Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Autism Bad science Medicine Popular culture Pseudoscience

Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller publish another terrible “vaxxed/unvaxxed” study

Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, two antivaccine propagandists disguising themselves as scientists, published yet another terrible “vaxxed/unvaxxed” study purporting to show unvaccinated children are healthier. How awful was the study? Let Orac tell you!

I was looking back at the blog and my blog posts over the last few months and noticed that the last time I wrote anything that wasn’t about COVID-19 was on March 16. I had been feeling that I needed a break from the unrelentingly depressing news about SARS-CoV-2 virus, the pandemic it’s causing, the 100,000 dead Americans and so many more dead all over the world it’s caused, and all the quackery, bad science, and conspiracy theories that the pandemic provoked and continues to provoke, including the unholy alliance between COVID-19 deniers and the antivaccine movement. Oddly enough, yesterday I was made aware of the publication of a study that in this age of over a hundred thousand Americans dead from a pandemic seems almost quaint by comparison. It is, however, nonetheless still important because it’s yet another example of antivaxxers promoting a favorite myth of theirs, namely that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children (spoiler: they aren’t) because, of course, they believe that vaccines are toxic brews of horrible chemicals and DNA and tissue from aborted fetuses and therefore cause autism and every manner of chronic health problem, thus making our children the “sickest generation” (another spoiler: they aren’t). Yes, it’s another “vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study,” and it’s just as bad as every other antivax “vaxxed vs. unvaxxed” study out there, but superficially better in appearance. Hilariously, it’s by two antivaxxers whom we’ve met before, Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller.

When you sample “integrative pediatrics”

The study is published in—of course!—an open access journal, SAGE Open Medicine, and is entitled Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders. Before I get into just how awful this paper is, let’s look at it as presented. Then we’ll look at its methodological flaws and the history of horrible science from its two authors, both of whom fancy themselves epidemiologists. The study is a retrospective study examining patients taken from three different pediatrics practices. The medical practices are not identified, but you can bet with a high degree of confidence that they are very likely “integrative medicine” or “integrative pediatrics” practices, possibly even pure quack practices, because no reputable pediatrics practice would be willing to work with known antivaxxers, unless, of course, they were deceived into thinking that Hooker and Miller were actual reputable researchers, which they most definitely were not and are not. Personally, if I might be allowed to speculate, I’m pretty sure that one practice is likely to have been Dr. Paul Thomas’ practice, as he is a rising star in the antivaccine movement and has discussed doing a “vaxxed/unvaxxed” study using his practice. On the other hand, he’s already working with another antivaccine pseudoscientist, James Lyons-Weiler, on a highly dubious vaxxed/unvaxxed study; so it’s possible that he wouldn’t collaborate with Hooker and Miller. Other possibilities come to mind, including—of course!—“Dr. Bob” Sears, Dr. Jay Gordon, Dr. David Brownstein (in my area, although he’s not a pediatrician), or possibly Dr. Larry Palevsky. I guess it really doesn’t matter that much.

Convenience sample = non-generalizable

So what we have here is a sample that’s known as a “convenience sample,” which means that, instead of trying to study a wide variety of subjects who collectively are likely to be more representative of the general population, the investigators take a sample that’s easy to reach. Typical examples include: one’s school, a local business, a workplace, etc. Obviously, Hooker and Miller had contacts with three practices who were willing to give them access to deidentified data on their patients from their electronic health records. Of course, there are multiple obvious disadvantages of using convenience samples, the main one being that they are rarely representative of the general population and therefore cannot be generalized. Others include bias and over- or underrepresentation of the population. Basically, no matter how you analyze a convenience sample, you can’t generalize it to the larger population. (Of course, none of this has stopped antivax Twitter from going wild over this study as “proving” that unvaccinated children are healthier and less likely to develop autism.)

Another problem with convenience sampling:

Perhaps the biggest problem with convenience sampling is dependence. Dependent means that the sample items are all connected to each other in some way. This dependency interferes with statistical analysis. Most hypothesis tests (e.g. the t-test or chi-square test) and statistics (e.g. the standard error of measurement), have an underlying assumption of random selection, which you do not have. Perhaps most problematic is the fact that p-values produced for convenience samples can be very misleading.

So let’s dig in.

Lead with antivaccine tropes

Hooker and Miller start out with an introduction that’s full of assumptions that there is a scientific controversy over whether vaccines cause or increase the risk of autism, sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections,. and chronic health conditions such as asthma. (They don’t, but this is an antivax paper.) For instance, they cite the execrable “vaxxed/unvaxxed study” by Anthony Mawson. True, they do admit that Mawson’s study was at a high risk of bias and only looked at parent-reported outcomes as a justification for doing their own crappy study, but in reality Mawson’s study barely qualified as a “study” rather than a dubious Internet survey, leading to this carefully reworded antivax talking point:

The medical community does in general acknowledge that vaccination is not without health risks, including death.6 However, it is widely purported that these side effects or “adverse events” are extremely rare and justified compared to the overall benefit of vaccination.7 There have been very few studies reported where health effects of the US infant and childhood vaccination schedule have been assessed. This is in part based on ethical concerns of withholding vaccination from an unvaccinated control group within such a study.8 Indeed, this precludes the use of double-blinded placebo studies on vaccine health effects, and even in clinical trials an earlier version of the same vaccine is often used as the placebo control for the newly tested vaccine.

Basically, Hooker and Miller are bemoaning the consensus that it’s unethical to do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of unvaccinated children versus vaccinated children. (For those for whom it’s not mind-numbingly obvious, such a study is considered incredibly unethical because the control group would be left vulnerable to the common vaccine-preventable diseases that the current vaccine schedule targets, thus meaning there would be no clinical equipoise, and resoundingly so.) They’re also full of crap with that last sentence. Previous versions of vaccines are often used as controls for clinical trials of new vaccines for the same disease, but they are not placebo controls. The point of doing studies comparing a new vaccine versus the old version is to make sure that it is, at the very least, not inferior to the old. These are called non-inferiority trials. What oblivious peer reviewer didn’t catch this and correct it? In any event, the introduction is full of cleverly phrased (so as not to trigger peer reviewers to call them out on it) antivaccine tropes and talking points.

Confounders? We don’t need to control for no stinking confounders!

So let’s get into the study itself. Basically, it’s a retrospective cohort study examining patients from the three practices through de-identified data taken from the practices’ electronic medical records. The hypothesis, apparently, is that vaccination prior to one year of age will result in the adverse health outcomes studied as the dependent variables: developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders. Consequently, the first analysis involved two cohorts: patients vaccinated before age 1 plus 15 days (to capture the vaccines recommended at one year by the CDC) and those who didn’t receive any vaccines before age 1. Note that even one vaccine before age 1 counted in the vaccinated group.

The authors then did a quartile analysis in which the number of vaccine doses received prior to 1 year of age was calculated as the number of times an ICD-9 or ICD-10 code for vaccination was recorded in the patient’s EMR. I will give Hooker and Miller credit for resisting one common antivaccine tendency, namely to count polyvalent vaccines as more than one vaccine; e.g., to count MMR as three vaccines, measles, mumps, and rubella. Instead, they state, “Tetanus–diphtheria–acellular pertussis (TdaP) and MMR, among other combination vaccinations, were counted as one vaccine, although they consist of three vaccines in a single injection.” There was also a red flag here for me,”Due to differences in recording practices among the participating pediatricians, no attempts were made in this study to differentiate between the types of vaccines administered to these infants. In addition, due to unavailability of the type of vaccine given in each visit in one of the medical practices, temporal relationships between specific vaccines and diagnoses were not taken into account.” Really? This is rather important. Also, why a quartile design, instead of just using the number of vaccines received as a continuous variable? Would it be…uncharitable…of me to suspect that an analysis done that way found no correlations? Perish the thought!

In any case, at this point I was a bit confused. They call this a cohort study, but in reality it sounds like a case-control study:

This study employed a cohort study design with strata for medical practice, year of birth and gender. Cases were evaluated against non-cases for an association between vaccination status and the different health conditions considered using a conditional logistic regression model. SAS® University Edition was used for statistical analyses with relationships deemed significant at p < 0.05 without correction for the number of statistical tests performed.

A case-control study “compares patients who have a disease or outcome of interest (cases) with patients who do not have the disease or outcome (controls), and looks back retrospectively to compare how frequently the exposure to a risk factor is present in each group to determine the relationship between the risk factor and the disease,” which is sure what the description above sounds like. Of course, a retrospective cohort study looks at a cohort of individuals exposed to a common risk factor and compares them to a cohort not exposed and then looks at differences in the prevalence of the condition of interest, which is what they sound as though they are actually doing. I guess it’s just of a piece with Brian Hooker’s seeming confusion of cohort and case-control study methodology, which goes back to his execrable “reanalysis” that claimed to find that the MMR vaccine greatly increased the risk of autism in African-American boys.

Hooker and Miller started out with 16,696 patients in the three pediatrics practices, and winnowed them down thusly:

Study schema (Hooker & Miller)

It’s also striking to note that 30.9% of the patients received no vaccinations prior to one year of age, which makes this an amazingly unrepresentative sample.

Here’s what Hooker and Miller claim to have found:

Vaccination before 1 year of age was associated with increased odds of developmental delays (OR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.47–3.24), asthma (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.04–9.88) and ear infections (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.63–2.78). In a quartile analysis, subjects were grouped by number of vaccine doses received in the first year of life. Higher odds ratios were observed in Quartiles 3 and 4 (where more vaccine doses were received) for all four health conditions considered, as compared to Quartile 1. In a temporal analysis, developmental delays showed a linear increase as the age cut-offs increased from 6 to 12 to 18 to 24 months of age (ORs = 1.95, 2.18, 2.92 and 3.51, respectively). Slightly higher ORs were also observed for all four health conditions when time permitted for a diagnosis was extended from ⩾ 3 years of age to ⩾ 5 years of age.

They compared this to the odds ratio of head injury, which they believed would be unrelated to vaccination and, in their analysis, was not. Looking at their analysis, I find it interesting that there was no increased risk of GI disorders associated with vaccines (contrary, of course, to Andrew Wakefield’s original claims that the MMR vaccine was associated with autism and GI disorders) but that there was an association when the quartile analysis was performed.

There are at least two issues with this study that tell me it is, more or less, meaningless. The first is clearly demonstrated in the “Conclusions” section of the abstract:

In this study, which only allowed for the calculation of unadjusted observational associations, higher ORs were observed within the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group for developmental delays, asthma and ear infections. Further study is necessary to understand the full spectrum of health effects associated with childhood vaccination.

And:

The findings in this study must be weighed against the strengths and limitations of the available data and study design, which only allowed for the calculation of unadjusted observational associations.

Note the word “unadjusted.” That means that the analysis was not adjusted for confounders and there were likely many confounders. Of course, this glaring defect in the study is not unexpected from Brian Hooker, who is known for having bragged about how he values “simplicity” in statistics. For example, here’s what he said about his “reanalysis” of the Atlanta data regarding MMR safety, the “reanalysis” that claimed to find a large increase in the risk of autism associated with MMR vaccination in African-American boys:

I think that in statistics simplicity is elegance. And I’m not really that smart; so I like to do simple, easy things rather than much more intellectually challenging things. So I did the simplest, most straightforward analysis, which is a Chi Squared analysis…

As I’ve said many times, in statistics and epidemiology, the simplest, most straightforward analysis is often—if not usually—not the correct analysis. Given how many other differences there are between children (and their families) who are not vaccinated or who are undervaccinated, not even bothering to control for potential confounders will inevitably produce spurious associations. Here’s another example, straight from Hooker’s latest paper: “No covariates were considered in this model due to the lack of availability of relevant maternal and birth data.” Without those data to use as the basis to control for confounders, Hooker and Miller’s analysis is, at best, preliminary.

For example, in the case of ear infections, there is definitely an association between health seeking behaviors and the diagnosis of ear infections. Because most ear infections resolve on their own, it’s not hard to imagine that parents who don’t vaccinate their children could be less likely to take their children to the pediatrician for symptoms of an ear infection, opting instead to treat their children “holistically.” Similarly, before school, such parents are less likely to have their children evaluated for developmental delay. (Schools screen for developmental delay.) Now here’s the interesting thing. Take a look at this passage:

The three participating medical practices recommended that all children go to well-child visits regardless of whether they were receiving vaccines. However, none of the practices kept data on the frequency of visits. If more vaccinated than unvaccinated children showed up at these check-ups, this would be indicative of a difference in healthcare-seeking behavior and could lead to more diagnoses in the group that was seen by the practitioner more often. There was a higher proportion of unvaccinated children in the overall sample as compared to those who were included in the main analysis, which could be indicative of divergent healthcare-seeking behavior.

Of course, all three practices have EMRs. Each practice knows how many times each child was seen in the practice and for what complaint(s)/indications(s). The information is there, right in the EMRs! This tells me that Hooker and Miller intentionally chose not to control for healthcare seeking behavior, suggesting to me that they knew that doing so would likely have eliminated or greatly decreased their reported associations. (Indeed, I can’t help but wonder if they did correct for healthcare seeking behavior and saw the associations they reported disappear.) Of course, we know from Hooker’s history that he’s not big on controlling for potential confounders.

Other deficiencies

A number of other serious defects and deficiencies in this study are apparent. One is that the definition of GI disorders is rather vague. Also, the vaccinated group included children who were undervaccinated, and it’s unclear whether children who received their first vaccination after age one continued to be counted as “unvaccinated.” And, again, there was no attempt to control for potential confounders. That can’t be repeated enough.

I also can’t help but note this:

Other diagnoses, including autism and ADD/ADHD, were considered for assessment. However, insufficient numbers of cases existed among the practices to complete a rigorous statistical analysis.

Anyone want to bet that they looked at these, but their were no significant differences in prevalence associated with vaccination status, no matter how hard they tried to slice and dice the data?

Hooker, Miller, and red flags

I’ve already discussed Brian Hooker a bit. Basically, he’s a biochemical engineer who now fancies himself an epidemiologist. (Unfortunately for him, he’s an incredibly incompetent one.) Those of you familiar with the antivaccine conspiracy theory propaganda film disguised as a documentary VAXXED will remember that Hooker was the one who ensnared a disgruntled CDC scientist named William Thompson by befriending him and then betraying him by recording their phone conversations without Thompson’s knowledge, later giving the recordings to Andrew Wakefield and other antivaxxers. Thus was born the “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory that posits that the CDC “knew” that the MMR vaccine causes autism but covered up the data showing the association.

Neil Z. Miller is the perfect “collaborator” for Hooker, as he, too, fancies himself an epidemiologist. I’ve catalogued his offenses against science on numerous occasions, usually teamed up with computer scientist Gary S. Goldman. For instance, Miller has tried to correlate a higher number of vaccines on vaccine schedules of various countries with increased infant mortality, but his analyses were so incompetent as to be risible. He’s also tried to “show” that administering multiple vaccines at a single visit increases the risk of death or an adverse reaction. It as yet another epically awful study.

I also can’t help but notice the institutional review board (IRB) that approved this study: Simpson University, a Christian university, where Hooker is faculty. I note that there is no medical school associated with the university, although there is a nursing school and an undergraduate program in biology. There are no advanced graduate programs in biology or medicine other than psychology. Brian Hooker himself is the department chair of the Department of Biology, which only teaches undergraduates. Unsurprisingly, not a single person sits on the Simpson University IRB who appears qualified to do clinical research or epidemiology. Quelle surprise!

Antivaxxers love this study

Unsurprisingly, antivaxxers love this study. The wandering band of antivaccine propagandists at that wretched hive of scum and antivaccine quackery, Age of Autism touted a press release from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s antivaccine propaganda group Children’s Health Defense. Meanwhile, Jennifer Margulis, another rising star in the antivaccine movement who strenuously denies she’s antivaccine, posted a laudatory article Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children, in which she cited a naturopath and took the article at face value, completely ignoring what a piece of crap it is from a methodological standpoint, claiming:

I need to pause for a moment and point out the obvious: This is not about being pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine. Those labels are short-sighted and misleading. Whether you vaccinate your children according to the current CDC schedule, choose to follow a more relaxed and gentler vaccine schedule, or do no vaccines, we are all on the same side: pro-kid, pro-health, and pro-vaccine safety.

No! No, we’re not “on the same side.” Antivaxxers might think they are “pro-kid, pro-health, and pro-vaccine safety,” but they’re not. It’s easy enough to prove that their claims not to be “antivaccine” and that they are “pro-vaccine safety” are nonsense by asking a simple question: “Which vaccine(s) do you consider sufficiently safe and effective to recommend generally for children without a medical contraindication to vaccination?” You’ll either get crickets, a lot of tap dancing around the question, or transparent excuses not to provide a direct answer to the question.

It’s important to remember that this study is just more fodder for antivaccine propaganda. It is already popping all over antivaccine social media. Antivaxxers don’t care that it’s a study of a convenience sample, that it doesn’t bother to control for even the most obvious confounders, that it is a raging stinky dumpster fire of a study, that the “investigators” who published it have a long history of incredibly bad science with respect to vaccines. They just want more disinformation to demonize vaccines and thereby cast doubt upon their safety and efficacy.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

211 replies on “Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller publish another terrible “vaxxed/unvaxxed” study”

Is it me, or does the fact that they left out so many, for example, ear infections because they were diagnosed before one year of age also makes their claims suspect?

I wonder if they did run health seeking behavior and decided not to include that after they saw the result. Impossible to check either way, I think.

Thank you for going through this.

“For example, in the case of ear infections, there is definitely an association between health seeking behaviors and the diagnosis of ear infections.”

Yep. I confirm (on the basis of “anecdotal” evidence, mind you, for good record keeping…): Got these childhood ear surgeries in my medical records. Health seeking behaviour all right…

I’m mightily annoyed by antivaxxers instrumentalising topics like that.

Mightily.

You could always ask the author’s of the study to address your concerns, Dorit.

Jacky is a teenager featured on Orac’s blog on more than one occasion, she also is the author of some of his posts / comments.

Here is proof (unless David would care to explain); https://m.imgur.com/a/L8Dke72

That’s evidence that he ignored previous unclear name usage by you, nothing else.

Imaginary teenagers aren’t something Orac needs to explain. It’s something those imagining the teenagers should explain (or not, which is fine too. I never ask my children to explain their imaginary friends, just to describe them. Once the category is identified, we can move on).

One redeeming aspect of this screen shot is that the history window is included. Gaia Daily? Heh.

Also, does Charles understand the meaning of the word ‘featured’? Also, how does he know Jacky is a teenager?

Also the ones they left in seem a little strange to me: “Born between 2005 and 2015: 2047” and then: “developmental delays: 2037”. So apparently the delay appears to be the norm… How is that possible?

I read it that way at first, but what they mean is that there were 2037 children in their analysis for developmental delays, not that 2037 children had developmental delays. Reading the paper, only 187 of the children had developmental delays.

I think this is what happens when people like Hooker and Miller try and do epidemiology. Because they don’t know how to do it, they end up indulging in cargo cult science.

Just off the cuff, the frequency of children with asthma reported (4%) appears to be way below what is expected in the population.

