I keep saying that, in the age of COVID-19, everything old is new again in terms of antivaccine messaging and conspiracy theories, sometimes to the point where I annoy my readers with repetition. Indeed, yesterday I pointed out how “new school” anti-COVID-19 vaccine antivaxxers such as Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough had fully embraced “old school” antivax conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, particularly of the “vaccines-cause-autism” variety albeit in the case of Dr. McCullough with a lot of added transphobia. After pointing out how Kirsch, in particular, had gone totally down the rabbit hole, I couldn’t help but note how he had recently started Tweeting about an old antivax conspiracy theory that I used to write about quite a bit—way too much, unfortunately—back in the day, the so-called “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory.
The CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory was the second conspiracy theory that I watched being born before my eyes, the first variety of conspiracy theories being 9/11 Truther conspiracy theories. More importantly from the perspective of two decades countering antivaccine misinformation, it was the first one that I wrote about and deconstructed right from the beginning as it was being born, starting right when Andrew Wakefield’s video featuring Brian Hooker first dropped in August 2014. It’s hard to believe that the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory has been around for nearly nine years now, but so it has, and its resurrection by Steve Kirsch and his fellow antivaxxers is yet another example of two things. First, antivax conspiracy theories never die. They merely disappear for a while, evolve, and then rise again. Second, to quote Yoda again with respect to antivax pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, once you start down the dark path (of antivax), forever will it dominate your destiny—consume you it will. I’m watching quite a few “only COVID-19 vaccine” antivaxxers becoming just antivaxxers and being consumed by antivax misinformation, with Steve Kirsch being the most risibly pathetic of the bunch thus far.
To be honest, after the COVID-19 pandemic hit and my blogging became consumed with countering COVID-19 misinformation, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories, I never thought I’d be writing about the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory again, but here we are. After Wednesday’s post, I thought that it might be useful for me to comment as someone who has been following the conspiracy theory since the beginning. Indeed, my first post about it is dated August 22, 2014. As an aside, in it I joked that, even if everything the “CDC whistleblower” said were correct, it would have proven Andrew Wakefield mostly wrong, because, even if you take everything claimed at face value, there was not a hint of a whiff of a correlation between the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and autism in any subgroup other than Black boys. (More on that later.)
First, let’s see how Steve Kirsch resurrected the conspiracy theory on Twitter.
Steve Kirsch and the CDC whistleblower
Yesterday, Steve Kirsch, a tech bro turned COVID-19 “early treatment” advocate turned COVID-19 antivaxxer turned just plain old antivaxxer, Tweeted this:
A couple of hours later, he Tweeted this, which regular readers will know as a reference to the CDC whistleblower:
And a couple of hours later yesterday:
Matt Carey, of course, is an autism advocate who back in the day was a prolific blogger over at Left Brain, Right Brain refuting antivax conspiracy theories about vaccines and autism while promoting acceptance of autistic people. He still posts there, but is a lot less prolific than he was in the old days. Most importantly, a lot of his work influenced my work in deconstructing the claims of the CDC whistleblower.
So let’s get to the claims.
The CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory, explained
Let’s go back to the very beginning, way, way back to August 2014, when Andrew Wakefield dropped the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory on the world, and I wrote about it. The claims being put forward in the video is that earlier MMR vaccination is associated with an increased risk of autism in African-American boys and that the CDC has spent the last 13 years covering this linkage up. These charges are based the result of a “reanalysis” by Brian Hooker published in 2014 in Translational Neurodegeneration entitled Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young African American boys: a reanalysis of CDC data. The study that Hooker had “reanalyzed” was from a study by DeStefano et al (and of which the “CDC whistleblower” William W. Thomas was a co-author) published in Pediatrics in 2004 entitled Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Note that Hooker’s paper was retracted in October 2014, for these reasons:
The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article [1] as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings. We apologise to all affected parties for the inconvenience caused.
From my perspective, this paper was such a stinking, drippy turd of a paper that it never should have been accepted in any reputable journal, which is why it was originally accepted by Translational Neurodegeneration and why it was absolutely hilarious that such a journal ultimately retracted it.
To go into a bit more detail, DeStefano et al was a case control study of children in metropolitan Atlanta conducted to “compare ages at first measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination between children with autism and children who did not have autism in the total population and in selected subgroups, including children with regression in development.” Basically, it found no association between MMR vaccination and the risk of autism or, to put it more precisely in a case-control study:
Similar proportions of case and control children were vaccinated by the recommended age or shortly after (ie, before 18 months) and before the age by which atypical development is usually recognized in children with autism (ie, 24 months).
Basically, it was yet another of a whole slew of negative studies failing to find a correlation between vaccines, in this case the MMR vaccine, and the risk of subsequently developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD). One of the first things I noticed was that Hooker took data collected for a case-control study, in which one looks at cases (in this case children with autism) and controls (without autism) and compare exposures (in this case vaccines) and did what looked like a cohort study, in which researchers look at groups of people who vary in exposure to a given putative risk factor (for instance, vaccines), each controlled for every other potential risk factor that the authors can control for, and then determine if the condition for which that putative risk factor is suspected to be a risk factor for. Think of it this way: Case control = comparing risk factor frequency in people with a condition compared to controls, while cohort = examining risk of condition in people with different exposures to a putative risk factor.
You can read the details in my original writeup, but to make a long story short, Hooker analyzed case-control data as a cohort study and found a 3.36-fold increased risk for autism in Black males who received MMR vaccination before the age of 36 months in this dataset. Hooker also did multiple subset analyses, which, of course, are prone to false positives. As we also say, if you slice and dice the evidence more and more finely, eventually you will find apparent correlations that might or might not be real. In this case, I highly doubted Hooker’s correlation was real, and the ultimate retraction of the paper bore that suspicion out.
There was also a claim that the requirement in DeStefano et al for birth certificate data whenever possible was a nefarious arbitrary way to “hide” any association between MMR and autism, when in reality requiring the birth certificate was not an “arbitrary” criterion. It allowed investigators to account for known confounders related to autism risk, such as birth weight, at least in this subset of the case and control groups. I also can’t help but think there is likely to be a confounder that is unaccounted for in this study, particularly given how there increase in risk is found in only one group. In fact, as Reuben at The Poxes Blog explained at the time, there almost certainly was just such a confounder, and the analysis method chosen by Hooker was highly suspect. I could go on and on, but let’s just say that Hooker’s reanalysis was very bad and incompetently done, or, as was pointed out on Twitter:
Unfortunately, before the pandemic Hooker’s “reanalysis” kept resurfacing. I couldn’t help but include images of walkers from The Walking Dead because that was one of my favorite TV shows at the time. In 2018 it found its final home in that journal of bonkers right-wing pseudoscience, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is the house journal of what I like to call a medical John Birch Society disguised as a medical professional organization, specifically the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). It’s an appropriate home for this ideology-inspired bit of bad science, I guess.
So where does the conspiracy theory come in? I’ve only alluded to parts of it; so let’s dig in. First, it comes from a claim that the CDC held back the raw data analysis that showed the 3.4-fold increased risk of autism in Black boys associated with receiving the MMR. However, there were also claims that the CDC excluded subjects inappropriately in order to make that increased risk go away. More importantly, the origin of the conspiracy theory comes from where Hooker got the idea to do his reanalysis.
Enter the “CDC whistleblower.”
William W. Thompson: The “whistleblower” revealed!
I’ll preface this section by noting how surreal it was to observe the birth of this conspiracy theory in real time in August 2014 and watch as it grew and metastasized. (Sadly, since COVID-19 hit, I’ve watched so many more conspiracy theories begin, grow, and metastasize.) Unfortunately, like so many conspiracy theories, the “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory has proven resistant, if not impervious, to facts, science, reason, and reality. Here’s where the actual “CDC whistleblower” comes in, because all good antivax conspiracy theories have to have some “brave” soul who has the guts to reveal the coverup. In this conspiracy theory, the “whistleblower” was a senior scientist in the Immunization Branch named William W. Thompson, who, for reasons that still remain unclear, had reached out to Brian Hooker sometime in November 2013.
The apparent reason that Thompson first contacted Hooker, besides his being disgruntled with DeStefano and CDC leadership, was that in the original DeStefano et al study there was an anomalous result in one subgroup suggesting a correlation between MMR and autism that was almost certainly spurious. Thompson, however, thought that the result had been inappropriately deemphasized. Over the next several months, the two engaged in a series of rather long telephone calls. Unfortunately for Thompson, he was far too trusting, as Hooker recorded every call in which Thompson vented his complaints about DeStefano and multiple other CDC scientists and employees. Hooker in turn was also far too trusting in that he apparently sent electronic files containing some of the recorded phone calls to Andrew Wakefield, who then wasted little time taking snippets of Thompson’s accusations and publicizing them with an inflammatory video that compared the supposedly “covered up result” in the paper to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. (The subgroup in question was Black boys.) Based on Thompson’s telling Hooker how to access the data set used for DeStefano et al, Hooker did his own incredibly incompetent “reanalysis” of the data, as I described above.
A carefully cherry-picked sample of four of of these calls between Hooker and Thompson were transcribed and ultimately served as the basis of a book by an antivax lawyer named Kevin Barry, Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC, which I read and reviewed, as did other science advocates, including an epidemiologist and a law professor, both of whom have commented on this blog extensively before. Personally, I like the part where the epidemiologist remarks on Hooker’s statement that “I am not an epidemiologist by training” with a pithy, “And it shows.”
This statement from Hooker in particular demonstrates that:
Now I, when I, I wanted to correct for low birthweight. So I threw out low birthweight.
Yes, the way to correct for low birthweight is to throw out low birthweight! Any epidemiologist will tell you that…not.
I’ll also refer you to all of those references because there have developed so many twists and turns in this conspiracy theories that are difficult to unpack in one post, including complicated claims regarding mental retardation and autism versus “autism only.” In any case, you don’t need to know every detail to understand that this is a conspiracy theory. In any case, why did the “CDC whistleblower” ever contact an antivaxxer like Brian Hooker?
Reading Kevin Barry’s book publishing what are represented as as transcripts of what are clearly four cherry-picked phone calls out of of thirty, I got the impression that Thompson was aggrieved with the leadership of the CDC in general and the lead author of the 2004 study, Frank DeStefano, in particular. It appears that, sometime after they started talking, he started funneling information to Hooker. Also in his conversations with Barry, Thompson misinterpreted studies, including one of his own, and admitted that the only reason he was staying in his branch of the CDC was so that he could funnel information to Hooker. As I characterized it at the time, Thompson’s words were the words of a very angry man who had clearly been nursing a grudge against his former colleagues since at least 2003. As part of that “funneling” of information to Hooker, Thompson apparently told him how to get access to the dataset for the DeStefano et al paper, even though the dataset could be publicly accessed by request.
Some of the claims that developed as the retelling of the conspiracy theory went on got quite ludicrous after Thompson lawyered up, his lawyer Rick Morgan filing for whistleblower protections for Thompson, after which he issued a statement, after which Thompson went completely silent publicly. He has remained so for nearly nine years now. Thompson’s statement through his lawyer noted that Hooker had recorded his telephone conversations without permission. He also “apologized” for leaving out “statistically significant information” in DeStefano et al, casting his “revelations” as “scientific disagreement” while insinuating a subtext of unethical behavior by his co-authors. Meanwhile, he provided what was described as a large trove of documents to an antivaccine-sympathetic legislator, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL).
Now here’s the hilarious thing and where Kirsch’s attacks on science and autism advocate Matt Carey come in. It turns out that Carey got a hold of the actual “CDC whistleblower” document dump, and he did it in the simplest way you can imagine. He just asked Rep. Posey’s office for the documents, and someone actually sent him an electronic copy of the roughly 1,000 scanned pages that Thompson had provided Posey. After Carey posted his take on the documents, I, too, took a look. There were no “garbage cans full of documents” that Thompson had described as the fate of a lot of the study documents and no evidence of any data being deleted in any way that was inappropriate or not according to CDC and federal government guidelines.
Another claim in the conspiracy theory was that DeStefano and his coinvestigators had changed the study protocol after the collection of data had begun, which is generally a scientific no-no for studies of this type because changing the protocol after data collection begins can be done in order to influence the result of the analysis and can be scientific misconduct. Again, basically, contrary to Thompson’s claims, amplified by the antivax movement, were no changes in the study protocol after data collection had begun. This “document dump” turned out to be a big nothingburger. Yet, this conspiracy theory, like Pizzagate, refuses to die and, like Pizzagate, continues to cause harm, even now, three years into a deadly pandemic.
Interestingly, Kirsch claims to have spoken to Thompson, which, I suppose, is possible:
The ultimate result of the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory originally “unveiled” by Andrew Wakefield after he found out that Brian Hooker had been recording telephone conversations with a disgruntled CDC scientist named William Thompson was the antivax conspiracyfest of a movie disguised as a documentary, VAXXED, which I reviewed in detail not long after its release in 2016, sarcastically noting that Leni Reifenstahl, were she still alive when VAXXED was released, would have cried, “Das ist enug!” or even “Zu viel!” (I know I use that joke a lot, but it’s just too damned appropriate.) The CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory is basically at the heart of VAXXED, which then expands upon it to add it to the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement, namely that “They” (the CDC) “knows” that vaccines cause autism but are “covering it up,” but that a brave “whistleblower” (William Thompson) has, with the help of Brian Hooker, revealed The Truth, that vaccines cause autism.
Speaking of VAXXED, Dr. Peter McCullough (whom I just wrote about yesterday), in another example of resurrecting seven-year-old antivax propaganda for “new school” antivaxxers, actually reviewed the documentary a few months ago. Unsurprisingly, it was a favorable review, although, oddly enough, he echoes my viewpoint on it by entitling his review Nothing New Under the Sun. Of course, where I tend to use the phrase ironically and, hopefully, educationally, Dr. McCullough uses it to indicate his current belief that vaccines were always more harmful than beneficial and to reiterate his belief that there must be something to the claims that vaccines cause autism. Also unsurprisingly, Dr. McCullough totally buys into the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory and is particularly impressed with anecdotal evidence:
A major character in the film is senior CDC scientist, William W. Thompson, who, in 2014, contacted the biologist and autism researcher, Dr. Brian Hooker, as well as US Congressmen Bill Posey (R-FL). Thompson stated that his colleagues at the CDC had, in fact, documented evidence of a link between the early administration of the MMR vaccine and autism—especially in African American boys—but had chosen to destroy the evidence. Instead of publishing their true findings, they presented a paper with an altered dataset that concealed the link. Thompson, who was listed as one of the authors, claimed his bad conscience had spurred him to become a whistleblower.
As I watched VAXXED, I was most struck by the parents’ testimony. As producer Del Bigtree pointed out, many of these parents are intelligent and reasonable people who are acutely aware of sudden changes in their children. Mothers are exquisitely sensitive to what is going on with their infants. It is therefore the height of arrogant obtuseness to dismiss their testimony out of hand.
Of course, no one dismissed these anecdotes out of hand. In fact, millions of dollars were poured into research efforts to determine whether vaccines are indeed a risk factor for autism. Many studies in addition to DeStefano et al have led to the robust conclusion that they are not, or, to state it in the most conservative way possible: If vaccines are a risk factor for autism the effect size is so incredibly small as to be undetectable by several very large and well-designed epidemiological studies. Indeed, as I like to say, even if DeStefano et al was a fraudulent study, you can throw it out of our current evidence base and still be left with an overwhelming mountain of evidence showing no detectable association between vaccination and autism spectrum disorders.
This is a good place to ask once again: Do I need to remind everyone yet again that, even if every single one of Thompson’s claims were true and if Hooker’s “reanalysis” were the more appropriate way to analyze the Atlanta data compared to DeStefano et al, all Hooker could come up with was an unadjusted result in a small subgroup, namely Black boys, who had received the MMR before 36 months of age? Even if you accept at face value the conspiracy theory—which you most definitely should not—and Hooker’s reanalysis—which you also most definitely should not—the worst that can be said is that the study might have found very preliminary evidence of a link between MMR and autism in just black boys. Basically, Hooker mostly proved Wakefield wrong!
Why is this conspiracy theory rising from the dead again?
