It’s a common tactic of suuporters of alternative medicine or other pseudoscience related to medicine to try to smear defenders of medical science as being hopelessly in the thrall of pharmaceutical companies, or, as they like to call it, “big pharma.” For example, the anti-vaccine movement in general, and Generation Rescue in particular, love to use this gambit, for which I coined a phrase back in 2005 (at least I think I coined it), the pharma shill gambit.
I’ve always wondered what would happen if we defenders of science-based medicine attempted a “reverse pharma shill gambit,” if you will. Now I think I know. The hypocrisy of the anti-vaccine movement knows no bounds. I’ve actually challenged the odd AoA member on this, and their invariable reply is that these are relatively small companies and pharma is big. Sorry, that doesn’t work. If Lee Silsby et al are providing AoA with a significant cash infusion for advertising relative to its budget, then it’s just as much a potentially corrupting influence as Sanofi Aventis, Pfizer, or Bristol-Myers-Squibb buying advertising in a medical journal.
ADDENDUM: A photo of the dreaded Lee Silsby in Cleveland Heights taken this winter during a visit to my old stomping grounds. (I used to live only two or three miles away back in the 1990s.)
320 replies on “The reverse pharma shill gambit applied to Age of Autism?”
In the small part of blogworld where I live, HBOT or hyberbaric oxygen treatment seems to winning over we-who-should-not-judge and declare the fraud under which it is administered.
Any chance you would take-on HBOT as a treatment without merit?
Exactly!If you very *carefully* scan some of our favorite altie sites,you may *possibly* notice,(sandwiched between health “information” and catastrophizing economic/political/ecological “news”)*ads* and *stores*.(Actually, it’s all ads:”Scare’em,then sell’em”).Right now, Mikey(NaturalNews,4/30/10)has his knickers in a twist over Rep.Henry Waxman’s addition to the financial reform bill which would *regulate supplements*:a total affront to his health rangerly safeguarding of “health freedom” for pharma-oppressed Americans.
Years ago when the Internet was young, there were special interest listservs. I was on one for my son’s disability. There were often DAN! quacks, supplement purveyors, cranial sacral therapists and the like shilling their wares on the list. One even decided to skip using the listserv, and just harvested the email addresses to spam members.
They were not supposed, so they were politely asked to leave. But then they decided to get sneaky and pretend to be parents. It turned one of the most strident Mercury Militia Moms was really annoying, including sending me nasty grams. I quit the listserv when someone else discovered this particular pernicious woman was actually employed by a DAN! doctor with a very large supplement business.
Yeah, pharma shill gambit always amused me.
Barbara, you might be interested in this:
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/04/more-hot-air-about-hbot/
The same blog covered the incident where a child and grandmother were killed in an HBOT fire.
I’ve kind of said the same thing about Uncle Bob Sears and his recommended “spaced out” vaccination schedule. If nothing else, it a) sells a lot of books, and b) it gets parents to bring their kids in for an office 3 – 5 times more often, probably.
Isn’t it funny how people think that vaccine manufacturers are so intent on cashing in on that tiny profit margin of each vaccine given can ignore the extra hundreds of bucks that Dr Bob gets for telling parents, “Come back in a month and I’ll give him another shot”?
HBOT has been discussed at length elsewhere. D’oC, in March 2009, published a list of studies at Autism Street
Had seen the phrase BIG PLACEBO for altie-woo fraud used not too long ago; can’t remember if it was on this blog or somewhere else? Sounds good to me, wonder why it hasn’t caught on?
WKM: My guess is, brief exposure to the name made people feel better, and they moved on. (If they were to stop and think about it, it might not have the same effect.)
Nice article, and quite a bit more substantive than the joke that anti-vaxers actually are shills for Big PharmaTM by working to bring diseases back, thereby necessitating more products to treat the diseases – products made by pharma companies.
You can expand this thesis to include the practitioners of “alternative” autism therapies, who are – in effect – shills for themselves.
It is beyond reasoning that people would nod in mindless aggreement about “big pharma shill” and “conflict of interest” claims and not see the inherent profit motive behind the “alternative” practitioners’ claims that their therapies – untested and unproven – “work” for whatever they choose.
The folks who own HBOT chambers and claim that they “work” for autism, stroke, CP, etc. have an even clearer profit motive than a doctor who prescribes a drug (for which the pharmacy pockets any profit) or gives a vaccination. The chelationist who claims his infusions will cure autism, heart disease, malaise and ennui has an obvious profit-based motivation to ignore any conflicting data (or the utter lack of supporting data, in most cases).
Yet, it is only “mainstream” medicine that is accused of having base, money-grubbing motives.
How does that verse go….? “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”
Prometheus
I’ve always wondered what would happen if we defenders of science-based medicine attempted a “reverse pharma shill gambit,” if you will.
Done and done. Here’s a little sampling if you don’t mind the quasi-shameless links…
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2010/02/27/time-com-fawns-over-anti-vax-activists/
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2010/02/06/mooney-tackles-the-anti-vaxers-well-sort-of/
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2010/01/19/if-its-catchy-why-bother-with-the-science/
Since mid-January I’ve been harping on the fact that anti-vaccination activists either sponsor, advertise for, or outright run businesses that sell expensive, untested, unproven woo and snake oil to dismayed, upset and confused parents for a hefty profit while they chant against “Big Pharma’s greed” and call skeptics “Pharma shills.”
The anti-vaccinationist reply? They simply ignore it and pretend these conflicts of interest simply don’t exist in their midst.
I gather your blogging this has something to do with the ad for Claritin, made by Merck subsidiary Schering-Plough, to the left of your blog? Not to mention that ad for the diabetes meter manufactured by Bayer?
Yep Jake, and Orac is also paid by Advantage Rent-a-Car, whose ad is sitting right of this post. You got him.
The Pier 1 Imports ad is the big give away, Orac is obviously a shill for Big Tchotchkes. They will not rest until everyone in America has rattan furniture and cheap glassware made in foreign sweatshops.
Well, with Adblock I can’t see any of the ads (Sorry Orac, on some of the sites I visit the ads were so overwhelming you could barely read the posts, hence, installation of Adblock).
But Jake, with all the brains you claim to have, and the fact that you’ve been commenting on here long enough, you should know that Orac has no voice in the ad selection. Ads are usually triggered by words in the post. As you should be able to figure out, if he selected the ads, several that have shown up in the past for supplements and “cleansing” wouldn’t have been chosen.
As for many of the supplements pushed by AOA, et al, and chelation therapy….aren’t they made by Big Pharma? How come it’s OK to prescribe chelators made by Big Pharma which cost tons of money, OK to prescribe Lupron ™ which is VERY expensive and also made by Big Pharma, but not OK to prescribe vaccines? In all cases, money is going to BP. And in most cases, a heck of a lot more money goes into the pockets of those quacks using chelators and Lupron. Compared to what a doc gets for giving Lupron or charges for chelation, vaccines are extremely cheap. And Lupron and chelation are FAR more dangerous (side effects, patient reaction) than vaccines.
@Jake: Frankly, you’re an embarrassment to autistic people everywhere. At least that’s how I feel for you. I hope as you grow older, you’ll stop spouting such contemptible conspiracist claptrap.
Jake, seriously, STFU about spurious BIG PHARMA connections, until you and the rest of your “pro-safe vaccine” (cough) friends purge the pharmaceutical (J&J) influence within your own camp. You’re only making yourselves look silly.
According to the Puffft! of All Knowledge, Lee Silsby supplies Thoughtful House with â[t]he metals and chemical compounds used at the center during the [Chelation?] therapyâ.
I wasn’t able to find any info I’d consider too reliable on Lee Silsby’s financials. I did find an undated guess they do between 500,000USB to 1,000,000USD annual sales. I could not verify that guess.
I’ve only got an ad for Double Tree Inns, which isn’t so bad. It’s the “whiten your teeth” and
“five rules to obey to get rid of belly fat” that seem to follow me everywhere! My teeth are fine and I weigh what I’m supposed to–why are the picking on me?
Hi, Jen in Tx. Haven’t seen you around for a while. I hope things are going well with you and your family. Have you found any more information about Tylenol (yes, I am serious; I find your theory interesting, even if I don’t agree with it. Certainly worth reading anything you find)
Don’t be too hard on Jake. After all, he’s fixated on the idea that Wakefield is perfect, so therefore, anything that has to do with Wakers is fine, even if it does include overlooking the fact that Big Pharma money, in the form of Jane Johnson, helps fund TH.
@Jake, #11
I gather your blogging this has something to do with the ad for Claritin, made by Merck subsidiary Schering-Plough, to the left of your blog? Not to mention that ad for the diabetes meter manufactured by Bayer?
Hmm… Right now, I’m seeing ads for Lenovo ThinkPads. Clearly this means Orac saw your comment and immediately changed the ads. Or the he’s actually paid by Big Computer.
Then again, it could be that ScienceBlogs has an ad server which can see what sites you visit from your cookies and delivers ads relevant to you, so if you’ve been trolling through pharma sites quite a bit lately, you see ads for their medication and someone who’s been looking for a new computer sees ads for new computers. It’s a technique used by most ad networks today.
So Jake, if you’re going to come up with a conspiracy theory, how about choosing one that’s not completely brain dead? Really, this attempt was more of a punchline than anything else.
Hi Dawn,
Things are settling down somewhat. My oldest child has been ill with pyelonephritis, and had to make a couple of visits to the ER this week. She’s on the mend, now– thanks for asking.
Much to my chagrin, I ended up having to resort to Tylenol #3 to treat her pain, since she has enlarged tonsils and cannot swallow pills, and didn’t want to chance ibuprofen. Had to put my disdain for acetaminophen aside in order for her to be pain free. We used half the recommended dose, and it worked pretty well for her, and she only used it twice.
Sorry, I don’t have any new information on acetaminophen/autism. Spoke with Dr. Torres a few weeks ago, and we had a nice chat. Apparently, there is no funding available to study this link right now. To be fair, he was the first to propose this theory, not me.
Jake, how much is Big Altie(TM) paying you? Answer, shill.
There’s a difference between a single mercurial ad that occasionally shows one particular thing and a consistent pattern across the major players in an anti-science movement. So, Jake, how much is Lee Seibel paying you?
Jake,
Really, try to think before you post. First, as has been pointed out earlier, Orac does not control the ads on this site. You have been around these parts long enough to have seen the complaints Orac has made about this. I would be surprised if you were somehow able to miss these posts.
Second, you completely ignore the content of this post. How do you respond to the these facts about the advertising over AoA? Why is it only fair to complain about big nasty pharmaceutical companies and not do it the other way? Here is a hint to try to keep you from posting a hasty reply and getting dumped on again, you might want to stay away from saying the commpanies are smaller. That is rather irrelevant.
Just to further confuse Jake the Brainless, I’m in France. All the ads I’m seeing are French, in French. One is trying to get me to click on it by suggesting I’ve won a Mini Cooper; another seems to be for an online game. Both are incredibly badly targeted, in addition to having nothing to do with the contents of this blog or the SciBorg site: I’m not interested in cars, and don’t play online games.
Obviously it’s all Orac’s fault.
“reverse pharma shill” = Big Quacka front organization
My ad is network solutions. How boring.
Wow… American Heart Association and Super 8.
Big Heart wants me to take a Big Vacation, obviously.
Gee, Mine ads are for Hearst Ranch. Big Beef anyone?
@Jake
I’m with you bud, stand up against the…
…Super 8 and Advantage Rent-a-Car shill!
To the topic–we can sit around and think of clever things to say against the woo all we want, I know I have. In the end they just won’t get it or will ignore the hypocracy of being against “big pharma” and for the multi-billion dollar sCAM industry. Such is life with a conspiracy prone thought process.
I’m suspecting Jake doesn’t know much about contextual advertising, remarketing, ad-words, cookies etc. I’m in the UK and getting an American Express ad. The other day on Science Blogs on my work computer I got all my companies products (totally not healthcare, science or pharmaceutical related – I”m an arts grad…) served up to me on a retailer ad – because that’s what I mostly search for
“I’m suspecting Jake doesn’t know much about contextual advertising, remarketing, ad-words, cookies etc.”
There’s no need to suspect.
One can look at his previous posts and see that there’s quite a bit he knows very little about.
Nothing wrong with that by itself, but his continued persistance in believing he is correct even after repeated and comprehensive correction is tiresome and a pain.
Even if he were to ever admit to error, you can bet he’d blame that on his autism too.
It seems to me that alties often put a great deal of emphasis on intent. Company X manufactures a remedy which, when tested, does no better than placebo. However, the pill is sold as a “supplement,” and the big. glossy ads are filled with glowing testimonials. Is Company X doing anything wrong?
To people who are into alternative medicine, the answer seems to come down to motivation and circumstances. If Company X is a big pharmaceutical company which is knowingly over-hyping this product in order to make money, then yes. The pill should be taken off the shelf for being misleading. If Company X is a mom-and-pop operation run by some hippies who truly believe in their product and want to help people, then no. This is wonderful, because it allows the consumer the choice to discover what works for them.
The pill, what it contains, and whether it actually does what it says it does, seems to take a back seat to the storyline. Is it a corporation trying to screw the little guy consumer, or is the little guy who cares about people trying to stick it to bigger corporations? I wonder sometimes, how alties would propose to weed out purported cures based on the sincerity and good intentions of the manufacturers. Perhaps companies could fill out a Moral Application, where they answer questions like “I believe we all are vibrating energy in a higher field of consciousness: Yes ( ) No ( ).”
Jake,
How about answering why you think it’s ok that Lee Silsby is a featured sponsor for Age of Autism?
Jen in TX,
I’ve looked at some of the evidence for a Tylenol/autism link, and have been pretty unimpressed. It really does feel an awful lot like the vaccine/autism argument, where people are trying to confuse correlation with causation. That being said, caution with NSAID use is a good idea in any event.
So Little Pharma is Good but Big Pharma is Evil?
Guess they’re not familiar with the concept of “economies of scale”. If it’s an expensive, niche product it must be good.
Reminds me of the creationist/ID mantra of micro- vs. macro evolution. Little Evolution Good but Big Evolution Bad.
As for the ads, I rarely notice them here but now I clearly see that Orac is also a shill for Big Sex, touting “Release your naughty pepper at Be Naughty”
Thanks for exposing him Jake! You made my day 🙂
Don’t be so hard on Jake: He knows exactly as much about medicine, virology, epidemiology, and the like as you can reasonably expect an undergraduate majoring in history to know about those subjects.
The only real problem is that Jake seems to think that an internet connection in a dorm room provides an understanding of those subjects equal to that of people who have devoted decades of diligent study to those topics. Jake knows so little that he can’t even begin to comprehend that he knows so little.
In the sidebar here you see an ad for Bristol Myers Squibb product Reyataz. You do not see a “buy Reyataz here” link, or a “Bristol Myers Squibb Online Store” here.
Get the point ?
While Orac may indirectly make a couple pennies from Sciblogs, who makes a couple pennies from BMS, nobody is selling aids drugs here. Or perhaps Orac is actually controlled by Big Hotels ? Super-8 is currently the other right-hand sidebar. Hey, Orac, can I get a couple free room-nights ? LOL
Sastra: Alternative medicine, like most rigid belief systems, is fundamentally based on the genetic fallacy: It’s all about who you believe in, which is to say who you personally identify with and who makes an emotional connection with you. Questions of what don’t enter the process. Ultimately, it’s a very tribalistic, authority-based belief system, where We can do no wrong and They can do no right.
Although altmed is stereotypically associated with the Left in the US, it’s really a profoundly conservative movement; it just places the Golden Age in a different period than the Right does (the latter tends to be fond of “cutting-edge politically incorrect” ideas that mostly turn out to be rehashes of Victorian-era speculations that were long ago abandoned for good reasons) In many ways it’s fueled by a reactive opposition to capitalism that is not like the opposition of the socialist, but more like the opposition of the aristocrat whose ancestors won their wealth with the battle-axe, not by something as wimpy as “trade”.
Ooohh, I got the Bayer Glucose Monitor and the University of Virginia Health System. Big not dieing of diabetes wants me to go to a university hospital in the state where I live.
And what the hell is Safecount.net?!?!
Just had a quick look round the Lee Silsby website. The pharmacy is very helpful. They even have an area list of “Recommended Practitioners”. Gee I wonder if those practitioners listed also recommend Lee Silsby autism treatment compounds.
http://www.leesilsby.com/resources.php
Just saw that Johnson and Johnson recalled a bunch of children’s remedies.
Obligatory outrage in 3…2…1…
a-non,
I completely understand the skepticism, and I’ll be the first to admit that the available evidence is weak.
@Kristen
All kidding aside, make sure you do your best to get the word out about that recall. I have two toddlers and had to go through the medicine and throw out the majority of what we had. To me it’s a pain but an indicator that the system is working! I’d love to see that kind of action from ANY sCAM corporation or individual (not holding my breath).
The site to find the applicable NDC numbers (for the US) is found here: http://www.mcneilproductrecall.com/page.jhtml?id=/include/new_recall.inc
I think that they mean “Big Pharma can afford a massive astroturf campaign, while the vaccine -> autism people can’t”.
Also, depending on how strict a definition you use for “shill”, there might be few or no shills among the anti-vaxxers. As far as I can recall, the classic “shill” was “someone the con artist hired to go along with the con”, which means: 1) the con artists him/herself isn’t a shill, and 2) implies that the shill either doesn’t believe in what the con artist is selling or doesn’t care whether or not it works. So since the people who run places like AoA are True Believers who are accepting ads to defray the cost of running the sites, I don’t think they fit the classic definition of “shill”. (NOTE: I’m not accusing all, or even the majority, of bio-med autism doctors of being con artists, since I believe most of the genuinely believe in what they’re doing. I’m just saying that those who are con artists aren’t shills in the classical sense)
@ebohlman
You can quite clearly see this in people who do things like repeat the “Pasteur recanted on his deathbed” myth. They don’t understand that it doesn’t matter if Pasteur recanted or not.
I’m in Australia, and the only ad on my screen shows a spunky, buffed-up young man saying “learn to get ripped in 4 weeks”.
I’ve never seen a photo of Orac, but that provides me an image of him. Obviously, Big Ripping pay him millions for the privilege.
@ Brian – Go easy on history majors! Any history major worth his or her salt would be pretty well-versed in epidemics of terrible diseases that were eradicated by vaccines (small pos, for instance). (And in the interest of full disclosure, I wasn’t a history major. Even worse – I was a poly sci major.)
Big Foam Shoe says I should go out and buy Crocs.
And about the ads here: I’m getting at least two, and usually three, ads for Internet Explorer 8, in spite of the fact that I’m using Linux. I would say that Microsoft isn’t getting much bang for it’s advertising dollar.
@Dawn and @Jen in TX:
I’ve actually been thinking that ibuprofen exposure in utero may be a cause of autism. My wife took ibuprofen when she did not know that she was pregnant, and the OB-Gyn told her to use only Tylenol while she was pregnant. Recently, a Science-Based Medicine blog post reported that a recent study found that autism began to rise around 1988-89, and concluded that “if we want to look for an environmental factor we should look for things whose exposure began around 1988-1989.”
Ibuprofen was approved for over-the-counter use in the U.S. in 1984. Give a year or so for ibuprofen to become popular and taken to some degree by pregnant women, nine months for gestation, and 18 to 36 months for diagnoses of children, and you’ve got a match for the time of exposure to ibuprofen and the “turning point” in autism diagnoses.
