Vaccines and Religion…Just Not How you Think

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“But we have SCIENCE on our side!!!!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. God has spoken!

12. Jesus has saved humanity!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

And Now For Something Completely Different!

Cue Sousa’s The Liberty Bell.

I know I promised all of you my further thoughts on the Wakefield affair, and I do promise to deliver. However, over the past week, I have not just been under the weather, but can-barely-crawl-out-of-bed sick. So, that delayed my post mortem a bit, and it is sitting in my journal queue to be released at a later date.

But, I’ve decided to delay my assessment a little bit in light of the fact that a friend was kind enough to send me a copy of Wakefield’s book (thank you VERY much sdtech). I’ve begun reading it, and I thought that it would be a good idea to document my thoughts on the book before releasing my final assessment. Over the next few days, I will release several posts on my viewpoint of Wakefield’s book. I feel that to honestly assess this entire business, I need to objectively review all sides of the story. While I have carefully reviewed Wakefield’s defense, it would be dishonest of me to not read his book in the same objective light that I have tried to look at Deer’s research in.

Furthermore, I find that I lack the stomach anymore for all of the bickering going on between various interested parties in these online autism wars. I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter how much I point out the hypocrisy of all who are hurling stones at each other, nothing I can do or say will prevent them from continuing to do so. And, really, do my insults and sarcastic witticisms do anything to help my son? No.

While I will still post with much of my usual sarcastic banter, I will try to refrain from the out-right insulting rhetoric I have been prone to in the past. Will I still point out inaccuracies and hypocrisies that I find? You betcha! But, I don’t feel as if the insults are productive. Unless the person absolutely deserves it. And I know how some of you enjoy my unique take on many things.

So, short post today while I continue to recover. My comments section shall remain open to all; my previous post triggered some very interesting and polite discussions from everyone, for which I sincerely am thankful to all who posted. Let’s keep this up, shall we?

Until next time.

An Assessment of the Wakefield Affair, part 1

Some of you may have seen my post on Jenny McCarty’s Huffington Post article and are probably curious why I changed my opinion of Dr. Wakefield. What particular piece of information changed my mind? Well, that is a tough question to answer. I can’t point to one particular thing because the only thing I can go on is the evidence provided.

When I started looking at this, I had to use what information that was available. Admittedly, I am missing one particular piece of information from Dr. Wakefield, and that is his book. I haven’t had the time, or the money, to read this book as of now. Am I going to read it? Yes, I will. But, from what I’ve been able to gather, it is really only a rehash of his defense against Deer’s allegations. To not read Wakefield’s book and look at it with the same objective light as I’ve tried to look at everything else concerning this would be intellectually dishonest.

My evaluation looked at Brian Deer’s BMJ articles, his website, Andrew Wakefield’s defense and those websites that defended him, and finally the GMC transcripts. The transcripts were the most time consuming aspect of this case because it was over 6 million words, and I will admit that some of the things mentioned in there I didn’t completely understand. Maybe it was the language used (I’m only bilingual; I speak American, Texan and a tiny bit of Coon-ass). I’ve spent the past week, both day and night, reading, pondering, evaluating, weighing, and thinking. Sometimes, all night, just laying in bed thinking about it (which is why some of my posts on Jenny’s Huffpo article are so rife with spelling and grammar errors…I’m usually much better about things like that)

I’m not going to lie to you; I’m having a really hard time writing this. I put a little bit down, then have to step away and really think about what I need to say next. Some of my trepidation is knowing that my admission has disappointed many people I consider friends. Some of it is mental exhaustion. Some of it is self evaluation. Some of it is the realization that I don’t really have to try to convince anyone of turning against Andrew Wakefield; I only have to tell you what convinced me.

So, let me start with my thought process. You can see a little of it one of my older posts, which I will leave up. I realized that I had an emotional investment in this issue, and that to truly, objectively, evaluate the evidence, I needed to somehow detach myself from my personal investment and actually LOOK at what was being written. In this case, I tried to evaluate it with the following in mind: Deer was biased against Wakefield; Wakefield was biased for himself; and the GMC is supposed to be an unbiased 3rd party (which, I am quite sure, will be argued against…but for the sake of argument, assume that they are unbiased). This was NOT easy, so bear with me.

Over the next few days (maybe longer considering how long it’s taking me to write this), I will discuss specific items pertaining to the Wakefield affair. This will include several items from each of the above mentioned locations. I will evaluate and weigh each of these items and explain why I think the argument is weak or strong.

What jumped out at me first was the accusation that Brian Deer brought against Wakefield as to a potential motive for the 1998 Lancet paper. Essentially, Deer says that Wakefield manufactured the Lancet paper in order to scare the British parents into taking the separate M M and R vaccines, then he would market his own Transfer Factor as a potential rival for these vaccines. This, to me, was Deer’s weakest argument (and thereby Wakefield’s strongest). Yes, the application for the patent does say that it was a vaccine. However, Wakefield’s defense claims that it wasn’t meant as a rival vaccine because it was mainly to be used as a treatment for Inflammatory Bowel Disease and as a potential prophylaxis for immune-compromised patients (bottom of page one, and top of page 2). I am willing to give Wakefield the benefit of the doubt on this one, because Wakefield’s statement concerning this is corroborated by evidence. However, since Wakefield did not disclose this information when releasing the Lancet article, and in the subsequent media announcement, this is a blatant Conflict of Interest. That is bad, even if you defend Wakefield. This calls his Lancet article into serious question, even before you start looking at the science. The GMC hearings say this:

f. A proposal, dated 4 March 1998 and drafted by Mr 10, was submitted to the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in relation to the proposed company,
Admitted and found proved