I’ll conclude by considering the question of why the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory has been resurrected and spread on Twitter over the last week or so, for example:
My take on this boils down to what I discussed at the beginning. First, once you go down the dark path of antivax conspiracy theories, it’s hard to resist going further and further down. When you run out of COVID-19 antivax conspiracy theories, there’s only one way to go, and that’s into older antivax conspiracy theories, such as the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory. Why antivaxxers like Steve Kirsch have latched onto this old antivax chestnut, which has been out of anything resembling more mainstream circulation since at least 2018, now and have decided to make a concerted effort to spread it, I cannot say. It should not, however, surprise anyone that COVID-19 antivaxxers are now unearthing old antivax conspiracy theories and spreading them around now. If they hadn’t discovered the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory now, they would have discovered it eventually. It has everything a “new school” COVID-19 antivaxxer could want and has become accustomed to: The CDC “covering up data” for nefarious purpose, a brave maverick scientist showing the coverup, and a “whistleblower” exposing the “coverup.”
Everything old is new again, and COVID-19 antivaxxers are predictably turning into just antivaxxers.
233 replies on ““CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory, resurrected by “new school” antivaxxers”
A. To add to your points, it’s not just a sub result in a very small group, it’s a sub result in a small group in raw unadjusted data in one of the smaller papers on MMR and autism.
There are very large studies on this. They find no link.
B. I want to reiterate that I don’t think Mr. Kirsch’s believe that you need to publish every sub result you run is correct. I don’t think it works with the word limit, and especially results authors think are spurious since they disappear after proper controls are subject to professional judgment.
I would like to hear from people in the field about this.
One striking thing about this stuff is how US-centric it is. Didn’t medical research in other countries find similar lack of concerning results? But then, US-based conspiracy theorists think there is no important distinction between the US authorities and any other (Western-allied or international) authorities, they’re all part if the same conspiracy with the same puppet masters.
The other thing is the notion that a kid “became autistic” after a single shot. If it was the shots for my kid, I can’t pin it to any given shot, because the signs built up gradually.
Reduced eye contact at 6 months – was that the third dose of DTaP? If so, why did my daughter still have good eye contact after the other two doses? And she caught wild adenovirus and RSV then too…why is it always the vaccines and never the viruses.
Not responding to name by 1 year. Was that MMR?
No sentences and a slow word learning rate by 21 months (1 3/4)…what was that, chickenpox vax 3 months earlier? But she had signs already before then.
Notable stims (spinning and head shaking) by 2 1/2…what was that, flu shot? But looking back she was “collecting” things before that, like the time she picked up all the beach-toy shovels and spoons in the park and put them in roughly one place.
Delayed echolalias at 2 3/4 and no pronouns yet by 3…no new shots then!
Immediate echolalias at 3 1/2…we hadn’t even gotten her 2nd chickenpox shot yet. Was that flu again? Covid shot? (She got her 3rd one around then). And then she went back to mostly delayed echolalias again.
And she now sometimes uses pronouns correctly, may respond to her name at the 3rd attempt or so, and plays some with other kids (albeit her pretend games are still mostly solitary or with parents as dummies/bit parts)…all with no special diets or biomed and still getting every shot she’s eligible for. Just speech therapy, preschool, OT, love and acceptance.
Autism in many cases does not develop suddenly or with any obvious correlation with the timing of a shot, and can even, well, reduce support needs categories with only basic support. And better on the spectrum than dead, in any case. Rather my 4 year old not be talking yet than dead from whopping cough at 2 months.
What happens in the brains of these people? They can’t accept how deeply, profoundly wrong they are, so…somebody else has to be wrong in their place. As they get more and more wrong, the more embarrassing their wrongness becomes, so they double down. And they are willing to allow harm to come to others – including death – to avoid admitting error.
I’ll conclude by considering the question of why the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory has been resurrected and spread on Twitter over the last week or so, for example:(Orac)
Again I say……………..news of Wakefield/Rossio’s movie? The blurb?
Is Wakefield putting out a new movie?
“Is Wakefield putting out a new movie?” (orac)
Yes, though I’m reluctant to post the link to the blurb lest I’m pounced on for promoting the thing! (Joel et al would make much of the fact I’m promoting it……………..fingers burned………….lessons learned……..not making the same mistake twice……..and all that jazz!)
@ Wendy Stephen:
Instead of linking, you could give us a hint ( name of film or your source) and we could go there ourselves.
Rossio optioned the rights for a Callous Disregard adaptation, but that was around seven years ago.
A Google search for “rossio andrew wakefield” dredged up this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26669823/
The IMDb page has a cast, but no release date or any other open information about its production status.
IMDb is classifying it as “Drama, Thriller” not as a documentary, but I guess it may come out as “based on a true story”.
No idea whether that’s what Wendy Stephen is referring to, but it seems to fit.
So, what’s the Cole’s notes on this gaslighting BS that Orac is spinning about the CDC Whistleblower controversy? First, Hooker’s reanalysis is largely irrelevant, and it doesn’t really matter if he broke every scientific laws in the universe to find the sub-group effect for black boys. What truly matters is the original study found the exact same effect.
Second, it’s an absolute lie that the researchers were only interested in the results for the general sample and they did additional tests to rule out spurious findings. Thompson already explicitly confirmed that from the start they intended to report all findings including the sub-group ones.
They didn’t like the results for black boys and they ‘conveniently’ omitted it. There is no other way to spell such fraud.
That is, of course, bullshit, for all the reasons I’ve been explaining for nearly nine years.
Also, IIRC, didn’t Hooker have to fiddle with the age range for first vaccination to get something statistically significant?
Or am I thinking of some other bad study?
You are correct. Hooker adjusted the age ranges. Ostensibly because there were so few cases in the subset of African-American boys first vaccinated after 36 months once low birthrate children had been excluded.
Even so, in Hooker’s analysis once low birth rate individuals were excluded, there was no significant effect. Those pesky confounders getting in the way again.
“First, Hooker’s reanalysis is largely irrelevant, and it doesn’t really matter if he broke every scientific laws in the universe to find the sub-group effect for black boys. What truly matters is the original study found the exact same effect.”
Dear Frog,
Please explain what a ‘confounding factor’ is and why it’s important to account for such things when analysing study data.
Also, please account for the data showing absolutely no autism correlation for all other sub-groups. Either your opinion is correct and no one other the young black male children is effected (in which case I assume that you are keen on dispelling myths about vaccines and ensuring that everyone except YBMC are vaccinated). Or your opinion is incorrect.
Yours,
Everyone
IANAS, but even I know raw data numbers are not evidence of an “effect”, especially when all the numbers are very small.
People who don’t get this basic principle are really just disqualifying themselves from the discussion.
Numb, that was addressed already. Thompson made clear that the plan was never to do further analysis on subgroup findings that they didn’t like, but to report those findings. They didn’t like the result for black boys, and they fraudulently omitted it.
That was also addressed. The study was not one meant to determine whether MMR causes autism by withholding it from a control group. It was merely to determine whether timing of MMR could contribute to autism. All the subjects got MMR although the timing differed.
By nature, it wasn’t a very sensitive study for determining whether there is a link between MMR and autism. The shocker then is not that they did not find any effect for the other subgroups; the shocker is that they found an effect for a subgroup.
“All the subjects got MMR although the timing differed.”
Why did the timing differ? Is it because poor kids don’t get vaccinated on time, but they can get evaluated by the school before the age of three years when a caregiver notices a problem.
I met a mother of six kids. The youngest was autistic. She had stopped vaccinating her kids by the time she had her third kid. She explained she heard a story from another mom about vaccines causing autism, and just went with that little anecdote.
She was finally convinced that vaccines have nothing to do with autism because her youngest kid was never vaccinated.
“Numb, that was addressed already. Thompson made clear that the plan was never to do further analysis on subgroup findings that they didn’t like”
So, either you don’t understand what a confounding factor is or you aren’t interested in whether the data showed a real correlation. Most people would be interested in finding out if there was a real risk to the specific sub group of young, black, male children, vaccinated late. In your case, it seems not.
“it wasn’t a very sensitive study for determining whether there is a link between MMR and autism”
So the outlier must be the correct result? Ha ha. You’d make a great archer. Five within inches of each other in the red and one in the X ring. Which one was the good shot?
If I remember Brian Hooker’s terrible paper correctly, there was no significant effect for African-American boys vaccinated by 18 months of age, only for those vaccinated by 36 months of age.
There are only two possible explanations. The most likely one is that this is just statistical noise as a result of failure to account for confounders (also the problem of multiple comparisons given how Hooker analysed the data). The alternative is that the data is skewed by autistic African-American boys being vaccinated late.
Yes! I forgot to mention that because there is just so much from nine years of this conspiracy.
Yes, there was also that bullshit defense. Yet, it was truly a marvel, and, especially in lieu of the crap that was being spewed about checking for confounders, that the CDC never checked whether indeed the autistic black boys were vaccinated late. Even a greater marvel would be why black parents only vaccinated their boys late and not their girls.
Quoting myself….
<
blockquote>
Yet, it was truly a marvel, and, especially in lieu of the crap that was being spewed about checking for confounders, that the CDC never checked whether indeed the autistic black boys were vaccinated late.
</blockquote
That point is worth repeating. Denying the fraud of the researchers not reporting all the subgroup findings that they promised to report, we hear folks around here such as Numb chime on about the subgroup effect for black boys being a spurious finding that was likely influenced by confounders. Yet, the researchers made no attempt to identify those confounders. They did not looked into whether the black boys were indeed vaccinated late. The excuse of a spurious finding is just that and nothing in the study establishes it.
Hi, Gerg. 🙄
It looks like you were right!
The Choir is conspicuously quiet on this point. Nothing to rebut?
Again, if it was suspected that the race effect for black boys was just a spurious finding, why was additional tests not done to establish that? Joel, Orac, Aarno, Idw, Chris, Has (eh, what happened to him?), Tbruce, JT, Numb, anyone?!
Maybe because it didn’t show up in any of the other ASD/vax studies. That is, the whole rest of the literature was the additional test.
Well, until the new CDC prevalence report showed up, but there blacks have only the third highest rate of autism diagnosis after Asians and Hispanics, neither of which were reported in any precious studies to show autism/vaccine links. Though surely you would say that the higher rates in Asians and Hispanics must therefore be due to a change in the vaccine schedule since the last study, and it’s a conspiracy that nobody looks into that, right?
LOL. Reading. It is a skill. Worth cultivating.
DeStefano et al. did not find a difference once they adjusted their model for confounders. Only Hooker did, by using the wrong statistical approach and the wrong statistical model.
So you admit that the higher rate of autism is not caused by vaccines ? (Blacks do not vaccinate,you say)
Yes, Chris, and I meant to also point that out as a lie. No testing for confounders was done for the black boys subgroup result. They simply omitted reporting that result and instead reported the other results showing no effects.
@Greg Perhaps you should read actual paper, as Chris Preston suggested.
This is the closest you will get of Orac tacitly admitting that he is bullshitting. Yet, it is not a fair point? Bigtree already addressed it in a Vaxxed interview. He explained that the DeStefano paper only looked at one vaccine, and only timing. He argued, imagine if they had look at other vaccines and especially their cumulative effects!
Black boys may just more susceptible. The CDC’s latest prevalence report showing that they are at increased risk lends credence to this.
Ah, hand waving.😂
If you take into context that the effect disappeared with proper adjustment for confounders and that Hooker’s “reanalysis” was both incompetent and clearly designed to emphasize what and statistician or epidemiologist would recognize as an almost certainly spurious finding and then construct a conspiracy theory around it (note that Thompson is neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist), no, it’s not a reasonable point.
See my timeline of the appearance of my daughter’s autism traits. Also, while she kept developing “new” traits through age 3 1/2, in that same age range and since then, two traits – language delay and reduced social interaction with kids her age – had substantially mitigated (but not disappeared), all the while she was getting covid, flu, and chickenpox vaccines. Then again, she’s a white-Hispanic girl, not a Black boy.
And you forget about all the other, more fully negative autism-vaccine studies profiled by medical skeptics – focusing on the drop and forgetting the bucket. And also the known negative effects of viruses and bacteria that made us want so many vaccines in the first place – what about wild measles causing intellectual disability and/or hearing loss? What about congenital rubella causing blindness? What about paralysis from polio, death from flu and whooping cough?
And don’t forget all the other labels people now called on-the-spectrum and with related conditions used to be given – oddball, absentminded professor, obsessive, slow learner (or other degree/variation of low IQ and low self-care skills), painfully shy, spoiled brat, not a people person. How many parents who had labels like those ended up having kids called autistic now, and realized that’s what it was all along for them too?
Funny you should bring this up. I’ve heard stories recently of people who get diagnosed – or diagnose themselves – after taking a child for diagnosis, and seeing traits in themselves. It was in the context of ADHD, but there’s no reason it shouldn’t be widespread.
That happened to my stepsister.
And my grandfather self-diagnosed right after my own ADHD “without the H” diagnosis in the 90s, just when they were starting to recognize in practice that there were lots of ADHDers who didn’t fit the Bart Simpson/Dennis the Menace stereotype, and also lots if ADHDers who never grew out of it.
But of course, some people continued to insist that ADHD was just a matter of being spoiled – parallel to autism being blamed on neglect, or sometimes on spoiling if they see a kid melting down over a routine change or sensory affront – or that it was made up by drug companies to turn kids into zombies. (Drug marketing and development aren’t perfect, but cases of what we now would call severe classic combined-type ADHD had a longer history of successful and reasonably safe stimulant treatment than people thought.)
I learned about the autism versions of the “holy cow, it runs in the family” stories from Youtubes I watched during the year after my kid was diagnosed, as I was fighting lingering doubts (often raised by my older sister, whose kid is like mine but whom she can’t imagine as being the A-word and is only recently realizes something might be different about him). There were two families, I think, with multiple children on the spectrum in which the mother later found out she1 also was on the spectrum. Then there were two other families more like mine, with just one autistic kid and one of the parents having ADHD.
So, Colonel Hemorrhoids has conceded that MMR is only one vaccine now?
It’s well known that hemorrhoidal signs and symptoms can be exacerbated by weight-lifting, in this case by moving goalposts.
“Black boys may just more susceptible. The CDC’s latest prevalence report showing that they are at increased risk lends credence to this.”
Actually the more plausible issue is that they are more likely to be in poorer families with limited access to health care. Which is why they were not vaccinated at 15 months, which is the normal schedule for getting the first MMR vaccines.
More than likely they were flagged as requiring attention by a caregiver, and were evaluated by the school district’s Child Find office (see https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/child.find.mandate.htm ). Mostly likely they became eligible to the school districts special education preschool services (after their 3rd birthday, or 36 months), which have vaccination requirements. The school district would have referred the parents to programs that vaccinate kids who have no health insurance (see https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html )
So they were diagnosed before they were vaccinated.
You seem to not understand what it is like to live in a country where lots of people do not have healthcare, and that there are programs to actually look for kids with disabilities.
@ Chris:
I recall nearly exactly the same explanation from when Orac first looked at the study:
the older boys were vaccinated in order to start special ed
Also, Anjali Jain et al 2015
looked at over 50K Ss, pairs of siblings ( boys) she found no relation between MMR and autism whether younger was vaccinated or not.
if older not dxed: younger had 1% chance of autism, vaccinated or not
if older dxed, younger had 7% chance of autism, vaccinated or not
Have you ever heard about counterfactual conditional ? This is a good example.
Not entirely OT but of interest …
I haven’t ever heard this before and it may explain RFKjr’s fervor about vaccines ( @ katiewr31413491 today has video of a Black guy interviewing RFKjr, opening)
he discusses his spasmodic dysphonia which developed in the 1990s AND recalls that he had a flu vaccine just prior
ETC
–I haven’t heard of any new Wakefield film since The Act: 1986 His film website is Crystal Clear Film Foundation CCFF
–re DeStefano et al: as Orac said, it shows no relation between vaccines and autism for most children BUT about that subgroup of older Black boys:
IIRC, it was very small, involving 20 or so subjects;
since it involved older boys, it goes against developmental patterns that younger are more susceptible to harm;
wasn’t there something about the older boys already being diagnosed but needed vaccines to attend special classes?
