Whither the anti-vaccine movement now that it has been discredited?

Who me

The anti-vax movement has been exposed for what it has always been, intellectually and ethically bankrupt.

And it has been exposed in the most spectacular fashion due to the Disneyland outbreak of measles simultaneously demonstrating that the empirical claims of anti-vax parents are nothing more than nonsense and that the practical effects of refusing to vaccinate your children involves putting other children at risk of serious disease and even death.

So should we expect a mea culpa, and admission acknowledging that anti-vax advocates have been wrong all along, duped by lack of basic knowledge about immunology, science and statistics and aided by gullibility in trusting folks like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey?

Not in this lifetime!

Why not? Because as I have written before, anti-vax advocacy was never about science. It was always about EGO.

Admitting one’s mistakes is not an ego boost, so there won’t be any admissions of thoroughly misunderstanding (or never understanding) the science behind vaccination, and there won’t be any expressions of regret about harming other people’s children.

What there will be is retrenchment, and as the Facebook post below demonstrates, Mayim Bialik shows us how it’s done.

Mayim Bialik 2-10-15

Bialik writes, apparently with a straight face:

i [sic] would like to dispel the rumors about my stance on vaccines. i am not anti-vaccine. my children are vaccinated. there has been so much hysteria and anger about this issue and i hope this clears things up as far as my part.

How could anyone have thought that Bialik was anti-vax?

After all, look what she told People Magazine in 2009:

Bialik People 2009

We are a non-vaccinating family, but I make no claims about people’s individual decisions. We based ours on research and discussions with our pediatrician, and we’ve been happy with that decision, but obviously there’s a lot of controversy about it.

In 2012, she wrote a whole essay on why she didn’t want to talk about it:

Children today get about four times as many vaccines as the average 35-year-old did when we were kids. Besides visiting the CDC website … here are the books we used to research each vaccine and discuss each with several doctors before deciding what was right for our family.

She follows this with recommendations for anti-vax books by two celebrities beloved in the anti-vax community, Mothering Magazine contributor the late Dr. Lauren Feder (primary care medicine, pediatrics and homeopathy) and super-quack Dr. Bob Sears.

Does Bialik think we are idiots and don’t remember that she declared hers to be a “non-vaccinating family”?

I doubt Bialik is thinking of us at all. She’s attempting damage control for her own ego, not her public image.

Bialik, like most anti-vaxxers in February 2015, now knows that she was utterly, spectacularly wrong about vaccination. She faces two choices; she could admit that she was wrong and learn from her errors. That’s what typically happens when people learn that they were wrong about some aspect of science. Or she could preserve her sense of self esteem by pretending that she was never wrong because hers was never a “non-vaccinating family.”

See, her children are vaccinated! Against what and how closely have they adhered to the CDC vaccination schedule? I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that while Bialik’s children are selectively vaccinated according to a schedule that she, or someone she admires, made up in defiance of the CDC.

No matter what happens, Bialik needs to feel that she is both “empowered” by making a personal choice, and not one of those “sheeple” who accept that the expert opinion of experts has more value that her idiosyncratic personal beliefs.

Bialik will not be the only one. We are all vaccinating parents now!

I predict that anti-vax celebrities and celebrity quacks are embarking on an about-face so fast that their heads will spin. That’s how they will protect their egos. Then it is only a matter of time before they settle on some other form of quackery in defiance of authority to demonstrate that they have done their “research” and are “empowered” by refusing to follow the recommendations of experts.

As I wrote last week:

When refusing to vaccinate your children is widely viewed as selfish, irresponsible, and the hallmark of being UNeducated, anti-vax advocacy will lose its appeal.

That moment has arrived. Let the backpedaling begin!

876 Responses to “Whither the anti-vaccine movement now that it has been discredited?”

  1. Bugsy
    February 24, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

    Germany is reporting the death of an unvax 18-mo-old due to measles:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/unvaccinated-child-dies-of-measles-in-berlin/article23153157/

  2. Lauren
    February 24, 2015 at 4:28 pm #

    Did anyone see this vile post claiming the mother of Griffin, in Toronto Canada, made up her story to gain sympathy for pro-vaccine shills – namely her grandfather, who has stock in a pharmaceutical company?
    A friend posted it proudly on her facebook status.
    I have been rethinking the entire relationship since.

    http://vactruth.com/2015/02/20/jennifer-hibben-white/

    • Who?
      February 24, 2015 at 5:30 pm #

      AutismDad is over there complaining Dr T banned him from here for all his truth telling.

      Oh and he’s also complaining about the tone of pro-vaxxers over there, despite setting (and loving) a bit of low tone here.

      They’re a weird mob.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        February 24, 2015 at 6:11 pm #

        I did ban him, not for any truth telling since he wasn’t telling the truth. I banned him for the way he addressed other commentors.

        • Who?
          February 24, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

          Quite. His particular brand of vulgarity was…special. And the veiled threats were not at all acceptable.

