Once More Into the Fray

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The situation has become completely surreal.

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

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

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

1. his excuse is the forgot he was suing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Blogger: Schwartz Chimes in on the Poling Decision

My friend Schwartz decided to chime in on my post yesterday. As always, Schwartz, your input is welcome and appreciated.

After reading Craig's post yesterday, I thought I might summarize what I see as the top few myths and mis-information floating around:

1) This decision wasn't about vaccines and Autism

Craig posted this comment from LBRB: "No. Hannah had a mitochondrial disorder, not autism."

In reality, Hannah had (she no longer has it) a mitochondrial disorder and after the vaccine damage she had Autism. So, Hannah Poling had and has Autism. Now, some people continually argue (LBRB included) that the ruling did not determine that the vaccines caused Autism. What did the government actually rule? That she suffered "regressive encephalopathy and features of Autism Spectrum Disorder" as a result of vaccine reaction. Another section of the concession reads: "features consistent with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder".

Let's first review the meaning of the term consistent: "Being in agreement with itself; coherent and uniform"

So she suffered features uniform with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder? Given that Autism is defined as a person meeting a specific set of criteria or "features", "uniform with the features of Autism" pretty obviously means that someone has Autism. The government conceeded the vaccines caused her to suffer brain damage resulting in features of Autism. Any way you slice it, the decision certainly was about the vaccine damage she suffered and her ensuing Autism among other issues. Those who continue to deny this have questionable credibility.

2) Hannah poling was rewarded for a standard table injury encephalopathy

This unsupported claim appears to be centered around the crowd at LBRB as well. It seems to be an attempt to blame the Polings for the length of time that the case took to resolve. The argument seems to be that had they just applied for a table injury as the special masters advised in a general statement, a similar outcome would have occurred much earlier. Unfortunately, the evidence available does not support that argument at all. In fact, the only weak evidence used to support this is the fact that the concession notes that Hannah suffered a "regressive encephalopathy" and the claim is that encephalopathy occurring between 5-15 days is a table injury. Now, let's review the evidence against this poor argument:

a) Hannah Poling did not suffer from Acute encephalopathy according to the advice of the special masters.

Autism cases involving Table Injuries have been compensated under the Program. If in a particular case there exist medical records demonstrating that such a qualifying "acute encephalopathy" occurred within the appropriate time frame, the petitioner or counsel should bring that to the assigned special master’s attention so that, if appropriate, the case can be processed without delay as a Table Injury.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/Autism+General+Order1.pdf

Note that the special master is talking about acute encephalopathy, not the regressive encephalopathy that Hannah was diagnosed with. If we review the vaccine injury table it also talks about "chronic encephalopathy" as well. However, there is a catch in the fine print: "If a preponderance of the evidence indicates that a child's chronic encephalopathy is secondary to genetic, prenatal or perinatal factors, that chronic encephalopathy shall not be considered to be a condition set forth in the Table."

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/table.htm#2

I now refer to the concession where the government states about Hannah: "... significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism,..."

It seems that there is a lot of evidence that Hannah's injury were NOT a standard table injury as they involved a secondary factor and they didn't meet the diagnosis of either acute or chronic encephalopathy.

I am truly surprised that the much heralded research skills of Kathleen Seidel they reference at LBRB didn't point out these problems for them.

b) Hannah Poling's case was not determined by a special master

If Hannah Poling had applied for a table injury, it would have been a special master who would have performed the evaluation and made the decision. In the Hannah Poling case, the government actually had their own science team evaluate the case who decided to conceed it. That is a fundamentally different process. It is pretty disingenious to assume that the outcomes would have been even close to the same.

c) Hannah Poling's legal position likely benefited significantly from the Omnibus hearings

The possibility of a strong Omnibus case setting a precident for a vaccine damage/Autism connection would have been very damaging for the government. Given the circumstances, it is very clear that it was in their interests to conceed the case rather than have it become a public standard for future decisions. In these circumstances, they not only conceeded the case, but they were forced to recognize the outcomes of Autism and the outcome of seizure disorder which undoubtedly led to the large financial compensation package awarded. I highly doubt they would have done this in the case of a table injury. Even with Hannah Poling, they tried to avoid the outcome of seizures, but later conceeded that point as well. Does anyone really think a special master would have done the same? HINT: read the omnibus transcripts

In summary, the only evidence being used to support the claim that she suffered from a standard table injury is centered on one word: encephalopathy. Unfortunately, they seem to be missing the adjective and fine print.