BULLSHIT BLOODY SIONIST!

you use the pathetic technic of talk shit about the people (and you will take to court for that).
For shows something is wrong you need scientific proofs! Like they shows in their research.
Anyways, nobody needs science, with two and half fingers of brain and reading and watching the news, and the statistics, anyone can verified how the vaccines affect people. After Bill hell went to Africa, women got diseases and death, some in India where the government kick him out.
You are just a little shit employee of this shit system.
Vaccinate yourself and die!

No one has written any posts on this blog but me in many years with one exception, and it wasn’t anyone with that name.🙄

Spring-heeled Jack. Is this an origin story for Manbat?

Jacky… male Jacky or female Jacky? Is there a surname?

I like the way that Orac answering a question posed to him, whilst simultaneously calling him Jacky, is taken as proof that Orac is secretly Jacky (warranting a screenshot no less). This means that my real name is ‘Oi hey you mate sorry I didnt see you excuse me’.

So will you then please care to address why it is that you would respond to her name?

Jacky is the voice in charlie’s head that tells him to do those awful, awful things.

Orac writes,

“No one has written any posts on this blog but me in many years with one exception, and it wasn’t anyone with that name.”

MJD says,

Why have a guest post policy? One guest post in ~ fourteen (14) years?

Q. Can I be the 2nd person in 15 years to write a guest post for RI?

Please advise, Dr. RI.

It took me a while to sort out a hazy memory, but I have a real one of the novelty “Moon Shoes” type still being around in the ’70s. Little did I expect that the basic idea had been around since the late ’20s.

Wasn’t there a theory in the crankosphere that Orac was somebody’s wife? I can’t remember whose though.

I’m guessing their target age group was a bit too young for this, but I’m surprised they didn’t at least try to include gender dysphoria and/or being LGBTQ+ in general.

That’s my (least) favorite antivaxxer claim. “Aborted fetus DNA from the opposite sex is what makes our babies trans or gay!”

If that were true, you’d see quite a lot more people wanting to transition after a blood transfusion. But those things never occur to them; all the world revolves around vaccines, apparently.

“Can I be the 2nd person in 15 years to write a guest post for RI?”

Why would he want an uneducated buffoon having that honor?

”The medical practices are not identified, but you can bet with a high degree of confidence that they are very likely “integrative medicine” or “integrative pediatrics” practices, possibly even pure quack practices, because no reputable pediatrics practice would be willing to work with known antivaxxers”

Therein lies (to me) the most glaring defect in this study. It is virtually a given that practitioners who took part are in large measure or entirely antivaccine. Their diagnoses of “developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders” are highly likely to be colored by knowledge of their patients’ vaccination status. If you know that a child is fully vaccinated (something you strongly disapprove of), then it must be tempting to find an associated health problem.
Given that these practitioners are also highly likely to participate in woo-based care, their medical knowledge, and thus the accuracy of their diagnoses is suspect.

Neil Z. Miller fans are probably sick of being reminded of this, but it is impossible to take seriously any allegedly scientific study emanating from a guy who has claimed to communicate with extraterrestrials, and to have facilitated his daughter’s contacts with alien beings.*

*Neil also authored a book titled “Review of Critical Vaccine Studies”, carefully constructed to include only those publications which Neil thinks support his antivaccine views, while he admits leaving out any and all studies which support the safety and efficacy of vaccination. The book features a cover photo of a man wearing a white coat and stethoscope which readers are supposed to think is Neil, except that 1) Neil is not a physician or any kind of health practitioner, and 2) it may well be a stock photo since it does not resemble the Neil Z. Miller portrayed elsewhere, i.e. his flattering bio on Encyclopedia of American Loons.
**Associating himself with Neil Z. Miller does not exactly lend credibility to Brian Hooker’s endeavors.

Wait: Is this the same Neil Z. Miller who has published a collection of poetry transmitted to the author by extraterrestrials? I try to avoid ad hominem arguments, but reports of encounters with aliens or giant reptilian thunderbirds are a trigger for me.

@brian

“I try to avoid ad hominem arguments, but reports of encounters with aliens or giant reptilian thunderbirds are a trigger for me.”

I must say I have a special fondness for Raël.

“**Associating himself with Neil Z. Miller does not exactly lend credibility to Brian Hooker’s endeavors.” Nothing lends credibility to Brian Hooker’s endeavors.

The very same Neil Z. Miller who decided that his “Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families” was not sufficiently full of lies and confabulations, forcing him to invite Russell Blaylock to write an Introduction.

@ KeithB,

I’ve wondered about this regarding all vaccine safety studies. Ideally, a pharmacist should be able to access & record on a patients electronic health record, so that immunizations are not repeated . I am also not sure how many pharmacists are certified to immunize children; many did not used to be.

All parents, especially new, young parents, will seek attention from medical providers when they are worried. The only ones who do not are neglectful.

Health seeking behaviors: The unhealthy will seek it more. It does not lead to more diagnosis IN CHILDREN (although that may be the case for adults); being more unhealthy leads to more diagnosis. That’s not being simplistic; that is being practical.

@ Christine Kincaid

“The only ones who do not are neglectful.”

Hum. No. There are… “exceptions”.

“Health seeking behaviors: The unhealthy will seek it more.”

Then I must be so unhealthy that I should already be dead.

“It does not lead to more diagnosis IN CHILDREN (although that may be the case for adults)”

It does. Medical providers have a tendency to believe parents. Not everything can be checked with objective tests. Ear infections must be to some extent believed on testimony. Allegations of nausea or vomiting must be to some extent relied on testimonials of parents as doctors are not always there when the kid pukes. Allegations of poisoning or intoxications must to some extent be believed on testimony, and when test evidence at the local antipoison center pops up as being negative, medical providers do carry out interventions to be on the safe side. Such as gastric lavages, in the good ol’ days. Allegations of behavioral problems must also to some extent be relied upon testimonials of parents. And that paragraph lists, in my very humble and very personal opinion, some of the mildest manifestations of… The Problem…

“Being more unhealthy leads to more diagnosis.”

Being born in a family of control freak doctors where everything is considered to be a disease and where family are buddies with their doctor’s kids (when they are not directly their own kid’s doctors, which does happen, and as far as my local legislation goes is perfectly legal and not reprehensible in any ways) gives you a highway to the inner sanctuary of the local hospital.

“That’s not being simplistic; that is being practical.”

Being realistic means acknowledging that some kids are being pigeonholed into being artificially sick for weird, twisted psychological reasons.

Been there. Done it. Seen it. And it’s not pretty. And that syndrome has an ugly name that I do not wish to mention more than necessary for many reasons; one being that Google indexes a tad too much…

F68.10,

I have noticed when you hinted about what you experienced as a child. This time you wrote more than just a hint & I am appalled that this happened to you.

You are right that children cannot advocate for themselves the way that adults can. And even with my teenagers; doctors in the exam room will look right through them to ask me; “So what seems to be the problem today?”As if their patient were not even there. It is a rare doctor who communicates with the child first, instead of automatically looking to me for the narrative.

And even with my teenagers; doctors in the exam room will look right through them to ask me; “So what seems to be the problem today?”

Maybe you should stay out of the exam room.

@ christine kincaid

“This time you wrote more than just a hint & I am appalled that this happened to you.”

It’s more complicated than one may convey through comments on a blog. No matter how I may write about it, I always seem to convey the wrong message. So many misconceptions about this… thing.

“You are right that children cannot advocate for themselves the way that adults can.”

There are few loopholes that allows that nonsense to be carried out through adulthood. It’s not only a kid’s issues, though it almost always starts, possibly low-key, in rather early childhood, seemingly. The less spectacular a case, the longer it lasts. And most “victims” tend to discover it in their thirties anyway when it has not been detected prior to that by medical professionals: from the moment I started putting my own words (i.e. “Mommy’s spouting medical shit as usual… no big deal… or is it?”) on the phenomenon to the moment I got fully convinced that the medical literature was sadly on topic and biased, it took me from 13 to 16 years. And I was well within adulthood.

“It is a rare doctor who communicates with the child first, instead of automatically looking to me for the narrative.”

It’s not only a matter of communicating more with the child than with the caretaker. It’s also a matter of doctors understanding that they are pretty much also responsible for the way this kind of nonsense picks steam and momentum than the caretakers on which they shift all the blame. Because when the pseudologia fantastica has been enshrined as The Scientific Truth in the medical records, the ones that cannot mentally take a step back in a reflective mood are the doctors, not the parents anymore. The latter can lose control over the situation and start behaving “erratically”, but the former make it a point of honour of “not losing control”. It’s therefore much more draining to try to swim against the tide and get out of that kind of situation than it is to be subjected to the situation itself in the first place.

And the medical miserabilist psycho-babble bullshit in psych wards on the topic of Mommy Issues really doesn’t help setting up a stage for clear evidence-based communication on delicate topics. I just wish I had videotapes of all the interactions I had with doctors over my lifetime… too easy to hide that kind of mess behind medical secrecy and denial of one variety or another.

“…relationships deemed significant at p < 0.05 without correction for the number of statistical tests performed.”

So they basically just admitted to p hacking.

“So they basically just admitted to p hacking”.

Basically — and to an overly broad faith in the interpretations of the results of traditional hypothesis testing in general.

and to an overly broad faith in the interpretations of the results of traditional hypothesis testing in general.

No. Just a realisation that if you do enough tests you will find something you want. There is no faith in statistical approaches involved here, just knowledge that any positive result counts in the effort to prove vaccines are harmful. It is cargo cult science.

@ Narad,

“Maybe you should stay out of the exam room.”

I do for the 18 year old twins, except for the times they ask me to go. When they were under 18 not only did they want me there but some practices wouldn’t see them if I wasn’t.. This was a problem for me when I left home at age 16 & it was a problem again when the twins went to college & a daughter had to go to the ER after she fainted during an 80+ degree marching band practice, 150 miles away. They started college at age 17.

You still haven’t explained why you claimed the article about India you posted was about paralytic polio when it was plainly about non-polio paralysis. Until you do, why should we believe anything you say?

I went in with my under 18’s as well, only when asked to (most didn’t require it), but I sat in a chair and didn’t intervene–and no doc ever asked me to.

My youngest started college at 16, so there! I think you only comment to pretend to be serious about the themes of this blog and to present yourself as some kind of SuperMom. Sorry if I’m wrong, but if you write it, others will interpret.

I imagine in a future time that people willfully disseminating disinformation would be prosecuted as a public danger, and imprisoned until public recantation.

@ Wallace Grommet

“I imagine in a future time that people willfully disseminating disinformation would be prosecuted as a public danger, and imprisoned until public recantation.”

We all know that that kind of legal setup leads only to more disinformation. Not less.

And it’s obvious you haven’t been through periods of solitary confinment just to get a message across.

I am so tired of anti-vaxxers. Maybe someone should prove them all wrong by taking 10,000 vaccines at the same time – after all, a baby can. (Each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time). See Offit el al (2002). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.109.1.124 (full reference below).

I nominate you Dr. Gorski. Please encourage prof. Dorit Rubinstein Reiss and Dr. Jeff Pan to do it with you. Maybe you induce Stanley Plotkin and Alan Dershowitz too. I bet as soon as you guys get those 10,000, RFK Jr., and Del Bigtree and the whole movement will just roll up their sleeves!

Vaccinology is real science!

See Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System? Paul A. Offit, Jessica Quarles, Michael A. Gerber, Charles J. Hackett, Edgar K. Marcuse, Tobias R. Kollman, Bruce G. Gellin and Sarah Landry. Pediatrics January 2002, 109 (1) 124-129;

Barely funny.

Just answer one simple question before moving on: have vaccines, overall, since their introduction, been of societal value?

Overall…

Once this question is answered — and there is a right and a wrong answer — we may proceed and discuss finer points, such as the right or lack thereof to opt out of medical procedures such as vaccines. There aren’t many good points to be made for opting out to be allowed, but still, it’s a legitimate question.

Being afraid of the needle or freaking out on the topic of bodily fluids is “understandable”. Not being willing to take a step back and acknowledge, at least on an abstract level, the societal value of vaccination, much less so.

If ever our knowledge on vaccines were set back to the early days of variolation, the question of its value to society would nonetheless have a right and a wrong answer. You can’t escape the fact that some questions do have answers.

@ Narad

““Very stale” is more like it.”

I have such a bad temper that I somehow fancy expecting a modicum of support when I do my best to be a good sport.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have such high hopes.

Oh, I completely agree with the meat of your comment, but I’ve (and I suspect most everyone who follows these things has) heard the “10,000 vaccines” routine ad nauseam.

@F68.10

I saw a video today of cops (~200) marching and staging (might have been LA?) no protesters there, a group of cops on the edge of the march smashed in all the windows of a lone car parked on the street.

If only there had been some good cops around to put a stop to that. Ohh. It seems that all the ‘good’ cops around did, in fact, respond.**

Apple, apple, apple… “What seems to be the problem, applicer?”

{sorry, can’t now find video}

**This is not just a black thing. I would have been George Floyd on the day that I eluded*** cops and made my destination to deliver a quarter-million doller piece of radar hardware had I not, in the last three seconds, shouted into the building “He is going to suffocate me!” A few seconds later, there were a hundred people who knew me outside witnessing the cop sufficating me with that exact same technique — They killed a boyscout ‘friend’ of mine one year earlier doing the same thing. That is o.k. because his dad was a scoutmaster and probably raped him all the time anyways.

***I got miffed at closed roads and being forced to drive on ice-covered roads in the shadow of a snow-free interstate and overpass. I was driving a 1976 Jeep Cherokee Quadratrack. I got stopped. The cop cited me and said, “now you get off on that exit and you better drive like somebody”. I left him holding my identification, and my signed ticket, and told him “I will”. Hillarity, gunfire, wrecked police cars, and attempted murder (which I was charged with because pursuing officers wrecked their shit) insued.

If English isn’t your native language I can understand your confusion. Back in 2002, the toilet-lickers, tobacco-company shills, coke-heads, and toxin-lovers that make up the antivax movement claimed that vaccines had “too many antigens” – so Dr. Offit did a simple calculation to show that the amount of antigens in a single vaccine was about 10,000 less than a child’s immune system could safely handle (not a surprise considering how much dirt children eat). People who enjoy children’s suffering (like Christine “Children dying is funny” Kincaid) have been misunderstanding this result for 18 years – some out of stupidity and some out of evil).

How about you deal with the actual quote, idiot – that a baby’s immune system is theoretically capable of dealing with the antigen challenge from as many as 10,000 vaccines.

Do you see the difference? The immune system is capable of handling tens of thousands of antigens at any given time…not that anyone could or should receive 10,000 vaccines.

Why are anti-vaxers so stupid?

It’s a blast from the past – I haven’t heard anyone lie about the “10,000 vaccine” paper in 10 years.

My baby died after 1 vaccine. I don’t think10,000 is a particularly realistic goal. Maybe try on your own baby first.

Please tell us how your claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program went. Just post the final ruling so that we may check the veracity of your claim.

WHY EVERYONE SHOULD IGNORE CHRISTINE KINCAID, NATALIE WHITE, ETC.

First, go to Orac’s COVID-19: A magnet for medical conspiracy theories at:
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/05/26/covid-19-medical-conspiracy-theories/

Towards the end, starting at May 30, 2020 at 11:16 am are five comments by me. The first four refute using science four claims made by Kincaid and I include detailed references, including links when possible. The fifth comment explains why I resort to calling her dishonest, a moron, etc. To summarize, she either doesn’t read what others write, doesn’t read carefully, doesn’t understand, or is so certain she is right that she ignores, regardless of how strong they are. She seldom gives references, when she does they are often to a newspaper article, a blog or one or two papers, often by discredited scientists, and she has made it clear that she is no mere mortal; but is absolutely certain she is right. And, thus, if anyone disagrees with her, she attacks their honesty.

So, as I explained, my comments are not really addressed to Kincaid; but what she represents. Her lack of openness, her certainty, her viewing those who disagree with open hostility, represents the same mentality as neo-Nazis, racists, global warming deniers, etc. I have NO problem accepting that I do not have perfect knowledge, that I could be wrong and am willing to listen to opposing views if they aren’t more than Kincaids “I think” and can be backed with science, including references. But, Kincaid believes that ALL published articles are based on some sort of censorship/suppression.
I refuted this a bit further up on the same page at May 28, 2020 at 6:21 pm.

What Kincaid and other antivaxxers, neo-Nazis, racists, global warming deniers, and others do is extreme damage to society. By not entering into an open-minded dialogue, not accepting that they are flawed humans, we end up with the polarization we see today, demonizing the other. This polarization allows unscrupulous politicians and corporations to play people off against each other. And since once people believe something, they won’t change, anyone trying to explain this becomes the enemy. Note how a core of Trump supporters ignores how he contradicts himself and how, for instance, he bears the lion’s share of blame for our current COVID-19 situation. Based on clear info if he had implemented social distancing and face masks just a couple of weeks sooner, as other nations had done, experts estimate over 50,000 lives would have been saved, totally ignored by his supporters. Just another example of Kincaid’s mentality. And it doesn’t matter that she supports face masks and social distancing as it is her mentality when applied to specific positions. Nazis focused on race. She focuses/obsesses on vaccines. A great book on why people don’t change their minds is: Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson (2015). “Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts (Revised). Mariner Books. Highly entertaining and informative.

Kincaid is a moron, someone suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect, and, unfortunately, she is in good, I mean BAD, company. And on vaccines, for the umpteenth time I suggest anyone who wants the basics of how and why vaccines work, get Lauren Sompayrac’s “How the Immune System Works (6th Edition). I have several 800 page undergraduate immunology texts; but Sompayrac’s book allow one to see the forest for the trees, not getting lost in a multitude of chemical formulas, etc.

And read my six comments at above given link.

@ Joel:

Your comments are extremely appropriate for educating those on the fence or the truly unaffiliated but not for woo-entranced or those heading in that direction. They may not be TOTALLY unreachable but who knows- maybe they are.

Some sceptics believe that only way to interact with anti-vaxxers is by ridicule. WHICH. of course I advocate BUT I cherish the anxious hope that there may be a way into their hearts of darkness ( or unenlightened brains).
Some vaccine supporters discuss the harms which come from VPDs showing images of how children suffer.. Or the difficulties their parents undergo because of these illnesses

AS you may know, I include instead a focus on research that illustrates how ASDs are determined prior to any vaccines AND are discernible prior to vaccines. There are studies of genetics ( hundreds) and prenatal brain development ( Couchesne) as well as early indicators of autism like gaze and other activities before the child’s first birthday: there are lists of these and video evidence ( see Cedillo)- parents presented videos to prove that their child had no indicators of autism which experts recognised as the converse: it showed parents mis-interpret what they see.

It is interesting that anti-vax advocates pooh-pooh studies of gaze/ genetics, calling them “a waste of time/ money” and can’t admit that researchers like Aldridge and Myles can identify kids with autism based on intrafacial relationships / features , even being able to discriminate Asperger’s Ss from more serious examples ( this is NOT about the most severe syndromes at all- that’s other research) – these are subtle differences found by computer analysis
.
Anti-vaxxers will not admit the reality of these findings. BUT they’re there and not new. .