AFAIK there are no studies that show Black kids/ boys are more likely to be autistic REPEAT no other studies.
Early reports may have found that less Black kids were dxed BUT that might have been due to lack of services in places with more Black people. Race as a factor has been studied for years, if it were relevant, we would see other results in US and other places with diverse populations.
That was certainly proffered as an explanation for the result, but I know of nothing other than circumstantial evidence to support. That is special classes are a thing, but would likely affect boys of all races.
I know at the time of Hooker’s publication, I told the anti-vaxxers over at AoA that the important take away from Hooker’s re-analysis was they should vaccinate their children by 18 months with MMR to protect them from autism.
Addenda:
–the RFKjr video is @TheChiefNerd, yesterday
–re DeStefano et al happened a long time ago, has anyone found increased susceptibility in Black boys?
Denice, does the latest CDC prevalence report counts?
What CDC prevalence report? Link to it, or we will assume it does not say what you think it says.
I found this, linked on the CDC website under “ASD is reported to occur in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups.”
“Overall, ASD prevalence was lower among non-Hispanic White children (24.3) and children of two or more races (22.9) than among non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black), Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander (A/PI) children (29.3, 31.6, and 33.4 respectively). ASD prevalence among non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) children (26.5) was similar to that of other racial and ethnic groups. ASD prevalence was associated with lower household income at three sites, with no association at the other sites.”
How a skeptic would read it:
Perhaps there are different rates among the races and ethnicities of parents seeking developmental evaluations for their children, with diagnosis-seeking rising in minorities due to greater access to resources, wanting to get their kids into a preschool, and, perhaps, different levels of concern about autism traits and developmental delays according to cultural and subcultural norms. (Inconsistent with the Hooker narrative, Blacks did not have the highest diagnosis rate, only the third highest after Asians and Hispanics.) We can’t rule out different genetic risks, but since the stats reversed from earlier where whites had higher diagnosis rates, there are loads of confounding factors to weed out.
How an old school antivaxer would read it:
The ever-increasing vaccine schedule is either more dangerous to minorities, or more commonly rejected by savvy white and biracial families. Because it’s always the vaccines: no study can disprove that, and even the flimsiest positive study is proof enough. And surely something terrible has happened to Hispanic and Asian kids since DeStefano’s papers, some new addition to the vaccine schedule or pushing the old vaccines to earlier ages.
BTW, some schools have been known initiated diagnosis as a way to improve their grade, by moving special Ed. students to other schools…
Yes, the effect for Asians, if they are largely rich, could be a matter of the kids getting diagnosed after being booted from a snooty private school for underperformance. But it could also be that Asians are recently catching on to the idea that their socially and academically underperforming kids might not be just spoiled brats, after having been integrated into Western culture for more generations. The latter scenario might be similar with Hispanics. I am raising my low support needs autistic kid in a Hispanic country, and many of my native in-laws think (or thought the whole time before diagnosis and a while after as well) that my kid is just a spoiled brat and, if raised well from here on, will grow out of it since she’s obviously not intellectually disabled.
African Americans indeed have lower vaccinaion rate:
htttps://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity/#:~:text=Across%20the%2036%20states%20for,for%20Black%20people%20(59%25).
You was right in this case, but how do you fit this into your ideology ? (Less vaccines, more autism)
@ Frog
Obviously you, in your unscientific antivax bias, twist what Orac wrote. He makes it clear that if and only if one were to believe Hooker’s conspiracy theory, etc; but also clear that in this and every other mention of it over the years that it was WRONG WRONG WRONG.
By the way, just curious, have you ever read even an introductory book on immunology, microbiology, infectious diseases and I mean a book used in classes because, of course, there are antivaxxers who write books, many of which I have read and seen flaws, not holes, but flaws as big as the Grand Canyon?
p.s. eons ago as a kid I had a pet frog; but obviously there are likable frogs and . . .
@ Chris Preston
Actually Hooker used statistic designed for a cohort study when the CDC study was a case-control study. Simply, he used the wrong, an invalid statistic. I have a collection of papers that tear Hooker’s apart. One excellent one is: Harpocrates Speaks (2014 Sep 8). MMR, the CDC and Brian Hooker: A Guide for Parents and the Media at: https://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2014/09/mmr-cdc-and-brian-hooker-media-guide.html
The above paper does a great job covering all the bases.
Among the many aspects of this sad story Orac didn’t have the space to cover: Bill Thompson never stated he believed vaccines cause autism, in black boys or anyone else. If you look at the published transcripts of his conversations with Hooker, you see how careful he is NOT to say that, even as part of his supposed private “confession”. This is no doubt why major antivaxers all use the word “link” as in “evidence of a link between the MMR and autism.” They know their audience will think “cause” when they read that, that’s the implication of the language choice, but strictly speaking, all that’s required for a “link” is correlation.
My reading of Thompson is that he had a kind of breakdown that so amplified a poor relationship with his CDC colleagues he was seeking a form of revenge. His idea was to play Hooker to the point where Hooker could convince Posey to open a Congressional inquiry into the CDC, at which point the imperious nature of DeStafano and higher-ups would be exposed, they’d be censured, demoted or canned… but the indictment of vaccines would fall flat. Perhaps Thompson even imagined he would elevate his own status by saving the day with his own testimony.
If that sounds crazy, well, yeah. The guy obviously was having some kind of brain fever. What Kirsch et al will not tell you is that Thompson co-authored papers refuting any kind of causal link between vaccines and autism AFTER the whole DeStefano flap. What he actually did say about the exclusion of the raw data in the DeStefano paper was to the effect of ‘even if it’s irrelevant, transparency demands we include it anyway’. He apparently believed that some future researcher might find a clue there that would lead to a discovery about actual causal factors of ASD. I mean, IANAS but that doesn’t sound implausible to me: that there could indeed be some factors other than vaccines more common to vaxed black boys than to other demographic groups. The evidence only suggests Thompson believed the numbers might not be ‘noise’, not that he knew what the ‘signal’ might be, because he knew all along that vaccines don’t cause autism.
After all, the guy was a senior scientist in the Immunization Branch, so he was almost certainly well aware of the “overwhelming mountain of evidence showing no detectable association between vaccination and autism spectrum disorders”. If he had any chops in his field at all, he’s have known Hooker was a hack as well as a crank, and concluded that as Orac shows, the worst Hooker could do with the data still proves Wakefield is wrong.
Obviously, I’m doing a lot of speculation here, but I do have an evidence base in addition to the limited known facts about Thompson: My experiences in academia testify that at high levels of expertise, fine levels of disagreement blow-up all the damn time. Opposing parties go to the mattresses over disputes outsiders take to be minutiae, if they can comprehend them at all. This almost always involves not just caring a lot about the subject at hand, but the professional process as well… and then there’s the interpersonal subtext… In the scenario I’m suggesting, the only potential truly weird thing is how far Thompson was willing to descend into an ethics chasm to “get” his colleagues. But it’s not that much deeper than cases I’ve witnessed that led to people losing their jobs, or even their careers.
It says volumes to me that Thompson still works at the CDC. Whether they re-assigned him to a different division or, more likely, there was a mutual agreement a change of environment and colleagues would be to everyone’s benefit, the fact the institution still trusts him to walk through the door much less to work on any public health research project would suggest, hmmm… let me think…. yeah… that McCullough and Kirsch are just following Wakefield in lying trough their teeth about the whole affair.
I do not trust anything they claim Thompson has communicated to them personally, as Thompson has not confirmed any of it, and there are no recordings. I don’t buy the idea he’s followed his lawyer’s dictates to stay silent for nine years… except for a couple of brief contacts with hard-core conspiracy mongers.
So Kirsch says “I’ve talked to Thompson and other people who work at the CDC.” Maybe he has. But I note he doesn’t say what they talked about, at what length, what the CDC people actually said, or how he drew any conclusions from what they might have said. Which, you know, I’d bet he would if there was any actual juice there at all.
Your reading is almost certainly correct, although whether his goal was what you speculate that it was I’m not sure. I’m not entirely sure that he had much of a plan other than to cause trouble for Frank DeStefano and the CDC leadership who, he thought, had wronged him. I read through his document dump to Rep. Posey, and this letter placing him on administrative leave is rather revealing:
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bill-thompson-put-on-admin-leave-2004.pdf
There were a number of incidents described in which Thompson wrote angry emails to CDC leadership, confronted a supervisor in the parking lot in an angry fashion, refused to assist a fellow CDC scientist in making slides for a presentation, and in general made a pest of himself in a manner that was bound, sooner or later, to get him into trouble.
My interpretation was that he first freaked out when asked to do a presentation on vaccine safety issues where he knew there would be antivax activists, which is where he started complaining about the CDC not supporting him. I also suspect that he didn’t much like Frank DeStefano and felt somehow wronged by him. To build on your speculation, I suspect, but can never know for sure, that Thompson might have had an untreated anxiety disorder that led him to a break in a work situation that had ramped up his anxiety.
Unfortunately, he encountered Brian Hooker, who lent a seemingly sympathetic ear but ultimately betrayed him, albeit sooner than he had planned to because Hooker himself had made the mistake of letting Andrew Wakefield know what he was doing and that the recordings of his conversations with Thompson existed, Wakefield, being Wakefield, couldn’t keep a secret and immediately had to spin his “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory, complete with comparisons to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. At first Thompson’s identity wasn’t revealed, but that didn’t last long. It wasn’t long at all before Thompson was “outed,” leading to him to lawyer up and claim whistleblower status, after which he went totally silent.
As to why the CDC didn’t fire him, I take a less favorable view than you. I think it’s likely that the CDC didn’t fire him because he did indeed claim whistleblower status and had lawyered up with a good lawyer. Likely, as you said, they moved him to another branch. His publication history since leaving the Immunization Branch shows that he finally ended up in the the Division of Viral Hepatitis, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, after a stint in the National Center of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. This strikes me as his ending up in to a position where he can’t do much public harm to the CDC, because the CDC couldn’t fire him without more of a legal and public shitshow. Given that he has remained assiduously silent about the whole CDC whistleblower kerfuffle since 2014, it appears to have worked, and maybe now, nearly nine years later, the CDC and Thompson have come to a mutual understanding. How long that took, I don’t know, but that seems to be the situation now.
The part I don’t buy is that he unburdened himself to Hooker because Hooker gave him a sympathetic ear. What I ‘see’ in the transcripts is Thompson being manipulative, leading Hooker on with the whole ‘thimerosal causes tics, so you can say it has it has autism-like symptoms!’ which he just has to know is BS. Then, whenever Hooker tries to get him to actually implicate the jabs in ASD in any way, he gets cagey and slides past it.
This dovetails, I think, with the premise he was in the grips of a fevered brain, because if he had been thinking straight at all he would never have messed with Hooker. My hypothesis is he looked down on Hooker, and was so excited at the prospect of manipulating him to act as a tool of payback to CDC muckymucks he was blind to the obvious possibility Hooker would out him to someone like Wakefield.
I don’t see the proximate cause as an untreated anxiety disorder because I have an anxiety disorder and that’s a different thing. Where I’ve seen this fevered plotting in others, and in myself, is amidst relationship crises — cheating or being cheated on, breakups, divorces. It’s an extreme response to feelings of violation and betrayal, (or being confronted with same), situational rather than chronic, and observable in people who have no history of depression or anxiety. Your seemingly well-adjusted friend or relation turns into a screaming mad banshee pursuing bizarre stratagems once the assumed rules have been tossed out. I imagine Thompson going through something like that at work. That fits the psycho emails and parking lot confrontations.
It did occur to me, of course, that some legalese might have compelled the CDC to keep Thompson on. One hears talk if such possibilities. But doing a quick survey of employee conflicts I’ve observed over decades, in every instance where a hierarchy really wants someone gone, that happens, one way or another, regardless. I’m not a hard-ass, and could never be cutthroat enough to be an administrator, but given the bare facts of how what Thompson did aided the antivax movement, I couldn’t imagine letting him back into the building, even if that brought me a fair measure of trouble. If folks with the much stronger egos typical of medical specialists instead reached some accommodation with him, I just imagine there were some extenuating circumstances.
To put this whole amateur psychology exegesis back in context, it’s about the whole CDC Whistleblower narrative being almost wholly fictional, spun up cynically by team Wakefield, jumping opportunistically on the emotional distress of an individual who happened to be a scientist to attack science. [I still think those screen shots of supposed text exchanges were fake. Like anyone would use the most easily faked medium ever to spill important beans…]
I don’t know. I might have been too gullible in this respect, but after I saw the screenshots of the texts in the Posey document dump—the same ones that had been publicized by the antivax movement before and that I had dismissed as fake—I started to doubt my original assessment and think that maybe Thompson had indeed flipped out badly enough that he actually did start texting Wakefield. Certainly, Hooker could have provided the number.
It is also true that if an institution really wants someone gone badly enough, they will usually find a way to get rid of them even if, as in the case of, for example, tenured professors who can’t be fired outright except in rare and specific circumstances, getting rid of them might require some creativity, such as progressively making the work environment more and more unpleasant and less and less fulfilling until the target resigns. The way I interpret Thompson still being at the CDC is that the CDC administration determined that it didn’t want the shitshow that firing him would produce and decided that moving him someplace where he could do less damage would be sufficient, as long as he kept his mouth shut, which he has for nearly nine years. You could also be correct that there might have been extenuating circumstances. The tone of Dr. Chen’s email informing Thompson of his leave of absence, with its suggestion for counseling and mention of CDC resources for that (which might have been bureaucratese but might also have been sincere) suggest that.
And Thompson is almost certainly a GSA civil servant with the concomitant job protections. It’s not easy to fire such a person.
I once managed a small office that was doing some real science (radiation testing on electronic chips) and we had two civilian scientists who couldn’t stand each other. The lab resolved the issue by transferring one to a different office.
@ Sadmar,
Re: “I mean, IANAS but that doesn’t sound implausible to me: that there could indeed be some factors other than vaccines more common to vaxed black boys than to other demographic groups.”
It’s the vaccines plus genomics. Gregory Poland identified several alleles associated with adverse events following MMR that are found with high frequency in those of Somali descent back in the early 2000’s. Prior to Thompson’s study.
Am I the only one who knows this?
Re “After all, the guy was a senior scientist in the Immunization Branch, so he was almost certainly well aware of the “overwhelming mountain of evidence showing no detectable association between vaccination and autism spectrum disorders”.
Sure he was aware of it. And he’s now aware that it’s an overwhelming mountain of junk epidemiology using the most wrong definitions & parameters possible.
None of that ‘overwhelming mountain’ has proven a lack of causation. They can’t. They can only prove a lack of association. Which is ridiculously easy to do, especially if you define ‘status autism’ as ‘F84. 0’, which by the CDC’s ADDM statements; will lead to a gross undercounting of incidence/prevalence.
When you ‘count’ children under 8 years old, it leads to undercounting. When you rely on ICD-10’s; it leads to undercounting. When you don’t use a 100% vaccine free control group, you are only comparing “vaccinated” vs “vaccinated +1”.
And the only people who would insist on arranging a study this way; would be people who know that vaccines cause autism but don’t want a study to show that vaccines are even associated with autism.
He may not have been aware before but he is now.
Re: “It says volumes to me that Thompson still works at the CDC.”
Not really. “Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.”
Don’t know where that quote is from but it’s true. If I were the CDC I’d do the same thing. Keep him right there in the fold.
Everything you asked has been done:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M18-2101
Idea was exactly to test hypothesis that vaccines trigger autism
Receipt of MMR vaccination reduced the risk for autism in girls (aHR, 0.79 [CI, 0.64 to 0.97]) and in the 1999–2001 birth cohort (aHR, 0.84 [CI, 0.73 to 0.96]). The MMR vaccination did not increase the risk for autism in children characterized by other early childhood vaccinations, high risk for autism, or having autistic siblings (Figure 3). When sibling history of autism was treated as a time-varying covariate, MMR vaccination was also not associated with autism among children with autistic siblings (aHR, 1.15 [CI, 0.71 to 1.87])
And no message from sponsor
The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Ministry of Health. The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. Dr. Hviid had full access to all of the data in the study and had overall responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Given their level of paranoia and conspiracy-mongering, antivaxers must be having a tough time explaining why Thompson isn’t sleeping with the fishes.