        • Nick Sanders
          February 27, 2015 at 3:42 pm #

          On the other hand, I’ve seen him linking to your blog, so hey, free traffic. Hopefully at least one of them will learn something.

      • Nick Sanders
        February 27, 2015 at 6:36 pm #

        And now he thinks I’m stalking him.

    • Bugsy
      February 24, 2015 at 6:01 pm #

      We saw it. It’s disgusting, and left us speechless.

      On a different note, I’m glad that the little guy has made it into the clear!

  3. Alain Couvier
    February 22, 2015 at 12:59 am #

    The central premise to the skeptic narrative in regards to the paper authored amongst others by eminent Professor John Walker-Smith -Professor of Gastroenterology and former Editor in Chief of the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition and who’s clinical experience was second to none in Europe and was subsequently awarded a Distinguished Service Award, was that the children in the Lancet paper and that presented themselves at the Royal Free Teaching Hospital did not have bowel disorders and certainly not Inflammatory Bowel Diseases or evidence of a non specific colitis.

    All this oft times inexpert opinion has subsequently been overturned by advances in our knowledge of pediatric bowel pathology, the use of new innovative medical data applications and direct examination of children themselves.

    When parents bought their children to the Royal Free Hospital they indicated that they as carers were concerned with the chronic and severe gastrointestinal disorders their children were suffering.The children in the majority were ASD and had shown regression loss of language or other skills.

    Some expressed concern over a possible role of the MMR vaccine. Whilst the MMR controversy has overshadowed the main findings of the paper – Professor John Walker-Smith was clear in indicating that the team had found a unique colitis (inflammation) of the GI tract associated with Autism children.

    Walker-Smith and colleagues found substantial evidence of inflammation in a further 47 / 50 children.

    Clinical care and treatment regimes resulted in – “important behavioral responses in several of the children when their intestinal pathology is treated.” This work became foundational in pioneering the gut x brain axis in ASD. It has also paved the way for treatment regimes that ‘cure’ or at least significantly ameliorate aberrant behaviors, restores social interactions and improves vastly quality of life.

    It has taken almost 14 years to confirm.

    The relationship between GI and regression was confirmed in two studies (1,2) the first by Columbia University rsearchers in 2008 that found

    “Cases had a high rate of CPEA-defined behavioral regression (loss of
    language and/or other skills following acquisition), 88%”

    and a second also featuring a team of researchers from Columbia University

    “Eighty-seven percent (87%) of AUT-GI subjects in our study had
    behavioral regression

    In 2012 researchers from Harvard Medical School (3) led by Isaac Kohane examine some 14,000 ASD children and adults aged under 35. They found significant new information about ASD patients and their co-occurring / co-morbid conditions.

    ASD patients (v hospital population) had nearly

    10x the rate of Epilepsy

    2x Inflammatory Bowel Disease

    3x Bowel Diseases

    As children grew into adulthood the rate of Inflammatory Bowel Disease changed from 2 to 3x suggesting a gene x environment interaction throughout development.

    In January 2014 researchers from Harvard (4) including Isaac Kohnae and
    Finale Doshi-Velez looked again at Autism and co-occurring diseases.
    This time they identified specific sub-groups of ASD patients by medical
    characteristics, They found 4 sub groups –

    Group 1 was characterized by Seizure Disorder – seizures in this group was found in 77% (prevalence) of the patients. Gastrointestinal Disorders 14.17%

    Group 2 was characterized by “multisystem disorders including gastrointestinal disorders (prevalence 24.3%) and auditory disorders and infections (prevalence 87.8%),” Seizures 42.13%

    Group 3 was characterized by psychiatric disorders ( 33.0%). Seizure prevalence was 33.02% and GI Disorders – 10.85%

    Group 4 was the largest but could not be further resolved. Seizures 18.6% and GI 3.43%

    The researchers also noted – “a significant correlation existed between gastrointestinal disorders and seizures.” Suffice to say seizures and regression are a well known medical phenomena.

    Independent confirmation (May 1, 2014) chronic and serious bowel disorders was made by researchers from Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia; and Marcus Autism Center, Atlanta,Georgia.(5)

    They found children with ASD “experience significantly more general GI symptoms.” Some 4.42 (OR) higher. They also found diarrhea was 3.63 (OR), Constipation 3.86 (OR) and abdominal pain 2.45 (OR).

    This accumulative evidence was a breakthrough from earlier stances that said there was a lack of evidence for an increased rates of chronic or
    severe GI dsorders, as well as inflammatory bowel disease in autism.

    Further in In April 2014 researchers from Johns Hopkins University (6) undertook a comprehensive study of “164 children with ASD evaluated at a pediatric neurology practice.”

    * They found GI dysfunction in 49% of the children.

    * They also reported that in children who had undergone endoscopic and
    colonoscopic evaluations 6 out of 12 (50%) had inflammation present.