Of course, I do not mean to imply that this possible correlation (if it’s even that–I haven’t seen the charts of autism diagnoses and sales of ibuprofen) shows causation, but it’s something to think about.
Matt P.
Matt,
You’ll have to first explain the autism that existed before ibuprofen’s approval, as well as a possible mechanism in order to convince me. 😉
I think that the rise correlates almost perfectly with the warnings of aspirin’s link to Reye’s Syndrome, and the subsequent increase in the use of acetaminophen.
BTW, can anyone tell me when acetaminophen began to be mixed with narcotics, (Darvocet, Lortab, Vicodin, etc.) and the reasons for doing so? I’d be interested in the history there, but can’t seem to find anything.
Shawmutt,
I am definatly getting the word out on the recall. We give Gabriel Benedryl about once or twice a month when he can’t sleep. Our package wasn’t part of the recall, probably because it is probably six months old.
Telling everyone I know. But thanks for the advice. 🙂
Read what Kathleen Stratton, Study Director for the Immunization Safety Review Committee, stated in her deposition about the care taken to eliminate anyone with a conflict of interest or a bias from the committee. No financial interest, no grants from CDC, no advocates for a point of view, no one writing papers on vaccine safety, no paid experts, no one with a business interest, no one who had testified about vaccine safety, etc. etc. For sure Mark Geier, Andrew Wakefield, Lee Silsby, and other autism cranks would not qualify.
I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to whether or not Jake is a history major worth his salt, but your post does suggest an answer. It’s clear, though, that although Jake almost certainly knows more about history than I do, he’s profoundly ignorant of the scientific and medical fields related to his too-numerous posts.
Yes, Jake — please explain why you think it’s OK that Lee Silsby, who supplies materials used by alties for the alleged treatment of autism, is a featured sponsor for Age of Autism.
#49 Jen in TX said: “BTW, can anyone tell me when acetaminophen began to be mixed with narcotics, (Darvocet, Lortab, Vicodin, etc.) and the reasons for doing so? I’d be interested in the history there, but can’t seem to find anything.”
As for when, I can’t tell you. But I can tell you why.
With narcotics, it’s easy to quickly become chemically dependent (even on a scale where you don’t feel the dependence, but tests may show a response, so to say) or start to show levels of tolerance, even if you’re not psychologically dependent on them. They can be dangerous, but it’s a risk vs benefit deal. They added the acetaminophen in order to decrease the chance of dependency and addiction.
Oops, I meant Jen in TX #50, not #49
“Orac” writes:
“A photo of the dreaded Lee Silsby in Cleveland Heights taken this winter during a visit to my old stomping grounds. (I used to live only two or three miles away back in the 1990s.)”
Give me a break, they are not even a vested party in the vaccine-autism debate, unlike the drug companies that advertise on your blog. If you wanna get people to stop believing what you call “conspiracy theories,” best to not replace them with your own. It would also do you good to distance yourself from performers in the neurodiversity freakshow, especially after their horrific blunder of libeling AoA by claiming we “forged” official university documents. Not to mention the fact that they claim to be “autistic” when most of them aren’t even diagnosed, not unlike a few of your loyal commenters here.
Jake, since you seem to have overlooked his main comment in the blog, I will repeat it for you:
“If Lee Silsby et al are providing AoA with a significant cash infusion for advertising relative to its budget, then it’s just as much a potentially corrupting influence as Sanofi Aventis, Pfizer, or Bristol-Myers-Squibb buying advertising in a medical journal.”
Is AoA not “a vested party in the vaccine-autism debate”?
And, since you consider AoA and you to be “we”, do you have an official capacity at AoA or are you suggest a supporter?
Jake, you are seriously sarcasm-challenged, aren’t you? This is mockery of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and hypocrisy, not a serious claim that there is a conspiracy involving Lee Silsby.
As for the rest of the bit about “forgeries,” I really have no idea what you’re talking about.
Finally, how do you know that commenters of mine who say they are autistic are not actually autistic. Are you calling them liars? If so, you’d better have some damned good evidence to back up your claims, because I don’t take kindly to such accusations if you can’t back them up.
Also, Jake,
Perhaps it is because I mostly manage to restrain myself from using pejoratives to refer to other people, but I was rather struck by your reference to the “performers in the neurodiversity freakshow”.
I’ve been following a few of these blogs for a couple of years now and occasionally take a peak at AoA and GR, but I don’t think I had heard of that category before.
Could you please enlighten me? Who are some of these “performers” you tell people to “distance yourself from”?
Lee Silsby sells treatments for autism. Lee Silsby gives money to AoA. It really does not matter if they are directly part of the vaccine-autism debate (though they do probably have some interest in promoting the idea because they want people to treat autism chemically with their “medicines” and a chemical cause would be helpful), or if they care about the issue at all. The issue is, by accepting money from Lee Silsby AoA does the exact same thing it claims Pharma shills do. If AoA writes a post that defends (and a quick search of the site shows that not only does AoA defend them it seems to directly endorse their treatments) any treatment endorsed by Lee Silsby I could go over there and make the shill gambit and it would be the same circumstances imagined by those that play the pharma shill gambit. Except it would be worse, especially when compared to people like Orac, as his ads are pretty random whereas AoA is directly sponsored by them.
I have no idea what this forgeries thing is about. Jake will have to supply some more information.
The last claim can basically be ignored. I would love to see your evidence that the autistic people on this site are not actually autistic. You might want that to be true but your wants do not make it a fact.
“…the drug companies that advertise on your blog.”
And while we’re piling on to Jake, is it not strange that despite being told this endlessly on this thread, he still has not acknowledged the obvious fact that Orac has no control over the advertising that is carried here.
“especially after their horrific blunder of libeling AoA by claiming we “forged” official university documents.”
Jake:
I warned your superiors at AoA that if it was not acknowledged that I did NOT implicate AoA of direct involvement in a forgery, it would be grounds for a libel lawsuit.
Here’s another vacuous threat I got from Jake Crosby, over the one name I actually did throw out openly (strictly as an example of someone who MIGHT forge a document), “Liar For Hire” Martin J. Walker: “To allege that a regular contributor forged a document posted on AoA which we used as a primary source is to allege that AoA was involved in the forging. And for a person who did not intend to accuse Martin Walker of falsifying a document that is actually real, you sure worded it that way, without any prior reason other than your conspiracy-mindset, as Walker has never been accused of fraud.”
To get back to something I was going to mention before being sidetracked by Jake: I looked into Lee Silsby last Summer/Fall, and wrote my findings down in two articles, “Frankenpharma” and “Pointless, Useless and Dangerous” (“Cures” page, evilpossum.weebly.com)
This is an absolutely terrifying organization. I feel strongly that, until and unless regulators act to shut them down, they should be made the target of protests and civil disobedience.
Also, a point on the fallacy of arguing that Lee Silsby’s small size somehow places them above criticism: It is a notorious pattern in criminology that more violent offenders get less money out of their crimes. John Dillinger stole a lot more money than Bonnie and Clyde, but Bonnie and Clyde caused a lot more deaths.
Ah, and to clarify for confused bystanders, Crosby is referring to the manufactured outrage over Poul Thorsen (covered by a page at my site). I argued that a document posted at AoA was a forgery. It has very recently been confirmed as authentic by the identified source, Aarhus University. On the other hand, I am completely satisfied that the story AoA helped publicize, claiming most notably that Dr. Thorsen had “vanished”, was a hoax by one Jane Burgemeister, whose site theflucase.com is now offline.
“This is mockery…”
I am clearly aware of that, but you keep pushing a major straw man. A legitimate COI concerns a direct financial stake in the vaccine-autism debate, one held by pharmaceutical companies such as Schering-Plough, not compounding pharmacies that sell vitamins. Your analogy is bunk.
“Are you calling them liars?”
No, I’m calling them self-“diagnosed” autistic wannabees.
“As for the rest of the bit about ‘forgeries,’ I really have no idea what you’re talking about.”
You can read my first post last April and see for yourself, I also linked to it in an email exchange I had with you. It was just an example, I don’t want to open up that can of worms again. Unfortunately, I see the person who perpetuated it on Leftbrain/Rightbrain has just posted three whole comments about it and is apparently unable to let go of his conspiratorial views.
“I am completely satisfied that the story AoA helped publicize, claiming most notably that Dr. Thorsen had “vanished”, was a hoax”
If “Dr.” Thorsen really is still just “living a very public life” as you put it, then where the hell is he? And why’s $2 million missing along with him?
Correction, my second post last April.
I notice you missed the important part of Orac’s comment about this
If you have no evidence for your comment then it is just what you want to be true. Do you have any actual evidence other than it being convenient to label people as wannabes?
“I notice you missed the important part of Orac’s comment about this”
I answered his question.
Where? After you comment claiming posters here were wannabes the only comment I see addressing this is:
That is not an answer. What post was the answer in?
And I should say, I know the actual question that was asked was whether you were calling them lairs. However, in writing not everything that should be replied to has to be phrased as a question. I asked you to address the actual point that was important in that section. That was, do you have any evidence.
So do you have any evidence to back up your claim? (If you only response to writing in the form of a question)
I appologize for the spelling errors. I should have been more careful with that last one. I was just frustrated with the pedantic nature of Jake’s comment.
I called them “wannabees” because they are not diagnosed with autism, they just read some description about autism somewhere and decided to cultivate it as some new identity of theirs.
I know what you mean by wannabee Jake. I am not asking why you called them that.
I am asking if you have any evidence that they are actually not diagnosed. That was what Orac was referring to in his post as well.
You have claimed you know that some of those on here who indicate they are autistic are wannabes and not really disagnosed. It is this claim I asked you to back up. What evidence do you have that this is the case?
I know the loser who said this has no diagnosis:
“@Jake: Frankly, you’re an embarrassment to autistic people everywhere.”
And I’m pretty sure David N. Brown is self-“diagnosed,” too. He didn’t deny it when it was written on another blog that he likely was.
Joseph will have to clarify this but is he even autistic or claiming to be autistic? There is nothing in that post to indicate he is. That quote does not need to include himself in the group of “autistic people everywhere”. But even if he is autistic, how do you know he has no diagnosis? Being mean to you is not evidence they are not actually autistic.
So your evidence can be summed up as this: a guess about someone who may or may not be autistic based on some nebulous reason you have not elaborated on (no one really cares that you just “know” this is the case, that is not evidence) and someone else you claim is self-diagnosed because they did not reply to someone claiming this on another blog (which you do not link to making it impossible to verify), discounting any other possibilities, such as that they did not see the comment, or that they just did not reply.
Anyway, it is 03:30 and I am going to bed. I will read any replies tomorrow morning.
Jake,
A lesson in the rules of logic: The burden of proof is upon the one who asserts a negative. (In paleontology, the saying goes, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”) In this case, I don’t have to find Thorsen, YOU have to prove that he can’t be found. You will also have to prove that Aarhus has no record of any of the supposedly “missing” $2M being spent on actual research. In any event, the only indications of Thorsen withdrawing from public activity (which falls vastly short of “disappearance”) come from after AoA’s coverage. Thus, if he actually is a fugitive who can no longer be found, that would not validate your story; rather, it would make it an irresponsible leak that became a self-fulfilled prophecy by giving a suspect a “heads up”.
As for my diagnosis, I was diagnosed by a psychiatrist two years before anyone told me about it. I don’t recall ever discussing this in print, and I don’t consider it fitting for discussion in relation to my writings on vaccine issues.
Sell vitamins? That’s what compounding pharmacies do?
Lee Silsby website FAQ
http://www.leesilsby.com/faqs.php
Then there’s the Lee Silsby list of “recommended practitioners”
on the special Autism Resources page.
To get back to the subject of the post, and in case Jakes antics distracted from comment #64, here’s a link to the page with my little expose on Lee Silsby:
http://evilpossum.weebly.com/cures.html
As a bonus, here’s my comments on what I consider the three worst products being sold be Lee Silsby:
DMPS chelators: â¦A safety trial not only failed to lead to FDA approval, but was itself subject of a 2000 FDA complaint, which cited the manufacturer, Heyltex, for reasons including âfailure to notify FDA of serious unexpected adverse experiences… to review safety information as it is obtained⦠to list subjects who died during participation in the study and the cause ofâ death…â In 2004, Heyltex itself issued a letter urging âcautionâ in filling prescriptions for it ..
Amphotericin: After DMPS, this is (if looked up elsewhere) the most obviously dangerous product listed on Lee Silsby’s site⦠It is well-known for causing life-threatening seizures. It may also cause damage to the heart, liver and kidneys.
N-Acetylcysteine transdermal cream: This is described elsewhere as a treatment for pneumonia, TB and other respiratory diseases. Reported side effects include damage to the heart and lungs. Usage is presumably justified only against the most extreme and life-threatening infections. No legitimate application for autism treatment is conceivable.
I’d wondered why/how it was recommended. I’d only ever come across it in microbiology and pharmacology as an anti-fungal.
Reading about what is being forced on these kids makes me literally sick in the stomach.
I did read your “Age of Hypocrisy: Age of Autism’s Conflict of Interest” and “Frankenpharma” pieces earlier. I aim to read the rest when I finish some chores I’ve been putting off.
“In this case, I don’t have to find Thorsen, YOU have to prove that he can’t be found.”
You’re actually telling me to prove a negative. WOW.
Yawn, a kid with broadband and caffeine who has been told by his honesty- and science-challenged parents that he’s vaccine-damaged goods is holding court.
I suppose I’d be angry too.
Something else to consider in the matter of possibly over prescribing:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC87726/
Jake, how about proving to us that you’re autistic, instead of merely being the socially awkward, arrogant, uninformed teenager with Special Snowflake Syndrome that you sound like here?
I thought Big Tchotchkes were what he had to have to take on the anti-vaxxers.
Jake Crosby,
You are contemptible.
@Jen in TX: Good morning, Jen. Meant to reply to you last night but got caught up in family stuff.
Sorry to hear your child had pyelo but glad to hear she is recovering. It’s such a nasty illness and so painful. Glad she would take the T3 and that you were willing to give it to her. My eldest hated oral liquids (still does), so we had a heck of a time with her when she got her tonsils out and she was refusing all pain meds that were liquids.
Can’t tell you exactly when acetominophen was added to narcotics, but I can tell you that I learned about Darvocet, Vicodin, etc back in nursing school in the early 1980’s, so they were obviously patented before that time. Most prescription strength meds had higher doses of acetominophen then the OTC (although you could match it by taking more than the exact dose). I had a good friend kill herself by Tylenol OD (intentional) so I am always very cautious with dosage of it.
I grew up taking APCs for fever (aspirin, phenacetin and caffiene) since my MD grandfather gave them by the bushel to my mom (drug companies gave them to him for free, so he passed them along; I can barely recall ever seeing children’s aspirin in my house growing up. I think she had a bottle for my little sister until she could swallow the APC’s, which were huge – we called them “little green footballs”).
I can recall getting Ibuprofen and Naproxen in the 1970’s (rx only at that time, and pretty large dosage) for severe menstrual cramps, so they were around at that time. I know we gave Ibuprofen in the hospital in the 1980’s also.
Might be interesting to see if the increase in autism is related to OTC use of NSAIDs rather than acetominophen, since the time correlation is a little closer.
As for Jake: he deserves no comment.
@Jake:
Okay, then. Rather than providing evidence that they’re self-diagnosed wannabes, simply lay out what’s convinced you that this is the case.
No, you don’t know that, and such presumptuousness is very rude. I’m diagnosed to the extent that I think I need to be diagnosed, but I’m not going to explain myself to a snotty know-nothing school boy.
Additionally, I don’t believe I’ve claimed to be autistic here at RI. There’s a good reason for that. There’s always going to be the occasional asshole, e.g. Jake, who will attempt to derail discussions with the off-topic nonsense that I need to prove who and what I claim I am — a standard never required of anyone else.
We had two bottles of the recalled medication – one tylenol and one motrin. The motrin was emptied long ago, but the empty bottle was still sitting on the shelf. The tylenol was half empty, but that is because we quit using it because it was ineffective in helping Offspring the Elder feel better last week. Motrin (non-recalled bottle) worked much better, so we used that.
I’ve requested replacement coupons for each, though.
The thing to realize about Jake Crosby, folks, is that he just doesn’t care. He flies fast and loose with facts, so honesty and integrity do not seem to be really important values for him. He apparently just wants reality to be whatever he says it is.
Amphotericin?
In the non-bizarro medical world, Amphotericin is reserved only for the most resistant life-threatening systemic fungal infections. Its adverse effects are scary. There’s a reason that it’s referred to as Amphoterrible.
Why do these whack-jobs like torturing children?
In defense of AoA’s financial ties to Big Placebo, Jake Crosby wrote: âA legitimate COI concerns a direct financial stake in the vaccine-autism debate.â
It seems that Jakeâs standards vary depending on context: he also wrote that Gardiner Harris of the New York Times is âa conflicted writer posing as a legit journalistâ who has an undisclosed conflict of interest because âhis brother sells lab equipment to pharmaceutical companies.â
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/02/oh-brother-gardiner-harris-has-pharma-ties.html#more
It seems that Jakeâs either a fool or a lying weasel.
“Can’t tell you exactly when acetominophen was added to narcotics, but I can tell you that I learned about Darvocet, Vicodin, etc back in nursing school in the early 1980’s, so they were obviously patented before that time.”
My best educated guess is that it occurred around 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act was passed.
Still, I find the idea of mixing a narcotic with a high potential for addiction, with acetaminophen, that carries a high risk of liver damage to be an utterly reckless practice. I think in the early 1970’s, we didn’t know as much about the toxic effects of acetaminophen as we do today. IIRC, it was not until 1977, that labels warning of the risk of liver injury were required for acetaminophen.
As a nurse myself, I’m sympathetic to those in pain, but there has to be a better way. Autism and asthma aside, acetaminophen fries too many livers, and the current warnings are far from sufficient.
“No, you don’t know that.”
You wish.
“I’m not going to explain myself to a snotty know-nothing school boy.”
Probably because you dropped out.
“I’m diagnosed to the extent that I think I need to be diagnosed”
You are diagnosed to the extent that you think you can hijack autism as part of your own pathetic identity, tool.
@brian, direct financial stake includes family. If you were smart enough to read The Times’ own ethical guidelines, you’d have known that.
@brian
I have a post in moderation, but it links to an example of Jake not being particularly reality-conscious. Facts are only relevant if they support his worldview. If not, then the facts, not him, must be wrong.
I get the impression that Jake wants to feel special, he doesn’t want any other adult to be autistic so he can get more attention.
Selfish narcissist, is the correct assessment IMHO. And he just doesn’t know when to quit, typical inexperienced entitled child who has been told he is special by AoA one too many times. I wonder how he feels about his buddies calling person’s like him ‘damaged’?
Don’t bother Joseph, he isn’t worth your explanation.
Curiously, Jake, the NYT rejected your claims. I suppose that proves that Harris’s brother paid the owners and editors off with his pharma money. Of course, everyone who disagrees with your anti-science views must have a conflict of interest, even if that conflict of interest comes from simply having a sister who has training and experience in a technical or scientific field:
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2010/01/the_anti-vaccine_movement_strikes_back_a.php
BTW, apologies are due to members of the genus Mustela; I carelessly slimed them by association in my previous post.
“typical inexperienced entitled child”
typical inexperienced ageist bigot.