<
blockquote>It’s the vaccines plus genomics.
Genomics is a field that deals with the mapping and editing of genes. Are you saying autism is caused by a lab mapping genetic sequences?
He also says that a number of players from the Buffalo Bills follow him on Tw*tter. Just saying.
In a way, I do share Orac’s amusement that Kirsch is just now catching up with the CDC Whistleblower saga. What a poor fellow to now starting to experience what us old school ‘antivaxxers’ have been experiencing since forever. Vaccination bullshit that makes Covid vaccination bullshit seem like the tamest kitten.
“What a poor fellow to now starting to experience what us old school ‘antivaxxers’ have been experiencing since forever.”
Like requests for actual data? Example: Please provide the Pubmed indexed paper by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the present pediatric schedule in the USA causes more harm than the actual disease.
Or being laughed at when you present a silly paper written by an economist/journalist/software guy/lawyer/etc, or a doctor who has been stripped of the legal right to practice medicine?
@ Frog
Please explain the basis of your anti-COVID vaccine position, including legitimate references. And, as I already mentioned, please explain your level of understanding of the immune system, microbiology, mRNA, infectious diseases, and epidemiology. Otherwise, just like Igor Chudov and others, your position has NO basis in science, no basis in anything but your own stupidly intellectually dishonest ignorant bias!
And as I wrote to Igor, people like you and him bear responsibility for unnecessary COVID hospitalizations and deaths because people listened to you without questioning or doing further research.
Joel, I also have some pressing questions for you before we continue our exchanges. Joel, what time did you get up this morning? What did you have for breakfast? Did you walk your dog. Joel, do you have a dog?
Again, Joel, I am looking forward to your replies on these pressing concerns.
@ Frog
So, absolute proof you are incapable of supporting your stupidly ignorant asinine antivax position; but, just for fun:
I get up almost every morning at around 4:45 am, drink a glass of water, then walk my dog a mile, measured by driving and MapQuest. I again walk him another mile around 7 pm. Breakfast: a large bowl half filled with organic cherries, organic blueberries, and sliced banana, then cup of either cheerios or spoon-sized shredded wheat, then about 10 oz no-sugar-added Soy Milk from Trader Joe’s, followed with only cup of coffee. Around 2 pm use stationary bike at high level for half hour. Also do every day 40 jumping jacks, 20-25 push-ups, 25 squats with light dumbbells, and 50 leg raises. I have been a vegetarian starting late teens, then vegan last 10 years (take necessary supplements, not mega-doses; e.g., Vitamin B12), never smoked, barely tasted alcohol, never ever used any drug; e.g., marijuana, except caffeine. So, at 76 I am a regular blood donor, every two to four weeks, go 7 am Sunday mornings to avoid traffic, spend little over hour in chair with needle in arm, headphones, watching Netflix, been doing this for many years. My blood pressure around 120/70 and cholesterol around 175,
I got my dog, an Australian Shepard, 13 1/2 years ago from a rescue group. He is now 15 1/2; but still healthy. His breed can live to 17 or 18. All of my previous dogs lived to 14; but not 15. He is my best friend, slept with me first night I got him. For many years every day threw frisby which he was great at catching; but stopped jumping for it last year; but now chases ball.
Though you didn’t ask, I have lived in many different nations and travelled around the world. Lived two years in Canada, nine years in Sweden, six months in Japan teaching Conversational English, six months in Israel, etc. Speak Fluent Swedish and can get by in several other languages; but starting to forget them; but not my Swedish.
I spend my days reading, reviewing various subjects; e.g., immunology and found a number of free courses on YouTube which I watch. Don’t own a TV; but watch PBS Passport and Netflix on my computer. in the evenings.
So, thanks for proving you are incapable of actually entering into an intelligent dialogue. JUST ONE MORE STUPIDLY IGNORANT INTELLECTURALLY DISHONEST ANTIVAXXER.
“Breakfast: a large bowl half filled with organic cherries, organic blueberries”
Uh-oh, that fructose bomb is ticking!
frog: so you make assertions about vaccines and coverups, but can’t answer questions about your qualifications: do you have the background to understand the studies or, like Igor, do you make up your mind about what has to be true, then craft your responses around them? In other words, do you have any understanding of the science or the statistics, or, like Igor, are you just another serial liar?
The questions you pose for Joel are just a bullshitty deflection on your part.
Seriously, there is no doubt that this is Gerg with a new pseudonym – the tics just ooze through. This is someone who couldn’t understand person-years. He’s dumber than Ginny.
I’m not familiar with “gerg” but, if you’re correct, I really don’t wish to be. Shan’t make the mistake of noting frog’s posts again.
You’ve run into him before.
So a name-shifter. Apparently I’ve been fooled [at least] twice.
Putting antivaxer in single scare quotes, mainly autism focused…yeah, does look very familiar.
Greg/Frog would probably be quite disappointed that Ginny and Igor both believe in depopulation agendas, and John believes in the libertarian family of right wing conspiracy theories (WEF implementing the NWO and stuff of that sort). Igor and John are securely New School in nature (though John has grandfathered in opposition to the “accelerated vaccine schedule” as part of anti-big-business, anti-government-regulation libertarian sentiment), while Ginny is just an all-around nonpartisan conspiracy nut. Greg/Frog, on the other hand, appears to be a deeply entrenched old schooler who is not much into this right wing conspiracy claptrap and is only against covid shots as an extension of being against shots in general on mostly neurological health grounds. Basically JFK Jr without the pedigree.
Oops, I meant RFK Jr. JFK Jr died in a plane crash in the 90s if I remember right, but surely that was a conspiracy. 😉
@ Narad:
I thought the same thing.
Notice how Greg/ Frog jumps on my question about Black boys ignoring the implicit condition that it is about vaccines.
Of course, there may be different rates of autism based on ethnicity, SES, type of birth ( premature/ difficult), type of mother ( age/ illness), place of domicile and many other factors but that doesn’t mean that vaccines caused it
Studies that claim “causation” tend to get retracted for fraud, confounders, statistical analyses etc. ( Wakefield, Hooker).
I’ll continue below. Problems commenting.
I’ll continue:
no studies show vaccines causing autism
A. they show no relation- LARGE studies
–as Aarno shows, Hviid ( Denmark)
–as I have shown, Jain et al, 2015 JAMA ( US)
–KiGGS ( Germany)
B. Autism is prenatal / peri-natal, not happening at age 1+
–studies of prenatal brain development over 40 years ( Courchesne, Pierce, Lein, others)
–observation of very young infants shows signs ( Ozonoff)
–physiognomic studies analysed by computer ( Aldridge)
–various animal studies, brain wave, imaging, genetics, movement studies, head size, autopsy/ abortion brain studies. mothers’ prenatal meds, alcohol, poisons, low vitamin, infections
It’s interesting that RI’s various trolls, contrarians, edgelords and warrior mothers don’t know anything about these vast areas of research…I wonder why.
Between using “Numb” for address and using Joel’s name four times to just be a sniveling shit, it’s unmistakable.
At the risk of being banned for the 7th time around here, I’ll come clean. Yeah, I knew I wouldn’t be able to fool you guys for long.
Space, I will also say your assessment is correct. Now and again I meet with my antivaxx group in a pub and though it’s nice hanging out with them, talk of depopulation, WEF, and NWO really annoys me.
I keep pleading with them to keep it simple. They give you guys far too much credit. They don’t realize how incompetent you guys are and how hatching these grand conspiracies is far beyond your capabilities.
I say you guys just fucked with autism and now you see no way out. You fucked up with Covid vaccines too but that’s what you guys do best; keep fucking up.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I am not saying many of you are not immoral cretins, shills. In fact, if I were to wager money, I would surely bet that Orac is ‘compromised’. It’s just that I believe that often it’s a matter of the circumstances finding you rather than it being preordained.
So, there it is, Space. Until I get my 7th hook, I will continue on this stage as ‘Greg’.
Further to my last comment to Space, yes, indeed I can be considered an old school ‘antivaxxer’, but what about you guys? I would say for most of you old school is where it’s at, and that’s the concern about the autism monster.
Let’s face it, Covid vaccination is done. Sure, it likely injured a lot of people, but is it 1 in 36? Will those injuries be ongoing? Yeah, we might see more cancers and autoimmune issues down the road, but people have short memories and will likely forget tying those issues to mRNA vaccines. All the better for you guys.
Then there is autism. You know it’s not going anywhere, and will only keep getting worse and worse as those kids get older and start overwhelming the system. Heck, they are already doing that!
Orac, Sceptical Raptor, Hotez, heck, the CDC and other public health figures know where the real war is at. In fact, I will go so far as to say the autism cover-up influences just about everything Orac blogs about including Covid matters. As soon as he sounds off about ‘antivaxxers’, I am imagining him thinking autism.
It would explain the familiar mannerisms. If so, he’s gone downhill a bit
@ space_upstairs_cluttered:
As an aside-
I think you’re doing a great job describing issues as an engaged, educated parent which is quite refreshing after the anti-vax parents I survey elsewhere and various trolls who drop in here.
As you probably already know, when UK adults were categorised by today’s standards, numbers were similar to today’s apparent numbers- there was no vast increase in autism over the past decades. Diagnostic expansion, diagnostic substitution etc.
You might want to look at the work of Sally Ozonoff ( papers. video lectures) who studies very early signs of autism by trained observers who find definite signs- like what you describe- prior to most vaccines.
@Denice:
Thanks. I checked out Sally Oznoff’s easily accessible videos and article mentions, and the basis of her work is that autism onset is gradual (not focused on the timing of any shots!) and usually starts after 6 months, mostly corresponding with my anecdote of when (using SBM conventions for family pseudos) Mr. Space and I noticed Little Space’s symptoms, though Mr. Space already noticed reduced eye contact at right around 6 months, early even by Oznoff standards. As I also mentioned, Little Space was already on her 3rd DTaP according to the local schedule plus Hep B, BCG, polio, and a few “optional” shots. So why no signs before that? And why no dramatic regressions with the most infamous shots, a la “my kid got shot X (usually MMR) and suddenly stopped talking and started playing with light switches all day”? Well, Oznoff’s work says that regression is usually so subtle mostly even parents don’t notice it. And it’s mostly in areas of “social-emotional reciprocity,” where Little Space at barely 3 racked up most of her ADOS points.
And yes, expansion/substitution is huge. Many local parents spoke of how older family members and in-laws defaulted to the really old-school, pop-psych diagnosis of “spoiled brat” and the recommended intervention of “stop indulging their fussiness so much and teach them some manners.”
Once caught, he posts a lame screed full of lies and nonsense. What a stupid jackass you are, Greg. Get bent.
If “COVID vaccination is done” it is only because cases have dropped to practically zero. Cold be this virus doesn’t have a nonhuman reservoir (We can hope.)
Do you have to overuse peoples’ names, Frog? It creeps me out, Frog. Please stop, Frog.
What the antivaccine activist mentioning Dr. Poland is referring to is a study that suggests Somalis had a stronger immune response to the measles vaccine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3271368/
This doesn’t actually show what she claimed (more adverse reactions), and certainly doesn’t support Dr. Hooker’s claim, based on a faulty analysis of a small sub group. It’s also one study, and I don’t know that even that was confirmed.
There are good reasons to be very careful about claiming racial differences in things like this.
@ Frog
Forgot to mention that I am also proof-reading and making editorial suggestions for next edition of collegial friend’s undergraduate Microbiology Book. I have done this for several editions. Not paid, just do it for fun. And most of my suggestions were used. Nice mention of me in acknowledgements and, of course, get free copy of next edition. You should read it, you might learn something: Gerald Tortora, Christine Case. Microbiology: An Introduction. Not the only book I have proof-read and made editorial suggestions for.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world o’ woo, quackery and antivax stylings:
I made the mistake of investigating the latest nonsense from ex-cardiologist Steven Gundry, better known these days for claiming that Covid-19 vaccination causes a “dramatic” increase in risk of acute coronary syndrome, getting an abstract published in Circulation which later had to be “corrected” due to numerous study flaws including lack of a control group or statistical analysis. Gundry is also notorious for bizarre claims about diet in which healthy foods are lambasted as horrible for your health.
I saw clickbait for a Gundry article accompanied by a picture of someone washing blueberries, so I had to know – what’s wrong with a fruit I often enjoy at breakfast? Does washing blueberries remove an essential coating, or leave a fluoride deposit? A separate Gundry piece explains that modern blueberries are bred to contain extra fructose, which is very very bad. In fact, Gundry exhorts us to avoid ripe fruit in general, as it poses the risk of what he calls a “fructose bomb”.
It seems to be a common device among woo-sters: maintain your audience in a constant state of fear and loathing, leaving them susceptible to grifters who offer solutions to impending doom*, if you fork over enough cash.
*Natural News for example specializes in Crawl-Under-Your-Blanket-And-Kiss-Your-Ass-Goodbye articles. Be very very afraid, and buy our stuff.
@ Dr Bacon:
“.. maintain your audience in a constant state of fear and loathing… cash.”
Or as I say, ‘scare’em then sell’em’.
Alties parade a phantasmagoria of health, economic and societal dangers which is oddly funny since I live in and visit their two greatest targets.
I live in a small city next to a very large one and visit the other elitist hellhole every year.
Although buildings and rents are sky high, there is economic and ethnic diversity and people seem to get along; the crime rate rivals that of a leafy Midwestern suburb. It’s safe. No gang wars, gun fights or mass shoplifting.
No rape squads or pooping in the streets.
Banks will fail, the currency will tank, stores will close forever, no electrical grid or fuel, armed security will vaccinate you, your money will be confiscated by “bail in”, starving masses will attack you as you hide behind barricades until the nuclear attack brings you final peace.
The only salvation is to get off the grid, get healthy, use silver coins, homestead and move to Florida or Texas.
I wonder if they’re selling land?
Very much of topic, but Orac has blogged a lot about this in the past.
And it looks like an old subject of this blog has another victim. Just read the story of a Dutch kickboxer, who is trying to get almost half a million dollars for treatment in the US. He has a braintumor and has found a clinic in the US, in Houston, that promised him he could live for another 30 years with their treatment. So I was curious, because I thought if I looked a bit more into it, I would see a familiar name.and yes, you might have guesed it, in another article on the crowdfunding action I saw the name Burzynski.
Thompson disclosed that various people at the CDC were asked to throw out some data adverse to vaccination, or at least arguably adverse to vaccination, but that he refused to throw out the data. If it’s true, it was a criminal conspiracy, not a theory. You’re just distracting people by denigrating Wakefield and Hooker, who obtained the data for analysis. http://www.nworeporter.com/innovative-peer-review-from-the-cdc.html
Many injuries that include autism have been compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The issue is that autism, a behavioral diagnosis, was not the injury compensated—which was physical injury causing brain damage. There’s a clear connection between vaccines and autism—the underlying brain damage–and it has repeatedly been acknowledged in the VICP. But no worries–no doubt this study will soon disappear from the web, and no one will have to think about it anymore. https://web.archive.org/web/20120901054354/https://www.ebcala.org/unanswered-questions
You should stick to being an antivax troll. You stink as a satirist.
I address the issue with the anti-vaccine law review linked to above in this article: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1464&context=mjlst
The short version? When your best evidence of a link between vaccines and autism are cases that did not compensate for autism, from a court that directly addressed whether vaccines cause autism and said it found no link – in multiple cases – you have no evidence.
And in his actual statement, Thompson did not say people threw out data. He complained about not including one sub-group result, a claim that our host addressed in detail.
By the way, isn’t coming back with socks against our host’s policy?
Autism is a psychiatric diagnosis. I’m not aware of any psychiatric disorders that have been compensated in the VICP. Brain damage, on the other hand, is a physical injury–and it has been compensated numerous times in the VICP. Some of those injuries included autism, which is only one possible psychiatric diagnosis that could follow from brain damage.
Your focus on vaccines causing autism is therefore misguided–because the underlying injury entitled to compensation is the brain damage. But I guess you know that.
Autism is not brain damage. That narrative is incorrect scientifically and harmful to autistic people.
This is incorrect legally. The court considered whether to compensate for autism.