    That was a stunning result with 50% of children having inflammation only identified after thorough clinical management and investigation. It
    reflected the work of Professor John Walker-Smith.

    The message for all of us in the ASD community, of which I am a proud father, is that parental reports of significant diseases and their observations are in nearly every case truthfully delivered for the care of their children.
    Clinicians have now confirmed all of those observations.

    ——————————————————————————————————-
    Footnote

    *
    In 2011 Danish researchers at the Statens Serum Institut,(7)
    Copenhagen, Denmark. (Health Provider and Vaccine Manufacturer) studied
    the environmental factors associated with 123 patients recently
    diagnosed with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

    They found amongst other factors – Vaccination against pertussis (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.07-4.03) and polio (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.04-5.43) increased the odds for IBD. Measles infection increased the odds for UC (OR, 3.50; 95% CI, 1.15-10.6).

    It has always been a complex world we live in.

    ———————————————————————————————————
    1.
    Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with
    Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study – Mady Hornig et al – 2008 DOI:
    10.1371/journal.pone.0003140

    2. Impaired Carbohydrate Digestion
    and Transport and Mucosal Dysbiosis in the Intestines of Children with
    Autism and Gastrointestinal Disturbances 2011 Williams et al
    DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0024585

    3. The Co-Morbidity Burden of Children and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders
    Kohane 2012 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033224

    4.
    Comorbidity clusters in autism spectrum disorders: an electronic health
    record time-series analysis. Doshi-Velez et al doi:
    10.1542/peds.2013-0819.

    5. Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-analysis
    McElhanon et al Pediatrics 2014 doi:10.1542/peds.2013-3995

    6.Gastrointestinal Dysfunction in Children With Autism Spectrum
    Disorders. Kang et al Autism Research. 2014 Apr doi: 10.1002/aur.1386.

    7.Environmental factors in inflammatory bowel disease: a case-control
    study based on a Danish inception cohort. Hansen et al 2011 doi:
    10.1016/j.crohns.2011.05.010.

    8. Inflammatory bowel disease in
    children of manitoba: 30 years’ experience of a tertiary center.
    El-Matary W et al 2014 Dec;59(6):763-6. doi:
    10.1097/MPG.0000000000000525.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xINA9RDjmb4/VLNWlR1VqeI/AAAAAAAAVQo/HHu6RsiQHS4/s1600/thirtyfour4.png

  4. Amy Tuteur, MD
    February 21, 2015 at 11:21 pm #

    If you Google Alain’s name you see that he spends lots of time arguing with people on various websites. You can’t reason him out of a conviction that he didn’t reason himself into and you are just providing him with entertainment. Consider not responding to him so that he stops clogging the comment feed with worthless drivel.

    • Nick Sanders
      February 21, 2015 at 11:35 pm #

      It’s your site, so I’ll stop if you want. But I’d like to say that he has provided me with at least as much entertainment as I might have provided him.

      • Alain Couvier
        February 22, 2015 at 12:08 am #

        Wasn’t that interesting … the timing I mean just as another skeptic narrative went …

        http://static.toysrus.co.uk//medias/sys_master/8610584165727648.jpg

      • birthbuddy
        February 22, 2015 at 3:04 am #

        Personally, I am going to do an experiment to see if AC can function anaerobically.
        Cheers AC, I hope you and insight cross paths sometime.

        • Who?
          February 22, 2015 at 3:05 am #

          Sounds like a plan.

          He does such a great job discrediting his own position, getting involved does seem a bit redundant.

    • Alain Couvier
      February 21, 2015 at 11:53 pm #

      “You can’t reason him out of a conviction that he didn’t reason himself into and you are just providing him with entertainment.”

      First of all you’d have to provide reason Dr Tuteur

    • Montserrat Blanco
      February 22, 2015 at 3:05 am #

      He only appears on Google. I do not know if he uses a pen name, but Couvier is not appearing on pubmed as a surname. You would think that he might be an expert on Pathology, clinical trials design, or something relevant, but he does not look like he is.

      • Who?
        February 22, 2015 at 3:10 am #

        Oh I think one need only pay attention to what he writes, and how he responds to others, to see that expertise in any relevant field (including communications) is not in his toolbox. His main area of expertise seems to be in parrotting retracted articles and supporting discredited researchers. Nice work if you can stomach it.

        My guess is, whatever his/her name is, s/he is involved in some online ‘university’ or other fee-mongering organisation, and s/he drums up business and enthusiasm via the gullible on the internet.

    • Amazed
      February 22, 2015 at 7:01 am #

      Dr Amy, I see the number of comments here is going dangerously high. Do you think there’s any danger of the site collapsing as it did with the other vaccine post, the one with over 1000 comments?

      As amusing as it’s been to watch Alain singing, La-la-la, I can’t hear you, I don’t think it’s worth it.

  5. Wren
    February 21, 2015 at 10:45 pm #

    So basically retracted papers and slides from a talk which doesn’t even seem to address the issue in question are valid sources but actual studies that remain unretracted and any source AC deems “skeptical” or “biased” in any way are not.