3) The government didn't hide the details of the case, the Polings did

This is a myth that originated at LBRB way back when the initial concession was leaked to the press. The reality is that after the original concession, the Polings motioned to make the decision public. Since it is standard to seal the records of the cases, the government objected to the Poling motion. The Polings subsequently motioned for full disclosure. The government offered full disclosure only from the point of time AFTER the concession (in other words it would not have included the concession). The Special Master adjudicating the motion defered the ruling, but published an opinion supporting the government position. The Polings later withdrew the motion in the face of almost certain defeat.

Somehow in the minds of those at LBRB, this translated into the Polings trying to hide the details of the case because they couldn't get access to her medical records.

The latest rendition of this myth has manifested itself in the article quoted by Craig where Sullivan states: "The government did not "seal" the case—it is standard procedure to keep this information confidential until the settlement is completed."

Let's review this for a moment. The standard procedure dictated by the government is to seal the cases. In this case, the government specifically rejected an offer for full disclosure by the Polings. So it wasn't the government who sealed it, it was the procedure that did it.

Laughable.

The Hannah Poling Decision, and Hilarity Ensues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And a third:

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

Let’s pick this apart.

“Vaccines do not cause autism.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us start with the DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well said, Dr. Poling. Well said.

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

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

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.

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

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



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



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



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






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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

Simple.

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


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

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

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



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



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



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



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



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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



She closes her satirical post with this comment:



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



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

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

Countering Someone who Claims to be Science-Based

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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






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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


Wakefield isn’t concerned about vaccine safety.

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

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


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

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

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

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

How Safe is Safe -- False Skeptics and Sheep Scientists

MySocratesNote: I will again take the time to thank Schwartz for his excellent rebuttal to Orac's "It can't be done" fallacy. Schwartz, I think that perhaps we should name a new logical fallacy after Orac, yes? Or, do you think that would be giving him too much credit.

Readers, please enjoy.

I came across an article recently titled: "Enablers of the vaccine-autism manufactroversy" describing how a group of self designated skeptical scientists from various disciplines (including medicine) have gathered together to coordinate their efforts to shout down and dissuade parents from questioning the mainstream medical establishment about vaccines. The commentary was weighted toward the standard personal attacks and name calling generalizations I've grown used to seeing from this group but I'll be gracious and ignore that part in this piece.



Apparently, these people feel that one should not be welcome to question the existing status quo and that everyone must take a hard position for or against vaccines as if the world were black and white. Of course those who dare question the establishment are arbitrarily classified as "anti-vaccine" (sound familiar to anyone here?) and are also deemed illogical and beyond logical reason. To illustrate this, they have crafted 3 questions that they insist no one is able to answer. Let's take a look:



Question 1) You say you want safer vaccines. OK then, please, define "safe enough." What rate of complications for specific vaccines would be "safe enough"? What rates of various infectious diseases against which these vaccines protect would be acceptable in order to balance the risk-benefit ratios?



This question appears reasonable enough upon a quick glance -- which is what I think they feel their audience will give this stuff -- but if you think about it you realize this is gross simplification of a problem akin to something you would see on a high school math exam. The funny part is they didn't even provide the assumptions required for such a question, which is just dishonest -- a false argument commonly utilized among this group of "scientists".



What is safe enough? It depends; that's the catch. Since we're dealing with the real world and not a simplified model, let's review with the critical information we need to know and consider to answer such a question for each individual vaccine:

A) Under what context is the question being asked?

i) i.e. Safe enough to hold a clinical trial is different from safe enough to mandate application to all citizens or children.

ii) This is an often overlooked question, yet this piece of criteria is critical.

B) What are the negative outcomes of contracting the disease where you live?

i) This establishes the background risk of the disease itself, which is important, because the safety of a preventative measure has to be measured against the risk you are being protected against.

ii) The current numbers provided by the CDC are exaggerated in some cases (i.e. influenza deaths -- read http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912) and in other cases they don't apply to the Western World because they are global statistics that are skewed by disease rates in the third world where they often don't even have basic sanitation, let alone medical care. So don't accept at face value any assumptions provided by your skeptic because the simplified assumptions rarely apply to the real world. I have yet to find credible published numbers for many of the diseases that vaccinations protect against.

iii) It is also important to identify the specific outcomes as well. For example, if death or serious permanent damage is very rare for the disease, then any substantial risk of death from the vaccine is probably an unacceptable safety outcome even if it reduces hospitalizations and saves a lot of money. (and yes, some vaccines are justified from a cost basis, not on a reduction of deaths)