I shouldn’t leave out that
research shows that women who are overweight, deficient in particular nutrients or live in areas with air pollution prior to and during pregnancy are more likely to have babies later diagnosed with ASDs: giving prenatal vitamins decreases these problems. Similarly, women who have specific infections or take particular meds during pregnancy ( at critical times/ trimesters) have more autistic children.AS do those mothers with immunological issues themselves.
All illustrate that the processes of development are interfered with during pregnancy resulting in ASDs.
This doesn’t happen in 18 month olds.

@ MJD:

People don’t ridicule you because they aren’t your friends, they ridicule you because the find your theories/ ideas/ pursuits lacking in good sense or outright laughable. Orac and many of his minions have tried to instruct you about why you are so wrong and how your obsessive beliefs do no one any good
BUT do you learn?
No
Do you change?
No
Do you find any serious researchers anywhere near the same ballpark in which you pitch? No way, Jose.
As I asked another outlier here: are any accredited universities taking up your questions as part of courses in life sciences or psychology? Not at all..
Because they belong only in the crankosphere.

researchers like Aldridge and Myles can identify kids with autism based on intrafacial relationships / features , even being able to discriminate Asperger’s Ss from more serious examples

The term ‘FLK’ is apparently deprecated now.

I recently has a short communication placed in the public domain

Wow, Nigerian scam journals. What did Mr. Akpogheneta charge you for that one?

“https://www.pearlresearchjournals.org/journals/jmbsr/archive/2020/May/Abstract/Dochniak.html”

Hmmm. One minute of searching found that “pearl research journals” is on four different lists for predatory journal publishers.

Was just writing your crap on a blank wall too much work? That’s the equivalent of your “publication”.

Can we be friends in the absence of ridicule, henceforth.

I doubt it MJD. Bragging about getting published in a Nigerian scam journal is so ridicule worthy.

This might be shorter than your usual efforts, but it is just as difficult to parse and makes no more sense.

Chris Preston writes,

“Bragging about getting published in a Nigerian scam journal is so ridicule worthy.”

MJD says,

Next month there will be a brief review from MJD in the Journal of Current Topics in Peptide and Protein Research. It’s a roller coaster ride indeed. Thanks for reading and commenting.

Next month there will be a brief review from MJD in the Journal of Current Topics in Peptide and Protein Research.

Next month there will be a brief review from MJD in the Journal of Current Topics in Peptide and Protein Research. It’s a roller coaster ride indeed.

A roller coaster indeed. It has a journal H index of 5. Clearly no-one bothers to read it, which is just as well if you are posting your vogon poetry there.

I mean nobody reads the journal. I have a personal H index more than 8 times the value for this whole journal. In fact I have dozens of papers that have each individually been cited more than every paper that has been published in this journal in its complete history combined. I do research in a little backwater most scientists don’t take much notice of. The last paper I had accepted for publication is in a journal with a H index of 262.

You are a pretender MJD.

@ Joel,

Actually I’ve been up in the mountains for the last several days with my son & just got back down from there again today. I was too tired to form a coherent reply to your lengthy comments.

I’m sorry but because you have been lucky enough (so far) to not be impacted by vaccine injury; you are a victim of the vaccine agenda propaganda & since the propaganda is disseminated from the highest levels, I can’t debate the topic of “vaccines are not safe” with you in the manner which you are accustomed.

Any scientist who would publish any negative findings just has to be labeled antivaccine & then it is open season to pick apart & criticize. It is incredibly ironic, that the flaws that biased the epidemiology away from finding the correlation to alleged AE’s are now considered standard protocol. When someone removes them & the correlation emerges; an ‘expert’ can now point to that & say it’s an antivaccine study! Lol, those were false confounders the whole time.

I know some have ‘investigated’ me on social media; you apparently have not. I keep my views on vaccines to forums & blogs; I don’t post memes or shares. The occasional post I write that mention vaccines consist of a statement & a link (versus an opinion & a link); you would have to go far back on my posts to find even those; they are few & far between.

I don’t have to try to make vaccines look bad, Joel, they speak so well for themselves. To the contrary; it takes a global agenda to make them look good. And even that isn’t going so well.

@ Christine Kincaid

“Any scientist who would publish any negative findings just has to be labeled antivaccine & then it is open season to pick apart & criticize.”

While there is a modicum of truth in that statement (I still think people went overboard with Gøtzsche, whom I also believe went overboard — in a more general sense not specifically related to vaccines — but with some arguments nonetheless…), it is a modicum of truth that is buried under such a shitload of stench posing as “science” that, overall, your statement amounts to a non-sequitur. Sorry to tell you that.

Ideally, a study — for instance — such as Wakefield’s should be one study among many others to which one should not pay more attention than that, and that people should silently debunk as fraudulent without making a fuss about it. But the shitstorm it triggered is proof enough that the way Wakefield communicated his “findings” is not innocent and indeed is seriously damaging. So, naturally, this kind of nonsense is bound to create a chilling effect. Naturally…

But to unlock that situation and create a scientific atmosphere where more ideas can be tossed around and more criticism tolerated (and medicine is not the scientific discipline where scientific criticism can flourish to the best of its abilities, given the social constraints it has to deal with: implications can be life or death; try anthropology instead if you want a scientific discipline where any shit can fly more or less unopposed) it is necessary for the whackyness of the “science” being tossed around by antivaxxers to really, seriously, severely tone down.

There still is this danish study showing no evidence of association between vaccination and autism that needs to be accounted for to avoid cherry-picking…

Because if you want people to pay attention to antivaxxer “science”, there is no epistemologically legitimate way you can bypass reciprocity and afford not paying attention to Fundamentalist Skeptic Science. Indeed, it’s a basic principle: one can’t have his cake and eat it too…

@ Christine Kincaid

I have refuted your claims over and over about suppression of findings of adverse events to vaccines. I have shown over and over again various claims made by you were wrong, including oral polio vaccine associated paralysis, oral polio vaccine and non-polio acute flaccid paralysis, SIDs, etc. You simply ignore what I and others write. You just keep repeating what you choose to believe without any substantiating evidence. Oh, of course, there isn’t any because it has been suppressed and how do you know it has been suppressed? Because you know the truth. Well, I think most people believe there is only one infallible g-d and that isn’t you.

So, once more you just prove what I wrote above and also linked to, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT!

@Christine, given that you were caught in a blatant lie, referring to “non-polio paralysis” as “paralytic polio” why should we believe any claim you make?

@ Christine Kincaid

You write: “Any scientist who would publish any negative findings just has to be labeled antivaccine & then it is open season to pick apart & criticize. It is incredibly ironic, that the flaws that biased the epidemiology away from finding the correlation to alleged AE’s are now considered standard protocol. When someone removes them & the correlation emerges; an ‘expert’ can now point to that & say it’s an antivaccine study! Lol, those were false confounders the whole time.”

So, how do you explain the myriad of published studies that have found vaccine-associated adverse events, e.g., intussusception with rotavirus vaccine, encephalitis with various vaccines, narcolepsy with 2008 H1N1 vaccine and on and one it goes. How many of the scientists who published these studies were called antivaccinationists? And how was epidemiology biased when it found these adverse events?

There are antisemitic groups who believe the Rothschild’s were involved in the assassination of seven American Presidents. Do they have any proof? Of course not since the Rothschild’s are so powerful they destroyed it. So how do they know they are right? Because the absence of proof is proof of the power of the Rothschilds.

I gave a link to a previous article by Orac where I refuted a number of claims you made; but you haven’t even attempted to counter what I wrote. You can’t.

You just keep making claims that counter the obvious, that is, claims epidemiological studies haven’t found vaccine-associated adverse events, etc. when there are literally thousands of published studied, which is why the CDC list both minor adverse events and rare serious adverse events on its website. You lack any reality testing ability.

Just proves how sick, demented, stupid, and evil you are, just as evil as neo-nazis, other racists, and many others who believe something, can’t martial evidence to back their beliefs, then claim the evidence is suppressed and that those suppressing it are all liars. YOU ARE A SICK SICK PERSON.

Why don’t you actually read my comments at:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/05/26/covid-19-medical-conspiracy-theories/

Including where I refute your claims of research suppression, etc.

GO TO HELL!

@ Joel Harrison

“There are antisemitic groups who believe the Rothschild’s were involved in the assassination of seven American Presidents. Do they have any proof? Of course not since the Rothschild’s are so powerful they destroyed it. So how do they know they are right? Because the absence of proof is proof of the power of the Rothschilds.”

Aside from antisemitic nutcases, it’s also wrong to downplay the role the Rothschilds had in the 19th century. They did have an important role and considerable power, and I’ve been surprised to learn a few years back the extent to which an important part of 19th century french politics were shaped in relation to the influence of the Rothschilds (not merely Waterloo…). It had real world impact, not only in economic or financial matters, but also on the course the history of political ideas took.

So, while loons will likely remain loons and dangerous loons will likely remain dangerous loons, when one dives into history, one can see how antisemitism was not only rooted in racial prejudice, religious prejudice or whatever, but also arose in a real political context with real power dynamics that had to be addressed and real items at stake.

The frightening thing is how ideas can take a life on their own, get divorced from reality for an extended period of time to the point where in the 21st century, the shadow of the influence of the Rothschilds in the 19th century lingers on in the minds of people while meanwhile their influence has been diminished very considerably and the political items at stake have radically changed and been remolded.

The world changes, but wild fantasies live a life of their own.

I’ve noticed similar phenomena with quite a number of conspiracy theories. Scrub aside the wild delirium that has aggregated around them over time, get down to original facts or reports of the facts, and you discover interesting things. The least uninteresting of which is how facts get distorted, distorted, distorted again, again and again… That mental exercise works with almost any pseudoscience or conspiracy theory with enough historical record on it.

One of my favourite bit of pseudoscience in this vein is the Electric Universe Theory. It doesn’t hold water, but the reason why it does not hold water, looking at the historical record of that theory, is not precisely a trivial one, and one does learn quite a few things about physics when diving in the historical record of this specific pseudoscientific theory.

Or, for instance, take the infamous Protocol of Elders of Zion. It has been modeled / plagiarised on the Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu by Maurice Joly. I never read the Protocols. But I did read Maurice Joly’s original work. And honestly, it’s quite good, enjoyable, witty, and in the political context of the time made quite good sense as a pamphlet. The “conspiratorial core ideas” are allegedly quite close to the Protocols, and Machiavelli is indeed a hell of a witty and vicious prick: a metaphor of how Napoleon III was indeed “conspiring” to subvert democratic ideals pioneered by Montesquieu. The media manipulation theory developed by Machiavelli as to how separation of powers could be torn apart is proper denunciation of Napoleon III’s real world policy. So, with the same “conspiratorial core ideas”, you can create a pro-democracy pamphlet that whose distribution the French State was hunting down at the time. Or the Protocols… The logical core of the conspiracy theory is the same. Which is real food for thought as to how ideas do morph over time…

This is a much better vax/unvax study
Schmitz R, Poethko-Müller C, Reiter S, Schlaud M.
Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents:
findings of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and
Adolescents (KiGGS).
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108(7):99‐104.
doi:10.3238/arztebl.2011.0099
It does concern infections and atopy. It has a larger and random sample.

WHY THERE IS NO AUTISM EPIDEMIC (rough draft of potentially much more detailed paper)

HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

The late Autism researcher Lorna Wing (2005). wrote: “Nothing exists until it has a name.” As an example, in a 910 treatise, the Persian/Arab physician, Al-Razi, noticed that a disease, up to then considered one, actually was two separate diseases, smallpox and measles (Cliff, 1993, p.52). So, did smallpox or measles suddenly develop in the 10th Century?

Contributing Factors to Diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorders:

Leo Kanner’s 1943 article introduced the diagnosis of Autism and gave estimated statistics (based only on his own office practice); but in 1971, at a conference, he admitted that he rejected minorities and working class whites, believing it only a diagnosis for children of educated whites. A number of journal articles and other reports, going back to early 1900s, used mental retardation and childhood schizophrenia diagnostic categories; but if I gave the listed symptoms without the source, they would definitely be categorized as Autism Spectrum Disorders. A few described cases from various sources from the 19th Century and earlier would similarly be today diagnosed as ASD.

Psychiatry was a relatively new profession, only developing the last two decades of the 19th Century, so nearly impossible to know how people with problems would have been diagnosed earlier. Prior to World War II, there were few to no social services in the U.S., the age required for school attendance was lower and children with problems were either just kicked out, some finding menial jobs, some institutionalized.

After World War II, with the rise of America’s middle class and family politics, more attention was paid to children. After the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik, more funds and programs and emphasis on public education was developed and the minimal age for leaving school increased.
Psychology became a popular degree in American universities and we began churning out psychologists, school counselors, and more psychiatrists and, of course, this led to more work needed for them.

Originally ASD was diagnosed by psychiatrists using various techniques; but gradually standardized diagnostic instruments were developed, allowing for easier and quicker diagnoses by others.

In 1986 the Federal government passed legislation for grants to local schools for special education, dealing with children with problems. In the early 1990s this was extended to include ASD. Studies have found as the number of cases of ASD increases, the number of cases diagnosed as mentally retarded or childhood schizophrenia have decreased, at least, partially a response to availability of funds.

What was originally classical autism cases, became Autism Spectrum Disorders. Asberger’s wasn’t added until 1994 and there are cases of men in their 70s who have been diagnosed with Asberger’s. ASD includes kids with a variety of different signs and symptoms; but with some in common. As an example, in the 19th Century, high levels of white blood cells were originally thought to be signs of infectious disease; but then discovered to be cancer, so they were included in the category Cancer. Certainly doesn’t mean that cases of cancer were
increasing, just another group was added. Blood cancers differ in many respects from solid tumor cancers; also have signs and symptoms in common. Another example, imagine that medicine begins looking at respiratory diseases, first including just asthma and pneumonia, then later emphysema, chronic obstructive disease, cancer, etc. Imagine the government creates a separate institute with lots of funding and grants, both for research and education, ending up with more and more respiratory therapists, pulmonologists, and researchers and, of course, diagnosed cases. Increased awareness/screening/surveillance.

Childhood mortality has been decreasing over the past century. Children who would have died at birth or early on, e.g., low birthweight, especially very low birthweight, and genetic disorders, now can live long lives; but often have physical, cognitive, and emotional problems. A relationship has been found between ASD and children born to older parents, more mutations in eggs and sperm.

We live in the age of a therapeutic society. More and more people are being diagnosed with something. If this continues, no one will exist who doesn’t have some medical/psychiatric label (e.g., Brownless, 2007; Hadler, 2007; Payer, 1988, 1992; Welch, 2011).

Since World War II over 85,000 new chemicals have been introduced into our environment with little to no oversight. Before then, despite overwhelming medical science, lead was added to gasoline. A mass of studies has found that HIGH levels of lead in the blood of fetus and children results in lowered intelligence, behavioral problems, etc. And studies have found some post-war chemicals “cause” ASD when fetus exposed. High levels, not the minuscule levels of various additives in vaccines. So, yes, one can attribute some increase in ASD to the environment, either interaction with genes or by itself; but this doesn’t change that the overwhelming majority of cases can be explained by the above. And a number of well-done studies in different nations has found NO relationship between vaccines and ASD.

I believe in community and wish a society where all human beings are treated with dignity and resources provided for them to obtain whatever potential they have, so I support evermore funding for children and adults labeled with ASD; but also cerebral palsy, Down’s Syndrome, etc. All lives are precious. And we can “easily” afford this if our governments didn’t continuously lie to us about threats from abroad, while acting on behalf of corporations (access to raw materials and selling of weapons), resulting in CIA, MI6, and military spending trillions of dollars, risking our loyal military, and killing, crippling and impoverishing people in developing nations who were NEVER a threat to us. Of course, by killing them, we become the enlistment stimulus for terrorist groups, which we then claim the need to defend against, a vicious circle. Trillions of dollars that could have benefited us and used for real foreign aid (Blum. 2003; Butler, 1935; Gaffney, 2019; Schlessinger, 2005).

REFERENCES:

Blum W (2003). Killing Hope: US Military & CIA Interventions since World War II. Available at:
https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/13/130AEF1531746AAD6AC03EF59F91E1A1_Killing_Hope_Blum_William.pdf

Butler, Major General Smedley (1935). War Is A Racket. Available at: https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf [Butler is the most decorated Marine in history]

Brownlee S (2007). Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer.

Cliff A, Haggett P, Smallman-Raynor M (1993). Measles: An Historical Geography of a Major Human Viral Disease. Blackwell.

Gaffney M (2018 Mar). Corporate Power and Expansive U.S. Military Policy. American Journal of Economics and Sociology; 77(2): 331-417. Available at: https://www.globalresearch.ca/corporate-power-and-expansive-u-s-military-policy/5653310

Hadler NM (2007). The Last Well Person: How to Stay Well Despite the Health-Care System.

Harrison JA (2018 Nov 9). Wrong About Polio: A Review of Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk’s “Dissolving Illusions” Part 1. Science-Based Medicine. Available at:
https://n1s1t23sxna2acyes3x4cz0h-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Part-1-Joel-A.-Harrison-2018-Oct-28.-Wrong-About-Polio-A-Review-of-Suzanne-Humphries-MD-and-Roman-Bystrianyk-“Dissolving-Illusions”-long-version.pdf [if link doesn’t work, cut & paste or just type title in Google]

Payer L (1988). Medicine & Culture: Varieties of Treatment in the United States, England, West Germany, and France.

Payer L (1992). Disease-Mongers: How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers are Making You Feel Sick.

Schlesinger SC, Kinzer S (2005). Bitter Fruit: The Untold story of the American Coup in Guatemala (revised version). Harvard University Press.

Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2011). Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health.

Wing L (2005 Apr). Reflections on Opening Pandora’s Box. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders; 35(2): 197-203.

@ Joel,

Sorry but there is an autism epidemic & vaccines have caused it.

The studies are flawed by one or more factors:

Only study the MMR. Only of kids enrolled in managed care. Use a different method of identifying who is autistic than the prevalence studies do (diagnosis vs supports received). Assume a diagnosis by a certain age. Chop years of follow-up off the younger groups. Disqualify due to genetics when autism is a multifactorial disorder; the genes load the gun, the vaccines pull the trigger. And there are more.

And they are not small issues they are huge. Huge enough to swing it & the “experts” sit & nod “Ah yes, good study”, looking like complete fools for not realizing that parents are very likely to lose their health care insurance after a real autism diagnosis, because somebody will be unemployed.

Or to not realize that many kids are actually identified by the school district & don’t get that diagnosis on their medical record for years.

How many kids are identified as having Dravet syndrome BEFORE vaccines? What if they were unvaccinated; would anybody even know? Would they ever be disabled? Diagnosed?

Scientists think they know what confounders & disqualifying factors to use, when they have never actually navigated the system with an actually autistic child to know what they have missed. They think they know enough about autism to actually design a study. Maybe they should interview the parents when they design their studies to see how many autistic kids are falling through the cracks.

