stand behind my beliefs and I will let everyone know when I change my mind. I don’t profess to know all the secrets. I don’t profess to have all the answers. I accept that I could be wrong, and when I find enough evidence that convinces me of that, I will proclaim that to everyone publicly.

Now, I ask you this; do you see the false skeptics do this? Do they profess to have all the answers (“The Science has spoken!”)? Do they accept that they could be wrong?