C) What is the efficacy of the vaccine against the desired endpoint?

i) Beware here, as published efficacy numbers from regulatory clinical trials are almost always inaccurate. History and outbreaks -- often caused by vaccine failure despite the misinformation these skeptics distribute -- because the efficacy of the vaccine was over-estimated. So ask for details, and don't accept the assumptions provided by your skeptic who wants to simplify the problem.  The CDC and FDA post the vaccine reaction prevalence using data gleaned from the VAERS. Less than 10% of vaccine reactions are reported to this system

ii) Make sure you're getting efficacy against the desired outcomes as the clinical trials sometimes only measure antibody titers. i.e. influenza vaccines are often rated as effective because they measure anti-bodies, but when tested against reduced hospitalizations or deaths, they are found to have no measurable effect (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912). Another example: Gardasil has never been tested against the goal of reducing deaths from cervical cancer. Don't just accept the assumptions from your skeptic when you're dealing with questions in real life. In reality, a proper clinical trial must be designed to test this (i.e. comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated people)

iii) Beware of the simple graphs showing a significant reduction of disease since vaccination was introduced. These simplified graphs are littered with confounders and are not an acceptable substitute for quantified efficacy. I've seen the same graphs used on both sides of the argument (for and against vaccination)

D) Are there other treatment options to prevent negative outcomes of the disease?

i) This is often overlooked by many people. If there is an alternate treatment/preventative measure that changes the probability of negative outcomes of the disease, and these treatments have lower risks than vaccines, then the acceptable risk from the vaccine drops. i.e. treating children suffering from measles with Vitamin A (as recommended by the WHO) has been shown to reduce negative outcomes.

E) What are the risks of vaccination?

i) Quantify the short term risks with credible scientific evidence - this isn't always properly done. The control groups must consist of a true placebo.

ii) Quantify the long term risks with credible scientific evidence - this is almost never done and it requires the study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations -- no problems were suspected with HRT until independent long term large population testing was done. This doesn't mean there will be a problem, but history has shown us that unless we study the problem, the theories are virtually useless.

iii) Vaccination risks include the risks for the recommended schedules (i.e. concomitant vaccine application) -- i.e. they need to test the schedule

F) What is the biological mechanism in the cases of negative vaccine outcomes?

i) This is almost never done as follow-up and extensive documentation of vaccine damage is rare. However, this is critical to understand the mechanisms where harm is caused because it may very well lead to a drastic reduction in negative outcomes if pre-screening for at-risk populations is performed. This definitely impacts the "safe enough" determination. Why this isn't currently done is baffling. Exactly. There is no pre-screening to determine contraindications for the general populace. They give the vaccines anyway, though, despite the possibility that there could be allergies to the components or other conditions that could cause serious adverse reactions (case in point: Hannah Poling)

G) What mechanisms are in place to identify and address unforeseen problems?

i) This is critical to address the inevitable uncertainty and unknowns. Credible tracking and reporting mechanisms are required here. Why is infectious disease reporting compulsory by law while adverse event reporting of vaccines is voluntary and often ignored by doctors?



Of course, some of the more disingenuous skeptics will try use an Argument of Ignorance to turn these questions around and argue that you don't have this data, and therefore you can't state vaccines aren't safe. Unfortunately that's a flawed argument. A lack of data doesn't imply safety at all. Additionally, they omit the fact that vaccines are an unnecessary medical intervention (i.e. there is no immediate medical reason to get a vaccine) that they are trying to impose on everyone. In these cases, it is clearly incumbent to demonstrate safety for the individual, not the opposite, as they would like you to believe.



Let's examine the next Question this group of skeptics would have you answer.



2) You castigate vaccines for having "toxins." ...what "toxins" would you remove? Be specific, and provide evidence that these "toxins" actually cause harm at the levels used in vaccines.



Here we find the fallacious "argument from ignorance" in full display. The implication is that in the absence of proof of specific harm, safety is implied. I would recommend you repeat the logic required by any critical thinker; that in order to justify an unnecessary medical intervention with risks, you have to demonstrate safety, not rely on a lack of evidence of harm as an argument. This is especially true when discussing some of the more questionable vaccine ingredients.