    Words are to be used however AC decides and common usage of terms is irrelevant.

    “Pop” is somehow a meaningful contribution to a discussion.

    There is no reason to learn the basics of scientific study design before making claims about what can and cannot be done, both ethically and in terms of statistical significance.

    Broad scientific consensus is of lesser value than AC’s personal opinion.

    Do I have it all now?

  6. Young CC Prof
    February 21, 2015 at 10:34 pm #

    I’m sure of it now. Alain Couvier is a pro-vaccine joker, here to demonstrate the profound intellectual bankruptcy of the antivaxxer position. He writes too smoothly to be as ignorant as he apparently is.

  7. Alain Couvier
    February 19, 2015 at 7:43 am #

    Is this really the brightest minds of the skeptic blogosphere ?

    I must admit its reputation seems vastly over-rated. Would anyone like to disagree ?

    • KarenJJ
      February 19, 2015 at 9:13 am #

      We have a reputation for being smart? Who said that? I want to be their friend.

    • Nick Sanders
      February 19, 2015 at 12:08 pm #

      Your failure to understand does not reflect upon our intelligence.

      • Alain Couvier
        February 19, 2015 at 3:47 pm #

        Unfortunately there is not a cohesive or intelligent argument to understand. Some very basic errors have led to this situation.

        • Nick Sanders
          February 19, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

          Are you talking about your own posts, or…?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 12:39 am #

            No.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 1:44 am #

            That’s strange, because you’re the one being incoherent and pointless.

        • Who?
          February 20, 2015 at 1:02 am #

          Yes, we can all see that and yet you continue flogging your dead horse. Your errors, AC. All yours.

          New readers should scroll down and read Playing Possum’s posts for an outline of why AC is fundamentally wrong in supporting Wakefield’s fraudulent position, while strongly defending Wakefield without having the guts to mention his name.

          But do keep going you are doing the job of those who support vaccination way better than any of us ever could by demonstrating the arrogance, ignorance and delusion of your fellow travellers.

    • Who?
      February 19, 2015 at 11:49 pm #

      I love how you have been humiliated twice, once by someone mocking you and once by someone showing your entire ignorance of the fundamentals of your belief, but you’re back again for another crack.

      Or is that why you re-start at the top, in the hope that new people mightn’t realise how you’ve been beaten before.

    • Alain Couvier
      February 20, 2015 at 12:41 am #

      The skeptic mind is fascinating… see below.

      • Nick Sanders
        February 20, 2015 at 2:01 am #

        Speaking of fascinating minds, you’re the one talking to yourself.

        • Who?
          February 20, 2015 at 2:42 am #

          Yes I noticed the time gap after I’d posted-poor old AC must be having a lonely life.

        • Alain Couvier
          February 20, 2015 at 5:53 am #

          …you don’t think others read these posts.(other than skeptics) How quaint ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 5:59 am #

            That doesn’t make it come across as any less egotistical.

            And given how many new entries have been made to this blog, I’m pretty sure readership of this thread has mostly dropped off.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 7:44 am #

            You should look up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If my arguments make skeptics uneasy then that is probably something you and Mike should work on.

          • KarenJJ
            February 20, 2015 at 7:55 am #

            I’d agree with the making people here uneasy part.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 8:05 am #

            meh …

            http://communicationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/maslow-hierarchy-of-needs-diagram.jpg

            meh … is the top of the pyramid that’s me.

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

            But will this be your final flounce?

            And I’d agree you do seem pretty pointy-headed.

          • birthbuddy
            February 20, 2015 at 4:45 pm #

            I don’t see psychosis mentioned anywhere.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 5:57 pm #

            Having your emotional needs met is not the same thing as making meaningful arguments.

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 6:03 pm #

            AC seems very satisfied with himself, which may have led him into error in interpreting Mazlow.

            Given his responses here-seriously, what adult says ‘meh’ in response to anything-where else but at the very apex of any hierachy would you see AC placing himself?

          • Young CC Prof
            February 20, 2015 at 6:53 pm #

            So, he’s demonstrated that the post was right in the first place: It’s not about science, it’s about his ego.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 8:01 pm #

            It’s a bit more than that … but a strong foundational emotional balance and intelligence is part of it.

            Test your own beliefs … discuss, argue , vent … whatever but don’t just accept dogma.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 9:29 pm #

            Cute.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 5:54 pm #

            Uneasy? No. Exasperated with your indefatigable and relentless ignorance? Yes.

            And who is Mike? The only Mike I’ve seen on this blog was someone going on and on about pesticides.

    • birthbuddy
      February 20, 2015 at 4:43 pm #

      It should read “Are these…” not “Is this…”

      • Alain Couvier
        February 20, 2015 at 7:53 pm #

        It is not plural as in community (singular). Thanks.

        • Who?
          February 20, 2015 at 8:14 pm #

          Humpty Dumpty! Of course. Now it all makes sense.