“Curiously, Jake, the NYT rejected your claims.”
Quite right, they broke their own rules.
But of course, anyone who isn’t a Jakey-cakes approved charlatan MUST be breaking the rules because that’s how it works in his bizarro land. Lo and Behold, the Tylenol et al. recall is now days old and not a peep from Age of Autism. Is your sacred cow off limits?
There must be a lot of self-hating for you Jake, snuggling up to an organisation that considers you damaged. You haven’t backed up a single claim you have made here, are stomping your feet because you aren’t a special snowflake after all, and merely opened yourself up for much-deserved mockery. You are out of your league Jake.
I have had for children. I lost one to a serious birth defect, one is autistic and my husband has Asperger’s syndrome (all diagnosed, thank you). On what basis, exactly are you making the assertion that I am inexperienced compared to you?
I was referring to your demeanor, not your age. If you are an undergrad student you are most likely less than seven years younger than me (assuming you are at least a sophomore).
Regarding your use of the word “bigot”, I will listen to you if you provide evidence of your position, rather than making unsubstantiated claims. I will revise my position when faced with evidence, as I am sure many here know.
Or maybe they are insufficiently delusional to consider that selling lab equipment represents a financial stake in whether vaccines are linked to autism.
The validity of someones autism diagnosis does not invalidate or validate their obesrvation that Jake is a negative image-model for people with autism. Please – everyone, not just Jake – refrain from using that as an excuse to dismiss peoples concerns with immature and irrational behaviour.
Jake still has not addressed Oracs mockery of Jakes’ logic. Jake doesn’t even seem to be aware – despite having it pointed out to him quite clearly – that the purpose of the mockery is to point out the absurdity of the connections Jake has derived from the content of the contextual ads (which have been explained to him multiple times) to the intent and function of the blog and the blog ‘owner’.
That he still fails to even recognise the issue and still thinks his piss-poor side tracking about the involvement of the external entities in the vaccine-autism debate is somehow a defence of his rather worryingly paranoid illogic – despite having this clearly explained to him – is relevant, is a rather clear indication that this issue is rather too much for his intellect to handle.
You clearly will not get through to this man. Yes, man, he is actually an adult despite his attitude and demonstrated lack of capability that would indicate a person who is developmentally at the level of a normal early teen.
I know. I shouldn’t let him try to get to me. And you know what’s interesting? Jake’s diagnosis has been questioned as well, simply based on things he’d written. I’m sure he was annoyed as hell about that too. (And so have the diagnoses of countless autistic people who are thought not to appear autistic enough to an arbitrary person’s satisfaction.)
I’ll leave this tangent with the following observation. Consider the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). This is one of the standard surveys used by the CDC to come up with their US autism prevalence figures. To count a child as being diagnosed with autism, they simply ask: “For each condition, please tell me if a doctor or other health care provider ever told you that [CHILD’S NAME] had the condition, even if [he/she] does not have the condition now.”
They don’t say that the child must have a formal diagnosis in writing. It’s sufficient that a health professional has said the person had the condition. That’s the CDC standard.
“Dedj,” you are least concise commenter on this blog, and probably on the internet. No one is better at at writing so much with so little – correction – NO substance whatsoever.
So, Jake tries to change the subject by demanding extraordinary evidence for a collection of ordinary claims. All for the sake of an ad hominem fallacy.
“Jake’s diagnosis has been questioned as well, simply based on things he’d written.”
Well, unlike you, I never claimed to be autistic on the basis of something that’s about as useful evidence for a diagnosis as what you’d pull out of a cereal box.
“Consider the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH)…That’s the CDC standard.”
Wrong, the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network is, NSCH is used by the HRSA, not the CDC.
Stop the nonsense, Jake, for all our sakes.
One sign of maturity is being able to admit a mistake. Jake seems unable to admit even the smallest error (contextual ads). Larger errors WRT Lee Silsby’s AoA support are completely glossed over. I believe this is due in large part to spending so much time in the echo chamber at AoA. The child (by maturity) needs to get out more.
“”Dedj,” you are least concise commenter on this blog, and probably on the internet. No one is better at at writing so much with so little – correction – NO substance whatsoever. ”
It’s rather ironic that you failed to address the susbtance of my post, instead opting to encage in exactly the behaviour my post identified.
If you have no rebuttal to the concerns identified and laid out before you, you just need to say so.
To repeatedly engage in the concerning behaviour during your responses just makes you look foolish and uninsightful.
You are my best ally when it comes to making you look foolish and petty Jake. That you continue to persist in participating in behaviour that makes you look childish, paranoid and ignorant is something only you can take the blame for.
It’s time for you to man up and stop blaming other people for your mistakes. We all see right through you.
I am quite curious if Jake has ever admitted to any of his errors. I have never seen it. From what I have seen he generally either continues to defend his mistaken point or simply ignores it and moves on. It reminds me of a person I once knew who was a bit of a pathological liar. He would constantly lie and when called on it he would ignore it and simply move on to the next lie. It was effortless, being called out did not phase him at all.
T. Bruce McNeely (#91) comments:
A few years ago, I had an acquaintance (with an autistic child) tell me that her child had been put on oral amphotericin B for “yeast” (genus not specified). I was curious about this, since nystatin has a nearly identical action and efficacy (and is cheaper), so I looked into it further.
Nystatin is used orally for fungal infections of the gastrointestinal tract (mouth to anus) because it is essentially 0% absorbed. It cannot be given systemically (IV) because it is much more toxic than amphotericin B, but since it is not absorbed, oral nystatin works well for GI tract fungal infections.
Amphotericin B, on the other hand, is less toxic than nystatin (a matter of degree, as anyone who’s ever had it or given it will agree), but more of it is absorbed from the GI tract when given orally. So, giving oral amphotericin B is not more effective than oral nystatin and it is more toxic.
I wondered about that until my friend mentioned that the practitioner prescribing the amphotericin B had told her to watch for the “Herxheimer reaction” that signified “yeast die-off”.
Well, the “Herxheimer reaction” she was told to watch for was fever, chills and muscle aches – exactly the symptoms of systemic absorption of oral amphotericin B.
As I eventually pieced it together from my friend and a couple of unsuspecting “alternative” practitioners, the “rationale” for using oral amphotericin B is as follows:
[1] “Alternative” practitioners believe that the “Herxheimer reaction” (classically seen when treating syphillis, not fungal infections) is a “good sign”, indicating “yeast die-off”.
[2] Treating with oral nystatin rarely – if ever – caused a “Herxheimer reaction”, leading the “alternative” practitioners to believe that nystatin wasn’t effective.
[3] Switching to amphotericin B – which has the same mechanism of action as nystatin (and is arguably less powerful than nystatin) – did yield the desired “Herxheimer reaction. This led the “alternative” practitioners to believe that it was more effective than nystatin at treating “yeast”.
In reality, it appears that the “alternative” practitioners – who are often rather unsophisticated in their understanding of pharmaceuticals in general – mistook a drug reaction for “yeast die-off” and are prescribing a drug that is less effective, more toxic and more expensive.
Prometheus
Poor, deluded Joseph, did not bother to read that at the top of the document from the first link in his google search was the name of the HRSA. I will say it again: NCSH is used as the standard by the HRSA, not the CDC. My point stands.
There are so many posts to the Age of Autism blog which are very thinly veiled advertisements. “Win so and so’s book”. “Win some B12 lollypops”. “Look, I apply an industrial chelator to my kids, you should too!”
It is quite evident that AoA has been influenced by their advertisers.
The problem with the Age of Autism and the organizations they represent goes even further. They will not distance themselves from even the worst of the junk science nor the bad doctors.
Consider this–a doctor who thinks injecting children with urine is a good idea. Hmmm. Pretty obvious to even the most casual of observers that something is wrong there. Nope. AoA and Generation Rescue promote him.
I have yet to see AoA correct any of their vast number of mistakes. Perhaps if they would explain exactly why Generation Rescue pulled their pages on Desree Jennings, rather than quietly letting that slide? But, how can they? That would mean distancing themselves from sending her to a doctor who…injects children with urine.
I wonder how many of the same people condemn the misuse of antibiotics in conventional medicine and agriculture.
In my field we make testing products, and in doing so we often have to weigh the impact of a false positive against a false negative. For instance, for the flu a false positive is better than a false negative because the consequence is that the patient will go home, rest and avoid other people. For bacterial tests, a false positive is worse than a false negative because the patient will be prescribed unnecessary antibiotics.
What does this have to do with anything? I bring it up because of the accusations of “faking autism” made by Jake (one of the gnarliest trolls I’ve seen lately) above. The consequence of allowing someone to identify a certain way is far less than the consequence of falsely accusing someone of faking a serious disorder. Same with sexual orientation.
I used to get in people’s faces about stuff like that: “you’re just doing this for attention”, etc. But that’s their problem, not mine, and given that autism is a spectrum, why not err on the side of caution?
“I am quite curious if Jake has ever admitted to any of his errors. I have never seen it”
I doubt it.
Even in my last major discussion with Jake here, I deliberately and explicitly stuck to only the sources he provided or thier primary sources (and told him so). Somehow, after indicating that he had no effective knowledge of applicable clinical terms, no effective understanding of specific presentation of symptoms, and that his sources were often non-compatible or contradictory to his claims, all of a sudden my sources were cheap crap derived from basic google searches. Yes, he was willing to snipe at the quality of the sources in order to ‘win’, even after being directly informed of the nature of the sources.
He even tried to argue a organisation based in Tokyo with a Japanese webaddress and a Tokyo postal address was actually an American organisation, although he never got around to saying why this was relevant at all.
I’d rather not continue, Jake has already indicated elsewhere that he may be saving these discussions to disk. There has already been an incident where he used a quote from a unreleated discussion from last year (if not 2008) out of context on another website in an effort to ‘prove’ an accusation of trolling.
@MikeMa:
Speak for yourself, especially for someone whose main activities on the internet is to comment at this online playhouse hosted by a middle-aged guy who uses an image of what resembles a child’s toy to represent himself.
“Dedj” said:
“It’s rather ironic that you failed to address the susbtance of my post”
Because there is no substance in your post, “Dedj.” Nothing you say is backed up by anything. Best to work on replacing those pretentious circumlocutions with facts.
It does not stand at all. It’s not even sitting down. It’s lying, face down, I think. Once again, it is demonstrated that you just can’t admit to making a mistake, Jake.
In the end “why” the Age of Autism and other group give out incredibly bad information is far second to the fact that they do, in fact, give out incredibly bad information.
Are they influenced by their sponsors? Yes. Clearly. The infomercials on their site are clear evidence of that.
Would they still give out much the same message without those sponsors? My assumption is the answer is yes.
Would they shill for their sponsors as much? Probably not.
“It does not stand at all. It’s not even sitting down. It’s lying, face down, I think. Once again, it is demonstrated that you just can’t admit to making a mistake, Jake.”
Oh dear, someone is trying so hard to find a mistake in something I wrote. It must be difficult being wrong all the time, but I was referring to the present tense. That link you gave is from four years ago.
“Because there is no substance in your post, “Dedj.” Nothing you say is backed up by anything. Best to work on replacing those pretentious circumlocutions with facts.”
Wrong again. You must be getting tired of being wrong. Although you’re most likely used to it by now.
I pointed out that you have misunderstood the nature of the criticism of your illogical and irrational conclusion that people who have pharma-ads on thier websites are therefore self-evidently pharma-shills. You misunderstood and thought the specific identity of the entities was a sufficient defence of your crass and repeatedly corrected misunderstanding of how internet ads work.
This is the very core of the discussion, Jake, hardly ‘lacking in substance’.
If you can’t answer the concerns, then don’t. But don’t think you can bluff your way out of this by pretending the concerns aren’t there.
And deeper and deeper down the hole he goes. You STILL can’t offer a rebuttal of the counter claims can you? Instead you have to try and disparage the blog author, whom incidentally is an NIH-funded scientist/physician. But maybe that is what you have such an inferiority complex about aye wee history major?
In fact, you are wrong so much, I would almost say I made a mistake to satisfy your desperate wish simply because I feel sorry for you.
Joseph, it is, in fact, pushing up the daisies. Both agencies are listed on the cover page of the survey script (which is the first link I get in the Google search link). Reading downward, the OMB information, a crucial part of any Federal survey, refers inquiries to the CDC/ATSDR Reports Clearance Officer. The survey script identifies surveyers as calling on behalf of CDC.
Say it all you like, Jake. Scream it from the rooftops. doesn’t make you any less wrong, and stamping your little foot doesn’t make your comments cogent or coherent.
“I pointed out that you have misunderstood the nature of the criticism of your illogical and irrational conclusion that people who have pharma-ads on thier websites are therefore self-evidently pharma-shills.”
I never stated that individual people, not “Orac,” or anyone else on this site, had a specific COI, much less a pharma shill. I was referring to the website itself as being in conflict. Comprehend what I say next time, otherwise you’re just wasting my time.
I was confused my Jake’s comments about that document as well Landru. It does indeed list HRSA but CDC is right there as well, right under that.
As for Jake’s last few posts, wow, they are getting pathetic. Screaming, petty, angry and totally disconnected from what people are saying.
You are a child Jake. Grow up.
Yes, yes, Jake. Four years ago. The current (2007) survey instrument?
ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/slaits/nsch07/1a_Survey_Instrument_English/NSCH_Questionnaire_052109.pdf
Scroll down to the third page. Same instructions–“calling on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
I’ll look forward to the next edition of how you didn’t say what you said. Buh-bye.
“pathetic. Screaming, petty, angry and totally disconnected from what people are saying.”
You sum up yourself, perfectly.
Ooh. Look, Jake, here’s how it’s done:
I’m terribly sorry. I badly failed on the link in my last post. I should have done something more like this (I hope). And if I failed again, I apologize for that in advance.
Folks, best to just ignore Jake from now on. He wouldn’t know a fact if it walked up to him, introduced itself and bought him a lolly. Truth is whatever he (or his idol, Mr. Handley) says it is. When it’s pointed out that he is wrong, he ignores it and moves on if he can or resorts to ad hominems and insults if he can’t. He has absolutely no interest in constructive discussion, and he most certainly will not change his mind, no matter how much evidence is presented to show him that he is wrong.
“I never stated that individual people, not “Orac,” or anyone else on this site, had a specific COI, much less a pharma shill. I was referring to the website itself as being in conflict. Comprehend what I say next time, otherwise you’re just wasting my time.”
Again, utterly wrong. Even if it is true that you have never openly declared so, it does not mean that you have never tried to imply it.
Even your post at 12 you heavily imply that Orac was directly influenced by the inclusion of a pharma ad.
Nice try, Jake, but for you to state that you have never even tried to imply this is in direct conflict with your posts here. Don’t pull that shit here because it doesn’t fly.
You most definetly have a posting history that indicates you believe Orac is being unduly influenced by the inclusion of pharma ads wheter you want to pretend Orac and ‘this website’ are functionally seperate (a ridiculous proposition by itself) or not.
If you honestly believe what you say, then you have a very severe problem with getting your point across to people. As this thread indicates, I am far from the only person who thinks you are saying what I think you’re saying.
You have only yourself to blame for your imprecise and muddled writing. I suspect you’ll find someone else to blame for that too.
“CDC’s most recent data show that between 1 in 80 and 1 in 240 children with an average of 1 in 110 have an ASD. This is a prevalence of about 1% of children.”
New data shows an average of 1 in 110 children have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
The recent results reflect data collected by CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network in multiple communities throughout the U.S. in 2006.
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/CountingAutism/
Note that this is from 2006, they would not be calling it the most “recent CDC data” if they counted the 2007 HRSA survey in that category, too.
Wow. Jake’s devolved to rubber and glue. Awesome. Next up: Kill Piggy!
As much as I’d like to extend my lunch to watch the train continue to derail…I’ll pass.
And even if it were true that Jake has never implied any person is a pharma-shill, it still does not excuse his illogic in his defence of the Silsby ad.
“it does not mean that you have never tried to imply it.”
Omg, “Dedj” is now trying to debunk things I never said because he can’t debunk things I actually said. How sad.
“Even your post at 12 you heavily imply that Orac was directly influenced by the inclusion of a pharma ad.”
To give you a dose of “Dr. Orac’s” own medicine, “you are seriously sarcasm-challenged, aren’t you?” I was being facetious!
“Don’t pull that shit here because it doesn’t fly.”
ooooo, tough guy.
“You most definetly have a posting history that indicates you believe Orac is being unduly influenced by the inclusion of pharma ads”
Uh…no I don’t.
“As this thread indicates, I am far from the only person who thinks you are saying what I think you’re saying.”
Which doesn’t say much, if anything, at all.
Jake, you can pretend all you want, but your posting history here clearly indicates that you believe the bloggers on science blogs are being unduly influenced by the inclusion of pharma ads.
Why you continue to deny this when you have even implied it as a motivation for the alledged censoring of a scienceblogger, and have implied it as an alledged motivation for the pro-vaccine content here, is utterly beyond your ability to explain.
Pretending you’ve never tried to imply that science bloggers are being unduly influenced it utterly in contradication to both the content of your AoA and ResIns postings.
That is the last word that can be said here. You can carry on pretending you haven’t tried to play the pharma-shill gambit all you want, but a simple google search shows otherwise.
Interesting, you’ve still never addressed the contradiction between attacking Seed Media and defending the AoA Silsby ad.
That is the core of this discussion. That you persistantly fail to properly address it is no longer amusing. Your persistance in arguing that I have somehow misunderstood your words (when the failure to make them clear is yours and yours alone) despite the very evident fact that I’m far from the only one that has read your posts that way, only serves to illustrate the validity of the concern that you are incapable of identifying and admitting to error.
You will address the concerns and stop your childish sniping. You have been caught behaving like this before, and have been repeatedly shown up and embarrased about it before.
Shape up or fuck off.
Are you sure that you comprehend what a conflict of interest is? How can the website have a COI without the author of the website having a COI? Do you imagine that the site writes itself? Or are you just trying to dodge responsibility for what you wrote?
trrll,
I thought the same thing. How can a website have a conflict of interest. It is not a sentient being.
But, wait, isn’t Orac a sentient computer?!?
#12
Still no Claritin ads here for me! *pout*
…and why aren’t you blogging about “Alex’s Hollywood Workout” and getting ripped in 4 wks?
@#140
Should read ” and Orac, why aren’t you blogging about “Alex’s Hollywood Workout” and getting ripped in 4 wks?
“Do you imagine that the site writes itself?”
No, but “Science”Blogs only hosts bloggers with a particular bias on this issue, and that bias is in line with their sponsors.
So scienceblogs is biased towards Red Roof Inns and Dodge vehicles? Because those are the ads I’m getting now.
Yeah…just like when all those creationist/ID ads swamp the Pharyngula site.
Because Dodge Motor Company? Seriously biased. And let’s not even go into Red Roof Inn. We all know what they think.
*sigh* Honestly, I don’t get much pleasure from debating Jake, because the echo chamber of AoA has left him with a dearth of skills for being challenged. His rhetoric is heavy-handed, his ability to structure a debate is weak and his vocabulary, well, I always think of the Princess Bridge. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Wait…I just had a peek at the ads showing at Pharyngula….and it’s the same ad I’m getting here…it’s…there’s a conspiracy to get me “ripped”.
“You most definetly have a posting history that indicates you believe Orac is being unduly influenced by the inclusion of pharma ads”
Uh…no I don’t.”
Uh, yes you do.