Contributing Factors? Yeah big tobacco tried that too, successfully for a long time, to deflect from second-hand smoke health complications. Downwind. Downstream. Sick building. Radon. All ‘valid’ contributing factors for the health problems that deflected from the fact that people just get sick when they are stuck indoors with puffing parents & spouses.

Hiding in plain site, lol. Not hiding. Not there.

@Christine:

Only study the MMR.

This is false, as I have told you before. When I went to Google Scholar and searched for papers that looked at other vaccines as a possible cause of autism, numerous papers were returned. Many looked at DTaP. The verdict of those papers? No link.
The original “hypothesis” was that MMR caused autism as the signs of autism become obvious around the time children receive their first MMR. When that failed, antivaxxers like you shifted the goalposts to include the schedule. That, too, has been proven false.
To quote the Judge in the film “Fried green tomatoes”, you got a whole load of nothin’.

There is again this:
Anders Hviid, Jørgen Vinsløv Hansen, Morten Frisch, and Mads Melbye
Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism
Annals of Internal Medicine 2019 170:8, 513-520
It does consider all vaccines. It does consider genetic risk of autism (patients with autistic siblings are consideed separately). There are no presumed age of autism diagnosis.Younger cohorts are of course shorter, but there are statistical methods to handle this. And cut is not at all artificial, a study must end someday.
So, perhaps, you can at least comment this one.
There are actually a gene for Dravet’s syndrome. I guess this is all part of the big vaccine conspircy.

@Christine, why do you refuse to explain your lies? Do you think if you pretend you weren’t caught, we’ll forget about it?

@Aarno, we not only have the genetics for Dravet’s, we have a decent grasp of etiology and mechanics of it as well, which Christine upholds as the gold standard that trumps all. She loves to pretend she’d be for vaccines if there were efforts to address potential genetics that have increased risk of adverse effects, but it’s yet another of her lies. She hates all vaccines and will blame them for any and all nonsense. She tries to blame her son’s low porosity hair on vaccines even! The only thing that separates her from your average antivaxxer is that she wants to pretend that she’s smarter than them.

@ Christine Kincaid

Given that you have NEVER taken the time to learn epidemiological methods and NEVER taken the time to learn about the immune system, you just keep at it out of ignorance. If tomorrow several epidemiological studies found an association between vaccines and ASD, I would bet you would quote them, not understanding that they used the same methodology as before. Your attack on epidemiology, based on ignorance, is simply if a study confirms your beliefs then it must have been well-done, if not, then its methodology was poor. Did you read my rough draft of the causes of increased diagnoses of ASD? Did you understand it? And the MMR vaccine has NOT, I repeat NOT just been studied in kids in managed care. It has been studied for 40 years around the world. You really are STUPID and/or DISHONEST.

And you write: “Scientists think they know what confounders & disqualifying factors to use, when they have never actually navigated the system with an actually autistic child to know what they have missed. . . Maybe they should interview the parents when they design their studies to see how many autistic kids are falling through the cracks.”

Please, define a “confounder”. I bet you can’t. As for never navigated . . . you really think that all the researchers in all the countries looking at ASD have NEVER interviewed parents? You really live in a fantasy world, just keep coming up with incredibly stupid claims.

Please, go through my outline of increases in diagnosis of ASD and refute any and all points. You can’t. Go through the six comments on the previous exchange which totally refuted your claims and try to refute them. You can’t. Yet, you just keep on going.

As I wrote, your mentality does not differ from neo-Nazis, racists, and others. They also know they are right and anyone who opposes them is a liar. They also know they are right; but can’t summon a comprehensive set of research, which, just as you, they explain has been suppressed.

YOU ARE A MORONIC DISHONEST SACK OF SHIT. There are some monitoring this blog that believe calling you names is unnecessary; but nothing is going to change your mind and I’m not calling you names, I am objectively describing you. Yep, you are absolutely certain you are right????

Oh, I just did a search on PubMed using: vaccines AND autism
2,444 results

Then MMR AND autism
321 results

Then DTap AND autism
10 result

Not surprising given that the overwhelming claims by antivaccinationists focused on MMR; but still 10 papers

Then vaccines AND SIDS
417 results

Then vaccines AND safety
38,136 results

Then vaccine AND placebo
10,433 results

Obviously not every one of the papers was a research study. Some were reviews/meta-analysis, some editorials; but enough were actual research studies showing just how much time and energy has gone into looking at vaccines. And if one looks at the authors, different nations, etc.

Given that you have NEVER taken the time to learn epidemiological methods and NEVER taken the time to learn about the immune system….

So, the most recent hall monitor routine was just another sack of casually spelled pompoposity?

Really? Your claim is that “scary unnatural chemicals cause autism — just not in vaccines”? And the whole “doctors are keeping us sick” tripe as well…

We do not know what causes autism. We have some correlations, but not much in the way of causation.

But, more importantly, it doesn’t matter as much as learning to respect the disabled people who are alive. Searching for something to blame (ESPECIALLY if that something is based on a lie) may be more comforting to you, but it does nothing to actually help disabled people.

I highly recommend listening to disability activists.

I should clarify: adding vitamins only OF COURSE affects deficiency related issues NOT the others mentioned.
Much more about age of parents, having babies too close together in time as well as other variables showing that the condition is set up EARLY

NOT what happens at age 12- 18 months.like vaccines.

@ Denice Walter

Yep, it’s called homeostasis, simply are bodies are built to utilize, to need a narrow range of various vitamins, minerals, and foods. Too little, a problem, too much also a problem. If someone is extremely deficient in, especially fat soluble vitamins, e.g., vitamin D3, then they give large quantities because storage depots that are depleted will take up, thus, not overdose in blood. However, if not deficient, then overdose can cause problems. More difficult to overdose on water-soluble vitamins, e.g. vitamin C, because if not immediately used, just gives you vitamin C enriched urine, though large doses include nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. These effects are attributed to the osmotic effect of unabsorbed vitamin C passing through the intestine, possibly increases risk for kidney stones.

One of the many myths of antivaccinationists that one could prevent polio paralysis with high dose intravenous vitamin C. One study oft quote was on 50 kids suspected of polio, only 30 lab confirmed, given intravenous high dose vitamin C and none developed paralysis. Well, stats at the time estimated only 1 in 100 lab verified cases developed paralysis. Later stats more like 1/200, so 50 subjects, odds 99+% would not have developed paralysis, and only 30 lab confirmed, so odds even higher. Plus, I haven’t found any biological explanation how once virus reached into spine, vitamin C would do anything.

For measles, undernourished kids in developing nations were given vitamin A, reduced deaths and, perhaps, blindness; but vitamin A is a far soluble vitamin and high doses can cause serious problems. Hypervitaminosis A – Increased bone resorption and decreased bone formation, affect metabolism of the other fat-soluble vitamins D, E, and K, Vitamin A exerts several toxic effects regarding redox environment and mitochondrial function.

However, I’m sure Christine Kincaid can explain why I’m wrong and vitamin C works???

I’m glad that the “10,000 vaccines” meme is a blast from the past for some. I still see it posted on a fairly regular basis. It’s only slightly less popular than “the Supreme Court has called vaccines unavoidably unsafe”, and similarly inaccurate.

MJD says,

“…Can we be friends in the absence of ridicule, henceforth.”

At a bare minimum, henceforth we need to stop referring to ourselves in the third person.

CK: “you are a victim of the vaccine agenda propaganda & since the propaganda is disseminated from the highest levels, I can’t debate the topic of “vaccines are not safe” with you in the manner which you are accustomed.”

Yes. Be vewy vewy careful – THEY are watching.

CK: “I know some have ‘investigated’ me on social media”

That fantasy undoubtedly pleases you. But we already know far more about your personal life (thanks to your own revelations) than we need to.

@ DB:

What anti-vaxers fail to recognise though is that although we are OBVIOUSLY subjected to vaccine propaganda ” from the highest levels” we ALSO are exposed to all of the anti-vax secrets and “esearch” by way of the usual suspects: Andy, Del, the Whistleblower, RFKjr, AoA, various Truth Tellers and Maverick Rebels.

In other words, we have heard both sides- some of us even seek out anti-vax in the darkest, dustiest corners of the internet-
we’ve seen it all, heard it all but for some reason it fails to compute and we continue to accept vaccines.
Is it because we are so indoctrinated or that we can see through hysteria and conspiracy mongering. that relies upon spurious research and lacks meaningful data.?
Anecdotes ain’t data.
Research from multiple fronts like those i refer to above effectively nullify anti-vax..

@ F68.10

You write: “Aside from antisemitic nutcases, it’s also wrong to downplay the role the Rothschilds had in the 19th century. . .So, while loons will likely remain loons and dangerous loons will likely remain dangerous loons, when one dives into history, one can see how antisemitism was not only rooted in racial prejudice, religious prejudice or whatever, but also arose in a real political context with real power dynamics that had to be addressed and real items at stake.”

“Arose in a real political context.” I guess when the Crusaders slaughtered the Jews on the Rhine on their way to the 1st Crusade in 1097 or when mobs slaughtered Jews in 1347, blaming them for the Plague, not really antisemitism, only arose because of the Rothschilds? The antisemitism directed against the Rothschilds wasn’t new, just used/applied. Same as anti-semitism against Karl Marx or anyone else who in any way people disliked or disagreed with. If it had been a powerful banking house owned by Catholic family, Protestants would have accused them of part of papist conspiracy. Actually, in early 19th Century America, wandering itinerant merchants were sometimes accused of being Jesuit spies. And vice versa, if powerful banking house owned by Protestants, Catholic would find some type of prejudice; but, yep, antisemitism was the grand daddy and most powerful of prejudices at the time.

So, yes, they were a powerful banking house; but my point was that antisemites then created a grossly false picture of the Rothschilds, involved in the murder of Lincoln and other Presidents. In fact, some anti-semites today believe they own 80%, I repeat 80% of total wealth of the world. Insane; but like Kincaid it would be impossible to convince them otherwise. Your comment adds nothing of worth to the conversation; but just tries to excuse to some extent the antisemitic tropes against the Rothschilds. By the way, the British and French houses of Rothschild didn’t always get along.

An excellent history of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion can be found in David Aronovitch (2010). Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History.

And I have and have read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

When I was working on U.S. Naval Ships in the Western Pacific teaching undergraduate courses in Psychology from 1975 – 1977 they showed a film to the crew on prejudice. One example was a dialogue where someone said Jews are so powerful they control the world. The other said but how can that be since six million were murdered by the Nazis. The other replied: “See how clever they are, they hide their incredible power by allowing six million to be murdered.” Of course this doesn’t make any logical sense; but once people believe something, people like Kincaid, nothing will change their minds and they will just respond, regardless of how ludicrous as Kincaid keeps harping on suppression of studies showing vaccine caused adverse events despite I having listed numerous such studies.

And I’m currently reading Barbara Tuchman’s book “A Different Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century.” Attacking Jews and blaming Jews for just about anything and everything was the norm. By the way, the Pope actually tried to protect the Jews during the Crusades and excommunicated the Crusaders for what they did.

I guess if I wrote about how blacks in America are locked up far more than whites, your comment would be that, yes, true; but some blacks do commit crimes.

@Joel – Although I don’t like to speak on someone else’s behalf, I think you have misunderstood F68.10’s point.
I do very much agree with the impossibility of changing some peoples mind. I think that part of it is the difference between rational and emotional attachments/ideas, in that it is very easy to confuse your belief with yourself, so that arguments against that belief become a personal attack. This is most apparent in religion of course, and a lot of antivax/alternative medicine/conspiracy ideas do have distinctly religious overtones, especially in the good versus evil narrative. Whereas the opposite is an intellectual rational idea, which is easier to consider as something separate from yourself and therefore can be examined without feeling your self being attacked – admittedly that’s a lofty ideal which most of us do not achieve. I don’t know how to convince people that they’re wrong when arguing against them only reconfirms their beliefs, but I do try to avoid needless insults, partly to maintain the moral high ground, but also because the truth should speak for itself, and if it comes covered in shit it might not be recognised for what it is.

I must also add that I really respect your posts, especially because you reference a lot of reading material, some of which is suitable for people like me who have no education in the area, you make a really valuable contribution.

@ Joel

You got me wrong. Or at least it seems to me.

Point is: antisemitism did change form in the 19th century with the industrial and political revolutions. Of course, it’s been there for quite a while. Need only remember the fact that the Talmud was prosecuted and condemned as a moral person — quite a juridical innovation for the time… — already in the 13th century. The point is that it changed form as political systems and economic system did in the 19th century. And european jewry did have a paradoxical evolution in the 19th century. The Rotschild did play an important role in structuring it across Europe, making it much less atomised than it was before. Court Jews also did play an important political role as to some extent they disliked pretty much the democratic evolution of political systems that occurred in the 19th century for a variety of reasons. Modern banking systems also more or less got invented or rather structured in this period. One has to account for all these aspects.

I’m simply claiming that believing one can account for 19th century political history without taking into account the gradual political structuring of jewry and the role that played is flat out wrong. From the Napoleonic Wars to the Krach of the Union Générale (a pro-monarchist and pro-catholic bank whose krach was intrumentalised by antisemites), there are enough elements to understand that it was unreasonable for a 19th century man not to take a stance on matters pertaining to jewry if you had an interest in public affairs.

It’s not prejudiced to observe reality and observe that jewish identity was a significant pivotal item of 19th century history. And not merely because of franco-british squabbles such as Waterloo. What is indeed prejudiced is not taking a step back and understand how everything got distorted and “out of hand”: explaining antisemitism only in terms of prejudice without taking into account the historical context does no one any favour. Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies” is antisemitic, true, but it does not add up to modern antisemitism without the input of the 19th century historical context. The latter cannot be overlooked merely on the grounds that it’s “conspiracy theory material”.

The point is: if you want to understand european 19th century history, you have to deal with the factual basis that got twisted into the International Jewish Conspiracy Theory. And you also have to understand how the twisting occurred, because, as you obviously do know, it is not of practical historical unsignificance…

“I guess if I wrote about how blacks in America are locked up far more than whites, your comment would be that, yes, true; but some blacks do commit crimes.”

It would be: to the best of my knowledge, they do commit more crimes, but that does not excuse political stupidity, prejudice and making matters worse than they are. But having lived in South Africa, I have no problem claiming that black people over there do commit quite a number of crimes… Because, again, the problem is not with the factual basis but with the way it’s interpreted and the way it gets out of hand. As always.

@ F68.10 and Carl

I was just trying to make a point, namely that antisemites come up with claims with NO substantiating evidence and if anyone disagrees with them, obviously bought and paid for by the Rothschild’s. This is Christine Kincaid’s mentality in a nut shell. I’m sorry you both decided to focus on the position of the Rothschild family in the 19th Century. Tangential to my point and distracting from it. And you really should read the book I suggested which includes the history of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

What F68.10 did was give Christine Kincaid ammunition, see, there is some basis for believing the Rothschild’s involved in . . . Can’t prove it; but we know enough about the real power of the Rothschilds that they could have easily suppressed things. Not the same as her claims about suppressed studies of vaccine adverse events, since we have tons of them, but she is such a dishonest a-hole, anything, no matter how flimsy, she will jump on. Way to go guys.

@ Joel

“I was just trying to make a point, namely that antisemites come up with claims with NO substantiating evidence and if anyone disagrees with them, obviously bought and paid for by the Rothschild’s.”

I’m sorry to break it to you, but there are different kinds of antisemites. And some are very educated. In my corner of the world, the name of H. de. L. comes to mind. The man is a sick twisted fuck but is so hilarious in his extremism that he earned the nickname “The Punk” in french far right circles given his talent to go overboard on roughly every possible far right trope, even to the taste of far right circles… not a meager achievement. When I want a good laugh, he’s a sure bet…

His 17 minute long video were he brags about the way he utterly spoilt the “stage de citoyenneté” he was condemned to for his more-than-overtly racist and antisemite publications is masterfully hilarious. The guy is making an utter fool of himself with his completely over the top statements as well as painting his opponents (i.e. The State and The Joos) as quasi-religious dogmatists in the most hilarious possible light. Can’t get enough of that specific kind of nonsense as he makes me laugh for hours on end whenever I listen to him.

But he is highly educated. Top curriculum, high civil servant. But conspiracy theorist? Nah. Bigotry? 100%. Advocate for scientific racism? 100%.

No point discussing evidence of conspiracy theories with that kind of person when he does not believe in them in the first place. It simply is plain bigotry and antisemitism.

“This is Christine Kincaid’s mentality in a nut shell. I’m sorry you both decided to focus on the position of the Rothschild family in the 19th Century. Tangential to my point and distracting from it.”

It is tangential to your point, but not to mine: to deflate conspiracy theories such as these, we also do need to talk about them and put them in proper context. I know it’s a pain for many people, but here’s my experience: it took me an awful amount of time to make sense of WW2. No explanation I ever got in school or in the media did make real sense of the events. Until I took conspiracy theorists “seriously” in the sense of getting to know their theories and cross-examining it against the historical record of the 19th centuries. That’s when I realised the damaging extent to which people were setting themselves up to go completely bonkers and understood WW2 a bit better…

“And you really should read the book I suggested which includes the history of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

I’m a bit too much into Langlands territory nowadays to put my mind back to that, but I’ll keep that book suggestion in mind.

“What F68.10 did was give Christine Kincaid ammunition, see, there is some basis for believing the Rothschild’s involved in . . .”

As explained above, I believe shrugging history under the carpet on the grounds that it may be misinterpreted is also, sadly, a form of denialism. There is a risk in giving ammunition, but with the Internet, nowadays, people have plenty of opportunities to find the weirdest ammunitions available.

“Can’t prove it; but we know enough about the real power of the Rothschilds that they could have easily suppressed things.”

Not my position. But we also live in a world where we should know better than to act crazily on the basis of insufficient knowledge. But yeah, concentration of power is rarely a situation that leads to smart social outcomes. It’s a lesson we have trouble learning. Rothschild or not Rothschild…

“Not the same as her claims about suppressed studies of vaccine adverse events, since we have tons of them, but she is such a dishonest a-hole, anything, no matter how flimsy, she will jump on. Way to go guys.”

Yeah, well, Christine Kincaid may bother you, but the good news is that, compared to 10 years ago, people have grown much more accustomed to asking for references when unfounded claims are thrown at them. They’re also getting more and more accustomed to doing their homework before spouting shit on the Internet. Things are therefore slowly moving on. And in 30 years, Christine will likely have a much harder time spreading her theories…

@ F68.10,

I rarely post comments WITHOUT references on every other forum, except specifically this comment section on this blog. Why?

Because minds are already made up here that negative studies on vaccine safety are antivaccine studies by likely antivaccine scientists.I even had to defend Peter Aaby here; due to stupid replies like:

“Christine Kincaid should be sent to Guinea-Bissau without bug spray.” Seriously; no. Like this:

“Our data clearly showed that DTP vaccinations were delayed in unhealthy children. Hence, healthier children received DTP first, and DTP-unvaccinated children should, therefore, have had a higher mortality rate. Despite this, DTP was associated with increased child mortality, particularly for girls.