In many cases. It was clear that if there is a causal link shown, autism would be a compensable injury. The link was just not shown, so the claims were rejected.
“In many cases. It was clear that if there is a causal link shown, autism would be a compensable injury. The link was just not shown, so the claims were rejected.”
What is “legally correct” is that in dozens of cases in the VICP, children who developed autism after vaccination were compensated for their injuries–it’s just that the injury compensated was brain damage (a physical injury) rather than a psychiatric diagnosis (autism).
Twist that fact however you want, it will still be a fact.
“Autism is not brain damage.”
Are you saying autism involves normal brain activity; or that the brain is not involved in autism; or that the brain is not normal in the case of autism, but for reasons other than brain “damage”?
“Brain damage” implies that something damaged the brain, as opposed to an inborn or developmental variant that is not caused by an external exposure or force. Antivaxxers like you think it’s vaccines that cause the “brain damage” that they deem autism to be. It’s not, and autism is not “brain damage.”
The fact is that, as it itself said in multiple cases, VICP squarely addressed the question of whether vaccines cause autism, and it answered it in negative.
The fact that some children compensated for other things – often table injuries, where causation is presumed – may also have had autism doesn’t change that. As my article points out, in none of these cases were they compensated for autism, many of these were settlements where no causation was proven, and in some of the cases used by anti-vaccine activists the court expressly rejected claims related to autism. In fact, in some it found that there was no autism diagnosis.
Again: you are trying to use cases that are not about autism from a court that looked at whether vaccines caused autism and answered with a strong “no”.
That’s worse than having no evidence. It’s admitting “there is no real evidence on my side, so I will try to misuse off-topic cases and settlements to hide that.”
@Ginny: it’s the third one, that the brain is neither “normal” nor “damaged.” The neurons show no signs of death or decay; they are adequate in number (or even more than adequate) and healthy in appearance. Many autistics even have average or above average IQs, for what that’s worth. The neurons just happen to grow and hook up in such a way that, starting in late infancy and continuing through toddlerhood, they promote decreased nonverbal communication (and often stagnant or decreased verbal communication as well), increased object focus, unusual sensory reactions, and preference for sameness and/or repetition, rather than the readiness to take on the world of people most older babies and toddlers show.
If autistic brains are not damaged, perhaps compulsive head-banging, and an inability to speak, or live a self-sufficient life, are merely “differences” — the next steps in human evolution.
Dorit said: “Again: you are trying to use cases that are not about autism from a court that looked at whether vaccines caused autism and answered with a strong “no”.
“That’s worse than having no evidence. It’s admitting “there is no real evidence on my side, so I will try to misuse off-topic cases and settlements to hide that.””
Most cases settle in the VICP, just as they do in real courts. A strong benefit of doing so, from the perspective of the vax industry, is that neither side admits to any liability for anything–settlements always contain such a provision. It would be fatuous to claim that’s because there is never any liability–of course there is. You can’t use that as evidence the vaccine didn’t cause the injury.
The issue is evidence, of course–not whether a particular person serving as a judge in the vaccine court ruled that vaccines don’t cause autism. It wouldn’t be the first time a judge made a bad ruling. But I’m sure the vax industry let out a huge sigh of relief–the judge could have opened the door to vaccine injury claims from every 1 in 50 children in the country! WHEW!
“the judge could have opened the door to vaccine injury claims from every 1 in 50 children in the country! WHEW!”
Which STILL wouldn’t have shown that vaccines cause autism. Maybe you could bring a legal case regarding some of the great mysteries of existence? Be nice to get them all sorted out in time for Christmas.
@Ginny:
Not all autistics can’t speak, and some of those who can’t speak can learn to use picture boards or tablet apps to communicate, or even sign language if their wordlessness is apraxia or selective mutism rather than aphasia. Head-banging is also one of many different repetitive behaviors, the majority of which, like flapping, spinning, head-shaking (far from walls), hopping, echolalias, finger twiddling, and lining up objects, are harmless. As for not living independent lives, well, it’s true that even autistics who speak and don’t head-bang can have a hard time finding jobs, but that could be more due to discrimination from neurotypicals who are weirded out by their lack of tact or their sparse or nonstandard body language than anything “wrong” with them.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t think the neurological symptoms of known genetic conditions such as Down Syndrome or Willians Syndrome are considered “brain damage” either. Even with those conditions, the intellectual disability is about how the neurons grow and connect, not trauma or disease in the neurons themselves (or their gray matter).
But I wouldn’t be surprised if you consider dyslexics “brain damaged” by Tdap boosters or something.
space_upstairs_cluttered – the issue is not that there is a range of autism severity–the issue is that, at one end of that spectrum, you have very serious self-harm or violent behaviors, a near total inability to communicate, and sometimes an inability to even learn to use the toilet. So is it the result of brain damage, or is it just “special” or “different”, like a cute and charming autistic child who is always well-behaved in public might be? You can’t have a different standard for each.
It is, and the sock has been dealt with. I should have noticed earlier that this particular banned troll was back. Sorry, all.
Those interested in more background on what GS is talking about might check out this article.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/2009-shaping-up-to-be-a-really-bad-year-for-antivaccinationists/
Scroll down to 2009 or do a search for Special Masters.
I read the old SBM post, and what most stood out to me was the story of how the old school of antivax jumped on the Hannah Poling case, which is relevant to the claims of “brain damage” and “encephalitis” being made on this thread by members of that school. Apparently they don’t realize it was a special case involving a rare biochemical reason to overreact to fevers (which for Poling were often caused by ear infections – again, why is it always the vaccines and never the germs). Also, I get the impression from Oznoff’s work mentioned by Denice that most autism symptoms appear gradually, defying the “sudden regression” narrative, and most autistic kids already have several symptoms by a year and a half. There would be a staircase-like graph of nonverbal comunication vs time, rather than a smooth and gradual drop, if the appearance of symptoms of autism in kids with autism in the family were due to a genetic Hannah Poling-type syndrome triggered by discrete vaccination events (assuming most kids follow the national schedule…and Poling didn’t, she got extra vaccines to catch up after all those bacterial illnesses).
@Ginny:
The brains of high support needs autistics are not damaged in the sense of the neurons being injured or diseased. The (basically healthy in themselves) neurons just happened to connect to each other and grow in a pattern that makes learning most practical skills near impossible. But (1) there are probably quite a few more, or at least no fewer, cases like my “just different” daughter than like these “classic” poster children for autism charities among the 3% of kids diagnosed with autism, (2) these people may never live “normal” lives but that doesn’t mean they can’t find some joy and give some joy to those who love and appreciate them (for instance, their loved ones might come to appreciate in a new way whatever these people take on as a “special interest”), and (3) there is far better evidence that their brains began growing in unfortunate ways before their mothers even got their flu and Tdap shots in the third trimester (see Denice’s comment to me below) than that some vaccine combo they got around the time they had fallen behind visibly on body language had anything to do with it.
So, no, severe disability does not mean vaccine-induced brain injury, nor even an unspeakable tragedy.
And not even neurotypical kids, never mind low support needs autistics like my daughter, always behave well in public. If you have any kids or nieces or nephews or remember being a kid, that should be obvious.
Surprised you didn’t say “autism is a blessing” — but you did imply it. That’s total BS. Anyone who has ever known a severely autistic person would never wish it on their worst enemy.
Autism with aphasia and/or severe intellectual disability is hard for everyone, probably especially for the person who actually has it and whose parents may talk openly about wishing they were never born. But (a) it has nothing to do with vaccines or anything else you think our alleged overlords are pushing on us to cause mayhem, (b) some severe autistics are actually loved by someone and can find some joy in life (too few, sadly), and (c) eugenics is so 100 years ago, since we now understand that (i) some severely autistic toddlers grow up to be mildly or moderately autistic, and we can’t yet tell which ones they are and (ii) messing with our gene pool can have unintended consequences. As can bringing back the measles, pertussis, etc. in full force.
Vaccines did not save the world from measles, pertussis, or etc. Look up the mortality data. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2019/3/11/lies-damn-lies-and-truncated-graphs
And BTW, space_upstairs, no normal parent would wish autism on their child, no matter how mild. Go ahead, ask any parent you like: “If you had a choice, would you prefer for your child to have autism, or not to have autism?” Let me know the results.
Measles deaths decreased dramatically thanks to vaccination, and are increasing with the drop in vaccination. That’s the mortality data.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles
Vaccines reduced deaths from pertussis, too (and see reference 10).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7453720/
Dorit Reiss you are seriously using Third World measles data to persuade? In the US and the rest of the industrialized world, measles deaths decreased by 98% before the vaccine was introduced, as the result of vast improvements in nutrition, sanitation and living conditions. To the extent measles deaths have decrease in poorer nations, it was for the same reasons.
FTFY.
“Vaccines did not save the world from measles, pertussis, or etc. Look up the mortality data. ”
I’m guessing you created that grossly dishonest comparison ginny, since the vertical scales on the two of them do not measure the same thing. Your “comparison” is as much bullshit as the rest of your work. Perhaps learn something [I know, that’s an alien concept to you] about statistics?
“I’m guessing you created that grossly dishonest comparison ginny, since the vertical scales on the two of them do not measure the same thing.” — BS–that’s why didn’t you specify what the alleged difference was.
Saying “vaccines did not save the world” and then complaining about being given global data that showed vaccines saved lives is a bit inconsistent.
The other claim has been addressed by Orac in the past. Mortality declined before vaccines – up to a point, and people were still dying. Vaccines added the rest, preventing mortality and morbidity. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/209448
@Ginny:
Well, it’s true nobody wants their hypothetical kid to have to live a harder life than needed. But reality happens, and if you talk to parents of kids with mild autism, I think most of us would say we wouldn’t trade our kids for the world. We learn to love our kids as they are and prepare them for the challenges ahead. I think anyone not ready to have a kid with autism (especially mild to moderate), Down’s, or Williams syndrome, specific learning disabilities or ADHD, who’s queer, who’s of the “wrong” political party or listens to the “wrong” music, is not ready to be a parent.
After seeing my kid suffer through adenovirus and RSV as an infant, I would sure as hell not wish measles, pertussis, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox on my kid nor the classmates who could catch those from her, and I’m glad to keep her covid and flu as mild as possible. “It’s just a week or two each, not for life” you might think. But kids died of these things. They do not die of autism. (Overstressed and under-loving parents killing them is not dying from autism, it’s dying from people being a-holes.)
Ginny, I am going to give you a lesson here about how normal parents behave. Normal parents love their children for who they are. If those children, like both of mine, happen to have a disability, the parents will also advocate for their children and work to find ways for the children to overcome as many aspects of their disability as possible, so they can live fulfilling lives.
Self-centred parents, on the other hand, tend to look for something or someone else to blame.
I find comments like the one you made above, incredibly offensive.
Ginny: “Dorit Reiss you are seriously using Third World measles data to persuade?”
“But those were Foreign Children and it really didn’t matter.”
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Dr+seuss+political+cartoons+ii_a21d91_5416522.jpg
Space_upstairs, when you express your desire that children not experience what are generally transient, mild diseases, what are (1) the known and potential risks of each vax, and all of them combined (currently a minimum of 50 on the CDC schedule from age 0-18); and (2) if the vaccine ‘works’ to eliminate the symptoms of those generally mild diseases, then the consequences of avoiding those symptoms (fever, in particular)–such as an increased risk of certain cancers in adulthood.
There is no web page where parents can go to find the calculated risk per vaccine, with actual numbers based on actual data. So how can they realistically weigh the risks against potential benefits, if any?
Chris, I am going to give you a lesson here about how rational commenters behave. They respond to the claim I made, which is that no normal parent would wish for their child to have autism. You ‘responded’ by claiming I said parents don’t love their children with autism.
You don’t have the guts to acknowledge that no normal parent would want their child to have autism rather than not–which, BTW, effectively refutes the contention that autism is merely ‘special’ or ‘different’ in a good way.
It’s apparent to me. Maybe you’re just defective.
I’m going to be picking bits of irony meter out of my hair all weekend.
@Ginny Stoner:
All too often, those diseases were NOT mild. Measles encephalitis was frequently deadly. Polio left many victims needing to live in iron lungs to survive. Mumps could leave its male victims infertile. Rubella could cause miscarriages. Whooping cough still kills in areas where vaccination levels fall below the required percentage. Tuberculosis is a big problem in South Africa.
In typical antivaxx fashion, you downplay the very real harms of these diseases, and ignore that the death toll from those diseases is low because of the vaccines you deride.
Ginny: “Chris, I am going to give you a lesson here about how rational commenters behave.”
Narad: “I’m going to be picking bits of irony meter out of my hair all weekend.”
Second most spectacular irony meter explosion 💥 of the week, after the one that occurred when Steve Kirsch posted: “My followers are not that biased.”
@Ginny:
My preschooler has been getting several fevers a year since she was 6 months old. With no vaccines suitable for infants on the horizon for parainfluenza, adenovirus, enterovirus, rhinovirus, strep (a bacterium), or staph (another bacterium), kids today are not being deprived of whatever benefits fevers provide. Do you have any nieces or nephews? Any idea how often they get sick? I’m guessing you don’t have kids if you think kids are short on fevers. So I’ll pass on those things that Julian Frost (a mild autistic like my daughter) mentions can happen to kids who catch the diseases that vaccines are made to protect against. Because they can cause a lot more than fevers.
@Ginny Stoner
a) You say measles is generally mild disease. Keywor is generally Check this for mortality::
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_disease_case_fatality_rates
b) There of of are not 50 vaccines in schedule.You did get even that right, let alone vaccine risks.
c) Have you some proof hat measles prevents cancer Of course not:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&qsp=5&q=wild+measles+cancer&qst=ib
Occasional so-called spontaneous tumor regressions have occurred during natural measles infections, but common tumors do not express SLAM, the wild-type MV receptor, and are therefore not susceptible to the virus. Serendipitously, attenuated vaccine strains of measles virus have adapted to use CD46, a regulator of complement activation that is expressed in higher abundance on human tumor cells than on their nontransformed counterparts.
Ever notice how they always drag out “And they can’t learn to use the toilet!” as “proof” of how “awful” autism is? Like that’s the worst insult they can come up with. Do they realize that there are disabled people who can read those comments? Pretty sure the scorn of those comments is worse than wearing a incontinence pads or diapers for people who read those comments and deal with that issue.
Yeah, there are people who can’t use the toilet (or talk) for a variety of reasons. And regardless of how many practical skills someone does or doesn’t have, wouldn’t tresting them with basic human dignity make everyone’s lives better? The biggest issue I see with the antivaxers is that they often get hell bent on trying to reverse or prevent alleged vaccine injuries, when so many of the diseases the vaccines prevent can also, well, cause severe disability. Control freakery, I guess…but vaccines are already control!
Actually older people have continence problems, too. Ginny Stoner (and other antivaxxers) could have problen later in their lives.
@Arno, 1 in 3 people who give birth will have some level of incontinence afterwards. Clearly society is in the thrall of Big Pregnancy!
As Ginny has shown us, verbal incontinence is an ailment that should be taken more seriously.
On a previous thread, I had suggested two things you should do to, so to speak, establish your bona fides.
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2023/04/26/dr-joseph-ladapo-busted-lying-with-statistics-about-covid-19-vaccines/#comment-474631
I’m still waiting for your response.
Do you keep a diary or something? As I recall, I responded by suggesting that you stop suggesting I do things, and instead focus on doing your own things. Since I’m not interested in rereading the conversation like you are, please advise.
And BTW, simple answer for your unheeded ‘suggestion’ that has been so much on your mind–I don’t recall what “robust” study criteria you were specifically looking for, but it’s rare that I have any detailed recollection of the study criteria in all the studies I’ve cited over the years in my blog posts. So you’re probably going to have a long wait–but if I come across anything, and you send me the exact criteria you are looking for and the topic of the research, I’ll try to think of you.
I’ll just give you one comment here.
What I was attempting to offer you was something of a Bene Gesserit/Turing test. That is, a way to demonstrate that you are capable of using logic and reason to hold a conversation. In other words, human.
I was also giving you a chance to disprove a hypothesis, a very scientific thing to do. My hypothesis, based on a few years of your posts on this blog, is that your blog articles are mainly based on trying to do statistical analyses based on VAERS reports, which is not the purpose of that system.