I realized that I started in the middle, so I had to go all the way back to early 1996, when Deer alleges that Wakefield was approached by Richard Barr. To me, this is one of Deer’s strongest arguments. Barr admits to soliciting Dr. Wakefield in order to provide him with several patients for an then unheard of condition that Barr claims was linked to MMR. Over the course of the research into the ‘98 Lancet article, Wakefield received about $750 thousand dollars (plus expenses) for his work. This was also undisclosed. Not only bad, but REALLY bad. Wakefield’s defense is to claim that he was using this money to pay for a second study that he was doing, though never released. But, even if you believe Wakefield, the fact that he did not disclose this information is a serious COI. The GMC hearings say this:

a. In 1996 you were involved in advising Richard Barr, a solicitor
acting for persons alleged to have suffered harm caused by the
administration of the MMR vaccine, as to the research that would be
required to establish that the vaccine was causing injury,
Admitted and found proved

b. Mr Barr had the benefit of public funding from the Legal Aid
Board in relation to the pursuit of litigation against manufacturers of the
MMR vaccine (“the MMR litigation”),
Admitted and found proved

Ok. I think that’s enough for now. I am going to open up the comments to everyone, even those not normally allowed to comment. I have a stipulation, however. Keep it civil, guys. If the comments get out of hand, you will get one warning. If they continue to get out of hand, I will delete the comment. On the 3rd strike, you will no longer be able to comment.

Tomorrow (maybe) I will continue with my evaluation.

Old News is New News, or a Tale of the Tail Wagging the Dog

I promise today that my article will be short. I’ve been swamped at work and working a ton of overtime, so I haven’t had as much time as I’d like to read up on things and comment in my usual sarcastic style.

Brian Deer has just released the 2nd part to his expose on Andrew Wakefield. In it, he discusses how Dr. Wakefield filed for a patent for a Transfer Factor that he (Deer) alleges could be used as an alternative vaccine, and that this is the basis for the 1998 Lancet article. Deer contends that Dr. Wakefield wanted to use his report to discredit faith in the combined MMR vaccine, splitting them up into separate vaccines, so that he could get his own TF on the market and make money off of the royalties.

Also, this just in: The Earth circles the sun; the Earth is not flat; water is wet.

In other words, ladies and gents…nothing new, nothing new to see here, move along.

When first I read the headline, I asked myself “Maybe this will convince me that what everyone is saying about Dr. Wakefield is true.”

Instead I came away decidedly underwhelmed and wondering why, suddenly, this is such a big deal, particularly when this same story has been repeated ad nauseum since Deer stuck his ratty little nose in the dumpster and started crying about the sky falling?

So, I started doing a little reading about this Transfer Factor. From what I can gather, this really started up in February of 1996 at the Royal Free hospital. In June of 1997, Dr. Wakefield filed a patent on behalf of the Royal Free (who was the patent holder)for a transfer factor that would treat the measles illness. What this tells me is that it was to alleviate already existing symptoms. He theorized that it could potentially act as a prophylactic (i.e. preventative measure), but when given leave to test the TF on one of the Lancet children, the treatment was ineffective. So, he stopped pursuing the TF as a viable treatment for Measles. This was before his Lancet study was released in 1998.

Ok, under normal circumstances, anyone reading this would think that this evidence is pretty damning. Until they read the details. The devil is always in the details.

You see, if Dr. Wakefield was going to use his TF as an alternative vaccine and instigated the MMR scare after his Lancet article, then why would he have stopped testing on the TF BEFORE the release of his Article in February 1998. If his TF was viable, he would have continued to test and market it. But it wasn’t. And he knew this before releasing his article.

Perspective time. If his only goal was to make money, and he was formulating an alternative vaccine, and he manufactured a report that said that MMR could cause bowel problems so maybe they should split up the vaccines, then why release the article and have a press conference after he knew that his TF didn’t work?
Again, I cannot say with absolute certainty that Dr. Wakefield is innocent or guilty. I cannot do so without reading all of the evidence. But seeing this calls some of the accusations being hurled at him into serious question.

People new to this discussion are probably thinking the same thing once they start reading the details. Why now? Why is this man being so doggedly attacked? No other medical scandal in history has gotten this type of publicity, not even the Vioxx scandal. So, what is different about this one? Are the medical establishment at pharmaceutical companies really this afraid of one man? And we already know that Brian Deer has a serious vendetta against Dr. Wakefield for some unknown reason. Can we trust that his information is objective and unbiased?

Please don’t take it that I am defending Dr. Wakefield. I’m not. All I am doing is commenting at the oddities in what I have read so far. I am forming MY OWN judgment on what I have read.

I encourage everyone reading this to read the reports. Read Deer’s story. Read Wakefield’s story. Read the GMC hearings. And MAKE A JUDGEMENT FOR YOURSELF! Do NOT let people tell you what you should believe. 

Update: I am currently reading the GMC hearings, and someting jumped out at me. Here it is:

"f. A proposal, dated 4 March 1998 and drafted by Mr 10, was submitted to the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in relation to the proposed company,


Admitted and found proved"

So, in simple language, this was submited after the Lancet article submitted on February 28, 1998. My earlier post was in error, and for that I apologize. I shall continue to read the hearings and give my final judgement when I'm done.

Additional update:
According to the patent, the TF was being applied for as an alternative to MMR in (wait for it)

IMMUNO-COMPROMISED PATIENTS!!! Also, it is to be used in those with IBD (Inflammatory Bowel Disease) and Crohn's disease. (Page 1 of the patent at 30-35, and page 2 at 5-10)

"Unfortunately, as I have shown previously in the above mentioned patent application the use of theis vaccine has been shown to be instrumental in development of Crohn's disease and other forms of IBD over the ensuing 30 to 40 years and particularly has been instrumental in a substantial increase of Crohn's disease in children since vaccination was started in 1968.

The Physician is therefore confronted with a difficulty at the individual level in that whereas as a public health measure measles vaccination is called for, it can have unwanted effects in those subjects who are unable to immunological eliminate the virus so introduced.