All three studies of the introduction of DTP vaccine found negative effects which are different from what should have been expected due to the disease-preventive effects of the vaccine and the inherent biases favoring vaccinated children. The results are also in stark contrast to the studies of the introduction of measles vaccine, which uniformly show very strong mortality reductions.

Hence, the studies of the introduction of DTP constitute a clear danger signal that DTP may substantially increase all-cause mortality.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868131/

There. There is a source for my claims. Published by the 2000 recipient of the Novo Nordisk Prize, the most important Danish award within health research, for his work in vaccine research.

His work is one of the main reasons I changed my opinion about the MMR. Did that matter here? Not in the slightest. Just wait & see; the mere mention of this study by me, about a provaccine scientist; will likely start the stupidity all over again.

“It wasn’t done in the US” (neither were the Danish MMR studies & many other vaccine safety studies). “Guinea-Bissau is a third world country” (kind of the point. The DPT couldn’t even break even for mortality in a third world country). “You should go to Guinea-Bissau” WTF? That’s an educated reply?

@ Christine Kincaid

“I rarely post comments WITHOUT references on every other forum, except specifically this comment section on this blog. Why?”

My comment was of a more general nature. I’m simply glad that people now get into the habbit of asking for references instead of simply spouting the shit they make up. It’s a habbit to pick up. After that, they’ll pick other habbits, such as getting to grips with the notion of methodology, as Joel pointed out to you. It’s a question of time, but I’m glad that I see signs that it goes in that direction.

“Because minds are already made up here that negative studies on vaccine safety are antivaccine studies by likely antivaccine scientists.”

Well, I’m more of a “I do not care too much about vaccines anyway” type, so it’s not like I had a vested interest in public health per se…

“I even had to defend Peter Aaby here; due to stupid replies like: “Christine Kincaid should be sent to Guinea-Bissau without bug spray.” Seriously; no.”

I’ll pass over comments concerning dialectical courtesy for the moment: you still have an issue of this type to sort out with Joel. Whenever I read him replying to you, I’m under the impression that he’s on the verge of an aneurysm. Not that I disagree with him, mind you. Simply that he should learn to be more tongue in cheek and more rhetorically viciously subtle with you: it’s possible to argue like one plays chess. The Shrek Philosophy is of limited applicability against you.

“Our data clearly showed that DTP vaccinations were delayed in unhealthy children. Hence, healthier children received DTP first, and DTP-unvaccinated children should, therefore, have had a higher mortality rate. Despite this, DTP was associated with increased child mortality, particularly for girls. All three studies of the introduction of DTP vaccine found negative effects which are different from what should have been expected due to the disease-preventive effects of the vaccine and the inherent biases favoring vaccinated children. The results are also in stark contrast to the studies of the introduction of measles vaccine, which uniformly show very strong mortality reductions. Hence, the studies of the introduction of DTP constitute a clear danger signal that DTP may substantially increase all-cause mortality.”

I know of the Aaby studies. Even if he were right all along and even if the confounders that Joel mentions were a rhetorical device by the WHO (I would need to see the content of the WHO criticisms to have a clearer idea on this specific point), I cannot claim that the discovery or alleged discovery of “non-specific effects” of vaccines is a surprise to me. It would be the absence of such “non-specific effects” that, if proved, would startle me. Overall, I do not see how Aaby’s studies would invalidate the need for vaccination: there is a iatrogenic price to pay threshold that I’m intellectually willing to accept to create an environment where outbreaks are predictably contained by herd immunity. Nonetheless, studies where introductions of medical practices are weighed overall to study their before/after effects are studies I do consider to be rather important and neglected. Vaccines are not the domains where I have the most interest in such “ecological” studies, though.

“There. There is a source for my claims. Published by the 2000 recipient of the Novo Nordisk Prize, the most important Danish award within health research, for his work in vaccine research.”

I tend to spit on prizes, honours, medals, distinctions and credentials. Please avoid that line of argumentation with me…

“The Romans had patricians, knights, citizens and slaves. They had different costumes for each thing, different customs. They awarded as a reward all kinds of distinctions, names reminiscent of services, wall wreaths, triumph! I challenge anyone to show me an ancient or modern republic in which there have been no distinctions. We call these rattles! Well ! men are led with rattles.” — Napoleon, 1802, courtesy of Google Translate.

Down with rattles!

“His work is one of the main reasons I changed my opinion about the MMR.”

What do you mean by “changing your opinion on MMR” because of Aaby?

“Did that matter here? Not in the slightest. Just wait & see; the mere mention of this study by me, about a provaccine scientist; will likely start the stupidity all over again.”

Well, Joel did get triggered. Though he does legitimately await that you engage with his arguments.

“It wasn’t done in the US” (neither were the Danish MMR studies & many other vaccine safety studies).

There’s a difference between projecting third world country epidemiology on infant mortality on richer countries and denying that Denmark has excellent record keeping suitable for epidemiological work. Which doesn’t mean that no information can be extracted from studies such as Aaby’s in abstracto. To me, such studies may help to highlight lack of knowledge on specific points, but not to prove the existence of clear cut dangers to vaccination. But yeah, if it can show that we know less than we collectively think we know, that’s useful. But to carry the argument further than that, that would be a stretch.

““Guinea-Bissau is a third world country” (kind of the point. The DPT couldn’t even break even for mortality in a third world country).”

That last sentence wasn’t phrased in a way that made explicit sense to me.

““You should go to Guinea-Bissau” WTF? That’s an educated reply?”

It’s not an educated reply. But I do appreciate a little brutality once in a while. I indeed sporadically have a crush on Ronda

Personally, if I might be allowed to speculate, I’m pretty sure that one practice is likely to have been Dr. Paul Thomas’ practice, as he is a rising star in the antivaccine movement and has discussed doing a “vaxxed/unvaxxed” study using his practice. On the other hand, he’s already working with another antivaccine pseudoscientist, James Lyons-Weiler, on a highly dubious vaxxed/unvaxxed study; so it’s possible that he wouldn’t collaborate with Hooker and Miller.

Both Thomas and JLW, of course, lauded praise on this bogus Hooker/Miller “study”. I wouldn’t put it past Thomas to give Hooker/Miller his data and then pretend he wasn’t involved with it, that was he can make his so-called “data” count twice. At a minimum this journal should have required the authors to state the locations of the 3 practices that they used. Somehow I doubt it’s Sears because all the recent pictures of him and his practice show walls of paper charts and him using paper charts. Also Sears runs a self-pay practice so he doesn’t have to use billing software to track icd-9 and 10 codes.

It’s telling the authors didn’t identify the three highly un/undervaccinated practices they used. If these a**holistic pediatricians who are so sure about what they’re doing by not vaccinating kids, why aren’t they shouting it from the rooftops?

@ Renate–Funny, that’s exactly what I wrote to the AAP when I quit them in 2012–I didn’t want to belong to a group of pediatricians that let anti-vax quacks hide in their herd.

@ Christopher Hickie,

Okay, you are correct on that account.

Parents of children who have already experienced a vaccine injury are more likely to seek out vaccine friendly/parent choice practices, so the odds of those practices having more vaccinated kids with a suspect diagnosis is very high.

I know families who travel out of state for pediatrician appointments (& pay out of pocket) for this very reason.

@Christine Kincaid: That’s not what I said, but it is another confounder not accounted for by Hooker/Miller.

My point is that why aren’t these 3 anonymous pediatric practices happily clamoring for public recognition (and more patients and more revenue) after this Hooker/Miller publication if the results are so strong? Paul Thomas with his “15,000” patients loves to play up how much healthier his un/under-vaccinated patients supposedly are (as per his Appendix E “study” in his “Vaccine-Friendly Plan” book), but no other anti-vax pediatricians (Sears, Gordon and Palevsky included) are willing to make that claim. Rumor has it that Thomas has a manuscript based on his Appendix E study that is so horrendous that no one has accepted it for publication since it was written back in 2016 when his book came out.

@ Christine Kincaid

You write: “Parents of children who have already experienced a vaccine injury are more likely to seek out vaccine friendly/parent choice practices, so the odds of those practices having more vaccinated kids with a suspect diagnosis is very high.”

Nope, parents who believe their child experienced a vaccine injury gravitate to doctors who confirm their beliefs; but one can find doctors who ignore science, quacks, to confirm just about anything. Though a distinct minority, there are MDs who believe in homeopathy, and a host of other unscientific treatments based on anecdotal information. And they make a good living because the costs of most Complementary and Alternative Treatments are much lower so the profits much higher. And, of course, just as with idiots like you, they convince themselves they are right.

Once more I’ll point out the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc, after something thus because of it, that correlation isn’t causation and David Card’s book “The Improbability Principle” that is a fun read and explains how what people consider rare actually happens often, so if enough kids get vaccines, then some of them will develop problems; but kids not getting vaccines at the same age will also develop the same problems.

I would be willing to bet that, given how many people have heart attacks and how many people eat Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, that there are several cases every year of someone eating Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and having a heart attack. And I realize you either don’t understand a word I’m saying or don’t want to. But if I were you I’d avoid Kellogg’s corn flakes.

And as I pointed out in a previous comment, if you are afraid of sliding into dementia there are many excellent studies that insomnia is a major contributor because it is in Stage 2 Non-Rem sleep that the glymphatic system removes metabolic toxins such as Beta-Amyloid and Tau from the brain, so not vaccines; but insomnia. Of course you know better, even sleep researchers are lying to protect vaccines????

It’s telling the authors didn’t identify the three highly un/undervaccinated practices they used. If these a**holistic pediatricians who are so sure about what they’re doing by not vaccinating kids, why aren’t they shouting it from the rooftops?

It is odd that the practices weren’t identified. Could it be due to the persecution complexes suffered by anti-vaxx paediatricians? Could it be that even though personal patient information was de-identified that no one was offered consent to participate in the study?

@Science Mom–It’s a disturbing thought that any (or all) of the 3 pediatric practices deliberately steered parents into not vaccinating to get the data for this so-called retrospective study. Doing so would be a violation of human research ethics including mis-informed consent (to convince parents vaccines are harmful so they don’t vaccinate), lack of informed consent (that their child was going to be in a study) and finally performing the study prospectively and then pretending it was retrospective. That could be why none of the pediatric practices wanted to be disclosed (and also why there were no other authors–such as the pediatricians of those 3 clinics–on the paper). If you as a pediatrician put your name on this paper you would have to disclose it was your patients that were part of this study. It is all very shady and suspect, in addition to being terrible as shown by Orac.

It is interesting that he does not say it is a new less lethal strain but:

“The swabs that were performed over the last 10 days showed a viral load in quantitative terms that was absolutely infinitesimal compared to the ones carried out a month or two months ago,”

The researchers noted that patients from countries with high COVID-19 mortality rates, such as Italy, Spain and the UK, had lower levels of vitamin D compared to patients in countries that were not as severely affected.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507121353.htm

But, how can this be? Spain and the UK are at lower latitudes with greater sun/uv.

They were shut inside, though. Ahh. Spain and UK (I think) do not fortify their food with vitamin D as do the countries in the more northern regions.

It never set right with me that the beaches were off limits and many jurisdictions required people to stay inside unless for a family outing at Dollar General to buy some discount eyeliner or marching into the beerstore 3×3 to browse and handle everything only to come out with a six pack of coors.

Wear your damn masks inside markets, people; Go outside and play in the sun — just keep your distance.

@ Christine Kincaid

Once more you despicable sack of shit you avoid responding to my comments that point out how I have refuted each and every point you’ve made. As for Aaby”s article on DPT in Africa, it has been critiqued for confounders, something I asked you if you could define, no answer. I doubt you really know the epidemiological definition for confounder. And studies done elsewhere on DPT did NOT find such results. I won’t bother with the references because you have NEVER shown any interest in an open-minded dialogue. I still challenge you, you disgusting moronic dishonest, delusions of grandeur (absolutetly certain you are right without even the basics of supporting your case). Read my outline on the reasons for the increase in diagnosis of ASD and critique it, if you can. Is it a lie that as diagnosed cases of mental retardation and childhood schizophrenia decreased as diagnosed cases of ASD increased? In other word, just change of definition. Is it a lie that Aspergers was added in 1994 which increased cases of ASD, but men in their 70s then got diagnosed; but had it all their lives? Is it a lie that Leo Kanner admitted in 1971 that he did NOT even look at working class children or minorities, so, if he had, the numbers would have been higher then, so increase would have been less? And on and on it goes.

And I refuted everything you said on the previous article’s comment exchanges and even on this one, especially your claim that researchers who publish articles about adverse reactions to vaccines are called antivaxxers. I gave examples of searches of PubMed.

Yep, Wakefield, Hooker and some others have been criticized; but the critiques were based on faulty/fraudulent methodology. Oh, wait, I forgot, for you if the results confirm your beliefs, then the methodology was good, if results go against your beliefs, then methodology bad. That is not how science works. Methodology comes first.

But, keep on posting one article. I really hope that people who actually know you somehow come across these exchanges. I wonder how they would react?

And please especially read what I said about your claims regarding oral polio vaccine associated paralysis and in India oral polio associated acute flaccid paralysis. Just additional examples that your are stupid, dishonest, and full of shit. As I’ve written several times, your way of thinking, or actually lack of thinking, puts you in class with neo-nazis, racists, and a host of others who can’t support their positions; but know they are absolutely right and, thus, attack anyone who disagrees with them.

Well, here we go. Insurrection act invoked; US military deployed against americans on American soil,…, a girl named John.

Trump, bible, St. John’s Episcopal Church.

<

blockquote>15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea [ or Fish Camp, CA. for that matter] flee to the mountains. — Matthew 24:15-16

All this time waiting and it turned out not to be the fucking pope, afterall.

https://youtu.be/UGYhQL531TA (@1:25)

Don’t do this troops. Don’t follow this little Nero, this ‘tard. Most of those peaceful protesters charged, gassed, and shot with rubber bullets in order to clear out that street for Trump and William (Unitary Executive and death for pot smokers) Barr were white. And quite alot of them know how to make phosgene out of their refrigerators and very powerful ‘flash bangs’ out of their water heaters. Some might even get the notion to pump methyl ethyl keatone through the stupid suburbian rainbird sprinkler system.

@ Christine Kincaid

So, you can’t refute anything I’ve written. You really are an intellectually dishonest despicable excuse for a human being. You can’t refute anything; but just keep mouthing what you believe and think it true. Welcome to Kincaid’s world of fantasy.

@ Joel,

"Is it a lie that as diagnosed cases of mental retardation and childhood schizophrenia
decreased as diagnosed cases of ASD increased?"

No. Is that proof that ASD didn’t increase or just an observation?

"Is it a lie that Aspergers was added in 1994 which increased cases of ASD, but men
in their 70s then got diagnosed; but had it all their lives?"

Actually, the fact that men in their 70’s or that adult men & women were being diagnosed at all; is not a lie but it is irrelevant. Autism prevalence & the rising prevalence; is determined by the number of 8 year old children who utilize educational & other support services. They do not “count how many people are diagnosed”. In fact; medical diagnosis is not a criteria used at all.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/addm.html

CK: “(Aaby’s) work is one of the main reasons I changed my opinion about the MMR.”

Wait – since Aaby et al found that measles vaccination in a selected African population reduced mortality from all causes three-fold, you’ve decided that the MMR is a terrific vaccine and should be used? When did this revelation occur? And did you decide to support other vaccines preliminarily shown to decrease all-cause mortality in certain African populations, but abhor the DPT because Aaby et al found an opposite result for it?

We need an up-to-date list of Christine Kincaid’s Approved and Disapproved Vaccines to guide us in these troubled times. That is, if you can take time out from discussing your camping trips.

Alleging that Aaby’s work “changed my opinion” about the MMR is notably vague.

“Changed” it from what to what? Is she now pro-MMR (and pro oral polio vaccine, since Aaby et al found that it decreased all-cause mortality in a selected population as well)?

I’m just perplexed that she can figure out how to shade text but not how to use blockquote.

@ DB,

“Wait – since Aaby et al found that measles vaccination in a selected African population reduced mortality from all causes three-fold, you’ve decided that the MMR is a terrific vaccine and should be used?”

I can’t think of a better reason to change my mind on a vaccine. And this is not a new development; I have mentioned it here before several times.

@ christine kincaid

“And this is not a new development; I have mentioned it here before several times.”

I remember noticing that specific point.

“I can’t think of a better reason to change my mind on a vaccine.”

Well, the problem is mostly that you’re changing your mind for an element that is likely not the strongest one. You did it because you have more trust in someone, Aaby, whose position seem to you to have more common ground with your own views than you would have trust in, say, Offit.

That’s, from a human point of view, understandable: we all tend to allow our minds to be changed more easily by people with whom we share some common ground and moral affinities.

I mean: Take the mild-mannered semi-upper-class center-right pro-science highly-educated financial risk manager in the hedge fund industry wearing expensive ties and italian costumes; Now, take the random loon with more than a dozen psychiatric coercive hospitalisations, dead bent on the idea that doctors and cops are out to get him because he’s alleged to be a terrorist, alleged to be a commie, alleged to be a scientologist and also alleged to unearth corpses in graveyards at night. Who are you going to trust? Likely not the latter…

(The twist is that they can be the same person, but never mind…)

So we all rely on some network of social interactions from which we derive a legitimacy level to some statements. That’s <href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CnQw5uE100″>Human Behaviour.

But… In science, we need to avoid bias in any form, and thus avoid letting that network be biased. Which means that, in the case of Aaby and MMR, if he made you change your opinion, the next task that you should feel obliged by yourself to undertake is to not stop at the opinion of someone you consider an expert but also examine what are the points he made that made you change your mind. And then to examine in the literature you a priori find biased whether or not you also do find the same points Aaby made. Or, more simply, evidence that makes more sense now that you have changed your mind.

This is the way to expand that network from which you derive epistemic legitimacy to various statements.

Which may help you find “better” reasons.

There is a better paper about DTP and mortality:
Julian P T Higgins, Karla Soares-Weiser,José A López-López, Artemisia Kakourou,
Katherine Chaplin, Hannah Christensen, Natasha K Martin, Jonathan A C Sterne,
Arthur L Reingold
Association of BCG, DTP, and measles containing vaccines with childhood mortality: systematic review
BMJ 2016; 355 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5170 (Published 13 October 2016)
Cite this as: BMJ 2016;355:i5170
Why you always cite same old paper ? There are newer research available. You would notice that many DTP papers have a high risk of bias, The bias is clearly defined by authors, btw.
Guinea-Bissau is a high mortality country, US and Danmark are low mortality countries. This is why Danmark data is relevant to US, and Guinea Bissau data is not. There is no third worldism involved.
No, I do not think that MMR is a “terrific” vaccine because of Aaby. Hviid is another matter. You should really comment paper I cited.

You’ll have to excuse us for being confused, since you’ve been citing Aaby as a core basis for your views of the dangers of vaccines while also claiming the measles vaccine is specifically why you were diagnosed with Aspergers. You’ve been caught in outright lies multiple times. How are we supposed to know what today’s “truth” is from you?

@ Christine Kincaid

You write: Quoting me – “Is it a lie that as diagnosed cases of mental retardation and childhood schizophrenia decreased as diagnosed cases of ASD increased?” You – No. Is that proof that ASD didn’t increase or just an observation?