“There are ties to other major drug companies, too. Several drug ads have been found on âScienceâBlogs. One of them was for Lunesta, a sleeping pill made by the company Sepracor, which signed a deal allowing GlaxoSmithKline to sell the drug in Europe. Other ads include those for drugs made by AstraZeneca, makers of the flu shot: âFluMist,â and an ad for Valtrex, which is made by GlaxoSmithKline, makers of MMR and vaccines that have contained mercury preservative thimerosal. There is another ad for the psychotropic drug Concerta for treating ADHD and is made by Ortho-McNeil-Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson which also made the RhoGam immunoglobulin that contained the thimerosal preservative.”
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/scienceblogs-seed-medias-aggressive-weed.html
Your words, Jake. Own them.
My understanding on why acetaminophen and ibuprofen and aspirin were tied to opiates is two-fold. One was to allow people to use less opiate and one was to make it more challenging for people to abuse the drugs for doing things like injecting them IV. I don’t have a citation. I want to say I learned that in my state-mandated course on pain management, but I could be wrong. I’m not saying that these courses of action were correct, only that was the reasoning.
One last try, Jake.
I asked you some questions last night in posts 58 and 60. I doubt if I rate as high on the commenter significance scale here as orac, Todd W, David N Brown, T Bruce McNeeley, prometheus or many others. So, perhaps that is why you have ignored them in your many comments since then (starting with #66 only 2 hours later).
But, if you are interested in a genuine discussion and not just simple name calling, you too’s, and miscellaneous ad hominem attacks; perhaps you would care to answer one or two of them. I have noticed since then that you write for AoA so you need not answer that one.
I’m getting Dodge, too, as well as Claritin and something from GE. Yesterday it was Tracphone. But Jake’s page on AoA still has Lee Silsby at the top, front and center.
At least your sponsor is consistent, Jake.
Johnson and Johnson….Thoughtful House…the plot thickens!
Doubletree Inn and Michelin Damn Big Hotel and Tire shills. 🙂
Even if it is true that Jake has not identified any individual explicitly as a ‘pharma-shill’, the link provided by Jen in Tx, as well as additional snide comments by Jake on this blog that he wishes to deny or explain away as ‘sarcastic’, does indicate that Jake believes scienceblogs has been unduly influenced by the fact that it has pharma ads.
To attempt to seperate the blog collective from it’s bloggers whilst still asserting the content and setting of the blog collective is unduly influenced by pharma ads is – as others have pointed out – a bit stupid.
The core concern – that people like Jake are holding two or more seperate organisatation to two differing standards regarding the meaning and weight behind who their advertisers are – still stands unaddressed by Jake, except for a half hearted effort at asserting difference in size negates any possibility of influence – an assertion he has already been repeatedly corrected on. You can bet an advert from a small pharma company would still be included under his logic.
Jake has been fully and repeatedly informed of this concern. His pedantic sidetraking on particular individuals is tiresome and does not address the core concern.
Jake will probably comb several different dictionaries trying to argue that this post is wrong because my use of ‘undue influence’ conflicts with a minor definition in one of his. He has been known to argue from dictionary definition before.
“Your words, Jake. Own them.”
Words alleging the conflict of “Science”Blogs, not individual “Science”Bloggers.
“Is AoA not “a vested party in the vaccine-autism debate”?”
AoA takes a position, but we are not a vested party.
This is too funny…
“as well as additional snide comments by Jake on this blog”
Poor baby, did I hurt your feelings?
“does indicate that Jake believes scienceblogs has been unduly influenced by the fact that it has pharma ads.”
Which is not the same as claiming there are conflicts of individual people, not that you would know the difference.
“To attempt to seperate the blog collective from it’s bloggers whilst still asserting the content and setting of the blog collective is unduly influenced by pharma ads is – as others have pointed out – a bit stupid.”
You have to admit, when a pretentious blowhard like yourself merely responds to an argument by calling it “stupid,” you’ve pretty much lost.
“The core concern – that people like Jake are holding two or more seperate organisatation to two differing standards regarding the meaning and weight behind who their advertisers are”
Dun-dun-dunnn…advertisers of this blog have a direct stake in the vaccine debate, advertisers on Age of Autism do not. You’ve been “fully and repeatedly informed of this.”
“Jake has been fully and repeatedly informed of this concern.”
I “fully and repeatedly” have been informed of nothing by your substance-free rants.
“He has been known to argue from dictionary definition before.”
Watch out! He’s got a Webster! Run away! Run away!!!
Dodge and Red Roof Inn have a direct stake in the vaccine “debate?” What do they have to do with it?
So Age of Autism discusses the “vaccine debate” exclusively? They don’t discuss any autism topics, such as alternative treatments for autism? How are they not conflicted when they touch on anything alt-med?
That’s ridiculous, either way. The “vaccine debate” and autism quackery go hand in hand. This is easily demonstrated by simply looking at the views of DAN! doctors or by attending any “biomed” conference.
Additionally, the fact remains that AoA posts infomercials from time to time. This is qualitatively different to the alleged “conflict” posed by contextual ads that bloggers have no control over.
Jake, the bloggers in a blog collective produce and moniter the output of the blog collective, thus if you insinuate the blog collective is being unduly influenced by pharma ads, you are indirectly asserting that the bloggers themselves are being unduly influenced. This has been made clear to you. Your recognition of the full nature of what you are saying to this has been minimal.
Your pedantic semantic hiding behind claims of ‘not identifying individuals’ is pure lawyering of what you have said in the past. That you are not aware of the full meaning of your accusations and what would be required for them to be true is your fault, and is in no way a defence.
That you STILL don’t get what the core concerns with the logic raised in the OP actually are is not reflecting very well on you.
Also some advice – when people state or imply that you’re acting like a immature ass, don’t respond with a post with immature comments in it. You make an ass of yourself when you tired to pull this stunt over at LB/RB, it would be foolish of you to try to pull the same stunt again.
“Dun-dun-dunnn…advertisers of this blog have a direct stake in the vaccine debate, advertisers on Age of Autism do not. You’ve been “fully and repeatedly informed of this.””
And you have been repeatedly informed that this is not relevant to the core concern! You have been openly told this! I’ve even clearly told you this myself.
So here it is again:
It is the logic of the claims, not just the identity of the external entities concerned, that is the core concern. You keep making a fool of yourself by not recognising this, despite being told again and again.
The responses that you have just given have already been addressed as irrelevant or incorrect by other posters above. None of which have been competantly or rationally addressed by you.
Try to actually read the responses that people make to you Jake. That way you’ll be less likely to repeat things people have already pointed out are wrong.
Late to the game of name-the-ads, but anyway, in the span of a last few refreshes I saw a money trading ad and a couple ads conveniently translated into my language – one for an IQ test and another for some sort of fortune telling.
Wait a minute….. Orac, are you planning to lure me into thinking that I’m smart AND lucky THEN rip me off in the currency trade? How could you!?
Jake,
For the benefit of those who have lost track of your position (like me), would you please succinctly describe your allegations of “conflict of interest”? Specifically, could you state who has the conflict of interest and what evidence you have that supports your allegation?
I have to admit that my first take was that you were claiming that Orac had a conflict of interest based on pharmaceutical advertisements in the “doubleclick ads” boxes in the margin and the header of this ‘blog. Since then, however, you have stated that you are not accusing Orac of conflict of interest. This has left me confused about your true position.
I would appreciate if you would take the time to briefly and concisely restate your position in this matter and any evidence you have to support it. I suspect that I am not the only person who is unclear about who you are accusing and what exactly you are accusing them of.
Prometheus
#142 Jake Crosby
#154 Jake Crosby
#155 Jake Crosby
Honestly, are there two Jake Crosbys posting?
If I were you Jake,I’d give up attempting rhetorical gymnastics. You’re hurting yourself in your falls.
ps. Having said that, I do think you’re much more fun to play with than that Sid Offit 🙂
For that to be any other way, SB would have to host bloggers who are primarily or entirely non-scientists, you know, like AoA.
“If I were you Jake,I’d give up attempting rhetorical gymnastics. You’re hurting yourself in your falls.”
It is rather annoying that even Jake doesn’t seem aware of the full meaning of what he is claiming. He honestly believes that not making a single explicit statement somehow means he hasn’t indicated that he holds a composite viewpoint.
Whereas this IS a archetypally autistic thing to do, he has shown capability to understand gestalt arguements.
So you’re saying that no person or organization with an interest in autism treatments, autism-related lawsuits or autism-related organizations pays any money to fund AoA whatsoever? Besides Lee Silsby, of course.
Let me put this as concisely as I can, so I won’t waste more of my precious time responding to you all.
Age of Autism has no vested interest in the vaccine-autism debate, and COIs alleged from AoA or others are made exclusively from within the context of that debate. So the attempted analogy to AoA’s endorsement of certain treatments being allegedly due to a compounding pharmacy’s co-sponsorship along with some autism groups – already by itself a canard – is not apt.
Um, Jake, do Dan Olmsted and David Kirby spew ridiculous antivax nonsense out of the goodness of their hearts, or do they hope to be compensated (directly or perhaps indirectly, via, say, sales of past or present literary efforts)?
Brian,
I’ll give even AoA the benefit of a doubt on the issue of motive. It’s long been my observation that those who commit fraud typically appear to sincerely believe in what they try to “prove”, and have relatively little to gain compared to the resources invested and risks taken. That’s the most fundamental reason I can offer to reject the “pharma shill” gambit (or its “reverse”).
Jake,
You state: “I never stated that individual people, not “Orac,” or anyone else on this site, had a specific COI, much less a pharma shill.”
Very amusing. What about this comment you let appear at AoA about me (except, the nutjob got the impression I was Kevin Leitch): “I don’t hate to say this but…that REALLY sounds like a person with some sort of financial issues (like Big Pharma paychecks)… The “theological” interest he claims is a ploy often used by con artists who want people to trust them so they make statements such as “I am religious and go to church all the time” in order to misled others into believing that they live by “good principals”. ”
By allowing this libelous comment through, without comment or correction, you effectively implied full approval and assumed full responsibility for this nutjob’s statements, so I could sue you for libel (if I could find somebody to pay for a lawyer). So, why not stop censoring comments? At least then you have plausible deniability.
I don’t moderate comments, and your name is not even in the article. No one in their right mind will waste any money contributing to your totally groundless lawsuit anyway, especially after reading your last post to Leftbrain/Rightbrain.
Jake,
Who does do the moderation, then? AoA appears to be very heavily moderated; I’ve had several comments fail to appear when I’ve tried to contribute.
My posts are always deferential and polite. My only crime is to question some of the assertions made by either the author of the article or other commenters.
Are AoA moderators afraid of polite dissent?
Jake,
Saying my name is “not even in the article” is a laughable defense. In fact, since you very directly cited my work, your failure to give “credit” could be considered plagiarism. As for your explanation, I find it grossly at odds with statements at AoA that comments appear on approval BY THE AUTHOR. Furthermore, you have grossly misrepresented my articles, in such a way to suggest (wrongly) that AoA actually has grounds for some kind of legal action against me. My only goal in working on developing a legal claim is to force you and your superiors to admit otherwise, and also to drive home that when your ridiculous “moderation” policies are used to prevent timely corrections, you set yourselves up for libel lawsuits.
David,
I spared you considerable humiliation by making you anonymous and directing my article more at Kevin Leitch, whom you are not particularly fond of from what I gather. I cut you some slack, just like how Dan Olmsted cut you some slack when he warned Leftbrain/Rightbrain that what you wrote did constitute as libel instead of taking immediate legal action. That you call my leaving your name out “plagiarism” is unfair, and shows just how ungrateful you are when people bend over backwards for you.
I would say I did more than my fair share of attributing your quotes to the proper source, given that screen-shots of the deleted thread they were excerpted from are posted on AoA. However, if I were you I would not want my name anywhere near attribution of authorship to such an absurd post like the one you wrote; it would be extremely embarrassing. That you would actually want to be given “credit” for writing something like this shows just what a warped view of reality you have.
And no, I don’t moderate comments.
Ha.
Ha ha.
Ha ha ha.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I’m sorry–hahahahahahaha–I just couldn’t get past that statement. It’s so damned funny. Almost made me spew my morning coffee all over my computer screen, it did!
AoA doesn’t have a vested interest in the vaccine-autism debate? Did you ever consider a career in standup? After all, AoA wouldn’t even exist were it not for the vaccine-autism manufactroversy, and its writers do everything they can to keep that manufactroversy alive because they really, really believe, against all existing solid science, against all reason, that vaccines cause autism.
AoA has an emotional interest in the vaccine-autism manufactroversy, a near-religious devotion to it. It also has a financial interest because the myth that vaccines cause autism drives a lot of dubious “biomedical” treatments, which Lee Silsby and other advertisers are more than happy to sell you. That you can’t see something as basic as that tells me a lot about you. Seriously, you need to get out of there; it’s going to come back and bite you in the end. You’re still young and have your whole life ahead of you.
Jake,
“And no, I don’t moderate comments.”
Yeah, you said that already.
Who does?
“After all, AoA wouldn’t even exist”
Like how your blog wouldn’t exist?
“were it not for the vaccine-autism manufactroversy”
The only thing about this controversy that’s manufactured is all that tobacco science cranked out to exonerate mercury in vaccines, as well as the witch hunt against Andrew Wakefield.
“they really, really believe, against all existing solid science, against all reason”
You wish! All that “solid science” and “reason” is nothing but pure tobacco science! Real science shows vaccines cause autism! More scientists have done studies showing a link between vaccines and autism than those who did that handful of tobacco science you peddle that gets repeated in the popular press!
“because the myth that vaccines cause autism drives a lot of dubious “biomedical” treatments, which Lee Silsby and other advertisers are more than happy to sell you.”
I’ve been taking what one would consider “biomedical” treatments for over 14 years now. If you knew something about autism, you’d have known that. Too bad you’re not a real scientist like you say you are.
“That you can’t see something as basic as that tells me a lot about you. Seriously, you need to get out of there; it’s going to come back and bite you in the end. You’re still young and have your whole life ahead of you.”
And all this begging you’re doing in place of “scientific reasoning” tells me something about you and your own confidence in your views.
“Yeah, you said that already.
Who does?”
Kim does.
Jake said, “The only thing about this controversy that’s manufactured is all that tobacco science cranked out to exonerate mercury in vaccines, as well as the witch hunt against Andrew Wakefield.”
The black helicopter. It’s hovering over you. And silently. It can detect movement so as you are polishing Wakefield’s apple, go slow. A true fanboy can take his time and do it right. You’re a good boy. Poisoned by the pilot of that black helicopter, but still a good boy.
@Jeff Keogh
If you wish to have your comments on Age of Autism see the light of day, you are more than welcome to copy them over to Silenced by Age of Autism. If I don’t have a thread up for the article you’re commenting on, just shoot me an e-mail and I will create one.
@Jake
I have some advice for you. You’re still in college, which means that what you say and do online can have a very significant effect on your future career options. Your repeated errors of fact (see the link I provided earlier for one example) coupled with your use of insults, ad hominems, etc., do not reflect well on you. When you apply for jobs, prospective employers may come across some unflattering material that you wrote and decide that you are not right for their office. You can still change your ways. While JB Handley may be able to get away with such behavior because he has the resources to more or less avoid tanking his career, you don’t. Turn yourself around, or you may find yourself limited in your employment options.
Jake,
Seriously, you sound like a fool when you try to engage the real scientists on this site.
Why don’t you take your own advice:
And leave the science to the people who have studied it their whole lives.
@ 177 – This blog’s archives are as open to you as they are to anyone else. If you bothered to look, you’d see that vaccines are not a common topic at all in the early years. This blog had (and still has) plenty of subject matter without anti-vaccinationists to kick around.
Knowing what dubious ‘biomed’ treatments you have been indulging in isn’t a metric for scientific acumen; it’s a matter for a medical intuit or shotgun medicine practitioners. You know, like what DAN!s do.
More scientists with ‘real science’ shows vaccines cause autism? Really? Which scientists and what studies? And AoA has no investment in the vaccine-autism link? I think your slip is showing there Jake.
I know you think your comparison of vaccine science to tobacco studies is clever Jake, but you aren’t and are obviously clueless about the depth of the studies involving health risks from tobacco use and what the ultimate consensus is and why. Since you bring this up at every opportunity, I think it is only apt that organisations like AoA and GenRes and their contributors be likened to the early, sloppy silicone breast implant science:
BIG FAKE BOOBS!
It’s unfortunate to witness the extent to which the young man is divorced from reality.
Who does?”
Kim does.
Jake, are you telling us you’re contributing to a blog where you don’t have the right to moderate or not moderate comments on your own posts? If you’d have any modicum of self respect you’d be spending the 30 sec it takes to set up your own site.
Mu,
Jake’s self-respect, indeed his entire self-image seems tied to AoA. Very sad.
“Kim does.”
Thanks Jake.
Tylenol recall followup:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050403950.html
The division of Johnson & Johnson that has recalled 43 types of over-the-counter medicine for infants and children received complaints from the public about the products a year ago but failed to properly follow up, according to federal investigators.
In addition, the company knew that raw materials used to make children’s and infants’ Tylenol were contaminated with “organisms” but allowed those contaminants into the finished product, investigators found.
Honest mistakes I can forgive, but this is clear negligence and deliberate cover-up. Shame on you, J&J.
More bad news for acetaminophen–more evidence linking it to asthma.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Handy-drug-paracetamol-can-cause-asthma–study/614665
@173: “I cut you some slack, just like how Dan Olmsted cut you some slack when he warned Leftbrain/Rightbrain that what you wrote did constitute as libel instead of taking immediate legal action.”
Since Jake obviously has no interest in discussion (as opposed to insults and empty threats), I will address this comment to other readers at RI: This is a striking demonstration of the emptiness of threats made against me. No court, at least in US jurisdictions, would have allowed Dan Olmsted to take “immediate legal action”. He would have been required to ask me and/or LBRB to withdraw or correct the material first. He would also have had to prove the document was authentic beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, I can prove that any legitimate grievance by AoA was resolved almost two months ago, yet Jake Crosby is still trolling along with aspersions against me and especially other bloggers. So, I strongly suggest a) banning jake Crosby from RI and b) assuming every threat of litigation by an anti-vax group is as worthless as Olmsted’s threat against me.
Also of interest:
Jake: “I don’t moderate comments…”
AoA: “Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.”
One of these statements is a lie. I’m actually giving Jake the benefit of a doubt.
“It’s unfortunate to witness the extent to which the young man is divorced from reality.”
Yeah, sure Mr. I’m autistic but don’t have a diagnosis but think I can made grandiose statements to people who do like “you’re an embarrassment to autistic people everywhere.” Sure.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the statement is true for everyone there except Jake.
“I have some advice for you. You’re still in college, which means that what you say and do online can have a very significant effect on your future career options. Your repeated errors of fact (see the link I provided earlier for one example) coupled with your use of insults, ad hominems, etc., do not reflect well on you. When you apply for jobs, prospective employers may come across some unflattering material that you wrote and decide that you are not right for their office. You can still change your ways. While JB Handley may be able to get away with such behavior because he has the resources to more or less avoid tanking his career, you don’t. Turn yourself around, or you may find yourself limited in your employment options.”
So, money is all that matters and the drug industry really does have considerable influence over every aspect of society after all? Good to know your true motives, as well as giving the full scope of just how powerful the most powerful industrial lobby in the country has become.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if the statement is true for everyone there except Jake.”