This is particularly so when there is at present no cure for IBD; sufferers can expect relapses of their disease requiring potent immunosuppresant therapy or removal of the affected bowel and may be condemned to the use of a osteomomy bag.

What is needed therefore is a safer vaccine which does not give rise to these problems, and a treatment for those with existing IBD."

Emphasis mine.

Further reading of the patent clearly states that the TF could, in no way, compete with the MMR vaccine. It was simply a proposed alternative protective agent for Measles in those who through whatever reason were not able to get the MMR vaccine. Interesting that all of that information wasn't even touched upon by Brian Deer and his defenders.

So, again I ask; if the TF wasn't a viable protective agent, and it was mainly for treatment and as a potential protective agent in immuno-compromised individuals, then who could it compete with MMR?

A blogoversary; the Good, the Bad, and the Hypocrisy

In the midst of my after-Christmas lethargy, I came to realize that I’ve had this little blog for a year now. So much has happened, some good, some bad.

For example; my son is beginning to understand that he can use a toilet to urinate. This is a fascinating endeavor for him, made more-so by his mother’s gleeful reactions and the handful of treats he receives as a reward. The bad, though, is that we cannot seem to break him of the habit of playing with his feces and smearing it everywhere. And I honestly have no clue how to correct this behavior.

More good; we recently got a very nice house, much larger than our previous one with an enormous yard. The bad; other than having to mow this enormous yard, we had to move, change our number, and various other things in order to hide from a very loathsome and creepy internet stalker. The fact that I completely ignore this worm and he continues to try to harass me speaks volumes about his lack of maturity and intelligence. Really, I think he has some weird obsession/vendetta. Perhaps he’s a closet homosexual who has fixated on me. While I have no problems with homosexuals (under normal circumstances I would think that such attention is flattering if misguided), coming from this guy, it is extremely nauseating and disgusting. Not to mention how badly his fixation disturbs my family. My wife has had to purchase a gun, and she’s taking shooting lessons (which she greatly enjoys), and our new house has an alarm installed in case his strange obsession crosses the line more than it already has. Sadly, there is very little I can do to retaliate other than ignore him and do what I’ve already done. But, if I find him on my doorstep, then he has a very nasty surprise waiting for him.

Good; the Nate man loves his new house! He has a nice bed (a racecar…and he actually SLEEPS in it…will wonders never cease?), a nice front porch that runs the length of the house that he uses as a runway. The bad: We have a pond in the back that he decided to try to jump into. Scared the shit out of both myself and my wife, because this is one of the greatest fears she and I have concerning his safety. However, it is my hope that his realization of how freakin’ cold the water was will curb his enthusiasm to jump in again.

But, I digress. Reflecting on things from the past year has made me remember why I started blogging in the first place. It was at the suggestion of Kim Wombles that I start this blog, and it is one thing that she offered that I truly am thankful for. Sadly, Kim has descended into hypocrisy and rhetoric, so she and I no longer have correspondence. Occasionally, though, I take the opportunity to check out her blog and see what she’s been up to. And also, continuing with the topic of false skepticism and pseudo-skeptics, I thought I would write a little about what I read there.

Recently, she wrote a piece about Christmas cheer. While I found it quite interesting, I felt I should point out the good and the bad in her article (you’re noticing a theme here, I suspect).

On the subject of where the Christmas cheer is in our little community, she begins with the following:

“I think we know it's not in the angry places. I wish it were. I wish sincerely, fervently, that each person over at AoA would have a merry Christmas, one in which they are surrounded by their loved ones and able to celebrate that they have each other.”

This is a lovely sentiment, and coming from almost any other person, I would take it as sincere and heartfelt and express the same sentiments in return. However, coming from Kim, it seems to ring hollow. Let’s continue with her article and you’ll see why.

“I was commenting at Laura's this morning that it's depressing as hell to read them, and it is. It's also interesting, though, that on the blog AoA put up to illustrate that the anti-vaccine label is misapplied (quoting from Harold's post refuting Kev Leitch's post), that so many of them are proudly anti-vaccine. 

Can't we move past this? Can't we, for gods' sakes, stop beating the hell out of each other? No? Okay then. Right.”

The anti-vaccine label IS misapplied. You see, the pseudo-skeptics apply this label to anyone who questions in any way the safety of vaccines, even if they have vaccinated their family.

And yes, it is depressing to read AoA. I have a lot of respect for many of the people there, but I’ve noticed recently that they are just descending into personal attacks and vengeful rhetoric. I can’t take that anymore. It saddens me greatly that they have had 3 strikes with me, and now they’ve lost someone who willingly defended them.

But, on the other hand, can we not see why they do so? I certainly can. But looking at Kim’s above comments, we can see that she doesn’t understand. More on that in a moment.

“There's real rancor here between some of these folks who've been on the interwebz slinging this shit out for years. There's swagger and bluster and whipping it out to see whose is the biggest of all. Are they fighting for king of the interwebz?  Is there a medal, a trophy? No? If I felt like photoshopping one, I could make one, but I don't.

No, instead, I am frustrated.

 
Frustrated that people can write things like this: "PharmaKorp Nazi Drug Troopers has a nice ring to it. Hey? Has anyone explored the connection of the Pharmaceutical industry with Nazi Germany? Seriously."

Seriously disturbed that AoA's unabashedly anti-vaccine poster person can write this: "Autism will come raping or should I saw wrapping at their door, and they will soon find themselves in the oh shit position." Bless her, she's more than drank from "the bitter cup"; she's bathed in it, steeped in it. And her rhetoric hurts to read.”

See, she thinks it is ok to call someone a dumbass or mock and ridicule someone because they feel that their child’s condition is caused by vaccines, but it isn’t ok for these people to defend themselves or retaliate in a similar vein. That, boys and girls, is called a double standard.