It shows that a kid that would most probably been diagnosed with childhood schizophrenia or mental retardation now is diagnosed with ASD, so, if definitions had not changed the numbers diagnosed with ASD would be far less and the stats for mental retardation and childhood schizophrenia would be higher. Is it proof? If, for instance, one labeled someone taking a specific IQ test with a score under 60 as retarded then a couple of years later changed to under 70 would that not indicated that the increasing number labeled retarded was an artifact of changing definition?

You then quote me – “Is it a lie that Aspergers was added in 1994 which increased cases of ASD, but men in their 70s then got diagnosed; but had it all their lives?” And you write: Actually, the fact that men in their 70’s or that adult men & women were being diagnosed at all; is not a lie but it is irrelevant. Autism prevalence & the rising prevalence; is determined by the number of 8 year old children who utilize educational & other support services. They do not “count how many people are diagnosed”. In fact; medical diagnosis is not a criteria used at all.”

How dense are you? What it means is that kids labeled Aspergers today who are utilizing educational and other support services is because ASD now includes them which means that previous to Aspergers being added to ASD kids with Aspergers were NOT included as ASD. This has nothing to do with a medical diagnosis; but with testing now including a new category. When I was growing up I knew someone who today would be considered extremely high functioning Aspergers but we just considered him eccentric. He did not go to special ed classes.

And you missed where I discussed how we have become a therapeutic society, including several books that document how we are gradually labeling everyone. Some because so many study psychology and some just for profit, e.g., used to be cholesterol over 200, now 170, so more people considered to need medication.

And you write: “(Aaby’s) work is one of the main reasons I changed my opinion about the MMR.” Well, I have been at this for over 40 years, though I haven’t read every paper on MMR, I have read many. Just search PubMed using “mmr vaccine” 4,019 results or “mmr vaccine AND safety” 542 results. And both Cochrane and Institute of Medicine have done reviews:

Cochrane (2020). Does the measles, mumps, rubella and varicella (MMRV) vaccine protect children, and does it cause harmful effects? Available at: https://www.cochrane.org/CD004407/ARI_does-measles-mumps-rubella-and-varicella-mmrv-vaccine-protect-children-and-does-it-cause-harmful [Note this is an update of several previous reviews]

Institute of Medicine (2004). Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. Available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10997/immunization-safety-review-vaccines-and-autism?onpi_newsdoc05182004= [note you have to sign up; but all their reports are then free to download]

As for Aaby’s study of dpt and increased mortality, it took place in an impoverished nation in Africa where kids are exposed to numerous diseases, including malaria and parasites? And it wasn’t a placebo-controlled double-blind randomized trial. In addition, we no longer use DPT; but DTap in the United States. And PubMed for “dpt vaccine” 3,712 results, “dpt vaccine AND safety” 544 results. So why do you rely on one or two studies carried out in Africa with so many confounding factors? Oh, I forgot, you don’t really know what a confounding variable is. By the way, I have collected and read around 100 articles on DTP. And Aarno Syvänen gives a link to a systematic review (already one of the articles I have). The bottom line is that you base decisions on, at best, one or two studies, not really investigating what is known; but even if you did, you don’t understand the basics of epidemiology and immunology to validly evaluate their methodologies. As I wrote just above, you don’t even understand how changing definitions result in changing statistics. And I have NO doubt that if another study pops up that finds some problems, you will change course based on it.

And you continue to ignore everything else I wrote that refutes claims made by you, e.g., oral polio vaccine and paralysis, oral polio vaccine and non-polio acute flaccid paralysis in India, and on and on it goes.

Finally, you write: “Knock it off. Case in point.”

Wow, reminds me of Alice in Wonderland when she meets Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Alice says: “It sounds like English; but I don’t understand a word they are saying”

Do you even understand what “case in point” means? A relevant illustrative example. An example that illustrates a point. and there are others. What illustrative example or example that illustrates a point are you referring to?

Finally, one more proof that you are incapable of rational thought, in this case, you don’t even understand how to use the English language. Maybe, instead of addressing you as Christine Kincaid, I should start calling you TweedleDUM???

And, one last thought. Though NO findings that DPT caused increased mortality in United States, it did have higher number of adverse events, though most were mild, there were a few serious ones; but some believe we should bring it back as DTap confers a lower level of protection and shorter effectiveness.

You do know that Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was a pot smoking mathematician, right?

Given yesterday’s reveal, ‘homeless’ is exacltly where one should be (unless you are willing to burn up us troops with a field of fire before they can search your house for ‘insurgents’).

NARAD!! What help do you need?

I don’t know yet, Liz. A job, certainly, and somebody with a room to spare in Chicago. I’m still processing it — my current host, who has been charging me $500 a month for staying in his frankly disgusting apartment, turns out to have been pocketing it rather than paying the rent.

@ Narad

“A job, certainly.”

Are you in good enough physical/mental shape to work?

“My current host, who has been charging me $500 a month for staying in his frankly disgusting apartment, turns out to have been pocketing it rather than paying the rent.”

Sucks.

Are you in good enough physical/mental shape to work?

At my current stress level, I’m not even in good enough mental shape to finish submitting my disability claim. The physical side is pretty gruesome as well — back and hip pain, all wrapped up in a nice little bow with mediocarpal arthritis.

@ Tim

“You do know that Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was a pot smoking mathematician, right?”

Not much evidence on that, I’ve heard. Though I must admit that this is a case where I want to believe…

@ Terry

I’m not sure Kincaid is actually being caught in outright lies. Perhaps, like our intuitive genius President 😀, she just lives in a fantasy world, has a short attention span, and literally is unaware that she contradicts herself. In any case, if she is diagnosed with Aspergers, certainly not example of a high functioning case.

@ Joel

“I’m not sure Kincaid is actually being caught in outright lies.”

She obviously doesn’t think she is massaging the truth. She has too few filters to be a sociopathic deliberately manipulative liar. Way too few.

She’s in a “worldview” founded on pivotal elements of her own personal history. Not in a sick and twisted food fight mentality like patented woo-meisters are.

@ F68.10,

You are right. I have changed my mind on the MMR due to the element that is likely not the strongest one. You are right about the main reason you suspect: Trust.

I trust Aaby because he has lived in the community he studies since 1978. He knows how they live, how they move & he knows the challenges that their women & children face on a daily basis. He is not some talking head in a fancy office in a state of the art medical facility or sterile lab. I trust him because despite that he is an awarded researcher on vaccines; he appealed to the WHO regarding a clear, consistent warning signal about the DPT.

THIS does not seem rational to me: “All vaccines are good. The schedule is all good. We have replaced a few good vaccines with even better vaccines. No reason to change anything because everything is good & it is good for everybody”.

THIS seems more consistent with reality: “Vaccines are good but we see a problem with this one vaccine. It may not be the vaccine but the timing of the vaccine may be the problem. There is a possibility that the vaccine could be improved because it may be literally the vaccine that is causing some negative results. Some people also may be more at risk than others. Is it genetics? Premature birth? Increased mortality from a vaccine is bad & since we need vaccines; this should be addressed immediately.”

Objectivity is important to me. When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. This is what bothers me about the vaccine agenda narrative. It sounds to good to be true. Aaby’s position is more consistent with the way real life works. Sometimes there is sun, other times rain but you can’t grow a good crop without having both.

I struggled with the fact that Aaby’s work consistently found positives regarding the measles vaccine because it went against my own narrative because I know that my sons regression started after the MMR. Everybody’s child’s regression started after the MMR. How were we all wrong? But then I thought about the element of sequence & timing, because that was one of Aaby’s issues about the DPT. Truth: The MMR was not the only vaccine given that day. What if it was the DPT + the MMR. Maybe they shouldn’t be given concurrent? They shouldn’t be, I believe. Could the others who thought the MMR caused their child’s regression be missing the fact that other vaccines were given that day? Just one late or rescheduled appointment puts that third DPT WITH the first MMR. And sometimes even the last HepB. I can’t be the only person that happened to.

Then there were the studies about the POSITIVE non-specific effects of the measles vaccine. Even now, maybe; against COVID. I can’t ignore that. I had to accept that I was likely wrong about the MMR because Aaby, who I trust , found positive non specific effects, over decades in an EXTREMELY compromised population. Something had the ability to improve mortality in Guinea-Bissau, of all places & it WAS the measles vaccine.

There is an additional flaw in my thinking that you did not notice, one that has bothered me for some time & that is that I don’t believe the MMR is actually the measles vaccine used by the Bandim Health Project. I think, that it is actually the measles only vaccine. Lol. What about the Mumps & Rubella? This bothers me to no end. There is one guy in Guinea-Bissau that I trust but mumps & rubella isn’t even on his radar.

“THIS does not seem rational to me: “All vaccines are good. The schedule is all good. We have replaced a few good vaccines with even better vaccines. No reason to change anything because everything is good & it is good for everybody”.”

Strawmen seldom are rational.

“There is an additional flaw in my thinking that you did not notice”

In a deluge of misinformation, we missed an extra droplet of stupidity? How careless of us.

“Objectivity is important to me.”

Flying shards of exploded irony meters are rumored to have caused injuries all the way over in Guinea-Bissau.

Your son is too young to have had the DTP, unless you’re lying about his age. The switch to acellular pertussis components in the US was made in the 90s. Did you take him out of the country for his shots? Did they get them out of long-term storage just for his visit? Why can’t you keep your own story straight?

@ Christine Kincaid. Oops, I mean TweedleDUM

Yep. Aaby is an excellent researcher; but his studies in Africa are NOT placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized clinical trials, so, for the umpteenth time, they are subject to confounders. And again, DPT studies in the U.S. and Europe did NOT find an association with ASD. And for the umpteenth time, you refuse to even consider Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc and the fact that so many kids get vaccines within certain age ranges that what you consider a strong correlation could be just that lightening does strike twice in the same place. I gave you the example of finding people who just ate Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and had a heart attack. Read David Card’s book “The Improbability Principle.” And you just DON’T understand that one can’t prove a negative, so even if 100 well-done studies with various designs by different researchers in different nations found NO association, one can NEVER prove there wasn’t an association. Just rational people at some point assume the risk is infinitesimal and rely on the studies. And, despite what you choose to believe and as I’ve explained, there have been umpteen published articles on vaccines and adverse events and the researchers were not labelled antivaxxers, except if the studies were extremely poorly done or fraudulent, e.g., Hooker and Wakefield. For you to be right, to be absolutely right, you have to “think”/”believe” things that just aren’t true and ignore when pointed out to you.

Again, it isn’t about “trusting” Aaby; but in looking at ALL the data. In fact, even the absolute best placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized clinical trial should NOT be assumed to be valid without replication. That is what statistical significance means, e.g., p = 0.05 means that one assumes that only 5% of the time will the results have been “caused” not by the independent variable; but by uncontrolled variables that by chance ended up more in one group than the other. Which is why reviews of the research are more reliable as the odds that the same or similar uncontrolled variables ending up in one group as opposed to the other in independent studies is minuscule. And why even non-placebo controlled trials can contribute because each epidemiological design includes risks of uncontrolled variables ending up more in one group than the other; but, again, this risk diminishes as more studies are done because, quite simply, the odds of getting the same unbalanced group of uncontrolled variables is less.

You just don’t get it.

And once again, despite NO findings of association between DPT and ASD, in the U.S. we have been using DTap since the 1990s.

And as for vaccine schedules, etc. they aren’t arbitrary; but based, again, on a multitudes of vaccine studies, literally thousands, on reviews by numerous quality groups, including the Institute of Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration, WHO, and health groups in various other nations. You seem to forget that prior to vaccines kids were exposed to ALL of the current vaccine-preventable diseases, not killed or attenuated; but full strength AND that on a daily basis the average infant is exposed to up to 3,000 potentially dangerous microbes which their still not fully developed immune system usually deals with quite well.

Try a little reality testing and, once again, get Card’s book and Sompayrac’s book on the immune system. Maybe you will be able then to comment based on at least a minimum of real-world knowledge, not your fantasy world.

@ Joel, Terrie, DB, other minions:

You are doing superlative work highlighting CK’s .. contributions
May I make a suggestion?

Someone ( not me, although I am excellent at this task) at RI should consolidate all of the material she has produced here, divided into several categories:
— her anti-vax position
— personal tales of vaccine injury-
— tales of children’s vaccine injuries
— stories about unique abilities in self/ other family members
— secret information/ revelations about vaccines
— family histories
— unique experiences
— son’s problems/ actions
— contradictions inherent in the above
— criticism of SBM. vaccine science, RI, minions

Perhaps loci could be noted for especially relevant items.

Of course, this would take aeons to complete but if everyone pitched in, we could get a quick sketch for readers.

Basically, it would exemplify the maxim:
The internet never forgets and neither do we

Objectivity is important to me. When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

It’s a shame that the 2020 hurricane name list has settled on “Isaias” rather than “Irony.”

@ Narad,

What’s so ironic about things that sound too good to be true actually being so? What does a hurricane from 2014 have to do with anything?

What does a hurricane from 2014 have to do with anything?

What part of “2020” did you not understand? The names are reused, with “Isaias” replacing “Ike.”

it’s really hard to set a bowling ball on fire.

With a mixture of iron III oxide and aluminum powder, it is not ‘hard’ to set a bowling ball on fire.

In fact, if one employs electrolysis on stainless steel (such as, scissors ( a phoenetically perfect word)) and aluminuim gutter nails, then, when mixed, he gets ‘nanothermite’ and the bowling ball is utterly obliterated when sticking the powder inside where the dick normally goes .

@ Christine Kincaid

“I trust Aaby because he has lived in the community he studies since 1978. He knows how they live, how they move & he knows the challenges that their women & children face on a daily basis. He is not some talking head in a fancy office in a state of the art medical facility or sterile lab.”

Well, things simply cannot work this way. Science is emphatically not a question of morals or personal implication in the sense you seem to see it. You of course need persons on the ground and, yet, integrity is more important than “compassion”. (do not even get me started on Mother Theresa…) And you absolutely do need “talking heads in fancy offices”: cold-hearted callous Vogon bureaucrats doing the grunt work, discriminating among the data. Absolutely. No lone researcher can do it alone in this day and age.

“I trust him because despite that he is an awarded researcher on vaccines; he appealed to the WHO regarding a clear, consistent warning signal about the DPT.”

Either we discuss the “signal”, or we discuss the WHO social and power dynamics. I did spend some time working in Geneva. Met quite a number of people there. The most paranoïd? WHO civil servants. Why so? Because their very professional life is fully engulfed in conspiracy theories, and vaccines are just one among many. So do not expect them to be anything but conservative when it comes to scientific issues. If you want to push forward your antivax positions, you should not aim directly at the WHO. It will budge only when the rest of the scientific consensus will.

“THIS does not seem rational to me: “All vaccines are good. The schedule is all good. We have replaced a few good vaccines with even better vaccines. No reason to change anything because everything is good & it is good for everybody”.”

This is rational: “I’m working at the WHO. I have to deal with vaccine issues such as Aaby. Overall, vaccines clearly have positive benefits. I can’t afford putting worldwide vaccination policy at stake for preliminary work such as Aaby. We all know that we do not know everything, so maybe their is something to Aaby’s work. Maybe he also misinterpreted or, who knows, misrepresented some things. Of course such work will have confounders. So I’m behaving conservative: I explain why this doesn’t add up to enough evidence to jeopardise vaccination policy, and I very honestly write the word “confounder” in my report. If really there is something to Aaby’s work, it will have to wait for replication and more supporting evidence. And also, not to be too obtuse, I acknowledge that more work on “non-specific effects” would be a good idea. Because after all, it’s factually true that it’s not a bad idea. Now, how do I word that so that Del BigTree doesn’t misrepresent everything? Hmmmmh….”

Typical WHO paranoïa.

“THIS seems more consistent with reality: “Vaccines are good but we see a problem with this one vaccine.”

Do we? Is the evidence enough? What is your threshold for evidence? Joel has been taunting you on methodology. That’s precisely the point were you jump to conclusion because you haven’t read enough on methodology. I always advise Conjectures and Refutations by Popper as an entry point. Pick it up: no pro-vaccine “propaganda” within. Just general and practical thoughts on the scientific method that will enlighten you. Very good read, very well written. No pro-vaccine “propaganda”… that’s a promise.

“It may not be the vaccine but the timing of the vaccine may be the problem. There is a possibility that the vaccine could be improved because it may be literally the vaccine that is causing some negative results. Some people also may be more at risk than others. Is it genetics? Premature birth? Increased mortality from a vaccine is bad & since we need vaccines; this should be addressed immediately.””

You’re mixing so many things in that paragraph that the mathematician in me is wondering how transfinite is the Cantor-Bendixson rank of the Stone space of the Boolean algebra of the metaphysical questions you have on vaccines… More seriously: each of these questions needs to be dealt separately. For instance, even if genetics did play a role, whatever that may be, what would you expect? Genetic tests for everyone before vaccination? At a time when two billion people do not have decent access to water while being told to wash their hands in the context of the pandemic?…

“Objectivity is important to me.”

Well, contrarily to people here who make fun of you on that topic, I do believe that you mean that. But I do not think you understand very much what objectivity is as a technical philosophical concept. You do need to read a few philosophers on the topic IMO.

“When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. This is what bothers me about the vaccine agenda narrative. It sounds to good to be true.”

If you ask me, I’m pretty annoyed at every oversimplification I hear from officials. Of course the message they send out is always an oversimplification. That’s called Public Relations. Now, there is a distinction to be made between PR of the “I’m the State; let me cuddle you like I’m your Mommy” type of nonsense and the scientific publications. The latter are not a “narrative”. At least, not in my understanding of the meaning of the word “narrative”.

Stoping here: my comment is already way to long.

I always advise Conjectures and Refutations by Popper as an entry point.

It seems to me that (later) Lakatos would be more useful.

@ F68.10,

No, it wasn’t too long. It was perfectly fine. I’m going to think about everything you wrote & I will probably be re-reading your post as I do.

I’m afraid you lost me on the “Cantor-Bendixson rank of the Stone space of the Boolean algebra” comment. It went over my head.

The only thing I can answer right away is this:

"For instance, even if genetics did play a role, whatever that may be, what would
you expect? Genetic tests for everyone before vaccination? "

Because yeah that is something I wanted. I absolutely believe that genetics play a role. I don’t think everyone’s immune system reacts to vaccination the same way. For sure mine doesn’t & for sure my youngest son’s doesn’t. He’s only 16 & he was fully vaccinated. I took him to get those vaccines. He has a legitimate shot record & now there is no evidence of any immunity to any VPD. It’s all gone. And his immunologist did the genetic testing, to verify that he had the genetics that could cause this to happen & he does.

But you are right. Pre-immunization testing is unrealistic on a global scale. I was so naive to think this could happen. The only reason it happened for him (after the fact unfortunately) is because we live in a first world country & because as a permanently disabled child he qualifies for medicaid that cannot be cancelled & medicaid paid for the workup to be done because he could see an Immunologist who ordered it because he’s autistic.

Yeah that’s not going to happen everywhere. Maybe it could here but that’s unfair(?) for the rest of the world. This is really sad, I’m sorry for being so naive.