        • birthbuddy
          February 20, 2015 at 11:04 pm #

          Nope, wrong again.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 12:16 am #

            “Are these community the brightest minds of the skeptic blogosphere.”

            Nope, wrong again.

          • Poogles
            February 21, 2015 at 12:47 am #

            Well, yeah, if you had said “community” in your original post, then “is this” would have been correct. However, you said “brightest minds“, which is plural and calls for “are these”.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 1:27 am #

            Well let’s test what I wrote and what you and birthbuddy opine in plain English.

            Alain – “Is this (community) really the brightest minds of the skeptic blogosphere ?

            Poggles – Are these (community) really the brightest minds of the skeptic blogosphere ?

            Nope

          • Poogles
            February 21, 2015 at 1:37 am #

            Oh, why bless your heart!

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:38 am #

            I called it-Rule 2 is on the table.

            ‘Community’ was implied, everyone. And he’s just made a post-ette above to further justify himself.

            AC, you are better than the telly for entertainment.

          • yugaya
            February 21, 2015 at 3:52 am #

            I have SAT prep class later on today. One of the things that I will be telling to these bright, talented kids who will be taking this test head on as non-natives is “if it ain’t written in black and white and spelled out, don’t assume it’s implied”.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 5:05 am #

            You know what they say:

            Assuming makes an ass out of ‘u’ and me.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:30 am #

            You’re new to this, Poogles, I’ll tell you the rules:

            Rule 1:AC is never wrong.
            Rule 2:AC’s words are exactly what he says they are, in the order in which he says they appear, regardless of any and all evidence ie his previous words, to the contrary
            Rule 3:AC’s words mean what he says they mean. He will not rely on anything so fanciful as a dictionary to come up with an agreed meaning.
            Rule 4: Word meanings, like word order and existence in particular posts, are entirely at AC’s discretion to change whenever changing the suits his argument.

            If you doubt any of this, look at the response he’s just posted to this comment of yours.

            Humpty Dumpty, like I said. Once this is grasped, his entire world view falls into place.

          • Poogles
            February 21, 2015 at 1:38 am #

            Yes, I see that now. I thought maybe he was just a little slow or confused, but no, he’s a very special kind of dense. Also, apparently, a huge narcissistic.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 1:41 am #

            Nice rose avatar.

          • Poogles
            February 21, 2015 at 1:42 am #

            Thanks! They’re my favorite 🙂

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:41 am #

            Oh and he cited Mazlow’s hierachy of needs and put himself on top, so nothing there to make you feel differently.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 1:37 am #

            One should also be reminded of the second sentence …

            “I must admit its reputation seems vastly over-rated. Would anyone like to disagree ?”

            Who is its ? the (community), unstated but clearly implied.

            Thanks.

          • Poogles
            February 21, 2015 at 1:40 am #

            Sweetie, just because you changed from a plural to a singular from one sentence to the next does not make your bad grammar any better, only worse.

            Ouch.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:42 am #

            Rule 1, Poogles, think what you’re doing to Rule 1!

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:45 am #

            If you’re not extremely careful he’ll stop responding to you. He’s stopped responding to me, and as I said earlier, it’s doing me so much good!

          • Poogles
            February 21, 2015 at 1:46 am #

            Eh, I’m having fun while it lasts 😀 Though, I probably should go to sleep soon.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:49 am #

            It’s bucketing rain here. I just did the family’s tax papers so I need a little light entertainment.

            It’s fun chatting to the other posters. People like AC are far more entertaining with a group around, since everyone has something different to bring to the exchanges.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 1:51 am #

            Here it’s now doing freezing rain on top of the snow we’ve been having all day, so I’m definitely not going anywhere tomorrow.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:56 am #

            It’s going to be really hot here tomorrow, and stinking humid, so a bit of snow sounds most appealing.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 1:57 am #

            It’s quite pretty, although the sheet of ice over the roads is a different matter.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:58 am #

            Well we have had sheets of water on ours which likely has a similar effect. It will be very pretty here in a week or two, everthing will be extra green.

            Mind you the mozzies will then be out in full force.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 1:49 am #

            Did you stub something ?

            “I must admit it reputation seems vastly over-rated. Would anyone like to disagree ?”

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:52 am #

            You, AC, like the Australian Prime Minister, have, by your behaviour, moved beyond satire.

            You and he have a lot in common: you both know everything and have a pathological fear of being shown to be wrong, so contort to avoid it; you both ignore what you don’t like instead of engaging with it; and you both torture the language.

            Let’s hope you don’t share his taste in budgie smugglers, some things are just beyond being amusing.

          • Poogles
            February 21, 2015 at 1:41 am #

            Oh, and thanks right back at ya!

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 1:44 am #

            Always happy to promote learning.

          • Poogles
            February 21, 2015 at 1:45 am #

            Lol, is that what you call it? How cute!

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:59 am #

            So
            Rule 5: Things are literal when AC says they are literal, and ironic when he says they are.