Yes, the comments were bad. But, are they any worse than someone comparing members of the AoA team to the Nazi leaders? Or saying that they hope that all of our children die of vaccine preventable diseases? Or having someone spit in your face because you were passing out flyers about vaccine ingredients? Or having some creep continually harass and stalk you after you explicitly told them to stop contacting you? Oh, right…I forget. Such tactics are ok only if you follow the dogma of those who claim to be science and evidence based.

No, I don’t think that this should be happening, and that’s one of the reasons why I spoke up against AoA, especially after the threatening post they did on their facebook page about Skepchick. But, if you’re going to attack AoA for their rhetoric, you should acknowledge and attack those whom you agree with about theirs. But, we don’t see that here, do we? It’s terrible when AoA makes what I perceive as threatening posts, but it’s perfectly ok when people she agrees with do the same. Yes, the hypocrisy is thick.

“Are all the commenters at AoA anti-vaccine or off the deep end? No. And the reality is that we can not assess how well these comments reflect the day-to-day lives of these people, either. Is their behavior situational and egged on by the close-knit community they have built there? Are they victims of group polarization? I suspect, based on the science regarding both personality and group polarization, that this is accurate. We see only one dimension of these people; we may not see them at their best. They may be venting, and the group they find themselves in reinforces a shift to the more extreme end of things. Certainly these two commenters I've singled out are the extreme end there, although there are several more who are close seconds.”

Here, she and I are in agreement. I truly believe that some of what goes on over at AoA is just venting. Hell, I used AoA quite a bit to vent some of my anger and frustration out. It was cathartic and in many ways comforting to know that I had people going through many of the same things I was going through. Now, I mostly use my blog.

“Should we hate these people? No.”

But she does. It shows every time she writes about AoA. It shows every time she calls someone a dumbass or bat-shit crazy. Or calls them anti-vaccine, an epithet that is synonymous with someone who is despised. Whether she believes it or not, those insults are hateful.

“Feel disgust? Yeah, those two comments are worthy of disgust, but if that's where we stop, we won't understand them, and for me, understanding these individuals is important.”

But she doesn’t understand them. And that’s the important distinction here. She doesn’t understand that these people are angry and frustrated because they feel as if no one is listening to them. They try and try to make people understand that their children may have had serious adverse reactions to a vaccine, and they are immediately called insulting names and labeled as fringe elements or compared to tea-baggers and birthers. Ever watch a non-verbal autistic child grow angry and frustrated because they can’t tell you what is wrong? It’s very similar.

“Can we change them, move them back from the brink? Oh, no I don't think so, but maybe if we understand how they got there, we'll be able to help others not go there. 
And that's where it is for me: understanding them so that we can create a community that stands in front of that abyss and lets no more go over.”

As long as you do not (or refuse to) understand them, you won’t be able to reach them. As long as you continue to treat them as inferior or as someone less than human, you won’t understand them. That is a simple fact of life.

“Mocking them is easy. Deriding them even more so. Compassion is harder, but if you look at them and realize that they have been broken by what they perceive as their burdens, then you must feel compassion.”

But that’s what she does. She mocks and derides them, which as we all know, is very compassionate. And she should also understand why they return the favor. I mean, we all know it is so very compassionate to call someone a dumbass or bat-shit crazy, right?

She goes on to discuss some of the blogs she visits, about the trials and struggles of these parents. And that is all fine and good. But, then she follows it up with this:

“We must look to those who do this so that we can help others do this, too. We must provide a community built on compassion and respect. We must continue to allow ourselves to feel just as keenly for those who dwell in the angry places as we do for those who get up and reject the angry places.”

Compassion and respect? She keeps using those words, but I do not think they mean what she thinks they mean. Compassion is the deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. Is that what we see from her? Take a moment to read some of what she’s written here and decide for yourselves. Is what she does respectful? Is she showing deferential regard or esteem to those she writes about? Is she trying to relate to them or show them concern? Again, consider some of the names she calls those she disagrees with and then decide for yourselves.

“So, today, I ask that if you read this blog, you spend a moment in contemplation for what it would take to lead you to the angry places, to dwell there. I ask that you picture yourself in the midst of that bitterness that has pervaded all and how you would ever see a flicker of light from down there in the abyss. And I ask you to have compassion. Yes, they're wrong. Oh my. Yes, they're damaging, but they do far greater damage to their own psyches than they can ever do to us. After all, we can still walk away from the edge of the abyss.

If you cannot feel compassion for those who have lost all hope (and so many there have), I think you lose an essential part of yourself and step just a little bit closer to that abyss.”

Wrong how? In their spiteful rhetoric? Yes, I agree. But so are the people she is so chummy with, those whom she idolizes. They are just as guilty of the same hateful rhetoric. Or is she alluding that they are wrong in their beliefs about how their child(ren) developed autism. How does she know this? Has she seen their medical records? She’s making some pretty definitive claims in the absence of evidence. That isn’t very science and evidence based, is it? They are damaging to whom? The pharmaceutical companies? By the fact that they are trying to change a corrupt industry’s out-of-control vaccination policies, then these people are somehow evil in her mind. At least, that is what I am gathering from her little diatribe here.

Oh, I know what some people are going to say. They are going to say I’m being a hypocrite because I use insults and belittling language with those I disagree with. Yes, I do. I freely and openly admit that. But, I don’t preach about being compassionate and pretend that I’m that way on one hand and then spew hateful insults and rhetoric on the other. I make no secret of the fact that I don’t like these people, and that they have done nothing to earn or receive my respect. The best way for me to respond to these hypocrites is with as much contempt and derision as I can muster.

She doesn’t feel compassion. She feels that because she is “science and evidence based,” then those she disagrees with are inferior to her and therefore should be pitied. In fact, if you look at her hateful rhetoric and the way she treats those she disagrees with, you can see that she is falling into the very trap that she warns you of in the previous passage. And this, my friends, is yet more hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do.