Actually, Kim does most of the comment moderating, and whenever a sketchy comment goes through, authors are typically warned in advance. That’s what is meant by author approval.
Jake, my sister has an official diagnosis of Asperger’s from 1994, as soon as it became a diagnosis. She thinks you’re full of crap. Is she allowed to say this?
“No court, at least in US jurisdictions, would have allowed Dan Olmsted to take “immediate legal action”.”
Sure David, I can already tell you are a REAL legal expert on libel.
“Furthermore, I can prove that any legitimate grievance by AoA was resolved almost two months ago, yet Jake Crosby is still trolling along with aspersions against me”
There was absolutely nothing posted about you on this thread until you started posting comment after comment going on about it.
“So, I strongly suggest a) banning jake Crosby from RI”
That would pretty be hypocritical, right? I mean, given that most of the people here whine about not being able to troll AoA, kicking some off this blog for trolling – run by a troll no less – would be pure projection. Although, here people just verbally abuse anyone who disagrees with whatever the featured post says, as if it isn’t already hypocritical enough that this blog actively promotes censorship of critics of the drug industry in mainstream media.
Call me an opponent of free speech, but I’d pick a moderated blog committed to level-headed discussion than one overrun by drivel like “Science”Blogs any day.
“One of these statements is a lie.”
David, you live in a paranoid world.
“Jake, my sister has an official diagnosis of Asperger’s from 1994, as soon as it became a diagnosis. She thinks you’re full of crap. Is she allowed to say this?”
On AoA? Probably not, but do send my kind regards back to her.
Well, not all your critics are self-diagnosed. (And for the record, I’m not autistic at all. Self-diagnosed or otherwise.)
And AoA doesn’t allow “level-headed discussion” because there is no discussion of everyone agrees with one another. It’s an echo chamber.
OH, and the conspiracies you believe in make your world far more paranoid than David’s.
“So, money is all that matters and the drug industry really does have considerable influence over every aspect of society after all?”
That’s very clearly not what was said or implied. That interpretation is not only in direct conflict with the express wording of the comment, but would also be a very hard push to justify attributing the implied value system to the comment authour.
Unless your payments from AoA are sufficient to justify staying with them after qualification (assuming you qualify) you will need to look for another job. Potential employers will google your posts, especially as you’re likely to put your AoA experience on your CV. They will definetly not like the vasy majority of what they read, unless they have a vested interest in accepting a person with your bias.
If AoA aren’t paying you at least a nominal sum, despite you being a major contributor and token figure head, then you’re a lot more niaive than first thought.
I warned you about how paranoid you make yourself look before. For your own best interests, it is best if you cease from making paranoid style statements, even in jest.
I realise seeing ourselves as others do is hard for people on the spectrum, but you show no sign of any insight into how your posts read. This have been pointed out to you multiple times, yet no evidence of any attempt to self-moderate or self-check is apparent.
“There was absolutely nothing posted about you on this thread until you started posting comment after comment going on about it.”
He was clearly referencing your AoA postings.
I mean, the fact that there was no mention of the incident in this thread until Mr Brown mentioned it should have been a massive clue that he was talking about your AoA postings.
Why is this thread full of people having to point out very basic things to you? Why is this the end result of most threads you’re in? Why do you repeatedly come across as having no clue what anyone is talking about, despite it being quite obvious to everyone else?
Does it give you some sort of kick to be shown up in this way? You have the habit of saying that you’re going to blow this joint and be gone from it forever, yet you keep going back to your old warring grounds. How much self-esteem must a person lack to be willing to put themselves up before the sort of public-humiliation that you willingly and apparently willfully put yourself through on a regular basis?
When I was Jake’s age, even younger (and I’m talking no www back then) I would use my full actual name to post stuff on the internet. There’s some silly immature nonsense out there for potential clients/employers to find. You don’t think ahead 10 or 20 years when you’re writing that kind of stuff. It would’ve been much better to be pseudonymous right from the beginning.
Jake,
I know that you believe you are being a brave warrior for a cause that you are sure is correct. And you know this because people you trust have told you it is so, and also because you have checked out all the links that they have provided you.
I’m going to suggest something, something I also suggested to Dr. Jay earlier today. Why don’t you spend a little time and read through the transcripts of the Autism Omnibus proceedings. I’d particularly recommend the Cedillo case, but the other two (Hazelhurst and Snyder) are also very much worth reading. You are going to find them totally absorbing reading.
At first you are going to feel like Elizabeth in “Pride and Prejudice” when she reads the letter from Darcy, but just try to make it through the whole transcript and then let it settle for a few days.
I’d be very interested to see what you think – honestly, I would. You are a very intelligent young man – I’d value your honest comments.
Joseph, I know that you mean. I am pained to look my name up sometimes. At least there is an electronic musician who shares it, that helps deflect some of the embarrassment. I wish I was more anonymous online when I was younger. However I am still pretty easy to figure out on here, a visit to my website combined with a quick internet search based on the content would probably give anyone the required info to contact me, to trace back any postings to the real person.
Jake,
Isn’t it the least bit ironic that you and JB can come to RI and LBRB and speak freely? Have you considered why AoA won’t allow the same open dialog? You hang with chicken shits.
“So, money is all that matters and the drug industry really does have considerable influence over every aspect of society after all?”
Jake, your ability to be intentionally obtuse is without parallel. It was clear that Todd only mentioned that employers regularly check up on their prospective employees’ backgrounds- to assure that they catch any red flags such as public displays of drugs/drinking (ala facebook) or online writings that display wild, hateful speech. Both show a profound lack of personal responsibility and a questionable mental state that could translate into the workplace. Whether this is a good or bad practice is a irrelevant value judgment- but the reality of the practice is clear enough.
You are figurehead and writer for one of the internet’s most notorious anti-science cults, Age of Autism. After your resume and interview, future employees will be granted the opportunity to view a vast, wide-ranging conspiracy zone that your name is synonymous with. A part of the interwebs that is in many way similar to the fundamentalist anti-abortion movement’s message boards/blogs, serving officially as a self-righteous conspiracy echo chamber (more you) but with a sizable contingency of people prone towards threatening the intellectual opposition with bodily violence. You know, the same folks that threaten Dr. Offit and his children with death for suggesting that the vaccine-link is incorrect. Or on a more official platform, depict the scientific opposition (Dr. Novella/Dr.Offit) as horrific, not-worthy-of-life monsters ready to devourer babies.
No matter how much Age of Autism would like to send such embarrassing events down the rabbit hole, google and modern indexing make sure such events will be publicly viewable for the rest of human history. And better yet, your name will forever be associated with such lovely folks. Hope that job search goes well.
Collective reply:
“It’s an echo chamber.”
Like the popular press and its manipulation by the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius?
“OH, and the conspiracies you believe in make your world far more paranoid than David’s.”
Funny, I don’t recall ever going so far as to accuse someone of forging an official university document while throwing around baseless legal threats left and right.
“That’s very clearly not what was said or implied.”
Really “Dedj?” Did you say that quote? Is the term “dedicated lurker” another alter ego of yours? Because that’s certainly what you are.
“Unless your payments from AoA are sufficient to justify staying with them after qualification (assuming you qualify) you will need to look for another job.”
I don’t get paid, actually.
Your wording is almost right, now let me complete it for you:
“They will definetly not like the vasy majority of what they read,” if “they have a vested interest in accepting a person with your bias.”
i.e. a drug company
“and token figure head”
Believe it or not, I’m not the only person with autism who has contributed to AoA, far from.
You also don’t know what tokenism is, it’s an under-representation. I’m one of about a dozen editors. The reported prevalence of autism is not that high, yet…
“it is best if you cease from making paranoid style statements”
Translation: Please stop posting views we do not agree with! You’re debunking us!!!
“but you show no sign of any insight into how your posts read. This have been pointed out to you multiple times, yet no evidence of any attempt to self-moderate or self-check is apparent.”
Do you realize what an arrogant, pretentious stuck-up you show yourself to be, which has “been pointed out to you multiple times”? Or is that why you post under your “phonetically”-spelled initials?
“He was clearly referencing your AoA postings.”
correction: My one AoA posting from about a month ago.
“the fact that there was no mention of the incident in this thread”
I actually did mention it in comment #57.
“Why is this thread full of people having to point out very basic things to you? Why is this the end result of most threads you’re in? Why do you repeatedly come across as having no clue what anyone is talking about, despite it being quite obvious to everyone else?”
I’ve addressed peoples’ points here directly and concisely, and it would best serve you to do the same rather than descend into your usual rhetoric of nonsense.
“How much self-esteem must a person lack to be willing to put themselves up before the sort of public-humiliation that you willingly and apparently willfully put yourself through on a regular basis?”
You mean my staving off three moronic trolls all at once including yourself? I do not think I’m the one who has to worry about humiliation here.
“It would’ve been much better to be pseudonymous right from the beginning.”
So “Joseph” is not your real name after all?
I’m not Dedj, but thanks for the compliment. My real name’s Angharad.
David did admit he was wrong, though. Has AoA ever done that? They stuffed the baby-eating image down the memory hole, or at least tried to, but I’ve never seen them admit being in the wrong.
I am not even going to ask how you made that leap but at least you are consistently off-the-rails. At some point you will (presumably) be seeking employment or perhaps graduate school. If you don’t think that prospective employers don’t utilise the internet to gain more information about a candidate, then you are truly naive. Now looking at it from that perspective, how do you think you will look to an employer or graduate school?
How is this relevant at all? First, the popular press has had a ton of anti-vax stories. Second, the popular press is not a place to have a discussion, at least not the sort that is posted on a blog. That poster was referring to AoA, a blog, and so an apt comparison would be to compare it to a place like RI. Making that comparison shows AoA to be exactly what the poster said, an echo chamber. There is very light moderation around these parts. You are able to post here, so is Dr. Jay, Sid Offit and many other people who disagree with the majority of people here as well as Orac. Comments are very rarely held for moderation for reasons other than triggering a spam filter and are rarely deleted. Looking at AoA we see a completely different type of situation. Many people are unable to post at AoA, what seem to be completely reasonable but dissenting opinions remain unposted, so many that a whole parallel website has been created so that the moderated comments can be published.
“Why don’t you spend a little time and read through the transcripts of the Autism Omnibus proceedings. I’d particularly recommend the Cedillo case, but the other two (Hazelhurst and Snyder) are also very much worth reading. You are going to find them totally absorbing reading.”
I read them, and what I’ve read is absolutely nothing new. Have you read their appeals? Primarily the Cedillo appeal? They are quite eye-openers into how vaccine court handled those cases.
Btw, that same court conceded in individual cases that vaccines can cause autism, so there really is no debate that they do, just in how many people they cause autism in. And that’s a question public health authorities never want answered.
“You are a very intelligent young man – I’d value your honest comments.”
Wow, a real (assuming it’s sincere, but I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt) complement on “Science”Blogs. Never thought I’d see the day. Too bad the post that shortly follows says this:
“You hang with chicken shits.”
And that’s JUST the kind of dialogue that’s kept of AoA! Thank you for proving my point!
“Jake, your ability to be intentionally obtuse is without parallel.”
Well, if I was going to be unemployed because of what Todd W. said, it would be for no other reason aside from the one I stated.
“You are figurehead and writer for one of the internet’s most notorious anti-science cults, Age of Autism.”
Well, that’s not a view held by ordinary, clear-thinking people unlike you. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to work for someone who thinks that way.
“You know, the same folks that threaten Dr. Offit and his children with death for suggesting that the vaccine-link is incorrect.”
And any boss who would generalize that to me is a boss not worth working for. Moreover, what does that even have to do with being right?
“depict the scientific opposition (Dr. Novella/Dr.Offit) as horrific…ready to devourer babies.”
A recycled Austin Powers joke – I wonder how that compares to portraying J.B. Handley as Adolph Hitler, and Dan Olmsted, Kim Stagliano and Mark Blaxill as Nazi officers.
“No matter how much Age of Autism would like to send such embarrassing events down the rabbit hole”
Unlike the YouTube recently posted on this blog comparing me to the criminals who murdered my relatives during World War II that the host has yet to take down.
“I’m not Dedj, but thanks for the compliment”
Fine by me if you like being equated to rude, obnoxious blowhards.
“They stuffed the baby-eating image down the memory hole, or at least tried to, but I’ve never seen them admit being in the wrong.”
If that laughable example is the worst thing you can possibly pin on AoA in the last six months, I strongly advise finding a new argument for your sake.
“If you don’t think that prospective employers don’t utilise the internet to gain more information about a candidate”
Wow, talk about being consistently off-the-rails.
“How is this relevant at all?…Many people are unable to post at AoA, what seem to be completely reasonable but dissenting opinions remain unposted, so many that a whole parallel website has been created so that the moderated comments can be published.”
If you not feel we should be represented in the media because we do not warrant being addressed, why the urgency to post anything on our blog?
Yup, I’m a rude, obnoxious blowhard. And a smartass. And blunt. Oh, and fat too. *double thumbs up*
No, it’s not the worst thing I can pull up. It’s just the only thing I’ve seen them retract.
Where did I say anything like this? Please show me a quote where I indicate this. I do feel that you are wrong and the media should not simply post your opinions without questioning them but nothing I have said has indicated you should be excluded from the media.
Why should you want to post anything here? Because you disagree with the content and want to make your point I imagine. That would basically be the reason I have for wanting to post more on AoA. The same reason many people have.
“Where did I say anything like this?”
I never said you did, I asked IF you feel that way. I know this blog actively states that people with views like AoA’s should not be given as much airtime as those of government and industry, so it’s definitely puzzling for me to see people on this blog state that AoA should give them full entitlement to post whatever they want in the comments section – not withstanding the fact that the folks on here are virtually incapable of any kind of discussion short of trolling and flame wars.
Jake said in post 206:
“I’ve addressed peoples’ points here directly and concisely, and it would best serve you to do the same rather than descend into your usual rhetoric of nonsense.”
Strange! I asked him a few direct questions back in comments 58 and 60 and referenced them in post 150. However, I still haven’t seen an answer. Perhaps I’m not a “people”.
I also took a look at a few of his columns on AoA. One thing I noticed he disagreed with was a statement by someone else that 70% of people with ASD will probably be employable. I don’t have access to the data needed to support or dispute that number, so I will consider it only a rough estimate.
However, I can offer some insight from my personal experience as a manager in the food service industry on how marginal an individual can be and still be “employable”.
There is a local charitable organization that specializes in providing assisted employment support for people who might not be able to work on their own. That is, they provide and pay an assistant or facilitator to come with the employee (at no cost to the employer). The assistant brings the employee to work, supervises their work, helps keep them on task, and occasionally helps out directly.
One boy who worked for me was easily distracted by noise or other people around. However, he could work with us in the mornings before we opened when it was relatively quiet and only a few people were around. He would prep frozen dough to be thawed, clean up and wash dishes. Then he would take a break to eat lunch with his assistant and go home. I needed to check occasionally to be sure he was following the correct procedure, but he was a good worker and I appreciated his help.
A few years later, I worked at a local hamburger restaurant. There was a young girl who worked for us who would come in weekdays from 11:00 till 2:00 to work during the lunch rush. She was probably slightly learning disabled, but wasn’t as distracted or upset by the bustle and noise as the boy would have been. She did a good job clearing and cleaning tables and with a little careful direction could take food to customers or offer napkins, ketchup, etc. She worked there successfully for a few years and may still be working there.
Neither of these people were able to earn enough money to be independently self supporting and probably had problems that prevented them from living on their own anyway. But, by getting out and working they were able to earn money of their own to spend as they chose. And, I suspect it relieved the tedium of sitting at home watching TV all day.
Thus, the level of functionality needed to be “employable” is quite a bit below what I would guess Jake’s level is. (neither of these employees was able to go to college.) So, I am quite confident that a lot of people diagnosed with ASD are, at least by my definition of the term, employable.
Jake said in post 206:
“I’ve addressed peoples’ points here directly and concisely, and it would best serve you to do the same rather than descend into your usual rhetoric of nonsense.”
Strange! I asked him a few direct questions back in comments 58 and 60 and referenced them in post 150. However, I still haven’t seen an answer. Perhaps I’m not a “people”.
I also took a look at a few of his columns on AoA. One thing I noticed he disagreed with was a statement by someone else that 70% of people with ASD will probably be employable. I don’t have access to the data needed to support or dispute that number, so I will consider it only a rough estimate.
However, I can offer some insight from my personal experience as a manager in the food service industry on how marginal an individual can be and still be “employable”.
There is a local charitable organization that specializes in providing assisted employment support for people who might not be able to work on their own. That is, they provide and pay an assistant or facilitator to come with the employee (at no cost to the employer). The assistant brings the employee to work, supervises their work, helps keep them on task, and occasionally helps out directly.
One boy who worked for me was easily distracted by noise or other people around. However, he could work with us in the mornings before we opened when it was relatively quiet and only a few people were around. He would prep frozen dough to be thawed, clean up and wash dishes. Then he would take a break to eat lunch with his assistant and go home. I needed to check occasionally to be sure he was following the correct procedure, but he was a good worker and I appreciated his help.
A few years later, I worked at a local hamburger restaurant. There was a young girl who worked for us who would come in weekdays from 11:00 till 2:00 to work during the lunch rush. She was probably slightly learning disabled, but wasn’t as distracted or upset by the bustle and noise as the boy would have been. She did a good job clearing and cleaning tables and with a little careful direction could take food to customers or offer napkins, ketchup, etc. She worked there successfully for a few years and may still be working there.
Neither of these people were able to earn enough money to be independently self supporting and probably had problems that prevented them from living on their own anyway. But, by getting out and working they were able to earn money of their own to spend as they chose. And, I suspect it relieved the tedium of sitting at home watching TV all day.
Thus, the level of functionality needed to be “employable” is quite a bit below what I would guess Jake’s level is. (neither of these employees was able to go to college.) So, I am quite confident that a lot of people diagnosed with ASD are, at least by my definition of the term, employable.
Sorry about the double post. My computer browser sometimes gets stuck in limbo when an internet response takes too long. I get a lot of “site not found” messages. I then have to kick it a few times to get it to resume communications.
It seem Jake doesn’t want to have “any kind of discussion” with me. But, perhaps if he changes his mind, I might be able to offer him some tips on writing term papers.
@196,
“Furthermore, I can prove that any legitimate grievance by AoA was resolved almost two months ago, yet Jake Crosby is still trolling along with aspersions against me”
Note that Jake leaves out, “and especially other bloggers.”
It’s clearly been Jake’s came all along to lump me and other “neurodiversity” bloggers together, and avoid addressing any of us as individuals.
As for the charge of “hypocrisy”, I have been quite frank in stating what should be done with AoA: Until they stop censoring corrections at their site, censor them everywhere else. That’s not “hypocritical”, that’s justice. It also goes along with what the Evil Possum stands for. The adventures I wrote for that character always had a theme of, “Judge not lest ye be judged”.
When will you two finally break the sexual tension? Please just sue each other already. It’s awfully frustrating for the rest of us to watch you two talk about legal threats all the time but never actually deliver.
“I asked him a few direct questions back in comments 58 and 60 and referenced them in post 150. However, I still haven’t seen an answer. Perhaps I’m not a “people”.”
See comments 75, 150, 156 and 166.
“One thing I noticed he disagreed with was a statement by someone else that 70% of people with ASD will probably be employable.”