So I asked you to provide an article that “discusses a study using one of those more robust surveillance systems”. Such systems are frequently referenced here and include the Vaccine Safety Datalink, VA healthcare system and several others. By repeatedly declining to cite such an article, you have conditionally confirmed my hypothesis.
Strike One.
I also posed a simple educational exercise by asking you to restate a quote about VAERS in your own words. Again you declined to respond.
Strike Two
But most importantly, you repeatedly deflect, ignore the question or try to change the subject. That makes a dialogue impossible.
Strike Three
I will continue to skim your comments in the future as I do for most of our commenters here.
But I see no useful purpose in attempting to continue at this time.
‘Nuff Said
An industry troll who has never read anything I’ve written, much less offered a scholarly critique of anything I’ve written, is instructing me on how to respond to its comments, so as to impress other industry trolls just like it. Why doesn’t that surprise me? LOL.
“..Bene Gesserit/ Turing test..”
Heh.
@Ginny Stoner You have been answered multiple times. You do not answer, you just repeat your claim. You indeed do not pass Turing test.
What statute, Gindo? I’ll wait.
While you’re waiting, why don’t you tell us why you think it’s okay for CDC researchers to discard unwanted data.
I’m satisfied with your concession that you were full of shit, thanks.
Suggest reading actual paper. Interetsting thing is that Hooker actually discarded low birth weigh data,
Federal Law 3.14159: “It shall be unlawful to hurt antivaxxers’ feelings with cruel, harsh facts.”
@ Ginny Stoner
There is literally overwhelming evidence that your take on both issues is just plain WRONG; but, as usual, in your immensely stupid antivax bias, based on ignorance of science, immunology, infectious diseases, etc. etc. you just are TOO STUPID TO STOP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.
p.s. if I were dealing with a rational open-minded person I would give detailed references to the above; but you would ignore, so not worth wasting my time.
@ Ginny Stoner:
You write: “There’s a clear connection between vaccines and autism—the underlying brain damage”
Numerous studies on autistic kids who died young; e.g., car accident, falls, etc looking at their brains have found that the brains were not normal and the abnormalities could only have occurred while in vitro, that is, idiot, prior to birth, so they weren’t given any vaccines. In addition, videos done on kids prior to receiving various vaccines clearly indicate behaviors that predict autism. Autism, as you said, is a behavioral diagnosis and the diagnosed behaviors don’t show usually until later.
JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF, SOMETHING YOU ARE EXPERT AT
Joel, I am afraid the scientific literature supports Ginny and not you, and autism can be said to be brain damage. Perhaps a better term for it is vaccine induced encephalitis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717322/
Back on your BS again, Greg?
I clicked through to the paper you linked. Immediately, some problems were obvious.
1) The journal is “Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience”. Any journal with “Frontiers” in the name is generally a publisher of articles that, shall we say, go beyond the facts.
2) The article was published in January 2016. It’s more than 7 years old.
3) David and Mark Geier are two of the listed authors. Do a search on them on Respectful Insolence.
4) Numerous self-cites and cites of papers dating before 2011.
That study comes with a warning easily visible at the top of the page
PLUS it includes 2 Geiers as authors.
The only mention of vaccination in the paper is in the author’s COI statement.
You yourself cited this
“López-Hurtado and Prieto (2008) also mentioned, in their study of eight individuals with autism and seven controls, that the autistic subjects of all ages demonstrated greater density of glial cells in comparison to controls (up to double).” i
More glial cells is a development issue, is it not ? There are many other differences in brain anatomy, too.
Steve Kirsch a short while ago posted on his Substack that (1) vaccines cause autism and (2) vaccines cause SIDS, continuing his descent into full-on antivax nuttery.
Lowlights: he’s going to fund vaccine/autism research with the aid of subscription $$. James Lyons-Weiler will take a Kirsch online survey and transform it into a bullet-proof article that’ll survive publication in a medical journal. All of the hundreds of articles already published showing that vaccination doesn’t cause autism or SIDS are corrupt. Kirsch says Lyons-Weiler told him that if you got the top 100 autism scientists in a room with a promise of anonymity, 100% or nearly so would admit that vaccines are the primary driver of autism.
So keep those subscription dollars flowing. Great things are ahead.
Reading Kirsch makes me feel like I’ve been sucked back to 2015, or something
Steve Kirsch: I am going to drive the US vaccine program to its knees!
Steve Kirsch on his substack:
Steve Kirsch on Twitter
CDC Whistleblower proves vaccines cause autism!
Steve Kirsch on Twitter:
Apparently the most respected authority is Dr. Lyons-Weiler, anti-vaccine activist with previous publications in bioinformatics.
I don’t expect people in the relevant fields agree with Mr. Kirsch’s assessment of his authority in autism.
IKR? It’s hilarious. Basically, Lyons-Weiler used to be a bioinformatics scientist who ran what sounded like bioinformatics cores at two different universities. Then something happened, and he went antivax. Since then, he’s not only apparently forgotten all he knows about basic nucleotide sequence analysis (as evidenced by his early attempt in January 2020 to claim that the then-novel coronavirus had been made in a lab based on his mistaken claim to have found plasmid sequences in it) and gone on to claim expertise that he does not possess in fields related to autism, infectious disease, immunology, and vaccines.
2015? I feel more like I’ve been sucked back to at least 2010, if not 2005.😂
@ Everyone
Divide and Conquer
According to Wikipedia, Steve Kirsch “was one of two people who independently invented the optical mouse AND received a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1980.” No evidence that he has attempted to understand even the most basic concepts of immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, etc. Then he totally accepts what James Lyons-Weiler told him about vaccines. Once accepted, he indicates absolutely NO attempting to learn, to question, only to defend. Unfortunately, this is a problem with all too many people, once forming an opinion, defending it as some sort of absolute truth.
I am no genius, just a reasonably intelligent well-educated old man. Thanks to two early experiences I’ve learned to never accept one or even a couple on any particular position. If on some area of interest I do further research. My two early experiences was the Jewish Talmud. In it, they would take some Biblical quote, etc. and argued, often taking very different views, what it meant. In many cases, both sides had some validity. Then I attended Loyola University of Chicago. Two semesters of Religion were required in my Freshman year. The instructor of one semester, Father Carmody, a Jesuit priest, would explain the Catholic position on some topic, then put on sunglasses and literally cover criticisms and other interpretations of it. Really entertaining and I also learned that was how Jesuits were educated going back centuries. So, early in life I learned to almost NEVER accept something of importance without doing further research, especially trying to find criticisms and other points of view.
What is so frightening is just how many people are like Steve Kirsch, once forming an opinion, for the overwhelming majority, basically impossible to change their minds. Not just antivaxxers; but topics of economics, politics, racism, etc. And in many cases, the results actually harm them. As an aside, racism is a prime example. In Jamestown colony, indentured whites and slaves intermingled, etc. and then revolted. After revolt was put down, overlords developed differentiated levels giving poor whites slightly better conditions. In 1840s Irish were brutally treated by Brits and sympathetic with American slaves. When Irish first arrived in US, friendly with Blacks, so wealthy employers started playing them against each other. Now, today, majority of Whites experiencing poor economic and health conditions while corporations and super wealthy do quite well. Divide and conquer, simply if racism ended in US and whites, blacks, hispanics united, even attempts at voter suppression, etc. would not stop them from gaining control of government and stopping our government, especially the Republican party from working mainly for corporations and super wealthy.
So, antivaccination is just one example of how many people once forming an opinion, an opinion often on topics they have little to no background in, invest their entire self-concept in, so impossible to change their minds, even if actually hurting themselves and others like them.
Is Steve Kirsch unaware that the rate of sudden unexpected infant death in the U.S. plunged between 1990 and 2020, corresponding with a marked expansion of the pediatric vaccination schedule (including the introduction of vaccines like those for varicella, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and pneumonia)? Only ignorance or determination to dismiss unwelcome data as “corrupt” could explain his falsely blaming SIDS on vaccination.
@ Dangerous Bacon
As I mentioned, no indication that he has done his homework; but if he did come across such stats, he would ignore, believe fraudulent, etc.
“Plunged”? Today, the US has the highest infant mortality rate out of any other high-income country, while spending the most on health care. It also gives the most vaccines to infants. Explain. https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-has-highest-infant-maternal-mortality-rates-despite-the-most-health-care-spending
You are mixing up different data points.
While infant mortality has been dropping since 1990 (from 9.4 to 5.4 per 1K live births), it has been dropping faster in other developed countries. So the USA has among the highest infant and maternal mortality in the developed world (OECD average of 4.1).
Maternal mortality seems to have risen over the last few years.
The mortality rates vary by regional and ethnicity, being higher in southern states (which often have with lower vaccination rates).
In other words, the US has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world–which is what I just said. So what data points do you think I’m “mixing up”? You sound mixed up, because you just repeated exactly what I just said.
As for vaccines, the US gives the most vaccines to infants of any developed country. You’re suggesting lower vaccination rates in the south contribute to higher infant mortality. That’s a totally made-up claim you have no evidence to back up–and it doesn’t explain why the US gives the most vaccines to babies and also has the highest infant mortality rate of any developed country.
Ginny: Thank you! Whatever Orac is paying you to act as a cognitive vaccine is well worth it. – you give people a deliberately weakened form of the stronger antivax arguments – so weak that no one could possibly be fooled. The people who encounter you, and see through your nonsense are thus better prepared to see through more sophisticated lies later (just like real vaccines do with actual diseases). I expect that by linking to your comments I can convince lots of people get themselves and their loved ones vaccinated.
Speaking of totally made-up claims,
Here, Gindo. It’s your assertion to back up. I’m listening to a Cubs game, so I only compared Australia, which appears to be the same aside from SARS-CoV-2.
And lest you attempt anything quantitative about IMR, note that live births are not counted the same way everywhere.
Ginny, I can’t remember the last time I saw such cherry picking and confirmation bias in the same sentence.
Yes, I agreed with your claim that the US has the highest infant mortality, in spite of an almost 50% drop since 1990. But I didn’t suggest that lower vaccination rates in the south contribute to higher infant mortality. Only that, in the US, states or ethnic groups that have higher vaccination rates have significantly lower infant mortality, and that this would indicate that vaccines are not the reason for the shameful US society’s failure in caring for it’s weakest and newest members.
But I know none of this will keep you from making your predetermined claim with absolute certainty. The US health system seems to have no lack of more probable candidates for this embarrassment, that I’m sure you will ignore.
There are countries with lowest child mortality
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/infant-mortality-rate-by-country/
Child vaccination in EU:
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/ee/v17n22/art20183.pdfer
Spot the difference with US
Article you cited gives much better explanatios:
US infant mortality rate is there:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/infant-mortality-rate
It actually has plunged
Once again, you act as if antivaxxers care about children’s lives. It’s a rookie mistake. Remember Kincaid’s law – chidren suffering is funny
No one said that to her. She just did not like to told that cutting external oxygen supply may cause something
A word to the deliberately ignorant – better yet, a graph showing the major decline in U.S. SIDS cases after 1990, over a time period which saw a significant expansion of the U.S. pediatric vaccine schedule.
Antivaxers love graphs (at least, the ones they habitually manipulate and misinterpret), but this one’s a real stumbling block.
https://www.cdc.gov/sids/data.htm
In other words, if not for the “plunge” in infant deaths in the US since 1990, infant mortality would be massively higher than any other wealthy country, instead of just higher.
Pay attention, Gin.
Kirsch wants us to believe SIDS deaths are almost always due to vaccination. Yet the statistics on SIDS deaths (markedly declining despite expansion of the vaccine schedule) massively refute such a claim.
Even you shouldn’t be so dense as to fail to see that…wait – nevermind.
Isn’t that decline in “SIDS” due to medical science getting better at identifying the actual cause of death? Or has medical science made zero progress in that regard in the last 30 years?
Oo, another lame “the definitions have changed” excuse.
Better go back to something you’re good at — like whining about your right to “say nice things” about a virulent white supremacist and anti-Semitic bigot on your Facebook page.
@Ginny Stoner SIDS is sudden unexplained baby death. A quite clear definition.
The decline in SIDS is directly related to “Back to sleep,” no junk or blankets in crib, and no smoking in home with baby campaigns. It’s declining Ginny. Definition hasn’t changed.
Data about vaccines and SIDS:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X070
You shoud check vaccinations among developrd couniries. Antivax movement is strongest in US, actually.
Looks like it. The European IMR dropped by almost 75%, compared to less than 50% in the USA.
I understand that you want to attribute this to vaccines, but you need more data.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “Today, the US has the highest infant mortality rate out of any other high-income country, while spending the most on health care.”
While the US health care system is by far the most expensive in the world, over 30% goes to excess bureaucracy, insurance company profits, and huge CEO and other higher up administrators salaries. We actually pay through our taxes the 65% of total health care costs that actually go to health care. Even worse, is many Americans either don’t have health insurance or have insurance with high deductibles and copays and limited networks. Limited networks and bureaucracies doing their best not to refer to more costly specialists create problems. Also, the US, among all other high-income countries, has by far highest rate of poverty. And tmany of those not below the poverty line just get by. In addition, numerous studies find that minorities, especially Blacks, even when insured, get worse health care, and, have much higher infant mortality rates, etc. So, as usual Ginny, you obsess with vaccines while ignoring a reality that most people are aware of. I have actually written two papers on the American health care system which you should read; but I know you won’t. For those interested, just cut and paste the titles, available for free on internet.
Joel A. Harrison (2008 May). Paying More, Getting Less. Dollars & Sense Magazine.
Joel A. Harrison (2018 Oct 12). The Case for a Non-Profit Single-Payer Healthcare System. CounterPunch.org.
One simple question Ginny: Are you willing to vote and support candidates who have a program to ensure decent health care to all Americans and a decent standard of living, even if it resulted in slightly raising your taxes? I am because I believe I am part of a community and, thus, want decent health and living standards for all my fellow Americans.
@ Ginny Stoner
You have made it absolutely clear that you don’t understand even the basics of immunology, microbiology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, etc. You have made it absolutely clear that you have not done a valid search of United States CDC websites, WHO, and international statistics that clearly show COVID vaccines have led to far fewer severe cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. And not understanding vaccines, you don’t understand that they create the same memory antibodies as an infection causes; but without suffering from the infection, possible hospitalization, and even death.
You maintain a website based on VAERS, ignoring Orac’s well-written articles, my comments, and other that VAERS is only a list of suspects, that the CDC then investigates reports of serious adverse events associated with a vaccine and found most not vaccine-related. But your entire website is based on VAERS, so if you accepted scientifically valid arguments you would have to delete everything, so, instead, based on stupidity, ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty, you just keep posting stupid comments, defending the indefensible.
YOU ARE PATHETIC. YOU ARE A PERFECT ROLE-MODEL FOR THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT. TOO STUPID TO KNOW YOU ARE STUPID
If you ever come up with any actual fact-based arguments about anything specific I’ve said (backed up by a quote from my site), and want to discuss it in a civil manner, let me know. Deep down, you must be capable of it.
Your routine habit of drafting long screeds of false accusations, childish and obscene name-calling, baseless derision, and just plain nonsense you apparently pulled out of your ass couldn’t possibly impress anyone, except maybe industry trolls. To everyone else, it just makes you look crazy and foolish.
There, there. Recognizing that the truth hurts is the first step to learning from it. I’m sure that you have all the facts on your website, next to the picture of your girlfriend from Canada, and your certificate of being a “Good Do-Be.” I’ve make a donation to https://vaccinateyourfamily.org/ in your name – so at least you’ve inspired some good with your posts.
You didn’t make a donation–which makes your comment all the more ridiculous and deceptive.
Sorry you didn’t get the notice – I couldn’t find your street address. But the money got there, and is working to save lives by getting people vaccinated, so you have done good.
You didn’t make a donation, you lying POS.
Thank you for informing me of this website. I think it is available where I live as well, so I too will be donating some Euros.
What about that vaccine provider sees patient only for 15-30 minutes ? Thiis is ali by omission in VAERS context, implying that VAERS do no have later reports.