          • birthbuddy
            February 21, 2015 at 2:22 am #

            Except you don’t.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 2:38 am #

            He can’t. To put his position out would invite challenge, which he can’t tolerate. The closest he can come is poking at the people he disagrees with.

            Asking AC to defend his position is like asking him to destroy himself. He simply can’t while holding his fragile personality together.

            If he wasn’t so keen to promote the anti-vax tropes, the far kinder thing would be to leave him alone with his certainties and insecurities.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 3:07 am #

            Come now … I’ve taught basic gastroenterology and inflammatory bowel disease histopathology to grammar.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 3:25 am #

            Another polymath!

            Like the gun nut who was an expert on everything.

            You’re very coy for such a guru.

          • birthbuddy
            February 21, 2015 at 4:28 am #

            Basic, being the operative word.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 1:50 am #

            Actually, the implied reference of “its” was “skeptic blogosphere”.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 1:53 am #

            It could well be Nick … glad to see someone is thinking.

            Does anyone wish to debate the “brightest mind”
            gist ? Or are we all to be confined to discussions on grammar and implied meanings ?

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:55 am #

            Oh sweetie we’ve been doing ‘brightest minds’ for days.

            You lost.

            Grammar isn’t that interesting, it’s the internet after all, loosen up.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 1:55 am #

            Well, since you’re the only one claiming we’re the brightest minds, I don’t see why we should.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:53 am #

            Rule 1, Nick, think what you’re doing to Rule 1!!!

  8. TinyTim
    February 17, 2015 at 5:57 pm #

    The CDC needs to a study comparing autism rates of vaccinated vs unvaccinated control groups. It will end the debate. If you fail to see the need for this study you either don’t care about the over 1,000,000 unvaccinated children, or you could care less about the over 1,000,000 afflicted with autism. You decide, sign this White House petition then share it.

    http://wh.gov/ibPRD

    • Nick Sanders
      February 17, 2015 at 6:17 pm #

      I’m going to break this into two responses, because they are two somewhat different ways of addressing your claim. The first is this:

      http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/2013/12/21/the-one-study-or-why-the-anti-vaccine-movement-doesnt-really-understand-science/

      Such a study cannot ethically, or even feasibly, be done.

      • Alain Couvier
        February 19, 2015 at 7:27 am #

        It’s a common error when trying to validate one argument skeptics often lose sight of how it effects other OP’s that they have made.

        Of course an example of “a study (that) cannot ethically, or even feasibly, be done ” is this one

        A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism.
        Madsen et al. 2002

        “Ouch”

        Gaius Julius Caesar circa 15th March 44 BC

        • Young CC Prof
          February 19, 2015 at 9:41 am #

          You do realize that’s a retrospective cohort study, not the randomized controlled trial you’ve been asking for? And that it shows no relationship?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 19, 2015 at 11:38 am #

            Thank you, I was going to say the same thing.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 12:32 am #

            Yes that’s not entirely surprising.

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 1:04 am #

            Oh so that’s twice now your understanding of the science has been shown to be essentially wrong.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 1:44 am #

            Given that it is the correct response to your nonsense? No, it isn’t surprising at all.

          • birthbuddy
            February 20, 2015 at 4:58 am #

            AC, have you learnt absolutely nothing at all?
            Ongoing delusional pontification. You poor thing.

          • Emily
            February 20, 2015 at 10:44 am #

            Red herring. Why are you being avoidant about directly addressing the points that Young CC Prof just made? Are you able to directly address those points? Or are you trying to dodge, while hoping that we won’t notice that you’re dodging?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 7:56 pm #

            The question had previously been answered …

            Can a vaccine v non vaccine study be conducted

            a) ethically – Yes

            b) feasibly – Yes

            Nor does it have to be retrospective just longitudinal…

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 3:24 pm #

            Again, that’s not what TinyTim was asking for.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:19 pm #

            The CDC needs to a study comparing autism rates of vaccinated vs unvaccinated control groups.

            Seems plain enough to me.Glad I could help Mr Tim

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

            …and of course burst one more skeptic bubble myth.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:23 pm #

            Now, do you understand what a control study is? Because it’s not a cohort study.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:27 pm #

            I do and researchers can design a study using longitudinal data to do just that … simple.

            Thanks Bubble burst.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:29 pm #

            Except, no, they can’t, because a longitudinal study is not a control study. And TinyTim is asking for a control study.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:41 pm #

            It can be both.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

            No, it absolutely can’t, they are fundamentally different approaches to study design.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 9:05 pm #

            In a longitudinal study subjects are followed over time with
            continuous or repeated monitoring of risk factors or health outcomes, or
            both. Such investigations vary enormously in their size and complexity.
            At one extreme a large population may be studied over decades. For
            example, the longitudinal study of the Office of Population Censuses and
            Surveys prospectively follows a 1% sample of the British population
            that was initially identified at the 1971 census. Outcomes such as
            mortality and incidence of cancer have been related to employment
            status, housing, and other variables measured at successive censuses. At
            the other extreme, some longitudinal studies follow up relatively small
            groups for a few days or weeks. Thus, firemen acutely exposed to
            noxious fumes might be monitored to identify any immediate effects.