I don’t recall professing such a view.
“It seem Jake doesn’t want to have “any kind of discussion” with me. But, perhaps if he changes his mind, I might be able to offer him some tips on writing term papers.”
Maybe you should start reading my comments then, and your own for that matter.
“Note that Jake leaves out, “and especially other bloggers.”
It’s clearly been Jake’s came all along to lump me and other “neurodiversity” bloggers together, and avoid addressing any of us as individuals.”
David, I addressed you personally in that comment, and what’s your point anyway?
“Until they stop censoring corrections at their site,”
That’s hilarious! You wrote not one, but a series of blog posts accusing AoA of circulating a hoax, of being involved in the forgery of a legitimate document, and basically concocted a whole conspiracy theory of your own! And saddest of all, you still stand by aspects of your ridiculous fairy tale! Any “correction” from you would be an oxymoron.
“Please just sue each other already.”
Your friend David has already decided he’s going to try and sue me and is asking for donations to fund his frivolous lawsuit that no lawyer with even the most remote amount of sanity would take.
Perhaps you can help him out with that, and maybe you can be his lawyer, too.
Crivens, Jake is like the Duracell Bunny of Fail.
@219,
“Please just sue each other already.”
Unfortunately, as matters stand, Jake doesn’t have a case (apart from repeating the fantasy that I accused anyone specific)and I don’t have any money. At this point, I’m looking at outlining a my complaint in the form of a report of a civil rights violation to a relevant federal body. But, really, I don’t see an actual legal action as that important in furthering my purposes. I have already established that, given the choice between not censoring comments and being in contempt of US libel laws, AoA unequivocally chose the latter.
Who knows? It might make Lee Silsby think twice about donating.
Hey snerd, why don’t you help David out with his lawsuit against me? Heck, if you think I’m the Duracell Bunny of Fail, then surely you must think I will fail in defending myself against the wrath of the Evil Possum. Why not jump at the opportunity? Just don’t be disappointed when the outcome deems you the Energizer Bunny of Fail.
“Jake doesn’t have a case”
I don’t need one; I’m not trying to sue anybody, David!
“(apart from repeating the fantasy that I accused anyone specific)”
But you did.
“At this point, I’m looking at outlining a my complaint in the form of a report of a civil rights violation to a relevant federal body.”
And you know where that report will end up? In the garbage!
“But, really, I don’t see an actual legal action as that important in furthering my purposes.”
Yeah, because you have NO money, and you won’t EVER find a lawyer who is deluded enough to actually take your “case” to court.
“I have already established that, given the choice between not censoring comments and being in contempt of US libel laws, AoA unequivocally chose the latter.”
David, I went back and took a look at the comment that got you so upset – the one that said, “I don’t hate to say this but…that REALLY sounds like a person with some sort of financial issues (like Big Pharma paychecks).”
She was referring to Kevin Leitch, not you.
“It might make Lee Silsby think twice about donating.”
Fat chance.
@squirrelelite —
To add to your stories of employability:
Our boy, who is profoundly autistic and learning disabled, is employed part-time as a gardener. He recognises what the most common weeds look like and what desired garden plants look like and can generally tell them apart quite well, and can be set to weeding and clearing away garden waste. Since he loves being outdoors, this works well for him, and there are always people there keeping an eye on him.
On the less-disabled side, one of our adult very-Aspie friends worked as a postman for a while, and now works in the mailroom where I work, and is quite successful at it (occasionally his behavioural inflexibility causes a few issues, but no dealbreakers, and he IS extremely reliable). Another Aspie adult friend is now a network engineer; he couldn’t tell you who the Beatles were and doesn’t recognise the Queen on a broadcast, but he has his company’s entire network topology in his head and can recite a full list of subnet masks from memory. It works for him, and it works well for his employers, who don’t much care about his cultural savvy anyway.
Anecdotal, sure, but examples of how employable ASD folks can be to add to yours.
There are services and link workers for ASD people here to help them find employment and help employers understand what provisions need to be made. And in terms of how much of a burden those provisions place on the employer, well — my direct line manager is in a motorised wheelchair, and the changes that needed to be made to our area so he could work here were a lot more expensive. And no-one would dared have suggest that shouldn’t be done…especially me, since he is by far one of the best managers I’ve ever had.
Jake,
Which Cedillo appeal do you refer to? The first appeal, which also lost, concluded July 7 2009, which can be accessed here?
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/omnibus-autism-proceeding
Isn’t there another appeal in the works? Where would I find that one?
I’m pleased to take a look at these again and discuss this with you further.
I have looked at the earlier comments again, and come to a conclusion about Jake (everyone else has probably noticed this already, I am a little slow sometimes).
If he doesn’t have an answer for a commentator, he just ignores their questions/comments. If someone says something that he doesn’t like, he takes umbrage without saying anything of substance. And if he does answer a comment, it is with infantile snark. It reminds me of Peewee: “I know you are, but what am I?”.
@Jake
Not what I said, at all. Money is not all that matters, but having a steady paycheck does tend to help with, y’know, bills and such. And how did you get the whole drug industry thing out of my comment?
I offered you advice in good faith. This is the age of information, and anything that you post online reflects on you. The good or bad quality of your work. The tone of your comments. Your online behavior. All of that is out there for employers, in any and every field, to find.
If you want to keep on with the “vaccines cause autism” mantra, go ahead. I simply advise you to do so in a manner that is more professional and polite, and that you try to raise the level of quality in what you write. Simple mistakes (like writing that Thorsen was the second-highest author on a study) really should never happen if you do your homework. When you are shown to be wrong, don’t throw a tantrum. Rather, admit your mistake, post a correction and move on.
Also, study up on logical fallacies and learn to avoid them in your writing. One of the big ones that you seem to be fond of is the tu quoque fallacy, second, perhaps, to the ad hominem. And insults should be avoided, as well.
In short, try emulating a professional demeanor. While I wish that you would understand the science and stick to the facts about these issues, in the end, you write what you want to write. I’m just urging you to rise above petty snipes and blatant errors of fact. Because, unless you plan on receiving your future paychecks from Handley or Olmsted, the words you write today probably will not be viewed in a favorable manner by prospective employers.
And, just to be clear, I am not talking about pharma companies in even the remotest sense.
They don’t even respect Jake over there. The editors at AoA once picked a “comment of the week” that said Asperger Syndrome is not a real disability. How he puts up with that kind of stuff — I don’t know.
For Jake and anyone else who is curious, here are a couple links to where I got the 70% number from.
First, I apologize to Jake for a misattribution. I was looking for a little background info for my next comment and found this link.
http://autismgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/03/jake-crosby-takes-nds-to-task-again.html
On a re-read, I noticed that Autism’s Gadfly is written by Jonathan, who references Jake but is (I think) a different person. The comments on the 70% employable number are in that blog which responds to the following link:
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2006/11/debunking-costs-of-autism.html
This is a blog written by Joseph.
So, please read my comments on employment as an indirect response to Jonathan, not Jake. I apologize for the confusion.
Yes, whenever Jonathan wants to snipe at me, that’s the one thing he likes to bring up. It’s a guesstimate I once came up with, which is probably not wrong. Jonathan says I had no way to make that estimate. Here’s a follow-up where I elaborate on that and show that I was very much right:
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2009/10/unemployment-among-adult-autistics-in.html
@Jake 200 (again):
You said you answered me in these comments:
75–
“I’m pretty sure David N. Brown is self-“diagnosed,” too.”
150 (sic)– I think this is 155 where Jake says
“AoA takes a position, but we are not a vested party.”
156– repeats this as:
“Dun-dun-dunnn…advertisers of this blog have a direct stake in the vaccine debate, advertisers on Age of Autism do not.” Does this really mean Lee Silsby has not stake int the debate?!?!?!?!?
166– gives this version:
“Age of Autism has no vested interest in the vaccine-autism debate, and COIs alleged from AoA or others are made exclusively from within the context of that debate. So the attempted analogy to AoA’s endorsement of certain treatments being allegedly due to a compounding pharmacy’s co-sponsorship along with some autism groups – already by itself a canard – is not apt.”
156 also seems to be when Jake switched from somewhat direct, single-subject comments to shotgun broadcast comments as in: 177, 196, 206, 210, etc.
Is AoA not “a vested party in the vaccine-autism debate”?
I agreed with Travis’s comment 61 and haven’t seen any additional information from Jake to convince me to change that.
I also asked:
“And, since you consider AoA and you to be “we”, do you have an official capacity at AoA or are you suggest a supporter?”
I figured out that Jake is a Contributing Editor at AoA, so no further answer is needed.
In 57, Jake refers to “performers in the neurodiversity freakshow”.
I asked him ‘Who are some of these “performers” you tell people to “distance yourself from”?’
I presume he is referring to people like Joseph who writes the Autism Natural Variation blog I referenced. Is that you Joseph@229? I liked the blog I read and will have to check some of your others.
I checked the rest of Jake’s comments and see any further response to this.
squirrel, you’re talking about a guy who can read the Cedillo case as a win for his side. Of course he answered all the questions in exquisite detail, it is us who’re too obtuse to see it.
Yes, that’s me. Because my blog’s heading says it’s pro-neurodiversity and anti-quackery, presumably I qualify as one of the “evil NDs.”
Hang in there, Joseph!
So, over at AoA, Jake has called out PBS as being hopelessly in the thrall of Big PharmaTM. In particular, one of PBS’ contributors sits on the board of Johnson & Johnson.
Tell me, Jake, how do you feel about Thoughtful House’s connection to Johnson & Johnson? Does that mean TH has a conflict of interest?
I posted a comment at AoA, copied to Silenced by Age of Autism, but thought I’d bring it up here, too, so that Jake might actually see it.
Todd,
If it fits Jake’s (AoA’s) worldview, then it is okay! J&J are bad when they support PBS, good when they support TH. No problems.
Maybe he compartmentalizes the money where talcum powder funds TH and toxins fund PBS. It doesn’t have to make any sense.
Indeed. Jane Johnson, heiress to a good chunk of the J&J pharmaceutical fortune, helped Andrew Wakefield found Thoughtful House and then later, when he was disgraced, apparently was the driving force in forcing Wakefield out.
Clearly, Thoughtful House was in the thrall of big pharma.
I’ll dignify Jake with one response:
The complete text of my original article is up at the “Evil Possum” site. Take a look at it. Give one passage that you think constitutes a statement that AoA as a whole, or an individual who holds a staff position, was “involved in the forgery of a legitimate document”. If you instead keep repeating this interpretation, which I have repeatedly denied, your actions will easily justify a complaint of harassment.
Jake is over at Psychology Today paying homage to a Derek Binkerton over a blog Binkerton wrote using Drs Sears and Gordon as primary sources for evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. Shame on them.
@MikeMa
Does that mean that Jake has abandoned us? I suppose it is easier to be in the company of cheerleaders than it is to be in the company of critics.
“Simple mistakes (like writing that Thorsen was the second-highest author on a study)”
Never said that, read it again:
Thorsen was the second highest listed co-author from the university that led the Danish study on the MMR. He was also second highest listed co-author from the university department that led the Danish study about thimerosal.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/04/chicago-tribune-buys-award-with-cdcs-help.html
“but having a steady paycheck does tend to help with, y’know, bills and such…the words you write today probably will not be viewed in a favorable manner by prospective employers.”
I have a question for you “Todd,” if my position is so awful and yours so right, why are you and everyone else on this thread, except David who’s completely detached from reality, commenting under fake names? I mean, surely you’d want everyone to know you embrace such a virtuous opinion. And why do you feel the need to, instead of dealing with anything I say, resort to this tactic of attempted silence through bribery by trying to convince me that only by no longer expressing my views publicly will I obtain a steady job?
“And, just to be clear, I am not talking about pharma companies in even the remotest sense.”
Then what employers are you talking about? The kind of employer who hides behind phony identities so they can condone the continued use of mercury in vaccines given to infants while responding to someone who disagrees with him by begging him to stop on the basis of laughable warnings of unemployment?
“The editors at AoA once picked a “comment of the week” that said Asperger Syndrome is not a real disability.”
“Joseph,” the editors at AoA apologized for that. You’ve never apologized for any the insensitive crap you’ve tossed at me when expressing dismay about some of the challenges caused by certain aspects of my disability.
“Jane Johnson, heiress to a good chunk of the J&J pharmaceutical fortune, helped Andrew Wakefield found Thoughtful House”
Jane Johnson is a descendent of the family that founded Johnson and Johnson, so what? That is not the same as having an actual management position at the company, like membership on the board of directors for example. Moreover, drug industry ties by themselves are not wrong – what I have a problem with is the relation of those ties to bitter controversies like this.
“The complete text of my original article is up at the “Evil Possum” site. Take a look at it. Give one passage that you think constitutes a statement that AoA as a whole, or an individual who holds a staff position, was ‘involved in the forgery of a legitimate document.”
I’m not talking about one of your silly stories, David, I’m talking about the little exchange we had on Craig Willoughby’s blog:
Me:
“On another thread I saw you allege our GMC correspondent, Martin Walker, of forging the document.”
You:
“As for Martin Walker, mentioning him was a mistake”
http://my-socrates-note.blogspot.com/2010/04/humorous-threat-from-fiendish-rodent.html
Todd,
I suspect he has dropped this thread. In spite of his ‘beating’ dozens of ninja bloggers single-handedly here, he has a much better echo chamber over there and not so many comments to misunderstand or ignore.
Oh, please. That’s just pathetic. In fact, it doesn’t matter, because he was not the corresponding author on either paper. He was the way back in the pack of authors, and your attempt to label him as “the second highest listed coauthor from the university that led the Danish study of the MMR” is just pathetic. There’s really no other way to put it. It so obviously reeks of desperation to justify your claim and to paint Thorsen as some sort of leader of the Danish studies that I really do feel embarrassed for you that you would try something that transparently ridiculous, especially since you’re wrong about even that. Look at the NEJM article:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/347/19/1477
Thorsen is the sixth author on the paper overall and only the third “highest listed coauthor from the Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Ã rhus, Denmark. Maybe you meant to say the Danish thimerosal study, where Thorsen was fourth author and the second listed author from the Danish Epidemiology Science Center:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604
Either way, that doesn’t matter at all; all that matters is that Thorsen was not the corresponding author or the first author; rather, he was safely ensconced in the middle of the pack near the end, which means that he probably contributed little to either study.
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2010/03/thorsen_wakefield_fine_art_of_distraction.php
As I mentioned the other day in comments to another post, the basic difference between altmed and scientific medicine is that the former is about who and the latter is about what. Jake isn’t talking about the substance of the views in question, but rather about who holds them. That is, of course, the genetic fallacy, which is a form of ad hominem. “Government” and “industry” can be wrong about some things. They can also be right about some things. What matters is the nature of the thing itself, and the nature of the views held. What doesn’t matter is the identity of the one holding the views.
In science, the provenance of an idea is certainly important, but it’s a matter of how the idea follows from and is supported by existing knowledge, not of who came up with it. For example, Hertz’s discovery of radio waves logically followed from the work of Maxwell and others, and thus wasn’t as extraordinary a claim (invisible energy and all that) as it might sound to someone who didn’t know the history. In science, ideas are the children and grandchildren of other ideas, not of the people who first expounded on them.
LOL. Jake should’ve pointed out that Thorsen is the highest listed author… whose last name starts with a T.
@Jake
Re: Thorsen – Ah, since I first read your article and copied the line, you appear to have added “department” to the text. Okay, so from his department, he is the second-highest listed. Are you trying to imply that he had some clout in the actual conduct and findings? If so, then your statement is meaningless. What matters is where he’s listed in the whole of the study authors. Perhaps I was mistaken in what you were claiming. I would appreciate if you clarified your statement for me and what implication you think it has for the study. If I am in the wrong, then I will post a correction to my comment at Silenced.
You assume that I am using a fake name. Todd is, indeed, my real name. I don’t use my full name, though, because there are people on the internet who enjoy “outing” others and causing them trouble. There are also those who have violent tendencies (e.g., John Best) and I would rather not have those types of people be able to easily find me for harassment or to harass my friends and family.
If you go back and read what I wrote, I said that you can write what you want, but that you should do so in a professional manner. But please, feel free to show where I am bribing you or trying to convince you not to express your views.
I am talking about prospective employers to whom you might apply for a job once you graduate. I assume you do plan to find some means of supporting yourself once you are out of college?
Again, my advice was offered in good faith. It would behoove you to conduct yourself in a professional, respectful manner, to correct mistakes when they are pointed out to you (and work to avoid mistakes in the first place) and not to assume that people are out to get you simply because their viewpoint differs from yours.
@Jake
Re: Jane Johnson
So, Gardiner Harris has a conflict of interest because his brother sells lab equipment to pharmaceutical companies. However, Jane Johnson does not have a conflict of interest even though she is directly related to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical family?
Gardiner Harris, like Ms. Johnson, does not have a management position at a pharma company. Ms. Johnson is, like Mr. Harris, tied to the vaccine-autism controversy through her work with Thoughtful House.
So, Mr. Harris has conflicts of interest because he is associated with people and holds views with which you disagree. Ms. Johnson does not have conflicts of interest because she is associated with people and holds views (presumably) with which you agree.
Do I have that right?
When it comes down to it, though, Ms. Johnson is just as tied to pharmaceuticals as Mr. Harris is. Perhaps more so, due to her involvement with TH. Wheres Mr. Harris is just a reporter, with no direct influence on pharmaceutical use, Ms. Johnson is on the TH board of directors, a very significant management position at a health facility.
With that in mind, what is your position on Thoughtful House? Do they have a conflict of interest?
Thorsen is listed as the sole recipient of a $105,000 grant from the National Alliance for Autism Research to study the MMR:
http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/research/initiatives/naar_environmental_factors.php
Aside from being affiliated with the university department that led both the MMR and thimerosal studies, he is also the only coauthor of either of them other than Madsen who participated in both projects.
“I’m not talking about one of your silly stories, David, I’m talking about the little exchange we had on Craig Willoughby’s blog”
Now Jake is shifting his story. He has quite explicitly accused me, both here and in his AoA post (also in the blog he mentions), of accusing AoA of involvement in a forgery IN MY INITIAL ARTICLE. Rather than making any attempt to justify this accusation, he is instead switching to feigned indignation over a subsequent cheap shot at “Liar For Hire” Walker.
“Ah, since I first read your article and copied the line, you appear to have added ‘department’ to the text.”
Nope, it was always that way, you just misread it.
“Are you trying to imply that he had some clout in the actual conduct and findings? If so, then your statement is meaningless. What matters is where he’s listed in the whole of the study authors.”
No, affiliation matters, too.
“there are people on the internet who enjoy “outing” others and causing them trouble.”
Why would you be afraid of being “outed” if you have nothing to hide?
“There are also those who have violent tendencies (e.g., John Best) ”
I doubt you have anything to fear of John Best anymore than I do of the folks here.
“that you should do so in a professional manner.”
How am I being unprofessional? And what profession do I have that would make whatever I’m doing seem unprofessional? And how would it make me unprofessional?
“But please, feel free to show where I am bribing you or trying to convince you not to express your views.”
In a wrap, you’re basically telling me I will make more money if I stop writing.
“It would behoove you to conduct yourself in a professional, respectful manner, to correct mistakes when they are pointed out to you (and work to avoid mistakes in the first place)”
I think I’ve generally followed those rules.
“and not to assume that people are out to get you simply because their viewpoint differs from yours.”