It's Time to Step Away from the Accusations, AoA

I was once a fairly regular commentor at AoA. Much of what they had to say resonated with me, and reading the stories of all of these parents who had experiences similar to mine was both troubling and comforting; troubling in that there were so many like mine, and comforting that there was a place where I could discuss these experiences without snark or ridicule from those who erroneously claim to be science based. Back when my son was having some very serious health and behavior issues, Kim and others over at AoA were very kind and understanding and sent me personal emails of comfort and advice, something for which I have nothing but admiration, respect, and gratitude.

However, several months ago, several of the people over at AoA made some pretty disturbing comments, leaving the address, etc. of the loathesome and disgusting Orac in and attempt to get him fired for his blogging activities. It doesn't matter how much you despise that horrendous little scum-bag, no one deserves that. Not even him. I felt it was my duty to tell them, "Hey, this is wrong." I even wrote about it in an earlier post (Sorry, I would link, but I have discovered that Blogger and IE9 are not very friendly...I will likely edit this post later).

Then, today, I read JB Handley's post about Sullivan/Bonnie Offit.

For the longest time, I had the utmost respect for JB. I admired his tenacity and the way he never held anything back. I loved the humor in his posts, and laughed heartily as he gave certain egomaniacal douchebags the ridicule they deserved. But this article today?

I begin to wonder if JB's detractors may be correct in some respects. The article today claims that Sullivan is Bonnie Offit. Reading this article left me feeling quite depressed, especially seeing such paranoia and jumping at shadows as I saw there. It saddened me to see this from someone I once had a great deal of respect for.

To me, this is nothing but a smear campaign against Sullivan. While Sullivan and I have only had a few exchanges, they were always respectful and informative, and I feel this was a bit undeserved.

So, AoA, it's time to step back from the baseless accusations. I still consider many of you friends, but I cannot condone what you've done today. I'm sorry, but you've lost a reader.

To the Family and Friends of FreeSpeaker

Yesterday, I was quite shocked to learn of the passing of one of the people that many of us have had encounters with; some friendly, many not so friendly. The man known as FreeSpeaker died on Monday, though I do not know the cause. I was unaware that he had any health problems, so his passing seems to be surprisingly sudden.

I do not want to go into too much depth about our differences of opinion. I do not agree with much of what he had to say, and I certainly don't agree with the way he said it. However, I can say that he was passionate about his beliefs, though I feel he was misguided. He truly believed he was doing what was best, and such passion I can certainly respect, even admire. Despite our differences, he was a human being, and he deserves to be treated as such. Such respect is sadly lacking on all sides of our little debate.

If Freespeaker's family ever gets the chance to read this, then please accept my deepest and most sincere sympathies. If his death was as unexpected as I think it was, then I hope that my well wishes will help you through this trying time.

Farewell Freespeaker. Good journey.

Musings on the Farcical Compensation Program.

Hello, my friends. It’s me again, and I know it’s been a while since I’ve written. I was once told by a very famous author that writing is a daily chore, just like cleaning the house or washing dishes. Well, I’ve been slack of late, and there is really no excuse other than I’ve been horrifically busy.

What do I have to write about today, you ask? Well, lately there have been a few rumblings around the interwebz about the Cedillo vs. HHS case. This was one of the NVICP “test” cases that would measure whether or not the MMR vaccine had anything to do with Michelle Cedillo’s autism. This got me to thinking about why so few parents are filing claims with the NVICP.

Let me use myself as an example.

In 2004, when we learned of my son’s diagnosis, I was living in Mississippi. Now, if you aren’t familiar with the Mississippi school system, specifically their special education department, let me just say that this is probably one of the worst places in the world to have a child with autism. Their “solution” to my son’s problem was to institutionalize him.

Anyway, the whole process of learning about the diagnosis, researching things like physical therapy, ABA, etc., and then having to fight with the insurance companies to get these therapies, then having to fight with the government to get these same therapies; all of this was a time consuming and exhausting situation. I began to do research on the various internet sites and newsgroups to find answers and get advice from parents who were going through what my wife and I were. We were doing this, you see, because the doctor who gave us his diagnosis said that he had no advice, that he had very little experience with Autism, and that parents of autistic children probably knew more about the treatments and the condition than he did. At least he was honest. Before I knew it, 3 years had passed.

My son was sick, and he needed help. That simple. At the time, I was going through my second go around in college and working a part time and full time job to pay for my son’s therapies. It was 2007, and I had gotten involved with the people at Age of Autism and had also had numerous encounters with a certain egomaniacal douche-bag that we have all learned to loathe and despise. It was during this time that I was asked by a certain nameless moron why I hadn’t pursued my son’s vaccine injury with the NVICP.

Here’s the deal. First off, the statute of limitations to file a claim with the NVICP is 3 years. Secondly, my goal during this time was to make sure my son was receiving the care and support he needed. A lengthy and prolonged court battle would not have achieved that goal. It would have taken too much time away from my job and my family.

So, what’s the deal here. Cases that go to the NVICP can take years to resolve. And if there is a reward for injury, it is a pittance in comparison to the lifelong debilitations that children like my son suffer. They have to face a dog-and-pony-show of a “trial” that is not actually a trial, is not presided over by a real judge, and have to face off against the best attorneys that Pharma can buy. On top of that, if they lose the case (which is likely if autism and vaccines appear in the same case), then the pain and tragedy these families have faced throughout the lives of their children is broadcast all over the world so that it can be ridiculed by the likes of Orac and his Mob of Mindless Minions, the Oraccolytes, and wannabe scientist poseurs like AutismDeadBeat, Josephius and White&Nerdy.

Is it any wonder why parents don’t file with the NVICP? It’s a farce!