LOL
There are a number of us here (Joel included) who provide fact-based arguments to most of the nonsense you post Ginny. You just ignore the facts and carry on as if they did not exist.
Joel is right about your behaviour.
@ Ginny Stoner
You are delusional. Orac has written several articles explaining why VAERS can not be used to attack vaccines and I have posted numerous comments and so have others; but, as I wrote, your entire website is based on your unscientific belief in VAERS and, thus, if you accepted what Orac, I, and others have written, your website would have to be emptied. In other words, your entire self-concept, your antivax position is wrong. You don’t understand even the basics of the immune system, so you don’t understand that vaccines create the same memory immune cells as created by an infection; but avoiding the suffering from the infection.
And your comment above just additional proof you ignore what people write and you write: “Your routine habit of drafting long screeds of false accusations, childish and obscene name-calling, baseless derision, and just plain nonsense you apparently pulled out of your ass couldn’t possibly impress anyone, except maybe industry trolls. To everyone else, it just makes you look crazy and foolish.”
Since Orac and many other commenters write what I write, one more example of just how sick and delusional you are to claim “To everyone else, it just makes you look crazy and foolish.” I doubt it! ! !
YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF
“your entire website is based on your unscientific belief in VAERS.”
What?! Maybe you should actually visit my site and read a few things before you make false and defamatory allegations about it.
I have. The assessment is accurate.
Then you know VAERS is just one of many topics on my blog, which include:
Aerosol vaccines
Births & Deaths
COVID19
COVID19 vaccine coverup
Estimating vaccine risk
Fabricated news
Gender issues
Propaganda
Revised history
Satire
Spanish Flu
Swine Flu
Vaccine fraud
Vaccines
VAERS
Virology
Wonderful things
@ Ginny Stoner
I’ve visited your website several times. Quite artistic and quite unscientific and STUPID.
And Orac and several other commenters ALL agree with my assessment of it.
How a Skeptic reads Ginny Stoner’s topic list:
Paranoia
Denialism
Conspiracy theory
Pseudoscience
More Denialism
Prejudice
More conspiracy theory
Egregious denialism
Poe’s Law
More denialism
More denialism
More paranoia
More pseudoscience
More pseudoscience
Cute cats
Maybe your site should sue.
space_upstairs I guess your list applies if by “skeptic” you mean someone who believes the official narrative about everything by default, unless someone takes it upon themselves to feed them refuting evidence, which they will of course be skeptical of but will not refute with evidence.
“Skeptic” certainly does not mean accepting ridiculous antivax misinformation that’s been long debunked, the way you do.
@Ginny:
A Skeptic is someone who has high standards for what counts as evidence. Official stories usually become such, and occasionally cease to be such, on the basis of that high standard of evidence.
As someone who has used data from space telescopes, I have no idea why the hell someone working for some unnamed megalomaniac bankers would want to fake several generations of increasingly high quality and multiple wavelength images of distant galaxies that nobody could ever dream of visiting, or what existed before those galaxies. What, are They ™ afraid that we astronomers (and there are at least 3 of us who post here) would become conspiracy theorists like you and figure out Their nefarious plans and how to thwart them were we not distracted with some elaborate computer game? And why were actual astrophysical computer images so primitive when space telescopes started working and gave us such beautiful images. Who are They ™ to have tech so advanced it can fake a Universe better than theoretical astronomers can and at the same time hide evidence that covid shots and fluoridated water are making people drop like flies? I guess that’s why some of you conspiracy theorists conclude They ™ must be space aliens. But we astronomers know how hard it would be for space aliens to get here. (Unless Einstein was one of Them. He was Jewish after all, right? 😉 )
@ space_upstairs_cluttered:
I’m glad you fund that research useful.
Here’s more:
Eric Courchesne has studying autism for a LONG time: he made important discoveries about pre-natal events especially since 2011 that demolish anti-vax. He’s at UCSD and there are a few 20 minute videos of him but I was unable to link to his incredible 2 hr+ lecture at Rutgers in 2017. He’s a really good speaker. Other papers and articles.
Hi Denice.
I looked him up, and he’s a polio survivor (i.e., personally understands why antivax is dangerous) who studies brains and finds differences long before Oznoff’s behavioral signs (reduced nonverbal communication, increased interest in objects, repetitive behaviors) show up. So, perhaps the unusual brain wiring doesn’t influence a baby’s behavior until later, but was always there. That makes sense…many things most kids are born to be able to learn to do, like walking and talking, don’t show up for a couple years.
I’ve also been reflecting on how I have a sort of unfair advantage over the most prominent “warrior parents,” or two of them, even: my kid is verbal and lower support needs like the people who dominate the autistic self-advocate community (so I know their experience is relevant to my child’s), and her dad and I have conditions with overlapping symptoms (OCD for her dad and ADHD for me) making a genetic origin in the combination of our respective quirks highly plausible. So I can understand that they started out much more scared and confused. I think the true villains of the story are the quacks who push things like FC and biomed and set the autism wars in motion with their unrealistic promises to parents of kids that aren’t talking by 4 and/or have self-harming stims. (And even some of them, a la Temple Grandin, will grow up fine without quackery.)
@ space_upstairs_cluttered:
Uneducated anti-vaxxers make ridiculous characterisations about autistic people including that they are brain damaged when they are not and that they are very similar to each other when they are not.
One of the values of reading/ watching neuroscientists like Prof Courchesne** is that they provide extremely detailed citations coming from diverse areas of research that illustrate how autistic brains are DIFFERENT from average ones and how they vary from each other reflecting how these subjects’ abilities and disabilities can be quite diverse.
Research shows how brains develop in utero trimester by trimester and if and when differences in development occur- their studies are that granular. Different areas of the brain could be involved in different people although the PFC is very important as it involves language and social processing. Brains develop differently and post natal development from these beginnings is also studied as are interventions for children. Genes and their expression are also explored. In detail
When I read or hear alt med/ anti-vaxxers discuss autism, I KNOW they have virtually no background in SB research. Implicating vaccines is a BIG clue because autism starts WAY before vaccines.
** somewhere on the net ( Wayback?) is a 2 hour+ long lecture ( from Rutgers U, 2017) that is highly watchable and instructive- like taking a course. The 19 and 20 minute videos are a good starting point.
2 hours is a bit much, but I found a 19 minute interview. Courchesne’s language would surely be off-putting to social-model/neurodiversity advocates* (all that talk of “deficits” and “recovery” and “indistinguishability” – many adults on the low support end of the spectrum talk about how exhausting nonverbal-as-a-second-language and avoiding sensory overreactions can be), but the main point is valid. Autistic brains grow differently from before birth, and can be helped to grow in ways that can alleviate the troubles with nonverbal communication and other practical skills they have early on. So it’s not the vaccines, and it’s not the end of the world if your kid is not talking by 3 or 4. Also, scare mongers love to prance around with the latest prevalence to make it sound so catastrophic, as if fully 3% of kids will never learn to talk and pee in the pot, when the better part of these 3% would have been categorized previously as “just” ADHD and/or specific learning disabilities or “just” slow learning/intellectual disability, since nobody was paying attention before to their body language developing slower than their other practical skills and to these little repetitive things they were doing. Heck, I had no idea about my daughter’s body language delay until I got her tested, and then afterwards noticed younger tots making more eye contact, pointkng more, and showing cool things off to their loved ones or other kids more than I ever remembered from my daughter.
*Something unfortunate I discovered in the last few months about social model/neurodiversity is that it has substantial infiltration from the FC community, making it politically incorrect to some of them to admit that severe intellectual disabilities and innate aphasias exist, which just fans the flames of the autism wars. It’s also unfortunate, though, that there are so many parents who are devastated that their kid won’t live the “ideal” life they wanted for them, and so many people seeking to recruit and profit off of such parents with false hopes of “curing” their kids or proving they were secret geniuses (who always end up going to college and shilling for FC) rather than offer them realistic support services, pictorial communication devices if the kid isn’t talking yet. Or who think their kid’s existence and differences are caused by some nefarious conspiracy to break and conquer society.
As part of a continuing public service to identify new books of interest, I present “The Great Awakening” by Alex Jones with Kent Heckenlively, J.D., due to be released on August 29th. From a blurb on Goodreads:
“Working with New York Times bestselling author Kent Heckenlively, Jones masterfully gives you the deeper discussion about such hot button topics as the truth behind the globalists plans for artificial intelligence (AI), the central bank digital currency, social credit scores, Big Tech tyranny, censorship, fifteen-minute cities, the unholy alliance between big business and big government, the military-intelligence-industrial complex—which is hell-bent on eternal war—and the all-out assault on free speech and the Second Amendment.”
“The good news is that these plans are destined to fail, if we wake up to the anti-human future the globalists have planned for us…
“St. Augustine once “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.” No figure in our modern times has roared louder against the enemies of freedom than Alex Jones. In the calm and dispassionate style that made his first book, The Great Reset : And the War for the World , such a smash hit, Alex lays out the flaws in the plans of the globalists and how they seek to create a world in direct opposition to God’s plans for our glorious human future. But God consistently works His will in our world, even through imperfect individuals like Donald Trump, Alex Jones, or you.”
“If you want to read one book this year to understand your world and help lead humanity to the next great human renaissance, you need to order this book today.”
Is it possible to fall to a level of self-degradation lower than co-authoring a book with Alex Jones? Hard to imagine.
“the globalists plans for artificial intelligence (AI), the central bank digital currency, social credit scores, Big Tech tyranny, censorship, fifteen-minute cities, the unholy alliance between big business and big government, the military-intelligence-industrial complex—which is hell-bent on eternal war—and the all-out assault on free speech and the Second Amendment.”
The right’s all-in-one source for stupid things to be angry about.
” Is it possible to fall to a level of self-degradation lower than co-authoring a book with Alex Jones?”
Yes, Mike Adams does by hosting an hour of Jones’ show so Alex can have lunch or something.
@ Ginny Stoner
You list the following as subjects on your website:
Aerosol vaccines
Births & Deaths
COVID19
COVID19 vaccine coverup
Estimating vaccine risk
Fabricated news
Gender issues
Propaganda
Revised history
Satire
Spanish Flu
Swine Flu
Vaccine fraud
Vaccines
VAERS
Virology
So, including Births & Deaths, Fabricated News, Propaganda, Revised History, almost all focus on diseases and vaccines. And the bottom line is that your website either completely or almost completely is graphs and tables based on VAERS. You can rename things; but how ever you do, the bottom line is your main focus is antivax based on total ignorance of immunology, microbiology, infectious diseases, both history and current, epidemiology, etc.
So, KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF. YOUR WEBSITE, THOUGH QUITE ARTISTIC, IS NOTHING MORE THAT STUPIDITY ON STEROIDS
“And the bottom line is that your website either completely or almost completely is graphs and tables based on VAERS.”
I probably have more graphs and tables from the WONDER database, especially in the last year or so. A lot of my more recent writing is on the death numbers in WONDER–because most people are already aware that more deaths and serious events have been reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines in the last 2 years than from all other vaccines combined for the last 20 years.
People are aware,too, that mandatory reporting will cause more reports and that the actual signal is reported minus expectd deaths.
That actually leads to the bottom line, which is that she doesn’t understand most of them and lies about the rest.
“Virology”
I laughed so hard I almost spit iced tea out of my nose. Virology. Bwahahaha.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “more deaths and serious events have been reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines in the last 2 years than from all other vaccines combined for the last 20 years.”
And I and others have explained that historically high levels of reports to VAERS followed introduction of a vaccine; e.g., 2008-9 flu vaccine, etc. In addition, there has been an explosion of antivax websites encouraging such and even some info that some of the submissions are purely fake.
CDC Wonder website gives following for VAERS:
Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:
The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event, or as evidence about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, and unverified information.
VAERS does not obtain follow up records on every report. If a report is classified as serious, VAERS requests additional information, such as health records, to further evaluate the report.
VAERS data are limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.
VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.
VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.
https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/vaers.html
And for Wonder:
“Limitations to data: Completeness and timeliness of reporting to the jurisdictions and submission of notifications to CDC vary by condition and location. Detection and reporting of health conditions to jurisdictions may be influenced by the severity of the illness; patient and public awareness of conditions; patient access to health care; the availability of diagnostic facilities; interests, resources, and priorities of the clinicians, laboratories, hospitals, and others that report to the jurisdictions; jurisdiction reporting requirements and resources; emerging pathogens and conditions; and priorities of state and local health departments. Reporting delays occur for various reasons, including competing priorities such as outbreak response, technical problems, and changes in staffing levels. Moreover, data may be reported in batches during outbreaks and at other times, including at the end-of-year when surveillance staff are finalizing the data. CDC does not adjust provisional data for variations in reporting procedures across different states or for delays in reporting. Because of variations among the jurisdictions in assignment of event dates https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MMWR_Week_overview.pdf, updates to case data, and variations in the timing of submission to CDC, weekly totals should not be added to compute the cumulative count for a year. It is not uncommon that cases are reported after data has been published for the week, or that updates change whether the case meets the case definition or publication criteria. Less commonly, a case definition is modified or the criteria are clarified during the year, resulting in a reevaluation of previously reported cases. These limitations should be considered when comparing counts and rates across conditions, among areas, or over time. Not all variations in the data reflect true changes in the incidence of disease “
Note the last sentence: “Not all variations in the data reflect true changes in the incidence of disease”
Readers’ Guide: Understanding Weekly and Annual National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System WONDER Tables (rev. 04/21/2021) https://www.cdc.gov/nndss/docs/Readers-Guide-WONDER-Tables-20210421-508.
And you ignore the CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink which covers over 11 million Americans. It has real time data on their medical records, including previous illnesses, comorbidities, age, weight, vaccines, including lot numbers and date given, etc. Of course, you would ignore because as opposed to VAERS and WONDER it level of validity is overwhelmingly much much higher
And you downplay COVID deaths; but, besides US data, you ignore data from around the world. Yep, from Scandinavia to Germany to UK to Canada to South Korea to Japan to Australia, etc. all wrong???
All the VAERS limitation issues you mentioned are covered on my site. VSD data isn’t covered because the general public doesn’t have access to it, and my focus is on data the public can verify for themselves. CDC needs to publish a COMPLETE summary of VSD data, but after all these years, don’t hold your breath.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “All the VAERS limitation issues you mentioned are covered on my site”
And, yet, you have over the years based much of your antivax position on VAERS! ! !
And how about WONDER which has many of the same problems as VAERS? Do you discuss its limitations? And, as you wrote above, you base much of your current antivax position on WONDER.
You write: “VSD data isn’t covered because the general public doesn’t have access to it, and my focus is on data the public can verify for themselves. CDC needs to publish a COMPLETE summary of VSD data”
“Your focus is on data the public can verify themselves”; which is the problem because it is NOT VALID DATA. As for VSD data, to some extent I agree that more should be made public; however, researchers can apply to access it to write papers and many have, so one can find such papers.
CDC Webpage explains: How to Access Data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink
And I did a quick search of National Library of Medicine’s online database PubMed with: “Vaccine Safety Datalink” 319 results
and then: “Vaccine Safety Datalink COVID” 33 results and then: COVID vaccine effectiveness” 5,324 results and finally: COVID vaccine safety” 7,047 results
Since your current stupid antivax papers are on COVID vaccine, I suggest you go to PubMed and type in search bar the above two I used and read some of them; but, of course, if the overwhelming disagree with you, you will cite those confirming your ignorant bias, regardless of your not even understanding the study design
And with so many papers, probability that a few will be negative means nothing. If you understood probability theory and how one could end up with a biased sample, you would understand. Quite simply, one could study a few 100 and by chance get more with, for instance, comorbidities or genetic problems or exposure to toxins, etc. in one group, regardless of how well one randomized them, which is why I don’t rely on a few studies, though if done on extremely large dataset chances one group would have enough unmeasured contributing factors quite low.
The bottom line is that you have made clear you do NOT understand any of the sciences underlying infectious diseases and health and that your antivax position goes against history of vaccine-preventable diseases, literally 100s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on vaccines, on immunology, and your insane belief that you know more than the overwhelming number of scientists and medical professional who support vaccines.
YOU ARE JUST ONE SICK INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST STUPID MORON
@ Ginny Stoner
And I repeat for the umpteenth time. YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE BASICS OF IMMUNOLOGY.