This interaction would be humourous if the topic wasn't so serious. If I ask an expert about the safety of elements that are known to be toxic to the human body under a variety of conditions, I would expect them to demonstrate that the toxic elements under these conditions had been studied and have them explain the mechanisms by which safety is assured (i.e. they studied the pharmacokinetics). Instead, you are asked to provide information even the specialist hasn't tested for? This is akin to NASA telling to you provide specific proof that foam can damage the wings of the shuttle after mentioned that you heard that foam keeps falling off during launches. Fortunately, NASA has real scientists that actually studied the problem and found -- to their own surprise -- that foam traveling at supersonic speeds can indeed damage (i.e. punch big holes through) very strong materials such as the shuttle wing. If you had asked for their opinion prior to the testing, each one would have said the risks were very low and the scenario implausible. This illustrates quite clearly that without testing, the opinions of the good experts must be judged carefully as it is not based on evidence but belief.



Ignoring the disingenuous nature of the question however, we can still give a credible answer.



Any element or chemical used as a preservative, adjuvant, or other ingredient that is known to be toxic to humans should be safety tested against the target population in the form it will take during vaccination (dose and method of application). Of course, this includes, but is not limited to: Mercury, Aluminum Salts and newer experimental adjuvants.



Lets move on to the last question that no one can supposedly answer:

3) What specific evidence would it take for you to accept that vaccines are safe relative to the risk of disease and to vaccinate your children and urge your friends to vaccinate theirs?



This one is easy. A simplified form of our final risk analysis would as follows:

For any individual person for whom a specific vaccine is recommended,

A) The risk of damage or death from disease must be higher than

B) The risk of damage or death from the vaccine (long or short term) AND

C) the reduced risk of disease



A similar risk analysis methodology can and should be made before deciding on ANY medical intervention, whether it is preventative or not. Vaccines and other preventative interventions typically have to meet a higher safety bar because the risk of damage and death is much lower than that of a more immediate treatment intervention (i.e. cancer treatment).



Conclusion

The medical community continues to provide one of the most glaring examples of hypocrisy in any community claiming to be science based. The scientific method requires a measurement of outcomes. That means running a prospective clinical study of vaccinated populations compared to unvaccinated controls. It also means rigorously tracking and following up on adverse outcomes of vaccinations. The medical community continues to make excuses and fight this critical step in any evidence based practice. When it comes to the pseudoscience of vaccines, the scientific method is clearly MIA.

As the critical thinker has already figured out, the answers to our questions from 1 and 2 above will provide the information required to perform a logical analysis and make a logical decision. These are the questions that your skeptical scientist needs to answer before we can determine "safe enough". I welcome a discussion of these topics as these are the questions I've been asking since I started to research vaccines before my children were born. Unfortunately, most of them are still unanswered. Alas, since this group of skeptic scientists are clearly employing simplistic dishonest arguments here, they have no intention of entering a logical or scientific discussion. Consequently you will likely be promptly labeled as "anti-vaccine" for asking the questions required to actually do a proper analysis. From the evidence it appears that they just want to browbeat everyone into the same sheep-like conclusions they've drawn.



Shame on them.



Conflicts of Interest: None

Oh, the Hypocrisy is Rich!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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







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

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

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

Destroying Another One of Orac's Brainless Posts

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


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

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

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






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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is Julie’s comment:

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

And here is David’s response:

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

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

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

Orac’s response?

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






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

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

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

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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

2. Tries to be well-informed (Nope)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical Thinkers are disposed to:



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

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

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

    c. Be well informed (Heh)

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



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

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

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

    c. Seek and offer reasons

    d. Take into account the total situation

    e. Be reflectively aware of their own basic beliefs

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



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

    a. Discover and listen to others' view and reasons

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

    c. Be concerned about others' welfare

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

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

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

Well I guess it would be nice

If I could vaxx your baby

I know not everybody

Has got a baby like you



But I've got to think twice

Before I collect my pay

And I know all the things you’ll say

Because Jenny says them too



Oh but I

Need some time off from that commotion

Time to pick my needle up off the floor

And when that vaxx comes down

With excessive promotion

Well it takes a straw man baby

But Orac’ll be a good whore



'Cause I gotta have faith...



Baby

I know you're asking me to wait

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

You say I'm giving you the flus

Maybe

You mean every word you say

Can't help but think of yesterday

And how easy it was without Thimerosal rules



Before this river

Becomes an ocean

Before AoA shows everyone the score

Oh no I won’t reconsider

My greedy notion

Well I need another Mazarati

So I can be like Offit some more



Yes I've gotta have faith...



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