You have a 3rd party that is the sole decision process as to whether or not the vaccine caused the injury. That’s it! It’s supposed to be an unbiased 3rd party, but there are no checks and balances to prove this. The Science-ologists (those that worship science) say that Science should be the sole arbiter of this process, that science is the only answer to this. Well, guess what? Scientists are humans, not Gods. They make mistakes. They are prone to bias and misinterpretation. Science is NOT a religion, and the minute these hypocrites vomit forth the whole “Science has spoken” screed, then it ceases to become science and becomes a religion. This is a lesson that so many of these “science and evidence-based” cretins and pseudo-skeptics need to learn, and learn quickly.

Crossing the Line

I thought I would try out Sheldon’s suggestion to use Windows Live Writer for my blog, so here is my first post using that tool. Sheldon, again, my sincere thanks for your suggestion.

Onto what I want to write about. Now, I know I may ruffle a few feathers with this post, but I think it needs to be said that one of the things that people must learn during their lives is when to recognize that a line has been crossed. I’m of the firm belief that when I recognize a friend or a group of friends have crossed that line, it is my duty and obligation to express that they have done so in an attempt to have them correct the errors in their ways, even if it is only to make an apology for their actions.

Monday, Age of Autism posted an article written by Jake Crosby about David Gorski. It essentially explained what David does at his place of employment, and then explained how the project that David works for is funded by his college, which is funded by Sanofi-Aventis. Really, I have nothing bad to say about Jake’s article (I thought it was well written), but instead have to discuss some of the comments posted in regards this article.

As many of you may know, I don’t like Gorski. Not one bit. I feel his arrogance, his hypocrisy, and his venomous attacks on parents who have reason to believe their children have been injured by vaccines is a danger to his profession. In my opinion, he is undermining faith in doctors by posting the hatred and filth that he posts on his site. His elitist attitude and dismissal of any science that disagrees with his paradigm is a danger to public health. His laughable attempts at deifying science is simply pathetic. In essence, he is the living embodiment of what is wrong with the Medical industry.

However, when I read the comments on Jake’s post, I was appalled to discover that there were people posting information about the place he works. They were attempting to get people to call David’s employer to get him either fired, or at least reprimanded. Maybe it is just that I’ve had the experience of people calling CPS concerning my children’s vaccination status that colors my perception of this, but I have to say that they have crossed a line. Such tactics are underhanded and, dare I say, cowardly to the extreme. It is degrading and brings them down to the level of those they are opposing. It saddens me and disappoints me, and I have to step back and say something accordingly.

I’ve had this done to me! It is infuriating when someone is trying to attack you through your work or through organizations like CPS simply because they don’t agree with you. Frankly, I have no nicer way to say this, but it disgusts me. This is something that those that follow Orac do to us! And these commenters are going to engage in the same tactics? This is wrong with a capital W.

I do hope that Age of Autism either posts an apology or deletes those comments. No matter how much you loathe and despise that horrid little scum-bag, attacking him like this is morally wrong. I can freely say that I would never do something like that, no matter how badly I want to punch that egotistical little prick in the face.

I don’t think they will, though. While this realization saddens me, I can’t say that I completely blame Age of Autism for not doing so; Gorski has done horrible things to the parents at AoA. I just wish that they would not resort to doing things like this.

Speaking of egotistical little pricks, I got a very pleasant email from said prick. Now, I won’t post it here because he has not given me permission to, and I will honor the spirit of his email. Essentially, he thanked me, in his usual arrogant way, for posting my comment at AoA concerning what I wrote above. However, I can’t help but feel that it was a bit insincere, though I will do my best to take as genuine. Perhaps if he were to apologize for some of the things he has written about yours truly, I might be a bit more sympathetic to him. We’ll have to wait and see, I suppose.

To Someone I Used to Consider a Friend

There's been a discussion on the Jay Gordon piece (here) that garnered my interest. The gist of the comment is that anyone who is "anti-vacc" is comparable to a Birther or Tea-bagger. Gotta love that Medieval Catholic Church mindset.

My response was my usual; mocking and sarcastic. In it, I accused people like him as being akin to the Medieval Catholic Church accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being a heretic (this is all just a recap, mind you).

The whole point of my comment was mockery. First of all, if you're going to demonize parents who have reason to believe that their children may have been injured by vaccines, you'd better expect someone to say something. I've come up with my own way of demonizing these people in the same vein that they demonize people like me; by calling them Vaccine Injury and Death Promoters. Is it a tu quoque fallacy? Yep. Two wrongs don't make a right? You betcha. Do I care? Nope, not a fucking bit. I'm tired of dealing with people who have no concept of common courtesy or who have no intention of being courteous. If you want to speak to me like a human being, then I'm all for it. And, I can often have very pleasant disagreements as a result, like I did with Cable1977 on the Jenny McCarthy HuffPo piece.

Essentially, to these people, it doesn't really matter that some children are potentially getting injured by vaccines. It's all necessary, you see....for the good of the herd. The studies they pray to are riddled with Conficts of Interest and bias; so riddled, in fact, that the prestigious Cochrane Review was appalled. But it's ok...they defend vaccines. The VIDP's always get so bent out of shape when you bring this up to them, you see, because the Vaccine is Sacred! It's Holy! It's the Mohammed of the Medical world...how DARE you question it!

So, in response to my mocking retort about how everyone has the right to choose what to put into their bodies or their children's bodies, a former friend went into histrionics about how horrible and over the top my comment was. The whole, "Oh no, he di-nt!!!" And then, I'm sure she slithered over to her own blogsite and said something scathing and derogatory toward me. Really, Kim....I would be wounded, but all I have to do is consider the source. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Kim, my grandmother once told me that if you're gonna wallow with the pigs, don't be shocked when you get dirty.

You see, Kim, you give the impression that you're above all of that. You come across as being superior to the unwashed masses, when in truth you are simply one of them. You get all appalled and melodramatic when a person whom you disagree with says something that you perceive as over the top; but it's ok when someone you agree with says something just as bad or worse. Because, as your comment on Huffpo implies, since you are "Science-Based," you and people you agree with get to make off-color comments without fear of retaliation. Because, by golly, you're "Science-Based!"