I will work on learning from the rest of your post.

“He’s only 16 & he was fully vaccinated. ”

@Christine, please explain what you mean by “fully vaccinated.” Did he get his 4-6 shots? Did he get his 12 year old TDaP? You love to talk about how you thought vaccines were perfectly safe until you came to believe your mother and decided they weren’t, but you’re always vague on when this happened. Obviously, you’re not longer following the recommended schedule, so when did you stop?

@ F68.10

I own and read Popper’s “Logic of Scientific Discovery”. Found a free copy pdf for download of his “Conjectures and Refutation”. Have a pile of things to read; but it is now on the pile.

You might want to try to get a copy of my all-time favorite book: Merwyn Susser’s “Causal Thinking in the Health Sciences”. Amazon.com has used copies.

One problem with genetics besides the almost impossibility of testing every child is simply if someone has a genetic predisposition to a killed or attenuated microbe then if exposed to the wild-type microbe they would still get the infection which could be even worse. If one then decides to not vaccinate his/her child because protection of herd immunity, then gradually more and more will do this and both those with genetic predisposition and the vast majority without will be at risk. So, given that, despite what Kincaid and others believe, that the risks from vaccines are minuscule compared to the benefits, rational people, Kincaid not included, would opt for the vaccine.

And the adjuvants in vaccines do not increase risk of those with genetic predispositions. First, for example aluminum, alum, is minuscule compared to amount of aluminum we get from environment. Second, all adjuvants do is allow smaller doses of antigen from actual microbe by alerting immune system; but the response of immune system is not different than to wild-type microbe or higher antigen in vaccine. And MMR vaccine doesn’t use adjuvants!

@ Narad

Eons ago I had three graduate courses in Philosophy of Science, two in Sweden. In Sweden we studied logical positivism, phenomenology, Kantian, and hermeneutics. I keep everything and found a photocopy of article used in one of courses:

Lakatos I (1968 Oct 28). Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 69: pp. 149-186, But it was a long time ago, so I’ll add it to my to-read list.

Just for fun did a Google search and found:

Musgrave (2016). Imre Lakatos. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This encyclopedia gives extremely detailed well-written articles on various topics. I’ve downloaded and read probably a dozen.

And there are other books I read years ago and were quite good (just some):

Abraham Kaplan (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Sciences.

Hans Reichenbach (1963). The Rise of Scientific Philosophy

Donald T. Campbell. Methodology and Epistemology for Social Sciences: Selected Paper.

Some of the books and papers were in Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish (I had a Norwegian-Swedish and Danish-Swedish dictionaries)

But as I mentioned in comment to F68.10, my favorites is Merwyn Susser’s

@ Narad

I tend to avoid Lakatos because he dealt with epistemology of mathematics. Not that I believe that he was wrong on the topic (in fact, I tend to agree with most of what I’ve read from him on that) but because I want my own ideas on the matter not to be tainted with what I believe is a lot of cruft that has been tossed over foundational mathematical issues in the last century and a half. I tend to stick with the philosophy of pre-WW2 polish logicians on matter of mathematical ideology or rather methodology.

But as far as Lakatos is concerned on more mainstream epistemological matters, I really believe that the so-called “metaphysical turn” of the late Popper has been rather widely misunderstood. As I do not feel the need to go much further than that — and I feel that’s what I would be doing if I dived into Lakatos — I tend to refrain from reading too much Lakatos.

Not the best reasons, though…

I tend to avoid Lakatos because he dealt with epistemology of mathematics.

Dammit, now I’m wondering how Mochizuki and abc would play in this framework. I suspect the feeling will pass.

@ Narad

Do not know what the point you wanted to make about Mochizuki is precisely. Whether or not he proved abc is, as you likely know, “up to debate”. Doesn’t change the fact that notions he set up do make sense. Frobenioids constitute a concept that has an interesting structure and that I believe makes sense. Capsules and capsule polymorphisms are also such interesting concepts. But the presentation of these papers is simply awful. For instance, if you take only the concept of capsules, my gut feeling of the concept is that it somehow is some form of a congruence in a categorical setting — an intuition I haven’t seen much developed in the literature — and congruences tend to be, not understudied, far from it, but awkwardly presented in most typical category theory work (check Borceux and Bourn to convince yourself of the pain of mixing category theory and modularity issues). Not satisfied, typically, by the status of Mal’tsev varieties in that setting, which IMO is a poor man’s version of congruences because categories are not so adapted to studying congruences in full generality. The biggest problem with Mochizuki is IMO not whether or not he proved abc, but how we can reframe his theoretical setting in a more palatable way. Seemingly, model theory seems to provide means to do that. But, for the sake of comparison, even if you stick to modern algebraic geometry in the context of the so-called functor of points point of view — a slightly different approach from the somewhat more mainstream sheaves on ringed spaces approach — the dust still not has settled as to how well adapted that framework is. Category theory has been mightily useful to reframe algebraic geometry and set up Weil cohomology, but the real categorical meat of the functor of point approach is within descent theory, where there are obvious unsettled glitches everywhere you look. And the functor of points point of view does not account for stuff like Ax-Kochen-Ersov theorems. IMO, mathematical progress is not only a matter of proving theorems like abc, though it is directed by that, but making tools as palatable as possible. A process that is still not fully solved for category theory, and that has only begun with Frobenioids and capsule polymorphisms.

My 2 cents.

Do not know what the point you wanted to make about Mochizuki is precisely. Whether or not he proved abc is, as you likely know, “up to debate”.

Hey, I did accurately predict that my feeling would pass. But, now that it has floated back through my concussed brain,* the (vague) motivation was the sense that “flawed proof” and “irreparably flawed proof,” viz., Corollary 3.12 of the third IUT paper, do represent an epistemological distinction. This is not Perelman, although I’ve read that Mochizuki is welcome to visitors, if intransigent on the claimed flaw.

The biggest problem with Mochizuki is IMO not whether or not he proved abc, but how we can reframe his theoretical setting in a more palatable way.

This has been going on for some while, e.g., Taylor Dupuy, as mentioned here and some further links from Peter Woit’s joint. I should look further, but I’ve been procrastinating on an important E-mail.

*The roommate got violent Friday evening — don’t worry, I’ve been in touch with the city’s domestic violence people and have a plan. And a sharp object.

@ Joel,

What’s wrong with not being a ‘high functioning case ‘? What’s so ‘functional’ about the neurotypical world anyway?

Tbh, I was initially identified as MR in the second grade. Then I was ‘unidentified’ before the third because of the IQ test. I already know it was reading ability that swung the test; I’m not a genius. My official diagnosis is Autism, ADD, Hyperlexia. ‘Levels 1, 2 & 3’ were not being used yet so I don’t have a functioning level determined but I think I would be borderline 1-2.

I don’t see that much wrong with not being so high functioning in a dysfunctional world. It doesn’t mean I am stupid. The very worst part has been how it impacted my vulnerability when interacting with others, mostly men. The struggles of autistic females are largely overlooked by advocates; another reason I am chronically annoyed by the neurodiversity crowd (in addition to their misunderstanding the needs of those on the severe end of the spectrum).

So no, I am not high functioning Aspergers. I have an older son who is & I can already tell that he is about 10 years ahead of me regarding social development. His 25 was my 35.

How does this mean my way of thinking is lesser than yours? Maybe I see things that you cannot, just as you can function in ways that I can’t?

@ Christine Kincaid

You write: “How does this mean my way of thinking is lesser than yours? Maybe I see things that you cannot, just as you can function in ways that I can’t?”

Yes, your way of thinking is lesser than mine because you ignore science, don’t understand immunology, don’t understand microbiology, don’t understand or accept that Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc is a logical fallacy, don’t understand that just because things happen close together doesn’t mean one caused the other, don’t understand that lightening does strike many times in the same place, and don’t understand one can’t prove a negative. So, no, you can’t see things I don’t see; but you can “think” you do. The very fact that I refute claims made by you and you ignore, well, once-in-a-while you attempt to rebut; but fail, e.g., not understanding that changing a definition will change the stats, e.g., same symptoms labeled childhood schizophrenia changed to ASD, Asberger’s added, thus numbers increase, and the part about labeling everyone as we become a “therapeutic society”, and on and on it goes.

I really don’t care what your and your children’s labels are, irrelevant, so shouldn’t have mentioned; but whatever your label is, the fact that you continue to believe you are “absolutely” right, to continue coming up with ever new claims, ignoring how many times myself and others have refuted your claims, and ignore that you even contradict yourself, says it all.

And, even your newest comment says a lot, that is, you ignore the main discussion, e.g., vaccines and focus on one sentence I wrote.

So, I hope you don’t mind if I call you TweedleDUM, your thinking is lesser than mine, you don’t see things that I cannot; but, yes, I can function in ways you can’t. I can and do the research, looking at many papers, and i have the education and skills to actually evaluate their methodology, including the statistics used, the research designs, etc.

I can’t know what your actually genetic abilities are; so, it is possible that you could acquire the basic skills; but I doubt you want to. You need to believe that what you “think” is correct. In any case, again get Sompayrac’s book “How the Immune System Works” and David Hand’s “The Improbability Principle”. Get them, read them if you dare.

And for the umpteenth time, though I am not an Einstein, I am reasonably intelligent, don’t believer I am always right (open to scientific information) and have a thorough education, I could NOT judge which bridge design is best because I have NEVER studied structural dynamics. I know my limitations, you don’t.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
June 2, 2020 at 2:56 pm

Thank you. I kind of agree that CK isn’t worth more than what has already been given to her. However, I get benefit from your answers and proof. I was only slightly entertained by CK comments until I realized it’s just watching a train wreck over and over again. That’s really not my thing. Still proponent of keeping safe those who are innocent. Again, thank you.

It doesn’t mean I am stupid.

It also doesn’t negate the obvious fact that you exist in a swamp of motivated reasoning.

@ Aarno,

Thank you for the study. From it:

“Conclusions Evidence suggests that receipt of BCG and MCV reduce overall mortality by more than would be expected through their effects on the diseases they prevent, and receipt of DTP may be associated with an increase in all cause mortality. Although efforts should be made to ensure that all children are immunised on schedule with BCG, DTP, and MCV, randomised trials are needed to compare the effects of different sequences.”

So it seems like their findings were not so far off from Aaby’s. The difference being that Aaby appealed to the WHO to investigate changing the sequence of the DPT & these authors merely state that “randomised trials are needed to compare the effects of different sequences.”

Because “receipt of DTP may be associated with an increase in all cause mortality.” The study also stated, just like Aaby found; that there is increased mortality in girls, over boys. If authorities here in the US were to have simply stated; “There ARE discrepancies. The DPT in it’s scheduled position may be causing increased adverse events & we will immediately investigate”; I would trust them. Changing to the Dtap & not admitting to serious complications from the vaccine does not help with trust. Especially for the mother of a girl who died within 24 hours of receiving it.

I’m sure they didn’t do that because it would have caused a decline in vaccine uptake. I’m also sure they didn’t do that due to liability issues. Well I don’t care about their concerns. I care about my children more. And if their immediate priority isn’t my child’s health, then I don’t trust them. They must see my child as an acceptable loss because their priority is uptake metrics & avoiding liability. What choice have I been left with?

WHO reviewed Aaby’s claims. Multiple times. https://www.who.int/immunization/research/implementation/nse_protocol_comments/en/

It just didn’t agree with his operative conclusions on DTP.
And the claim that experts who value protecting children from diseases care less about children’s health than anti-vaccine activists is unconvincing.

https://www.who.int/immunization/research/implementation/NSE_questions_answers_March2019.pdf?ua=1

“On the basis of the available evidence, the SAGE conclusions were published in 2014. These conclusions were not updated by SAGE in their subsequent review because all new publications were reanalyses of data already reviewed and/or did not have any implications for changes to recommendations.
Regarding the possible NSE of BCG vaccine on all-cause mortality, the epidemiological review suggested possible beneficial effects on all-cause mortality. The available data suggest that the current WHO recommended schedule for BCG vaccine has a beneficial effect on all-cause mortality. SAGE concluded that the evidence does not support a change of the current policy for BCG immunization as soon as possible after birth.
Regarding the possible NSE of DTP vaccine on all-cause mortality, the available data neither exclude nor confirm the possibility of beneficial or deleterious (harmful) NSE of DTP vaccines on all-cause mortality. SAGE concluded that the evidence does not support a change in policy for DTP, and highlighted the benefit of DTP in preventing disease and the importance of the existing recommendation.
Regarding the possible non-specific effect of measles-containing vaccines on all-cause mortality, the review suggested possible beneficial effects on all-cause mortality (i.e. possible lower rates of death in those vaccinated). SAGE concluded that the evidence does not support a change in policy for measles vaccine. The available data suggest that the existing WHO recommended schedule for standard titre measles-containing vaccine has a beneficial effect on all-cause mortality in children.
On an ongoing basis, WHO continues to regularly monitor and critically appraise emerging data on NSEs of vaccines. To date, none of the recent publications, several of them including re-analyses of the cohorts included in the 2014 review, indicate that the existing immunization policy recommendations should be adjusted.”

WHO reviewed Aaby’s claims. Multiple times.

Sheila should be trotting along any day now for this one.

Here is a better citation (MCV means measles containing vaccines).
“Receipt of standard titre MCV was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality (relative risks 0.74 (0.51 to 1.07) from four clinical trials and 0.51 (0.42 to 0.63) from 18 observational studies at high risk of bias); this effect seemed stronger in girls than in
boys. ”
You will notice how great the difference between observational studies and clinical trials is. This is no good, bias is really big.

@ Christine Kincaid

You write: “Changing to the Dtap & not admitting to serious complications from the vaccine does not help with trust.” Yikes! Besides journal articles, one can get the Advisory Committee on Immunizations meeting notes, and just go to various websites that list the serious adverse events from DTP. Just one example:

RxList “Dtp Side Effects Center Availble at: https://www.rxlist.com/dtp-side-effects-drug-center.htm

Just one quote: “in IOM report by the Committee to review the adverse consequences of pertussis and rubella vaccines concluded that evidence is consistent with a causal relation between DTP (diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine adsorbed usp) vaccine and acute encephalopathy, defined in the controlled studies reviewed as encephalopathy, encephalitis, or encephalomyelitis.”

And even for DTaP, the Vaccine Information Statement required by law since 1986 to be given for each and every vaccines (Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/dtap.html ), states:

“More serious reactions, such as seizures, non-stop crying for 3 hours or more, or high fever (over 105°F) after DTaP vaccination happen much less often. Rarely, the vaccine is followed by swelling of the entire arm or leg, especially in older children when they receive their fourth or fifth dose.
Very rarely, long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, or permanent brain damage may happen after DTaP vaccination.
As with any medicine, there is a very remote chance of a vaccine causing a severe allergic reaction, other serious injury, or death.”

However, it also explains the risks from the actual microbes, which happen exponentially more often than the vaccine-associated severe reactions (as I’ve explained and you refuse to understand, we live in the real world where one has to look at benefits vs risks and, despite what you choose to think, the benefits of vaccines, based on extensive research and knowledge of the vaccine-preventable diseases, is exponentially greater than the risks.:

“DIPHTHERIA (D) can lead to difficulty breathing, heart failure, paralysis, or death.
TETANUS (T) causes painful stiffening of the muscles. Tetanus can lead to serious health problems, including being unable to open the mouth, having trouble swallowing and breathing, or death.
PERTUSSIS (aP), also known as “whooping cough,” can cause uncontrollable, violent coughing which makes it hard to breathe, eat, or drink. Pertussis can be extremely serious in babies and young children, causing pneumonia, convulsions, brain damage, or death. In teens and adults, it can cause weight loss, loss of bladder control, passing out, and rib fractures from severe coughing.”

And every Vaccine Information Sheet includes clear understandable information on VAERS and the Vaccine Court.

So, once again, you make claims based on your own ignorance or fantasy world.

And for the umpteenth time, the findings by Aaby of DPT and all-cause mortality were in Africa, where the kids are subject to a myriad of diseases, and the studies were not placebo-controlled double-blind randomized clinical trials, so many possible confounders exist.

You just don’t quite when it comes to displaying your ignorance and your bias.

CK: “@ Aarno,

“Thank you for the study. From it:

“Conclusions Evidence suggests that receipt of BCG and MCV reduce overall mortality by more than would be expected through their effects on the diseases they prevent, and receipt of DTP may be associated with an increase in all cause mortality. Although efforts should be made to ensure that all children are immunised on schedule with BCG, DTP, and MCV, randomised trials are needed to compare the effects of different sequences.”

“So it seems like their findings were not so far off from Aaby’s.”

Christine has “overlooked” a couple of things. One, there were no independent “findings” by these authors – they did a systematic review of other studies.

Two, when it came to addressing studies suggesting an association between DTP vaccination and elevated all-cause mortality, the review authors explicitly stated that those papers were “at high risk of bias”.

The W.H.O. and others who’ve criticized Aaby’s study take all the evidence into account while having the best interests of children in mind. Antivaxers who falsely inflate Aaby’s conclusions are desperately grabbing at whatever they think will help their cause, consequences be damned.

@ Terrie,

Last vaccines at age 3. His pediatrician held the vaccines after evaluating him 6 months later. He wrote the referral for an additional evaluation with a specialist. The specialist gave him the official ‘severe regressive’ diagnosis & ordered for no further vaccinations.

It’s a moot point now because he is on immune suppressants. I guess he is that 1 in 1 million. The Poland paper on the immunogenomics of ‘Personalized Vaccines’ came out 2 years after his diagnosis. That gives me some peace. Nobody knew so I couldn’t have known. I could have listened to my mom but there wasn’t published evidence yet so I chose not to. That does not bring me peace.

@ Dorit,

No. First pediatrician was board certified & was the same that vaccinated my daughter less than 24 hours before she died. He vaccinated her twin & the older five, then the younger five, until the day he wrote the referral. He was notified that my son was seen in the ER twice after those last immunizations. I’ve known him for 34 out of the 36 years he has been in practice. He has always vaccinated.

The specialist is MY pediatricians son. He’s the one who ordered the hair analysis as part of my son’s workup. After it came back he said ‘no more’.

The Immunologist has been in practice for 25 years & his office vaccinates. He advises against vaccines for my son.

The current pediatrician used to be the first pediatricians partner. Board certified. In practice for 34 years. He has actually seen & vaccinated some of my older children. He still vaccinates but does not want my son vaccinated anymore. None of them are biomed.

@ Terrie,

My son was immunized on schedule & stayed up to date, excepting one round that was held due to a positive strep test. That dose was later caught up. It was the catch up doses that initiated the regression. Given with the 1st MMR.

He wasn’t on a delayed schedule.

Which is not the same as fully vaccinated. You stopped partway through. Someone who was on a delayed schedule, but has completed the schedule, would be considered fully vaccinated once it was complete. It means “has received all their vaccines.” If you meant he was vaccinated on schedule until up age 3, just say “vaccinated on schedule up until age 3.”

@ Christine Kincaid

You write: “What’s wrong with not being a ‘high functioning case ‘? What’s so ‘functional’ about the neurotypical world anyway? . . .I don’t see that much wrong with not being so high functioning in a dysfunctional world. It doesn’t mean I am stupid.”