A simple explanation. We have basically two levels of immune defenses, the innate and the adaptive immune system. The innate system exists at birth, doesn’t change. When we are invaded by a microbe, virus or bacteria, the innate immune system can sometimes stop it cold, other times can’t and send messengers to adaptive immune system. Important to understand is neither system recognizes intact whole microbes. By analogy, imagine a surveillance system that doesn’t recognize people but, for instance, bridge of nose, chin, side view of earlobe, etc. Our immune system cells only recognize small parts of invaders. For instance, bacteria have a cell wall made of lipopolyssacharides (type of fat and sugar). Immune cells recognize small sections of and since doesn’t exist in human body they go to work. The adaptive immune system is composed of B-cells which produce antibodies and t-cells. Through genetic recombination, etc. we have about 100 million different B-cells, around 30 of each, circulating through our bodies. Each B-cell can only recognized a very specific part of an invading microbe called an antigenic determinant. The innate immune systems sends messengers to lymph nodes to alert B-cells. Since B-cells circulating, it can take time to contact correct B-cell, then B-cell stops circulating, duplicates, etc. and begins producing antibodies, millions. On average takes up to 10 days to produce masses of antibodies that then attack the invader. Unfortunately during this time we suffer, perhaps end up hospitalized, dead, or with long-term disabilities. Since our immune system doesn’t recognize intact whole microbes, all that a vaccine does is present to our immune system in such as way that it can recognize one or more of the antigenic determinants. It can be a killed microbe because antigenic determinants still there. It can be an attenuated microbe where it has been placed in some other organism such that it mutates to function in that organism and, thus, when put in us, sort of crippled but recognizable. Or it can just be some antigenic determinant like the S-Spike protein because if antibodies block it, the virus can’t enter our cells. Like melting some plastic in a lock so a key can’t be used.
Your antivax position is based on total ignorance of how vaccines work, simply creating the same, absolute same, memory B-cells that produce antibodies as those produced by functioning intact microbe. However, we avoid the up to 10 days of suffering, potential hospitalization, death, or long-term problems
And I know you will not understand the above and/or will ignore because you are one sick individual. Unfortunately if anyone follows your website without checking further, doesn’t get vaccinated, and suffers, even dies, makes you a murderer in my book.
@ Ginny Stoner
MYTH: COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States shed or release their components.
FACT: Vaccine shedding is the release or discharge of any of the vaccine components in or outside of the body and can only occur when a vaccine contains a live weakened version of the virus.
None of the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. contain a live virus. mRNA and viral vector vaccines are the two types of currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines available.
SO, WRONG AGAIN.
Not sure where to put this but another post didn’t work…
they’re gonna party like it’s ( sort of ) 1999..
CHD announces a 2 day prayer meeting/ march/ rally at the CDC and Emory University to commemorate the 23rd anniversary of the Simpsonwood Conference which will be attended by various anti-vax luminaries from the past and present.
Sounds like a fun midweek getaway! 7-8 June
@ Ginny Stoner
You disagree with Orac. Orac is a medical doctor, so as an undergraduate he took a number of courses in chemistry and biology and in medical school, courses in infectious diseases, biochemistry, genetics, etc. He is a cancer surgeon, so his residency would include what cancer is, how it develops, including genetics and viral infections. And then, totally separate he earned a PhD in cell physiology. Finally, he has 60 peer-reviewed publications; but, of course, he is wrong and you are right?
In my case, I have a PhD in social and educational psychology, then received a competitive NIH postdoctoral fellowship where I earned an MPH in public health and an MS in biostatistics and epidemiology. It was then that I became focused on infectious diseases. I was on the faculty at UTMB medical school in Galveston for several years and began auditing courses in medicine and attending seminars. I also read my first immunology and microbiology textbooks and read 100s of articles. Since then I have read over the years 5 or 6 undergraduate texts in microbiology and immunology and one on genetics, as well as literally thousands of articles over past 40 years. Currently, I am proof-reading and making editorial suggestions for the next edition of a colleagues undergraduate microbiology book. I was given a free copy of a much earlier edition and as I read it made notes in the columns, sent them to my colleague and she used the majority in next edition. I have done this for several editions. I received nor requested any pay; but they gave a nice mention of me in the acknowledgements and a free copy of each subsequent edition. I don’t own a TV; but enjoy learning, so found a number of free undergraduate courses and lectures on YouTube, so every day spend hour watching a course, currently 6 or 7th on immunology, an hour reading an undergraduate text in immunology, and an hour proof-reading and editing next edition of colleagues undergraduate Microbiology book. You should read it: Gerald Tortora, Christine Case. Microbiology: An Introduction. I know you won’t. So, of course, despite the above, I am wrong and you are right.
And a number of the other commenters on this blog are MDs, biologists, etc.; but, again, they are wrong and your are right. And what do you base your positions/papers on? What science?
You may have read that Rochelle Walensky resigned as Director of CDC. Since everything CDC writes about vaccines and infectious diseases, maybe if you submit an application to be their new director, an application with all your “credential” they will jump at the opportunity????? LOL
DOES ANYONE ELSE FOLLOWING THIS BLOG AGREE WITH ME THAT GINNY SHOULD SUBMIT HER APPLICATION TO BECOME NEXT DIRECTOR OF CDC???
What is frightening about people like you is taking antivax positions without any underlying knowledge of immunology, history of infectious diseases, etc. I recently skimmed some of my history books and discovered that during Middle Ages average life expectancy was better than 90 years and infant mortality almost non-existent. Then life-expectancy began to shorten with advent of smallpox vaccines and each additional vaccine has led to shorter and shorter average life-expectancies and higher infant mortalities. Then in late 19th Century we began filtering water and adding chlorine which accelerated shortening of life-expectancies and increased infant mortality. It turns out that minute bits of fecal matter and microbes are actually necessary for our health. So, Ginny, again, I think you should submit an application for new CDC Director as I’m sure you agree with what I wrote in this paragraph.
YOU ARE A STUPID INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE MORON
@ Ginny Stoner
You disagree with Orac. Orac is a medical doctor, so as an undergraduate he took a number of courses in chemistry and biology and in medical school, courses in infectious diseases, biochemistry, genetics, etc. He is a cancer surgeon, so his residency would include what cancer is, how it develops, including genetics and viral infections. And then, totally separate he earned a PhD in cell physiology. Finally, he has 60 peer-reviewed publications; but, of course, he is wrong and you are right???
In my case, I have a PhD in social and educational psychology, then received a competitive NIH postdoctoral fellowship where I earned an MPH in public health and an MS in biostatistics and epidemiology. It was then that I became focused on infectious diseases. I was on the faculty at UTMB medical school in Galveston for several years and began auditing courses in medicine and attending seminars. I also read my first immunology and microbiology textbooks and read 100s of articles. Since then I have read over the years 5 or 6 undergraduate texts in microbiology and immunology and one on genetics, as well as literally thousands of articles over past 40 years. Currently, I am proof-reading and making editorial suggestions for the next edition of a colleagues undergraduate microbiology book. I was given a free copy of a much earlier edition and as I read it made notes in the columns, sent them to my colleague and she used the majority in next edition. I have done this for several editions. I received nor requested any pay; but they gave a nice mention of me in the acknowledgements and a free copy of each subsequent edition. I don’t own a TV; but enjoy learning, so found a number of free undergraduate courses and lectures on YouTube, so every day spend hour watching a course, currently 6 or 7th on immunology, an hour reading an undergraduate text in immunology, and an hour proof-reading and editing next edition of colleagues undergraduate Microbiology book. You should read it: Gerald Tortora, Christine Case. Microbiology: An Introduction. I know you won’t. So, of course, despite the above, I am wrong and you are right???
And a number of the other commenters on this blog are MDs, biologists, etc.; but, again, they are wrong and your are right? And what do you base your positions/papers on? What science?
You may have read that Rochelle Walensky resigned as Director of CDC. Since everything CDC writes about vaccines and infectious diseases, maybe if you submit an application to be their new director, an application with all your “credential” they will jump at the opportunity????? LOL
DOES ANYONE ELSE FOLLOWING THIS BLOG AGREE WITH ME THAT GINNY SHOULD SUBMIT HER APPLICATION TO BECOME NEXT DIRECTOR OF CDC???
What is frightening about people like you is taking antivax positions without any underlying knowledge of immunology, history of infectious diseases, etc. I recently skimmed some of my history books and discovered that during Middle Ages average life expectancy was better than 90 years and infant mortality almost non-existent. Then life-expectancy began to shorten with advent of smallpox vaccines and each additional vaccine has led to shorter and shorter average life-expectancies and higher infant mortalities. Then in late 19th Century we began filtering water and adding chlorine which accelerated shortening of life-expectancies and increased infant mortality. It turns out that minute bits of fecal matter and microbes are actually necessary for our health. So, Ginny, again, I think you should submit an application for new CDC Director as I’m sure you agree with what I wrote in this paragraph.
YOU ARE A STUPID INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE MORON
I’m not sure I would Ginny to be in control of anything medical.
So director of the CDC, would defenitly not be a position I want Ginny to have.
Of cause I could say it’s a long way from where I live, so it doesn’t have any influence on my life, but still….
@ Renate
I guess you didn’t understand that I was being sarcastic.
I did understand that, but even in a sarcastic mood, I would want her in control of anything.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “All the VAERS limitation issues you mentioned are covered on my site”
And, yet, you have over the years based much of your antivax position on VAERS! ! !
And how about WONDER which has many of the same problems as VAERS? Do you discuss its limitations? And, as you wrote above, you base much of your current antivax position on WONDER.
You write: “VSD data isn’t covered because the general public doesn’t have access to it, and my focus is on data the public can verify for themselves. CDC needs to publish a COMPLETE summary of VSD data”
“Your focus is on data the public can verify themselves”; which is the problem because VAERS and WONDER are suspicions only. As for VSD data, to some extent I agree that more should be made public; however, researchers can apply to access it to write papers and many have, so one can find such papers.
CDC Webpage explains: How to Access Data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink which explains how legitimate researchers can access it.
And I did a quick search of National Library of Medicine’s online database PubMed with: “Vaccine Safety Datalink” 319 results and then: “Vaccine Safety Datalink COVID” 33 results and then: COVID vaccine effectiveness” 5,324 results and finally: COVID vaccine safety” 7,047 results
Since your current stupid antivax papers are on COVID vaccine, I suggest you go to PubMed and type in search bar the above two I used and read some of them; but, of course, if the overwhelming disagree with you, you will cite those confirming your ignorant bias, regardless of your not even understanding the study design
And with so many papers, probability that a few will be negative means nothing. If you understood probability theory and how one could end up with a biased sample, you would understand. Quite simply, one could study a few 100 and by chance get more with, for instance, comorbidities or genetic problems or exposure to toxins, etc. in one group, regardless of how well one randomized them, which is why I don’t rely on a few studies, though if done on extremely large dataset chances one group would have enough unmeasured contributing factors quite low.
The bottom line is that you have made clear you do NOT understand any of the sciences underlying infectious diseases and health and that your antivax position goes against history of vaccine-preventable diseases, literally 100s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on vaccines, on immunology, and your insane belief that you know more than the overwhelming number of scientists and medical professional who support vaccines.
YOU ARE JUST ONE SICK INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST STUPID MORON
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “All the VAERS limitation issues you mentioned are covered on my site”
And, yet, you have over the years based much of your antivax position on VAERS! ! !
And how about WONDER which has many of the same problems as VAERS? Do you discuss its limitations? And, as you wrote above, you base much of your current antivax position on WONDER.
You write: “VSD data isn’t covered because the general public doesn’t have access to it, and my focus is on data the public can verify for themselves. CDC needs to publish a COMPLETE summary of VSD data”
“Your focus is on data the public can verify themselves”; which is the problem because VAERS and WONDER are suspicions only. As for VSD data, to some extent I agree that more should be made public; however, researchers can apply to access it to write papers and many have, so one can find such papers.
CDC Webpage explains: How to Access Data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink which explains how legitimate researchers can access it.
And I did a quick search of National Library of Medicine’s online database PubMed with: “Vaccine Safety Datalink” 319 results and then: “Vaccine Safety Datalink COVID” 33 results and then: COVID vaccine effectiveness” 5,324 results and finally: COVID vaccine safety” 7,047 results
Since your current stupid antivax papers are on COVID vaccine, I suggest you go to PubMed and type in search bar the above two I used and read some of them; but, of course, if the overwhelming disagree with you, you will cite those confirming your ignorant bias, regardless of your not even understanding the study design
And with so many papers, probability that a few will be negative means nothing. If you understood probability theory and how one could end up with a biased sample, you would understand. Quite simply, one could study a few 100 and by chance get more with, for instance, comorbidities or genetic problems or exposure to toxins, etc. in one group, regardless of how well one randomized them, which is why I don’t rely on a few studies, though if done on extremely large dataset chances one group would have enough unmeasured contributing factors quite low.
The bottom line is that you have made clear you do NOT understand any of the sciences underlying infectious diseases and health and that your antivax position goes against history of vaccine-preventable diseases, literally 100s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on vaccines, on immunology, and your insane belief that you know more than the overwhelming number of scientists and medical professional who support vaccines.
YOU ARE JUST ONE SICK INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST STUPID MORON
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “All the VAERS limitation issues you mentioned are covered on my site”
And, yet, you have over the years based much of your antivax position on VAERS! ! !
And how about WONDER which has many of the same problems as VAERS? Do you discuss its limitations? And, as you wrote above, you base much of your current antivax position on WONDER.
You write: “VSD data isn’t covered because the general public doesn’t have access to it, and my focus is on data the public can verify for themselves. CDC needs to publish a COMPLETE summary of VSD data”
“Your focus is on data the public can verify themselves”; which is the problem because VAERS and WONDER are suspicions only. As for VSD data, to some extent I agree that more should be made public; however, researchers can apply to access it to write papers and many have, so one can find such papers.
CDC Webpage explains: How to Access Data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink which explains how legitimate researchers can access it.
And I did a quick search of National Library of Medicine’s online database PubMed with: “Vaccine Safety Datalink” 319 results and then: “Vaccine Safety Datalink COVID” 33 results and then: COVID vaccine effectiveness” 5,324 results and finally: COVID vaccine safety” 7,047 results
Since your current stupid antivax papers are on COVID vaccine, I suggest you go to PubMed and type in search bar the above two I used and read some of them; but, of course, if the overwhelming disagree with you, you will cite those confirming your ignorant bias, regardless of your not even understanding the study design
And with so many papers, probability that a few will be negative means nothing. If you understood probability theory and how one could end up with a biased sample, you would understand. Quite simply, one could study a few 100 and by chance get more with, for instance, comorbidities or genetic problems or exposure to toxins, etc. in one group, regardless of how well one randomized them, which is why I don’t rely on a few studies, though if done on extremely large dataset chances one group would have enough unmeasured contributing factors quite low.
The bottom line is that you have made clear you do NOT understand any of the sciences underlying infectious diseases and health and that your antivax position goes against history of vaccine-preventable diseases, literally 100s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on vaccines, on immunology, and your insane belief that you know more than the overwhelming number of scientists and medical professional who support vaccines.
[…] the CDC whistleblower does not demonstrate that Andrew Wakefield was right after all can be found here. The CliffsNote version […]
[…] theory in 2005 published in Salon.com and Rolling Stone while antivaxxers like Steve Kirsch have been resurrecting the old “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory that first arose in 2014 but was really […]
[…] CDC whistleblower does not demonstrate that Andrew Wakefield was right after all can be found here. The CliffsNote version […]
[…] conspiracy theory had been resurrected by antivax tech bro Steve Kirsch, conveniently enough I just mentioned it and why it’s nonsense recently and discussed it in more depth in December.) It was so bad […]
[…] MMR vaccine causing autism and secondarily about the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory (recently resurrected by antivaxxers like Steve Kirsch) supporting the contention that Wakefield had been right all along. If you want to get an idea of […]
[…] soon expanded to encompass “old school” antivax conspiracy theories, such as the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory featured in the 2016 antivaccine propaganda “documentary” VAXXED (even more recently […]