You get to mock and ridicule fathers who write about how they felt when their non-verbal child said their first word in 5 years. You get to make off-color comments about how all of these stories about vaccine injuries are similar. This is the very reason I quit visiting your site. I saw the comment about me by Kathleen, and I saw your response. That told me everything I needed to know about who you really are. But when I call you out on it, you get all huffy about it? Riiiight. Smell the shit you're shoveling, dear.

Hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion


2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.
 
You claim to be a critical thinker. Well, you give the impression that either I agree with you, totally, or I'm anti-science. The world doesn't work like that, Kim. If you truly were able to think critically, you'd know that.
 
You know you're right, and that's all that matters to you. Which is exactly what you accuse me of. The thing is, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong, and it's obvious that you do not do the same thing. I don't WANT to be right, you see? I would give ANYTHING to not be right. But, seeing what happened to my son within 6 hours of his vaccinations kind of gives me the impression that I might be right. And, the fact that science refuses to look at children like my son further enforces that belief. And such vehement and vitiolic attacks from people who claim to be "science-based" enforces that belief even further. Science should never be defended so religiously. It's not science anymore when that happens.
 
I just don't want any other children to end up like my son. If there's even a small chance that vaccines can cause injuries like my son's, then people need to know.
 
Oh, and Kim...Orac is about the furthest thing from being "Science-based" as John Best. You see, being science based means that you don't make such definitive claims as he does without having all available evidence. You don't make these sweeping generalizations about a person or a condition without evidence. You don't pretend to be an expert in something when you really are not. You also admit when you're wrong. You know, like he did with Hannah Poling?
 
Where did he admit his error there? Has he admitted his error about Dental amalgams? No? What about admitting the error about his claim that Dr. Wakefield was fired from Thoughtful House?

Look, if you want to be looped in with the Westboro Baptist Church of the scientific community, be my guest. But, I guaranty you that it isn't a compliment.

Uh oh...the Parents are right about something....yet again.

This just in:

Parents are right about yet another Autism treatment. According to this article (Here), the hormone Oxytocin is showing promising results as a treatment for Autism. After several autistic adults were given the spray, they were better able to differentiate social behaviors and facial features.

But parents have been using this for a while now. But we're just terrible, crazy parents for wanting to help our childrens' more severe symptoms.

What else have parents been off their rockers about? GI symptoms are common in Autistic children. Well, that's just crazy! But wait, the AAP has announced that pediatricians should start treating GI symptoms in autistic children because they acknowledge that GI symptoms are common in Autistic children.

So that means that parents of Autistic children who have been treating their children for these conditions with a controlled diet and with Oxytocin spray were right? Whoa!!! I'm shocked! Everyone knows that us curebies are nutters and don't know what we're talking about. And how dare we try to cure our children! How dare we try to stop them from hurting themselves and others! What's wrong with us?

Or maybe, just maybe, these idiot doctors and scientists and wannabes who mock and ridicule these parents should listen to them instead. Such a novel concept, that.

I'm Convinced

The past few years have been difficult for me. Indeed, they have been difficult for anyone with an autistic child, especially one as severe as my son. Many people wonder why I fight and argue the way I do. Sometimes, I even wonder.

Here's the deal. On one side of the fence, you have thousands of parents saying that their child or children had serious reactions to one or several vaccines, and then they lost speech, skills, and milestones. On the other side of the fence, you have people telling these parents that what they experienced didn't really happen. They are asking these parents to lie to themselves, to their families, and to their children. They are asking these people to accept their children as is and not try to cure them. Then, these people run off to their little blogsites or onto message boards and ridicule these parents. It's a game to them. They mockingly blame computers. Or cell phones. Or Star Trek. They make these sweeping claims that we believe in grand conspiracy theories that involve thousands of people from all over the world. But this is no different than their claim that thousands of parents from all over the world are involved in a grand conspiracy to fake their children's vaccine reactions in order to extort money from the NVICP. It's all funny to them, and they refuse to take into account how it feels for these parents to be ridiculed in this way. For these parents, this is a very real and very traumatic experience. This mockery diminishes and trivializes everything these children have gone through. If children like my son could understand it, it would offend them greatly. I can say that my oldest daughter does read these things, and it upsets her to no end how cruel and callous these people are to parents who believe that their children had adverse reactions to a vaccine.

By mocking these parents, you mock their children.

Oh, I know. Kathleen on CAoA will say that I'm making it about me, like she did when I wrote about my son's first word in 5 years. A parent celebrating their child's first word in 5 years is somehow wrong in her book.

It's not about me, you fucking moron; it's about my son.

It's about my son when I struggle to control his diet. But, I should just accept the fact that he smears shit on himself and everything around him because he's just expressing himself, right?

It's about my son when I sleep by the front door and set alarms around the house in order to prevent my son from trying to open the front door in the middle of the night and wander out into the wilderness, possibly getting lost and dying out in the elements. But, I should just accept the fact that he's being curious and wants to explore, right?

It's about my son when I have to take my son to the floor and restrain him for hitting himself, biting himself, or trying to hit his mom or his sisters. But I should just accept that because he's angry and needs an outlet, right?

It's about my son when I or my wife stands out in the yard with him, running after him when he dashes for the street with no concept of the danger to himself. But I should just accept the fact that he just wants to play, right?

It's about my son when I want him to have the fullest and richest life possible. But, I should just accept the fact that after my wife and I are gone, he will likely be forced into a mental institution, drugged into oblivion, and promptly forgotten by the very same people who did this to him.

I'm convinced that these people are the most horrible people in the world. I have no words to describe my disgust. I have no words to describe my contempt for their actions. I'm convinced that these people just barely qualify as human beings, and that they are no longer worthy of my time and effort. I'm convinced that nothing anyone can ever say will convince them that they could be wrong; that they haven't even accepted that possibility. So why should I continue trying? I will no longer spend my time responding to their idiotic hypocrisy.