People on here were telling me I would not find a job because of my views, not my demeanor.
“With that in mind, what is your position on Thoughtful House? Do they have a conflict of interest?”
No, because they are not acting in the best interests of drug companies, whereas Gardiner Harris is, and as a journalist he has a professional obligation to remain neutral. Not only has he violated that obligation, but also the ethical guidelines of his own newspaper.
And just to add, Gardiner Harris’ brother is currently making money off of selling lab equipment to drug companies, whereas Jane Johnson is heiress to a fortune acquired from pharmaceuticals in the past.
The issue about presenting oneself on the internet has been very clear from the beginning, and there are more than a few examples out there of employers finding out about potential employees and subsequently rufsing to hire them.
It’s incredibly hard to see how Jake has drawn the rather persecutory, if not paranoid, inferences that he has drawn from comments here.
In regards annonymity, this has been dealt with extensively before, and Jake knows it has. There is no rational reason for him to think annonymity is even an issue, much less a valid counterpoint. It may be if criminal action was being taken agianst him, but there is no evidence that it has.
Todd correctly points out that some individuals in the debate are less than savoury. At least one participant in this thread had personally identifying information collated and cross posted across numerous online communities just last year, and received threats as a result. Threats of professional action are not unheard of. Even people who openly use thier real name have been ‘outed’ to great fanfare.
This is the sort of behaviour the nameless grunts amongst us face from the vaccine-skeptic movement on a regular basis. The better known people have recieved a lot worse.
Other people have had conversations held on one website posted entirely out of context as an attempt to imply negative things about their character. Others have had people trawl through years of their postings just to find a few comments that can be mashed together to make them look dishonest or stupid. Yet others have had supposedly unethical comments saved as screen shots and promoted by their opponents, in an effort to discredit them.
Some have had people threaten to provide identifying film taken whilst in a public place and to put that film on public depositories like youtube.
Others have been barracked by groups in front of police and security including having people come up behind them, on film, in an effort to discredit them.
Yes, giving out your meat-space identity is not something many of us would like to risk, or can even afford to, not all of us work where there is security to call. Personally, I’ve had someone work out my gender, profession and nationality through the wording in my posts.
“Now Jake is shifting his story. He has quite explicitly accused me, both here and in his AoA post (also in the blog he mentions), of accusing AoA of involvement in a forgery IN MY INITIAL ARTICLE. Rather than making any attempt to justify this accusation, he is instead switching to feigned indignation over a subsequent cheap shot at “Liar For Hire” Walker.”
David, look at the title and first two sentences of your story:
“Another hoax spread through Age of Autism
By David N. Brown
Age of Autism has never been noted for accuracy or honesty, except in terms of lack thereof. Still, it has not been their style to post completely fabricated material.”
Your first two lines said that we’re dishonest and post fabricated material. The most obvious conclusion one would take away from that is you are alleging we forged the document, and that’s what you clearly meant as proved by your own comments about Martin Walker. Regardless of how you feel about it now, or your silly addendum near the bottom of your article that – you have to admit – is a complete hoax, that is what you alleged of AoA at the time.
You’re being completely naive, Jake. Trust me, 10 years from now you’ll think differently about the comments and articles you’re posting now.
“Trust me, 10 years from now you’ll think differently about the comments and articles you’re posting now.”
You wish.
@Jake
I’m saying no such thing. You know, I’ve tried to explain it several times, and you just don’t get it. I’m done. You either lack sufficient reading comprehension or you are deliberately obtuse.
Regarding Gardiner Harris, Jane Johnson and Thoughtful House, I think I get it. Saying or doing something that is favorable to pharmaceutical companies is bad, no matter what it is. Saying or doing something that is favorable to ethically questionable researchers is okay.
I know you are going to misunderstand and/or misinterpret my comments yet again, so I think I’m done responding to you, Jake.
“I’m saying no such thing. You know, I’ve tried to explain it several times, and you just don’t get it. I’m done. You either lack sufficient reading comprehension or you are deliberately obtuse.”
Then why the hell would you say this?
“having a steady paycheck does tend to help with, y’know, bills and such.”
You then say:
“Saying or doing something that is favorable to pharmaceutical companies is bad, no matter what it is.”
My, you’re so easily offended, read my last post! Gardiner Harris violated the ethical guidelines of his own newspaper!
“I know you are going to misunderstand and/or misinterpret my comments yet again”
Speak for yourself!
“so I think I’m done responding to you, Jake.”
Good riddance.
My statement: “(I)t has not been their style to post completely fabricated material.”
Jake’s summary: “Your first two lines said that we’re dishonest and post fabricated material.”
So, what Jake seems to be saying is that his accusation against me, with regard to my original article, is based on the interpretation of my meaning as the exact opposite of what I said. Also, apparently, the assumption that when I say “posting fabricated material” I meant “fabricating material”. Duly noted.
Thanks to Orac for giving Jake enough leeway to destroy any pretense that AoA has or ever did have a legitimate complaint regarding my article.
“is based on the interpretation of my meaning as the exact opposite of what I said.”
No David, your saying it has not been our style to post fabricated information was for the sole purpose of emphasizing we hit a new low by posting that “forged” document.
“Also, apparently, the assumption that when I say “posting fabricated material” I meant “fabricating material”. Duly noted.”
Yeah, because you meant fabricating material. You wrote elsewhere accusing a regular contributor to Age of Autism of forging an official university document.
“Thanks to Orac for giving Jake enough leeway to destroy any pretense that AoA has or ever did have a legitimate complaint regarding my article.”
David, the only pretenses destroyed here have been your claims that I misinterpreted something you wrote or plagiarized you when I actually spared you considerable embarrassment by maintaining your anonymity, or approved a comment written against you even though it was not even referring to you. Perhaps for once you should take responsibility for your own actions and not try and find ways to blame others for things that are ultimately your fault. I suggest you grow up.
@Jake,
Todd W is a regular commenter in this and other blogs and a significant voice for open, informed discussion on the internet. I almost find his comments interesting and informative and am confident I will continue to enjoy them in the future.
In other words, you aren’t going to get rid of him that easily.
I am skeptical of most unsupported claims and try to use my scientific training to inform my opinion on many subjects. I am willing to be convinced but I need to see the evidence that clearly demonstrates something. I’m not quite from Missouri, but I still ask “Show Me!”
When you make responses like:
“Then why the hell would you say this?”
“You then say:”
“My, you’re so easily offended, read my last post! Gardiner Harris violated the ethical guidelines of his own newspaper! ”
“Speak for yourself!”
“Good riddance. ”
I see nothing to convince me of the correctness of your position or even to explain what that position is. I don’t even see anything to suggest that it would be interesting to have a discussion with you.
You are free to have your own opinion on the cause, effects and treatment of autism. You are also free to express them. Other people, including myself and Todd W, are free to disagree with you.
Leaving autism issues aside for the moment, Todd and others tried to suggest to you that other people, in particular prospective employers, would be able to read your remarks here and were likely to get a negative impression of you. Your response was to use that as a jumping off point to complain about pharmaceutical manufacturers.
I see no point in attempting to discuss matters with your, further. It is not interesting or challenging enough to be worth my time.
I have three dogs. Sometimes they bark for food. Sometimes they bark to go out. Sometimes they bark at something they hear. Sometimes they bark for no reason at all.
I have discovered something. If I yell at them, they bark back. If I am quiet, if I whisper to them, they recognize it and quiet down. Therefore, I choose to give you the same response I give my barking dogs.
Silence.
Jake, you really should be working on your school work. But to help enlighten you. From When Employers Want to See Your Social Networking Profile:
“In other words, you aren’t going to get rid of him that easily.”
Well, I just did, he said he will no longer talk to me.
“When you make responses like:…I see nothing to convince me of the correctness of your position or even to explain what that position is.”
Well, obviously not after cherry-picking them out of context.
“You are free to have your own opinion on the cause, effects and treatment of autism.”
Kind of irrelevant as we were talking about conflicts of interest, and then your friend Todd descended into making bizarre warnings about my future employment.
“Todd and others tried to suggest to you that other people, in particular prospective employers, would be able to read your remarks here and were likely to get a negative impression of you.”
For reasons I don’t think even you or he are sure of.
“Your response was to use that as a jumping off point to complain about pharmaceutical manufacturers.”
Well, those are really the only companies that, for obvious reasons, would actually not employ me for what I’ve written.
“I don’t even see anything to suggest that it would be interesting to have a discussion with you.”
“I see no point in attempting to discuss matters with your, further.”
“Therefore, I choose to give you the same response I give my barking dogs.
Silence.”
Given that you repeated yourself three times, ending with a melodramatic analogy you are probably using to make yourself sound clever but is in fact totally unoriginal and has been done before, it appears I hit a nerve – perhaps I caused you to have a significant level of doubt about your own intelligence.
Regardless of your reason for no longer wanting to engage me, if you think “Silence” is the way to go, then I totally agree. Arguing with you has been a complete waste of time.
Now Jake shifts the story back to my subsequent comment about Martin Walker. He disregards several facts: First, I could have mentioned him based on evidence beyond what I had in writing the initial article. (Actually, I just took a casual pot shot at a spectacularly big target.) Second, I never said he was the only “suspect” I had under consideration (he wasn’t). Third, “regular contributor” is a somewhat subjective term, and its application to someone who (as far as I know) has only been contributing to AoA for about four months is entirely strained. Fourth, if AoA chooses to accept contributions from someone who was previously called “Liar For Hire” in a headline by a major journalist, they are not in a tenable position to complain if he is subsequently referred to as a possible liar.
Jake says regarding squirrelelite:
I didn’t even know I had an irony meter, but I think it is broken now.
Jake is a good example of what happens to a child who grows up being told constantly by his mother that he is a “damaged child.” That is not a good thing.
Well, [pharmaceutical manufacturers] are really the only companies that, for obvious reasons, would actually not employ me for what I’ve written.
While it is not the entirety of my job, I do hiring occasionally. And, Jake, I would not hire you. It has nothing to do with your views on vaccines or autism, since my work has nothing to do with those. (I currently work with at least one 9/11 conspiracy believer. I think she’s a little butty, but it doesn’t affect her work, so who cares?) I would not hire you because you have shown that you refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. Any critique has been responded to with “No, YOU’re wrong.”
That is a poor trait for an employee. If I have to correct somone, I know it’s an unpleasant experience for both of us, and the last thing I want is an employee getting defensive or refusing to listen, which will do nothing more than make the situation worse.
Jake, you may think that “Well, they’re not going to assume my behavior here, discussing this issue, will be the same as at work.” When people are going through a stack of resumes, they start by narrowing the pool. If there’s even the chance, you’ll be out, because they have other people to look at, who can match your skills and won’t any such risk attached.
@Kristen,
I agree. He totally fried my irony meter, too.
I also found it amusing that when I quoted every word of his own in a particular comment to illustrate how little of substance he himself had to say in these shotgun broadside comments he has been posting, he complained that I was “cherry-picking them out of context”.
And when I and others (most recently Terrie) suggested that future employers might get a negative impression from reading his comments, he referred to that as “making bizarre warnings about my future employment”.
I gave up on trying to help him because he refuses to allow himself to be helped by someone he disagrees with.
Just a quick note about a minor
lieerror of fact by Jake. Earlier in the thread, when I commented that he added “department” to an article after I had quoted it at Silenced by Age of Autism, he said:However, when I search for the text, I get a Google Cache hit showing the quote without “department” on April 20.
So, I was right. Jake added “department” after the fact.
Todd @ #269:
Oh but Todd that’s not a change, it’s just a “retroactive correction”!
Besides, who are you going to believe…. Jake? Or Google and your lying eyes?
😉
I don’t understand. I’m comparing the Google cache on April 20th that you posted to what is there right now and I don’t see the difference.
Jake Crosby states:
I was not aware that the Johnson family had entirely divested themselves of Johnson and Johnson company stock.
How odd.
Well, since Ms. Johnson’s income is completely divorced from all pharmaceutical companies, whereas Gardiner Harris’ brother presumably gets a commission from selling lab equipment to – among other entities – pharmaceutical companies, that makes it clear who has a serious conflict of interest.
Just kidding.
Seriously, though. My sister makes a living working in the legal department of an insurance company – does that mean that I’m in the pocket of Big Insurance? My brother-in-law is a teacher – does that mean I have a bias toward the teachers’ unions?
Am I the only person who wonders if Mr. Crosby is having a joke at our expense? Is it possible that any sentient being would think that Gardiner Harris would be biased by the fact that his brother sells lab equipment to pharmaceutical companies? Mr. Crosby has got to be pulling our collective leg on this one…doesn’t he?
On the other hand, if Mr. Crosby truly believes that Gardiner Harris has a conflict of interest and AoA doesn’t, why should we bother arguing with someone who is clearly is beyond reason?
So, Mr. Crosby, are you just having a joke at our expense or do you truly believe what you claim?
Prometheus
Hmmm…
Now that I have more time, actually Jake may be correct here (as far as the wording of the original article goes). It doesn’t help that I was in a hurry to post earlier, I should have read more before my first post.
@ Todd:
It appears that Dan and Jake are correct here, unless you posted the wrong cached page. The cached page you posted for April 20 does seem to match the current version that is posted at AoA. It also matched Jake’s earlier posting of the text he quoted up-thread @ #242, perhaps there was a misunderstanding involved.
Either way it still doesn’t change the problem with the original AoA post (as Orac earlier noted @ #244), but still I would like to apologize to Jake for apparently jumping the gun on my own post @ #270.
Perhaps this is just a symptom of Jake’s autism (was it Aspergers he has?). It would explain the obsession with conspiracy, over-thinking of connections, repetitive behavior and posting, and restrictive interests. It’s not too dissimilar to a close friend of mine (although he tends to focus on very different things than Jake). I’m not saying this to disparage his condition, simply that arguing with him can be futile because I’ve seen that very same laser like focus before, and logic and proof isn’t good enough – he does seem to believe it with all of his being.
Well… I would argue that Jake’s behavior is stereotypically un-autistic in a number of ways. For an autistic person with his apparent level of intelligence, he doesn’t display any hyper-rationality (Harrison et al. 2008) or enhanced logical consistency (De Martino et al. 2008).
Autistic people tend to be rather honest. This can be seen as “lacking skill to lie.” I’m not saying Jake has been caught in a lie (btw, I think Todd is wrong above) but some of the things he says and some of the rebuttals he puts forth are just impossible to believe, as Prometheus illustrated. An autistic person is not usually going to “pull your leg.” (It’s possible Jake really does believe some of the absurd things he says.)
Of course, most autistic people are un-autistic in a number of ways. That’s how heterogeneous autism is.
“Now Jake shifts the story back to my subsequent comment about Martin Walker.”
No David, I was always talking about your comment regarding Martin Walker.
You then tried to change the subject to distract away from the fact that, as evidenced by that comment, you were in fact implicating AoA in your myth of forgery when you claimed on Leftbrain/Rightbrain that the document we posted was “fabricated material.”
“First, I could have mentioned him based on evidence beyond what I had in writing the initial article.”
Your article was totally devoid of all evidence – not to mention a hoax.
“Third, “regular contributor” is a somewhat subjective term, and its application to someone who (as far as I know) has only been contributing to AoA for about four months is entirely strained.”
He’s been regularly contributing for over a year, providing epic coverage of the GMC hearing, everyday of which he attended.
“Fourth, if AoA chooses to accept contributions from someone who was previously called “Liar For Hire” in a headline by a major journalist”
“Major journalist,” yeah right, “major violator of journalistic ethics” is more like it!
“Jake is a good example of what happens to a child who grows up being told constantly by his mother that he is a “damaged child.””
Actually, I did not even know about this controversy until I watched a FOX5NY news report five years ago, which I talked about to no one for over three years. By then I was 19, not exactly a child, except maybe to an ageist bigot like yourself.
“While it is not the entirety of my job, I do hiring occasionally. And, Jake, I would not hire you. It has nothing to do with your views on vaccines or autism”
BS
“I currently work with at least one 9/11 conspiracy believer”
Not believing tobacco science defending the injection of newborns with dangerous levels of mercury is equivalent to believing 9/11 was an inside job?
“I would not hire you because you have shown that you refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.”
Isn’t that ironic? You’re lecturing me about the need to listen to people and you have not actually listened to a single thing I’ve said.
“Any critique has been responded to with “No, YOU’re wrong.”
One of the first responses the person who runs this blog gave me once was the answer “Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.” Perhaps you can give him a little talk.
“Jake, you may think that “Well, they’re not going to assume my behavior here, discussing this issue, will be the same as at work.”
My behavior here has not been any worse than that of the people I’ve been responding to.
“If there’s even the chance, you’ll be out, because they have other people to look at, who can match your skills and won’t any such risk attached.”
Like the risk of alienating pharmaceutical clients? I’ve already made that a concern for prospective employers.
“I agree. He totally fried my irony meter, too.”
Back so soon?
“he complained that I was ‘cherry-picking them out of context.”
You did.
“he referred to that as ‘making bizarre warnings about my future employment.”
They are.
“I gave up on trying to help him”
You’re not trying to help me, I can already tell that much.
“I get a Google Cache hit showing the quote without ‘department’ on April 20.
So, I was right. Jake added “department” after the fact.”
It’s no different from the way my article looks now, Todd.
“Besides, who are you going to believe…. Jake? Or Google and your lying eyes?
;)”
Google and I, not Todd’s lie.
“I’m comparing the Google cache on April 20th that you posted to what is there right now and I don’t see the difference.”
Oops!
“Jake Crosby states:
“And just to add, Gardiner Harris’ brother is currently making money off of selling lab equipment to drug companies, whereas Jane Johnson is heiress to a fortune acquired from pharmaceuticals in the past.”
Of all the things I wrote in my comment, you zeroed in on my weakest point. What about the fact that Gardiner Harris violated the ethical guidelines of his own newspaper?
“but still I would like to apologize to Jake for apparently jumping the gun on my own post @ #270.”
No problem, it’s all Todd’s fault anyway.
“It would explain the obsession with conspiracy, over-thinking of connections”
No, that’s David. It also describes the mentality behind the featured post perfectly.
“he doesn’t display any hyper-rationality (Harrison et al. 2008) or enhanced logical consistency (De Martino et al. 2008).”
You are describing yourself well.
“some of the things he says and some of the rebuttals he puts forth are just impossible to believe, as Prometheus illustrated.”
Who only addressed my weakest point and ignored everything else.
“It’s possible Jake really does believe some of the absurd things he says.”
Or rather, things you don’t want to believe.
So, it appears that Jake adjusting his complaining to focus on indignation over a passing reference to the fact that Martin J. Walker is an example of a British vaccine critic accused of inventing his “news” out of whole cloth. I suppose he is directing this vacuous complaint/threat against me because Brian Deer can afford lawyers.
All very amusing, but there’s only so much value in giving Jake more rope to hang himself. Orac, ban this troll!
David, I never “adjusted” anything, your implicating Martin Walker in this has been a vocal concern of mine since we started arguing about it on Craig Willoughby’s blog. By accusing Martin Walker of forging the document, you were clearly accusing AoA of forgery when you said we posted “fabricated material” on Leftbrain/Rightbrain. We’ve been over this, already. It seems all you are trying to do now is get the last word in by begging the blog host to ban me, neither of which will change the fact that you are very, clearly wrong on all counts.