            Most longitudinal studies examine associations between exposure to
            known or suspected causes of disease and subsequent morbidity or
            mortality. In the simplest design a sample or cohort of subjects exposed
            to a risk factor is identified along with a sample of unexposed
            controls. The two groups are then followed up prospectively, and the
            incidence of disease in each is measured. By comparing the incidence
            rates, attributable and relative risks can be estimated. Allowance can
            be made for suspected confounding factors either by matching the
            controls to the exposed subjects so that they have a similar pattern of
            exposure to the confounder, or by measuring exposure to the confounder
            in each group and adjusting for any difference in the statistical
            analysis.

            Pop

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 9:14 pm #

            What TinyTim is asking for:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial

            What you are describing:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_study

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

            You do grasp that there are likely to be differences between unvaccinated children and those whose parents do vaccinate, don’t you? For one thing, many parents of autistic children born just before or during the height of the “MMR causes autism” scare would probably choose not to vaccinate future children.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 9:53 pm #

            So have you applied this argument to previous studies that have found no connection ?

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 10:07 pm #

            Yes, I have. Autism exists in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, appears to have a familial link and though rarely diagnosed before the age at which MMR vaccines are given, can often be seen in earlier videos of the children.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 10:15 pm #

            Yes, I have.

            …and how did researchers address your argument in these studies – (“For one thing, many parents of autistic children born just before or
            during the height of the “MMR causes autism” scare would probably choose
            not to vaccinate future children.” )?

          • Young CC Prof
            February 21, 2015 at 10:30 pm #

            You don’t know what the scientific term “control” means, and you refuse to look it up.

            You don’t have the faintest idea of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, an observational study and a case-control study, and you refuse to read about it.

            You don’t know the difference between a retrospective study and a prospective study, nor do you know which is considered more reliable. You just use the words because they sound good.

            A few days ago, Poogles put together a brilliant explanation of normal versus abnormal pathology, which you rejected without reading.

            It’s like you walked into a room full of people discussing advanced music theory and criticism and started complaining about how it’s hard to play “Row your boat.” You don’t have to be as stunningly ignorant as you are. Start by looking up some of the terms I just used, Wikipedia is a decent starting point.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 11:14 pm #

            In a longitudinal study subjects are followed over time with
            continuous or repeated monitoring of risk factors or health outcomes, or
            both. Such investigations vary enormously in their size and complexity.
            At one extreme a large population may be studied over decades. For
            example, the longitudinal study of the Office of Population Censuses and
            Surveys prospectively follows a 1% sample of the British population
            that was initially identified at the 1971 census. Outcomes such as
            mortality and incidence of cancer have been related to employment
            status, housing, and other variables measured at successive censuses. At
            the other extreme, some longitudinal studies follow up relatively small
            groups for a few days or weeks. Thus, firemen acutely exposed to
            noxious fumes might be monitored to identify any immediate effects.

            Most longitudinal studies examine associations between exposure to
            known or suspected causes of disease and subsequent morbidity or
            mortality. In the simplest design a sample or cohort of subjects exposed
            to a risk factor is identified along with a sample of unexposed
            controls. The two groups are then followed up prospectively, and the
            incidence of disease in each is measured. By comparing the incidence
            rates, attributable and relative risks can be estimated.
            Allowance can
            be made for suspected confounding factors either by matching the
            controls to the exposed subjects so that they have a similar pattern of
            exposure to the confounder, or by measuring exposure to the confounder
            in each group and adjusting for any difference in the statistical
            analysis…blah blah blah

            Pop

          • Young CC Prof
            February 21, 2015 at 11:20 pm #

            Wonderful job copy-pasting from BMJ! Now, explain what that means and how it applies to at least one of the studies Nick Sanders provided.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 11:50 pm #

            Thanks better than wikipedia.

            As to explanation I’m already ahead of you and have highlighted in bold exactly how you would go about this. Thanks.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 19, 2015 at 3:49 pm #

            That’s not the point though is it ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 5:24 am #

            Then what the hell is the point?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 5:47 am #

            Can a vaccine v non vaccine study be conducted

            a) ethically – Yes

            b) feasibly – Yes

            Nor does it have to retrospective just longitudinal…

            Over to you Nick and Mike.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 6:01 am #

            That wasn’t the question. The question was “Can the vaccine versus non-vaccine study *that anti-vaccine proponents are asking for* be conducted?”.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 7:29 am #

            Let me check your post above …

            “Such a study cannot ethically, or even feasibly, be done.”

            As to the question “”Can the vaccine versus non-vaccine study *that anti-vaccine proponents are asking for* be conducted?”