Oh no, don't take it that I'm stopping the fight. No. Like everything, you have to read the fine print. I'm focusing my efforts elsewhere. I'll still blog when the mood suits me. I'll still comment on something that I find intriguing. But my sarcastic and snarky retorts to these idiots on HuffPo and AoA will no longer be seen. Instead, I will start work on another endeavor that I'll keep quiet about, for now. It will take considerable time and effort on my part, but I think that those that I deem the Quackosphere (tm) will never see it coming.

Some words of advice to these idiots. It isn't a game. It never has been a game. It isn't funny. Your mockery isn't making any friends, and it does absolutely nothing to win people to your cause. In fact, it likely convinces them that the parents of vaccine injured children may just be right. And relying on substandard studies from companies that have been caught repeatedly lying about the safety of their products does absolutely nothing to add any credibility to your cause. And lastly, celebrating about when a study that could show something that opposes your viewpoint is pulled for some reason only shows that you are not interested in the welfare of these children; you're only interested in being right.

One last thing. Kim Wombles made a comment on her site CAoA that I find troubling (Here);
"And somebody explain to me why three of the most prominent male commenters on there have damn near identical stories? And no one over there can clue in on this?"

Is she saying that there is a commentor over there who is signing on with 3 different names? If so, that accusation is hysterical, especially considering how many of the Quackosphere (tm) sign in under several monikers. Is she talking about how our stories are so similar? Is it really hard to believe that these circumstances coincidentally mirror each other? I mean, after all, the Quackosphere (tm) expects us to believe that thousands of adverse reactions to vaccines are coincidental and didn't actually happen. Or, is she saying that we're making all of it up?

I'll allow her the courtesy to clarify this statement, as she is one of the people on the other side of the fence who I have a healthy respect for. If she is talking about me (and I have a feeling she is), then I am highly offended, and she has lost all respect I've had for her. Her posts and comments of late have been very angry, and she is starting to sound like a female version of Orac, which I find very sad. So Kim, if you read this, please take the time to clarify. If you weren't talking about me, then please accept my apologies. If you were, well, we'll talk about that when we come to it.

Why I Does What I Does

So, why did I start blogging? Very good question, actually.

Over the past few years, I've been involved with a movement that believes that vaccines, as a whole, are not truly as tried and tested as the CDC, FDA, and the Pharmaceutical interests make them out to be. Reading through the studies, it is apparent (apparent to my 10 year old daughter, even) that there are both methodological and outright complete data misrepresentation/misreporting. Almost every single one of them was done by a group that had direct financial interests in the outcome of the study. Then, as we often do when we dig into all of this, I find a very large community of people who, for whatever reason, defend the current vaccination schedule. Overall, there is nothing wrong with that. But, when it is pointed out to these defenders that these studies that they deify are rife with Conflicts of Interests and data errors, some of them go ballistic! They vehemently and vapidly attack anyone who has the gall and the audacity to claim that their sacred texts are in any way tainted.

Some of them are not so bad. Some people I talk to are very nice, very respectible and respectful, even if I do feel they are a little misguided. I understand why they defend vaccines; they feel that the vaccines save lives, and for the most part they are correct. But here's where I come into the difference of opinion with them. The vaccine schedule they insist we follow has never been tested for safety. Even the CDC admits this. The studies that they claim exhonerate vaccines and autism were almost all funded by the Pharmaceutical companies.

Here is what I don't understand. When it's pointed out that these studies could have conflicts of interests, it's almost like a light-switch turns off in their heads. No, I'm not calling them idiots, I just don't understand how they can so blindly trust "science" from a corporation that has been caught repeatedly lying about the safety of their products, that has been caught repeatedly paying for the outcomes of their studies so that it comes out the way they want it to. This is a group of organizations that have paid ghost writers to fake data, then they pay doctors to sign off on it. Do I believe this is a vast conspiracy? No, not at all. But I do believe that the whole story is not being told. And until independant research is done, as well as a study that looks at the neurological health outcomes of unvaccinated children, there will continue to be controversy.

Anyway, going on. So, I argue with the truly fanatical individuals. And, as one of the people whom I disagree with but also respect says, I think that perhaps I was using these arguments as a way to both blow off steam and to fuel my anger.

As some of you may know, being the parent of a severely autistic child can be extremely stressful (that's a picture of my handsome little man at age 5 at the top of the page, btw; it is a rare one of him smiling). Add on top of that; a sick wife, a 40+ hour a week job, Zero help from the government, Zero help from insurance, a ton of medical bills, and doing everything in your power to give your special needs child the therapy and help they need. Well, it is very stressful, to say the least. So, I used these arguements, the anger that I got from these arguements, as fuel to keep me going. Sometimes, I'd lash out at online people. Most of the times, it was because someone was being a total ass and they completely deserved it. But, I also lashed out at someone I consider a friend, even though I don't agree with her all the time.

So, it got me to thinking. Was this good for me? I see the use for my anger, but lashing out at friends?

I decided to follow the advice of my friend, Kim Wombles, and another friend, Thelma. They thought that maybe I should blog about my thoughts and feelings. And you know what? I cannot for the life of me figure out why I was reluctant to do this for so long. This is oddly fulfilling and liberating. I can express as much anger and say whatever I want on my blog, and I don't have to worry about things like moderation. If someone doesn't like what I write, well, they can kiss my ass as far as I'm concerned. This is MY blog, and I can write what I want. This control feels.....good (insert maniacal laughter here).

So, Kim and Thelma....I'm going to try this out. I'm going to blog what I feel here. If I feel angry, well, it will show in my posts; this will become my new outlet. Let's see how this experiment works.

And, I'm truly sorry for lashing out at you. Please accept my sincere apology.