Jake,
You should be well aware aware from the discussion with Willoughby that I deny giving Walker serious consideration as a suspect. To justify that, even to myself, I would have had to prove that he had, at a minimum, corresponded with Jane Burgemeister. As I indicated to Willoughby, what inquiries I did conduct on that veivbrought up the name of someone else. So, why are you refusing to accept that I meant no more or less than what I said?
“You should be well aware aware from the discussion with Willoughby that I deny giving Walker serious consideration as a suspect.”
Yeah, AFTER the fact!
From Wing 1981 also known as Asperger Syndrome a clinical account:”Finally, the relationship to schizophrenia of Asperger syndrome, autism and similar impairments can be reconsidered. Although they are dissimilar in family history, childhood development and clinical pictures, both groups of conditions affect language, social interaction and imaginative activities. The time of onset and the nature of the disturbances are different, but there are similarities in the eventual chronic defect states that either may produce. It is not surprising that autism and schizophrenia have, in the past, been confused.”
Given the studies identifying relationships between schizophrenia and “autism” would it be too much to ask if by continuing you might be encouraging certain symptoms?
Are you asking me or David?
Young Master Crosby, if you were a serious college student you would not be up at almost 3 am on a weekday night. Especially since finals start… TODAY!
Good luck with them. Though it would really help if you actually spent more time studying than looking for various conspiracies that do not exist.
It appears now Crosby thinks he can speak better than I can as to my thoughts and intentions. Is he claiming to have telepathic powers?
As it happens, I pretty well conceded AoA’s core staff an alibi at the start: Judging from Olmsted’s and Blaxill’s completely uncritical reposting of claims which were substantially contradicted by the document, I concluded they never gave the document close examination. Thus, forgers using their own creation would not have made AoA’s mistakes.
Ahh! I see where the error was. I was talking about one sentence:
And Jake was talking about a different sentence:
Jake, sorry for the confusion and for claiming that you changed the sentence. So, I was wrong in that regard, though that still does not change the fact that the observations in those two sentences don’t really matter, as far as the studies’ validity goes.
@Todd W.: at least you have the class to admit your mistake and apologize, unlike Jake.
@David N. Brown: David, please stop replying to Jake. You will never change his mind. I understand WHY you are indignant, having read your exchanges/posts here, on Evil Possum and on LBRB, but it is getting wearisome to read, since your short answers lead to long defensive ramblings on his part. You have apologized for your early erroneous conclusions where you made them, and done the right thing. Jake will never apologize or recognize where he is wrong. (And he is, in many places).
AOA are far more pharma shills than ANYONE on Sciblogs. Go to their site…not just Lee Silsby, but people selling Vit B12 pops or chelation therapy, or the Geiers…all of whom probably make tons more money than the Scibloggers, since the MDs on Sciblogs don’t demand cash on the barrelhead for care, and DON’T prescribe treatments based on a phone call for someone they’ve never examined.
@triskelethecat
Lead by example, as they say. I just put up a new post over at Silenced declaring my mistake and then going into why Jake’s statements still don’t mean much of anything.
It’s from my lay understanding, though, so if folks that have done medical research could take a look and leave critiques/corrections in the comments, I’d much appreciate it.
Chris: âJake is a good example of what happens to a child who grows up being told constantly by his mother that he is a “damaged child.” That is not a good thing.â
Jakeâs response: âActually, I did not even know about this controversy until I watched a FOX5NY news report five years ago”
Excerpts taken from Jakeâs account of coming to terms with his Aspergerâs (emphasis mine): âPart of my problem with my label was the kind of treatments I received for my condition. Since medications gave me terrible side effects, my mother gave me handfuls of vitamins for most of my life, and later B-12 injections which helped the most. I always wondered why I needed them. It didnât make sense that Aspergerâs was merely part of who I am, when I was given all these vitamins. I shouldnât naturally have a vitamin deficiency. She also took me off dairy, took me off wheat for a long time, put me through Auditory Integration Therapy, and took me to a neurologist who glued electrodes to my head to test for seizures. I felt very different, not just because of my condition, but because of what my mother did to treat it. Everyone else I knew with Aspergerâs was on medication. [â¦] When my mother mentioned chelation last summer, I finally told her about the news report. She said she believed thimerosal was responsible, having known about it since I was 12. When I asked why she hadnât told me then, she said she didnât want to upset me; I had frequent meltdowns at earlier ages. The news program I saw was disturbing. Nevertheless, I began to see it as good news: relief that I knew both what had been causing my problem and that it wasnât âme.â [â¦] it was reassuring to know that my issue had nothing to do with who I am. This allowed me to accept my condition and disclose it to others.â
Just a personal observation that could very well be off-base, and I am in no way asserting it is true:
It seems to me that the actions of Jakeâs mother while he was growing up send a very clear message â âI must fix you. There is something wrong with you. You are not normal. You are unacceptable the way you are.â
Just because there was never an explicit statement, doesnât mean the message wasnât there. It also doesnât mean she was attempting to convey that message â hell, it doesnât even mean she necessarily felt that way â just that a child could very well internalize these types of messages, based on the actions of a parent, if there is nothing countering these messages. The relief Jake felt âthat my issue had nothing to do with who I amâ seemed, to me anyways, to reinforce that this scenario might not be too far off from the truth.
Just trying to work out to myself how someone like Jake can be so incredibly desperate to hang onto a thoroughly discredited hypothesis that explicitly states that he is who he is because he is damaged or â to use his own words â toxic. This makes the most sense to me â he was convinced as a child, through the actions of his mother, that something was wrong with him; the vaccine hypothesis gave him a scapegoat â there wasnât anything wrong with him, heâs just the victim of toxicity. Allows him to justify to himself everything his mother put him through as well as reassure himself that, before the evil vaccines, he was ânormalâ â and thus, in a way, he can still consider himself ânormalâ, just injured.
Sorry for the ramblingâ¦just some random thoughts of mine, after reading all of Jakeâs comments on this thread.
And, BTW Jake, I mean no offense here, although I honestly wonât be too surprised if you take offense anyways.
@Poogles: I thought the same thing. Jake’s anecdote reads like a warning to moms of autistic children. “Here’s what not to do if you don’t want your Aspie kid to end up being a PR man for JB Handley.” 🙂
It’s interesting that he apparently always thought autism was his fault, but the thimerosal hypothesis gave him an escape. It wasn’t he. It was the government. I can see now why even though most anti-vaxers have pretty much given up on the thimerosal hypothesis, at least overtly, Jake still has an emotional attachment to it.
“Is he claiming to have telepathic powers?”
No David, quite the opposite in fact. You think that whatever you profess now, even if you believed AoA was not part of your little conspiracy at the time, will automatically be how people will perceive what you write, not the actual meaning of your words themselves which were that AoA posted “fabricated information” – clearly conveying that AoA fabricated information and posted it. Your implicating AoA regular, Martin Walker, as your prime suspect, further confirms you were in fact implicating AoA in your conspiracy tall tale.
“I pretty well conceded AoA’s core staff an alibi at the start: Judging from Olmsted’s and Blaxill’s completely uncritical reposting of claims which were substantially contradicted by the document, I concluded they never gave the document close examination. Thus, forgers using their own creation would not have made AoA’s mistakes.” – Also not true.
Since other RI followers are clearly growing even more tired of this exchange than I am, I will make this brief: Crosby had this to say about my ORIGINAL ARTICLE: “a blogger on Leftbrain/Rightbrain libeled Age of Autism, which he accused of circulating a `hoax’ and of forging an official document regarding the scandal.” Nothing about my passing mention of Walker (which I suspect Jake has never read, and I can’t find myself) there. Likewise, Dan Olmsted did not wait for me to suggest a specific suspect to threaten legal action over my post. Bottom line: Rather than acting constructively to prove the document was authentic, AoA sought to prevent the issue from being discussed by making a vacuous threat of litigation. The fact that the document WAS eventually verified only makes their actions MORE contemptible.
“Rather than acting constructively to prove the document was authentic, AoA sought to prevent the issue from being discussed”
David, I read your post: we never had to prove anything, the document is what it is. Before alleging we forged a document by claiming we posted fabricated information and later naming one of us as personally your prime suspect (be it in your original post or not), you could have easily contacted Aarhus yourself to quell your suspicions if you were that paranoid about it. But then again, that would have only robbed you of a good conspiracy theory to write about, even though you concocted a total hoax of your own in doing so.
Jake:
Your bluff is called: Have you READ my comment mentioning Walker? To the best of my recollection, the wording was something like “someone in the British anti-vaccine movement, such as the notorious Martin J. Walker”. It is a flying quantum leap of logic to go from that to “prime suspect”. Also, my original article did not even address the accuracy of information in the document. Really, I was never as skeptical about that as I was about Aarhus disclosing it in a statement to the public.
You apparently lack a solid grasp of what your own words convey. The meaning of your original allegation against AoA – that we “posted fabricated information” – is essentially that we fabricated information and posted it.
“Likewise, Dan Olmsted did not wait for me to suggest a specific suspect to threaten legal action over my post. Bottom line: Rather than acting constructively to prove the document was authentic, AoA sought to prevent the issue from being discussed by making a vacuous threat of litigation. The fact that the document WAS eventually verified only makes their actions MORE contemptible”
Oh, you mean like naming someone in your lawsuit and threatening to sue him because he allegedly began this whole exchange when his comment on AoA had nothing at all to do with you? Is it only OK when you do it, but not when anyone else does it? You’re being hypocritical, Mr. Brown.
If AoA posted information by the squalid Martin J Walker, then it “posted fabricated information”. End of story.
Here’s what Brian Deer has to say about him:
http://briandeer.com/mmr/mli-information.htm
And here’s what Martin J Walker said back to the ethics-breaching conflicted “journalist”:
http://www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/sci-dem/nuocontri_1/walker_deer.pdf
“My Socrates”,
I gave you the opportunity to clarify your intentions, and I accepted your explanation in good faith. Olmsted and Crosby have refused to do the same with regard to my clarification that I did not intend to argue that AoA as an organization was responsible for a forgery. As long as this situation persists, I must consider their actions (or lack of actions) threatening. Even with no valid grounds for action against me, their attempts to make it appear otherwise could serve effectively as intimidation toward others, which is exactly what Jake appears to be doing here.
Incidentally, with regard to Walker it appears to me that AoA is well-positioned to deny responsibility for his words. He is not staff, his name does not have a link on the home page, and most of his contributions end with a note of prior or simultaneous publication elsewhere (actually similar to “boiler plate” I use for my essays). If his contributions to AoA led to a lawsuit, It would be quite possible for them to say something like, “We only reported what he was already saying”, and leave him to fend for himself.
Let’s go back to Jake’s original comment on this: “It would also do you good to distance yourself from performers in the neurodiversity freakshow, especially after their horrific blunder of libeling AoA by claiming we “forged” official university documents. ”
What he is doing is offering an allegation of libel by me, which he has proved himself unable to substantiate, as a reason why my material and those of my associates should not be used. This makes his statement a) libel against me, b)an attempt to deprive me of the right to speak, c) an attempt to interfere with my (semi)professional ctivities and d) a threatening act against the “neurodiversity” movement as a whole. I am going to report this (and others before it) as harassment and cyberbullying UNLESS someone at AoA admits that any basis for a complaint against me was resolved as soon as I stated that I saw “no reason to doubt” that AoA thought the document to be authentic.
@10: From what I recall, some genetics studies suggested that primates lost the primary function of the VNO not long after they gained color vision. In other words, our ancestors
“I am going to report this (and others before it) as harassment and cyberbullying”
Go right ahead, but I can already tell you where your report will end up – in the trash.
A reminder to Jake: “Cyberbullying” falls in the jurisdiction of private watchdog groups, state-level law enforcement and UNIVERSITIES. As it appears that you are a student currently attending Brandeis University, and I am also a student completing a degree (which AoA has interfered with, and allowed “Autism Grandma” to dismiss as a feature of a scam), I see no reason why Brandeis would not consider taking action against you. So delete your libelous accusation of libel from AoA (or ask Kim to do it), and admit that I have never stated and deny ever intending to suggest that a member of AoA’s staff was involved in forging the document which was the subject of my article, or I will exercise the option of a complaint against you to Brandeis.
David, you can complain to whoever you want about this utter non-issue, and absolutely no one will care about your laughable excuse for a complaint.
Jake:
It is your vacuous claim that I committed an actionable libel against Age of Autism merely by mentioning a minor non-staff contributor that is indisputably without merit. It is precisely for that reason that your persistent repetition of it satisfies the definition of harassment. I am increasingly inclined to think that even Olmsted has no wish to pursue this matter any further, but apparently you do. I will therefore proceed with inquiries and actions, until and unless you admit you were in error in accusing me of accusing AoA of direct involvement in a forgery.
This is a hilarious thread. Thanks for the laugh!
This is the exact reason why AoA is correct to censor comments. If they didn’t, they would end up with over 300 comments of pure nonsense. AoA definitely has the right way of going about it – in terms of the vaccine debate. You guys get too emotionally involved in silly stuff like… “Look I proved Jake lied… look at the google cache” LOL! Oops. Then, there’s the “I am going to report you for cyberbullying… wah, wah, wah”…
Good stuff, guys. Keep up the important work here.
That is “pure nonsense.” If you indiscriminately refuse to publish comments, without any known rationale or consistent criteria, you lose all credibility as a blogger. There’s an obvious reason for that: There’s no way for a reader to ascertain if a rebuttal has been presented in comments that invalidates the argument of the post.
Indeed, Todd’s misstatement is a good example of why an open comment policy is important to have.
If you also get inconsequential bickering as a result, so be it.
“over 300 comments of pure nonsense”
Just the ones in which Jake pretends that AoA didn’t botch the Thorsen story, and has a legitimate grievance with which to threaten me. But I agree, after a fashion: As I have said repeatedly, others SHOULD emulate AoA’s policies- by censoring representatives of AoA the same way AoA censors those who explain the truth.
Now, I’m off to figure out who’s currently Brandeis’s Associate Vice President of Human Resources, whom according to the university’s policies is responsible for enforcing student conduct. Unlike anti-vaccine cranks, I don’t make threats I don’t have a reasonable chance of carrying out.
“That is “pure nonsense.” If you indiscriminately refuse to publish comments, without any known rationale or consistent criteria, you lose all credibility as a blogger”.
The rationale is so that the site doesn’t become a cesspool of nonsense such as what happens here in Orac’s world. For crying out loud, you have a dope here looking to report a STUDENT to his Administration for something or other that no one (other than the dopes here) give a crap about. David N. Brown, get over yourself you big baby….
AoA IS ALREADY a cesspool of nonsense, because no discussion is permitted and the only allowed viewpoint is just about as credible as Flat Earthers.
Morphing troll:
Just like some of the AoA gang have complained to the employers and school administration of others. It has happened to Orac, more recently Rene and just above David said “I am also a student completing a degree (which AoA has interfered with, and allowed “Autism Grandma” to dismiss as a feature of a scam)”
It pretty much shows that AoA does not any real science or facts, they just have to go with subterfuge.
I was going to point that out to David. Reporting people to their employers/schools is a behavior of internet cranks, like the cranks at AoA. That is what they do to try to intimidate people out of a debate when they have no other way to address their views.
“Reporting people to their employers/schools is a behavior of internet cranks, like the cranks at AoA. That is what they do to try to intimidate people out of a debate”
I appreciate concern, but I am pursuing this option for a very limited end: To compel AoA to acknowledge that a semilegitimate complaint arose purely from misunderstanding of my work, and has already been resolved, so this organization won’t be able to resurrect the issue for further mischief. I was looking into my options for doing so even before a wretched post by Jake pretty well confirmed my suspicions.
David Brown, this is a classic example of a “Two Wrongs Make a Right” Fallacy. AoA is wrong for doing what they did (calling employers, etc.), but you calling Jake’s college to do the same thing makes everything right? This is pure comedy gold.
To all concerned:
I have taken no action so far, and probably won’t for a week or so, which will give Jake plenty of time to drop this nonsense if he chooses. Meanwhile, I’ll be working on a number of things, including a project for my degree which could have come further along if Dan Olmsted hadn’t caused my removal from LBRB.
David,
Having had my employer contacted by someone who disagreed with me, I’d seriously encourage you to reconsider; although it did me no harm, it was an intimidation tactic by the person. If there’s an actionable complaint, you take it to the police or to a lawyer for civil suit. You don’t attempt to harass and intimidate an individual by involving their university or their employer.
I agree 100%, and I’ll put it much more bluntly than Kim. I can’t support such actions, nor do I approve of them. Having observed David make such threats over the last few days and remained silent in the hopes that this pissing match between Jake and him would fade into oblivion the way that most exchange on discussion boards do. Since it has not, I can remain silent no more because I’m getting royally pissed at both of them. It’s gone beyond childish.
Let me be not-so-Respectfully Insolent here: From my perspective, threatening to contact someone’s employer for blogospheric or discussion forum disagreements not directly related to the person’s job is a total asshole thing to do, Actually carrying out such a threat goes beyond being a total asshole and is cowardly, to boot. In fact, it’s exactly the sort of thing cranks do on a regular basis. (I know, because I’ve had cranks threaten to go to my employer on at least four or five occasions over the last five years and actually carry out their threats on at least two.) Threatening to go to a blogger’s employer is nothing more than naked intimidation–an attempt to silence someone through by invoking the fear of what his employer will do or, at the very least, to try to get that person in trouble. David can try to convince himself that that’s not what he’s doing, but from my perspective he’s only deluding himself. Intimidation, whether he admits it to himself or not, is exactly what David is doing.
If I’ve pissed David off by saying that, so be it. My hope is that reading me be this blunt about his behavior will shock him into realizing just how far beyond the pale his behavior here has gone.
Finally, this last part is addressed to both David and Jake: Take it outside (i.e., take your pissing contest in the comments of this blog elsewhere–anywhere but here). I won’t tolerate it anymore and from here on out will delete such comments with extreme prejudice when I see them.
Which is why, if Age of Autism refused to publish comments according to a set of fair or at least evenly-applied criteria, such as “we will not publish comments that relate solely to interpersonal disputes,” they wouldn’t come in for such wide criticism for their censorship policies. But instead they censor comments according to a blatantly and blindly partisan policy, where only comments that favor the viewpoint of the blog make it through moderation.
One of their most recent stories was headlined “BMJ Editor Refuses to Acknowledge Brian Deerâs Role as Complainant in GMC Case”. Well, it’s not too difficult to find out that Brian Deer isn’t the complainant; “complainant” is a specific legal role, like “plaintiff”, and Brian Deer is no more the “complainant” than Melanie Phillips, who likes defending Andrew Wakefield, is the “defendant”.
But even though many comments with no relevance to the story have been approved, no comment that points out this basic error has made it through moderation.
This pissing match between David Brown and Jake Crosby is still going on?
BTW, David, I wonder what is your next move? Are you going to tell his Mommy?
Orac,
Whether or not this gets on here, I would like it to receive due consideration: I consider the refusal of representatives of AoA to acknowledge that I did NOT accuse a member of their staff of direct involvement in a forgery to be itself a threatening action. It means that they could, at any time when it suited their purposes, revive the accusation that I “libeled” them, and so cause any number of setbacks for me. The only way I can see to obtain closure and security is to compel a representative to make such a statement (and preserve said statement just in case someone tries to bring it back up anyway).
Seriously- any other ideas?
I enjoyed looking at this post. The written info was obvious and uncomplicated to understand and I have higher regards for the writer of this post 330)