First, part of the definition of “High-functioning autism (HFA) is autism without an intellectual disability (an IQ of 70 or less).” So, yep, “high-functioning” includes a minimum level of intelligence, which is what I was referring to. In fact, some high-functioning Aspergers are professors in universities. As for your being stupid, one more example of how you see the world in black and white. Intellectual ability is on a continuum. However, as I mentioned in another comment, I can’t know what your innate ability is; but it is clear that whatever level of intelligence you have, you don’t apply it. You don’t do comprehensive research; but rely on one or a few studies or just you “think” without any basis. You see the world in black and white. You believe you are absolutely right. You ignore, refuse to even deal with refutations of what you claim or, in a few instance, tried; but failed, e.g., not understanding that if one has 100 kids that based on definitional criteria would have been diagnosed as mentally retarded and/or childhood schizophrenia; but now with changing definition diagnosed ASD, just one example of why there isn’t an Autism epidemic, though only one of the reasons. And you haven’t indicated even trying to actually learn about immunology, don’t accept that temporal association, Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc, doesn’t mean “causal” because the number of children being vaccinated during age interval means many would develop problems completely unrelated to vaccines. I suggested an excellent fascinating inexpensive book: David Card’s “The Improbability Principle”.

And you “trust’ certain researchers.

You write: “I even had to defend Peter Aaby here.” AND “trust Aaby because he has lived in the community he studies since 1978. He knows how they live, how they move & he knows the challenges that their women & children face on a daily basis. He is not some talking head in a fancy office in a state of the art medical facility or sterile lab.”

First, really an example of your STUPIDITY that you assume he is the only one who has spent actual time in a community. But, more so, you assume that living in a community, observing, will ensure the researcher’s observations are valid. I have NO doubt that Aaby is an excellent researcher; but no human being notices everything, we filter information. An extreme example would be MDs and PhDs living in the segregated South. Many racists to the core; yet, they must have been aware of students at Morehouse and Fisk Universities, faculty that had published in quality peer-review journals, etc. Didn’t change their prejudices. Nope, I’m not implying that Aaby is even remotely like them; but that it is another example of STUPIDITY to base anything on one person, regardless of how accomplished they are. And I would bet if Aaby’s studies had not found “possible” increase in mortality, you would ignore him. And, again, as I explained, his studies were “natural” studies, not placebo-controlled double-blind randomized clinical trials, and that there are many confounders one could hypothesize that could explain what he found. In addition, not only WHO review of his research; but independent studies in U.S. and elsewhere have NOT found an increased mortality.

You keep insisting that there is a suppression of research on vaccine-associated serious adverse events, despite publications of the Cutter Incident, intussusception with rotavirus vaccine, encephalopathy, etc with whole cell pertussis vaccines, narcolepsy with 2009 H1N1 vaccine. And they are included in Vaccine Information Statements that must by law be given for each and every vaccine, plus one can find them on CDC websites and download for free the CDC Pink Book which includes sections of each vaccine-preventable disease and detailed information on vaccines. How can you continue to make such STUPID statements?

So, whatever your innate abilities are, you are STUPID. Your mode of thinking doesn’t differ from neo-Nazis, other racists, global warming deniers, etc. They too believe they are absolutely right, they too can find a few “legitimate” scientists who have written articles, though ignoring the overwhelming majority of articles, they too believe there exists suppression of some findings, and they too consider those who oppose them as dishonest. The only difference between them and you is the actual subject matter, vaccines vs Jews, Blacks, Global Warming.

As far as I’m concerned, all of you are despicable.

@ Joel – The term “high-functioning” is considered an insult by some. You may want to change your vernacular as I know how hard you strive to be politically correct. Just sayin’.

https://www.autismawareness.com.au/news-events/aupdate/why-we-should-stop-using-the-term-high-functioning-autism/

Oh….one other thing, you keep writing, “Post hoc ergo prompter hoc” when the correct term is “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”. Narad pointed this out a few months back but it appears you have forgotten.

Good day.

@ Terrie
@ Joel:

I’m sure you’ve seen material like this before: My Asperger’s Child; Asperger’s 101 ( websites discuss cognitive qualities)
although the person may not have ID, their thought process is different from that of NTs in other ways; They MAY ( not always) exhibit mindblindness in respect to others’ thought processes ( responding as if there’s nothing there), be fairly inflexible / unchangeable/ stubborn in regards to their own point of view, seeing themselves as more “logical” when they do indeed make very emotional decisions ( ” Are People with Asperger’s as ‘Logical’ as They Think?”), may undervalue/ fail to see the opinions of others. Problems with reciprocity, recursive thought, person perception are possible as well. OBVIOUSLY, social cognition is an issue .
There are loads of these explanations – easy to find ( Cognition and Asperger’s/ HFA)

I’m not sure if either of you were around during the Summer of Jake.( Ho Boy!) He writes at Autism Investigated now for a sample of an advanced case on public display

Being a huge nerd, the number of people in my social circle who are NT is lower than the general population. My issues with Christine are that she lacks compassion, she’s manipulative, and she’s… let’s call it an unreliable narrator, which are not symptoms of ASD.

While some people with ASD may score low empathy, it’s rare for them to lack compassion. You don’t have to understand someone’s emotions to care about them. Christine has said plenty of nasty things about people here and has made it clear that she doesn’t care about people facing any challenges that are not her own. She’s outright said she comes here because she wants to make sure that when she’s proven right, we remember her and feel bad about it.

She’s socially aware enough to use her son for sympathy points, painting a lurid picture of misery, but if you point this out to her, suddenly her son is a child of sunshine and light, the delight of everyone, and what a terrible person you are to describe him as anything less than that.

And, well, she’s been caught in so many inconsistencies, the latest trying to claim that non-polio paralysis cases in India were paralytic polio caused by OPV. Which, well, one reason you find a lot of people on the spectrum in nerdy circles is that it’s a community that encourages high attention to detail.

I don’t expect to change her mind, not because she is autistic, but because she’s arrogant. Yes, lots of people on the spectrum can be arrogant, but I tend to think it’s not because they’re autistic, but because, some people are arrogant, autistic or not. But I think it’s important for anyone who stumbles onto these comments to see evidence of her pattern of manipulation and mistruth.

Agreed.
Whether a person is ASD or NT is only one facet that explains how they behave and interact.. Other factors can determine outcomes. There’s more going on here.

@Terrie:

While some people with ASD may score low empathy, it’s rare for them to lack compassion.

There are three types of Emapthy: Cognitive, Emotional, and Compassionate. Autistics typically score low on cognitive empathy and highly on emotional and compassionate empathy. Psychopaths are literally the opposite, which is what makes them so dangerous.

@Julian. Yep. It’s one of those areas that get tricky to discuss, because “empathy” is used a lot of different ways. We may use it to mean just cogitative empathy, or to mean a collection of types of empathy. To me, compassion/compassionate empathy is the most critical in terms of a functional society and one of the building blocks of humanity.

@ Christine Kincaid

You write: “The Poland paper on the immunogenomics of ‘Personalized Vaccines’ came out 2 years after his diagnosis. That gives me some peace. Nobody knew so I couldn’t have known. I could have listened to my mom but there wasn’t published evidence yet so I chose not to.”

So, what does the paper say (Whitaker, 2015):

“Despite the enormous population benefits of routine vaccination, vaccine adverse events and reactions, whether real or perceived [my emphasis], have posed one of the greatest barriers to vaccine acceptance—and thus to infectious disease prevention—worldwide. . . The use of vaccines to prevent communicable diseases is among the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. However, despite technologic advances in developing newer and more efficacious vaccines, systems-level improvements in national immunization programs, and the expansion of these programs to remote corners of the developing world, scientists and healthcare workers worldwide continue to fight the age-old foe of vaccines, namely, fear. This fear ranges from logical concern and illogical anxieties regarding known vaccine adverse reactions to panic over unproven and imagined sequelae of vaccination [my emphasis]. . . .Prophylactic vaccines are held to greater safety standards than many other drugs and biologic products [my emphasis], principally because they are given to largely healthy populations with the intent to prevent, rather than treat, disease. . . . An adverse event may be a true adverse reaction that is caused by the vaccine or an unrelated, coincidental event [my emphasis]. ”

“It is currently not practical or cost-effective to perform genotyping on a patient and then select a particular vaccine based on these genomic results. Furthermore, in some cases, as in the example of narcolepsy and Pandemrix, the frequency of the allele associated with the vaccine adverse event may be very common in the population, but only a small percentage of persons with this HLA-type may experience the vaccine adverse event. We are not advocating screening populations for particular HLA types and then withholding vaccination in these persons at this time.”

So, if you actually read Poland’s paper, first, he makes clear that people often perceive and even panic over imagined sequelae of vaccination and despite receiving a vaccination the adverse event can be unrelated coincidental.. And that vaccine safety standards are actually higher than ANY OTHER DRUG, MEDICAL DEVICE, OR EVEN FOOD.

As he makes clear, it would be currently impossible to screen for ALL possible genetic predispositions and those we can screen for often only a small subset develop problems. However, if all with the predisposition were to avoid being vaccinated, we would lose herd immunity and they would then be at risk for the natural full-strength microbes. Plus it would be incredibly costly. However, even today guidelines make clear that one should either not vaccinate certain individuals or space out vaccinations. These include autoimmune diseases and a previous adverse reaction to a vaccine.

However, given your need to see things in black and white, if herd immunity was lost and one of your children developed a disability or even died from one of the vaccine-preventable diseases, who would you then blame? Given that the odds are exponentially in favor of the vaccine vs rare serious adverse reactions, any RATIONAL person would choose to vaccinate their children; but, as you have made clear over and over again, YOU ARE NOT A RATIONAL PERSON.

Maybe someday in the not so distant future, 10, 20, 30 years down the line, we will have advanced in our knowledge of genetics so that screening will be easy, accurate, and inexpensive and, at the same time, vaccines will be better; but most of us live in the real world of today and vaccines are a God-send. I have suggested before that you actually read up on the history of one or more vaccine-preventable diseases. Just because we have successfully prevented them with our vaccine policies, stop vaccinating and some are still in the world and it wouldn’t be long before we experience what it was like prior to vaccines.

Just an example. How would you feel if you or someone you loved was treated for some form of cancer, survived but with serious problems and you then read that they were working on a new approach and hoped it would both be effective and available in the future? Would you regret having used the only treatment available at the time? You live in a world of illogic, of fantasy, of black and white. Again, if vaccines either did not exist or so many refused them that both their children and children who couldn’t get vaccinated, e.g., autoimmune diseases, with NO herd immunity, how would you feel if your child suffered, developed disabilities, and even died? How would you feel if good evidence all showed that it was your unvaccinated child who infected another who died? Again, we live in the CURRENT REAL WORLD. STOP LOOKING FOR EVERY EXCUSE TO FIND FAULT WITH VACCINES. YOU ARE BOTH TIRESOME AND FOOLISH!

And another recent paper by Poland (2018)

References:

Poland G, Ovsyannikova I, Kennedy R (2018. Personalized vaccinology: A review. Vaccine; 36: 5350-5357. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28774561/

Whitaker J, Ovsyannikova I, Poland G (2015 Jul). Adversomics: a new paradigm for vaccine safety and design. Expert Review of Vaccines; 14(7): 935-947. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630804/

@ Joel,

Sigh. You really just want to argue so you can call me more names.

Okay, you quote Poland:

“The use of vaccines to prevent communicable diseases is among the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.”

There. I disagree with that. The greatest public health achievements to prevent communicable disease were actually; public utilities, sanitation services, antibiotics, IV fluids & supplemental O2, along with a host of pharmaceuticals such as anti inflammatory meds, bronchodilators, insulin, etc …

My take on the rest:

Cute reference. It’s exactly how you sound when you call infants dying of whooping cough “crocodile tears.”

@ Lawrence:

It seems that we do have all of those 20th Century innovations and still have a raging Covid pandemic today and have had outbreaks/ epidemics of measles, polio, hiv/ aids,H1N1, SARS. MERS etc.
Only polio and measles were nearly eradicated because of ……..?
What was that? Soap? Canals? Mosquito netting? Iron lungs? Or…

Only polio and measles were nearly eradicated because of ……..?

Oops, it seems that we’ve lost caller “Smallpox.”

@ Narad:

Thanks for that.
Funny how one of the biggest triumphs slipped my mind because it happened so long ago that I take it as a given.
RE “soap and canals”:
I guess we need them for things we don’t have vaccines for.
-btw-
about draining swamps/ canals etc. I was surprised to learn the efforts to manage malaria really geared up in the US South circa 1942 as Army Corps prepared for servicemen’s training camps ( TV history show).

Says a person in a rich country where those things are available.

Even in the very poorest countries smallpox is gone.

You’re very USA-centric in your world view, have you noticed that?

@ Denise

Yep, I actually follow Jake Crosby’s “Autism Investigated”. He has an MPH, mentioned topic of his thesis; but when I asked him to post on his website, he refused. When I asked for the title, he refused. When I checked George Washington Universities library, not listed in catalogue. Every school I ever attended has a copy of theses and dissertations in library and catalogue. He continues to defend the indefensible, namely, Wakefield, for instance attacking Brian Deer; but ignoring that the British Medical Council Fitness to Practice Hearing over three years looked at the documents Deer obtained and, interesting enough, Wakefield’s lawyers didn’t challenge. And he found out the name of one of the 12 kids in Wakefield’s 1998 paper who was from California, got a Google photo of the house, obtained address and phone number and encouraged people to phone the father. Finally, he obtained the now adult autism person’s Facebook and gave it out. But worse, he claimed that the father was wrong about Wakefield faking his kid getting MMR then being diagnosed within one week;, so he showed on his blog part of the table from the paper; but not the column MMR to diagnosis which did give one week even though the father had his son’s medical record and the interval was several months; but Jake posted age of first symptoms, not the same thing. When I pointed this out, he ignored it. In other words, he is a liar. I also found out he began a PhD program in Epidemiology at U of Texas School of Public Health in Austin; but left within a few months. He blames the administration and they aren’t allowed to comment. What is even more interesting is that his uncle is worth close to $1 billion and donated considerable sums to schools he attended. Makes one wonder???

If anyone following this exchange has any way of obtaining title of Jake’s MPH thesis or even copy, would be great. If anyone following this exchange has any knowledge of why Jake Crosby left University of Texas School of Public Health at Austin, please let us know.

I think that our own Rene might have insight into Jake’s thesis at GW, although Dr N is probably very busy now: fighting the pandemic.. IIRC, the thesis involved the Geiers somehow. Jake stayed at UT for quite a while, without progress.
Rene might still have a website Epidemilogical where Jake is discussed.

@ Denice Walter

Yep, his thesis did involve the Geiers. If you want one example of his dishonest attack on father of child 11 in Wakefield’s study, go to:

http://www.autisminvestigated.com/lancet-family-11-demirjian/

Notice at bottom the excerpt from the table. Then go to Wakefield’s 1998 article:

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0.pdf

Check out Table 2 column “Interval from exposure to first behavioural symptom”

Not what Crosby shows.

As for mentioning his thesis and working with Gears towards bottom:

https://www.autisminvestigated.com/opponent-vaccine-commission/

And he wasn’t in PhD program that long.

What is also interesting is that I contacted the George Washington School of Public Health and asked if Jake had received an MPH. Their response is they can’t give out such information. Not only does every school I went to contain my theses or dissertations; but one can find each years graduating class by degree online, not GWs. I asked if that means someone could literally lie about a degree from their school. Apparently, yes. They did mention a way to confirm if for a job application; but not even news media. Fascinating.

Jake was enrolled for between 12 and 24 months in the Ph.D. program at UT. Options are that his major advisor and Jake had a falling out with Jake choosing to leave, Jake broke some other rules and got asked to leave or Jake failing his prelim exam. I am not familiar with the process at UT, but at CSU the prelim exam must be completed at least a year before the defense and is often done at about 2 years.

Jake’s comments about not being a Ph.D. student anymore suggest he was asked to leave, rather than chose to leave. Although I have learned not to trust anything Jake writes.

GWU does not publish the thesis titles for any of their MPH students and they are not in the library. I don’t think we should read any more than that into not being able to find his thesis title.

The “Gnat” has been extremely quiet over the past few months – he’s no longer in school, that much I know.

@ Terrie,

“If you meant he was vaccinated on schedule until up age 3, just say “vaccinated on schedule up until age 3.”

You are right.

@ Christine Kincaid

As usual you ignore, don’t respond to what I wrote. Not surprising, given I really doubt you capable of actually entering into an exchange of concrete ideas, escaping briefly from your black and white fantasy world.

Continual references to Peter Aaby’s Guinea-Bissau study as “proving” the harmfulness of DPT vaccination fit the parameters of both “1-study mania” and the “Grand Poobah” effect* as described in this article about climate change denialism:

http://lethalheating.blogspot.com/2019/02/11-things-climate-change-dismissive.html

*”People will repeat, retweet, or share something just because they like or agree with a person irrespective of whether it is accurate or deserves more critical thinking.”**
**Judy Mikovits is the latest in a series of antivax Grand Poobahs, succeeding William Thompson at the top of the rankings.

@ Chris Preston

The fact that GW won’t even confirm or deny that someone received a degree from them and that they don’t even list graduating classes differs from my experience and I asked several friends, theirs as well. However, more important is why Jake won’t even give the title of his thesis, let alone post it online. Mine became peer-reviewed journal articles so I can give detailed references. What does he have to hide? Did he receive lowest passing grade? Was thesis rejected and he was allowed to graduate from the non-thesis track MPH program, though still claiming he wrote a thesis? I doubt he has actually held any type of job in public health.

The only way to find out more is if someone knows someone at GW School of Public Health who is willing to investigate. Only a hypothesis; but maybe they don’t want to anger a major donor, his uncle???? It would also be nice to find out about his undergraduate time at Brandeis.

As I wrote above, he literally engineered the harassment of the parent of an autistic child and then the child. Besides harassing Paul Offit, he knows NO LIMITS!

@ Joel:

Some of Orac’s minions may need to help me here but..

Jake may have ” dumpster dived” into reports of AEs with the assistance of the Geiers having guidance by a prof ( instructor?) employed at GW who was sympathetic to the Gs.
Rene Najera knows more than I do. I think he wanted to sit in on JC’s presentation.

A few others here can recount his other adventures in ( faux) epidemiology wherein he got money from (IIRC) the Dwoskins’ foundation and Polly Tommey’s Media Channel .He admits this as COIs in one of his letters to the editor.

He has a linked in account ( see Jake Crosby in Jacksonville FL area- (many JCs there none like him) detailing his activities. He wrote for the Epoch Times.; he recruited Andy as a speaker at Brandeis when a student there.

He also worked for….. wait for it… Trump’s 2016 campaign gathering righties and whities together to get the Orange elected. I imagine he might try again .Not that he needs to work, he lives with his mother in a luxe Ponte Vedra home.

-btw- he harassed Drs Godlee and Offit at public events as well as Orac who has a video of it probably somewhere on this blog.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.