            The answer is – Yes

            There are no detriments to conducting such a study. If you actually have any then put them in print here instead of useless links to skeptic websites and better yet provide a scientific or ethical rationale ?

          • Young CC Prof
            February 20, 2015 at 8:42 am #

            You have asked for a study that randomly assigns children to receive all childhood vaccine or none. (If you would be satisfied with some lesser study, say so, and then we can talk.)

            Feasibly, this is impossible because you’d never get enough participants. Most parents would not allow their children to participate because they wouldn’t risk their children contracting a serious disease, a few would not permit their children to get a vaccine. Almost no parent will give up the choice to a coin flip.

            Ethically it can’t be done because the evidence in favor of vaccines is already overwhelming. We know exactly what this study would show: That the unvaccinated group catches far more VPDs, and otherwise there are no significant health differences.

            If somebody came into the hospital with appendicitis, and the surgeon said, “I think that, rather than operate, we’ll just observe the normal course of the disease,” no one would tolerate that. Vaccines are even more proven than appendectomy, and much lower in risk to the patient.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 8:28 pm #

            1. You have asked for a study that randomly assigns children to receive all
            childhood vaccine or none. (If you would be satisfied with some lesser
            study, say so, and then we can talk.)

            A longitudinal study does not assign. The study follows natural choice of the participants …

            2. Feasibly, this is impossible because you’d never get enough participants.

            The birth cohort each year has sufficient participants.

            3. Most parents would not allow their children to participate because they
            wouldn’t risk their children contracting a serious disease, a few would
            not permit their children to get a vaccine.

            The longitudinal study follows natural choice.

            4. Ethically it can’t be done because the evidence in favor of vaccines is already overwhelming.

            That assumes that all outcomes are equally distributed for each and every individual or specific populations of individuals. The study could possibly show positive effect for vaccines beyond targeted diseases.

            I have promoted this permission frequently

            We know exactly what this study would show: That the unvaccinated group
            catches far more VPDs, and otherwise there are no significant health
            differences.

            That to is an assumption. There is also evidence that many natural infections themselves reduce the risk of subsequent diseases including cancer and atopic diseases such as asthma.

            If somebody came into the hospital with appendicitis, and the surgeon
            said, “I think that, rather than operate, we’ll just observe the normal
            course of the disease,” no one would tolerate that.

            Appendicitis is a disease condition that is not beneficial to the person. Whether vaccination or non vaccination , a differing schedule … is beneficial and how we translate that to differing populations is a more complex question.

            Obviously longitudinal studies and large data sets of complex health and environmental factors will bring us great benefit.

            For instance they have clearly evidenced inflammatory bowel diseases in Autism, something previously assumed by skeptics to be ..well ‘fictious”.

          • Young CC Prof
            February 20, 2015 at 8:53 pm #

            OK! So you don’t demand a randomized trial! So, Nick Sanders provided a whole lot of studies upthread. These are the ones that are similar to what you asked for:

            http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/3/584.%20%20%20full
            This one is British

            http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=197365
            This one is from Denmark and contains several years worth of children. Denmark’s national health records make a good source for large studies.

            http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2013/autism-risk-unrelated-to-total-vaccine-exposure-in-early-childhood.shtml
            This one is a case-control study, which is a different design.

            http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2898%2924018-9/fulltext
            Here’s a 14-year longitudinal study.

            So, the studies have been done. Feel free to critique one or more of them in detail.

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 9:09 pm #

            I think part of the issue in attempting to communicate with AC is his Humpty Dumpty syndrome-words mean what they say he means. Also he adds or drops words to suit his convenience.

            Playing Possum elegantly displayed that AC does not know of what he speaks, at least in so far as Wakefield’s activities, which seem to be the basis of his beliefs.

            If he chooses to respond to you we will learn whether that ignorance is limited, or spreads into this area as well.

            My prediction here is that AC will say the studies are all wrong for the purposes he proposes, due to (in his eyes) your fundamental misunderstanding of both the studies and his position.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 9:31 pm #

            The person asking for the randomized trial was “TinyTim”. Alain simply wandered in and declared me wrong, apparently without even taking the time to understand the context of the discussion.

          • Montserrat Blanco
            February 20, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

            No ethical board would ever approve something like that. In order to get a new drug approved you need to perform a study like that. In order to find out the side effects of a drug for something as uncommon as autism you need to do an observation study. The reason is that measles is a deadly disease and autism is not. It is unethical to expose people to a higher danger in order to find a difference in something else. If you try to demostrate that blood transfusions increase your risk of asthma you can not stop transfusing people that is bleeding to death. Look at the FDA rules for approving new drugs, the good clinical practice guidelines and pretty much anything you want about ethics in clinical trials. There is an edx course by Harvard University regarding the design of clinical trials that you might find useful.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 7:50 pm #

            There are some substantial misunderstandings presented

            – Ethical boards have already approved such studies and will do so in the future.

            – This is not a study to approve a new drug

            – The relevancy of measles infection does not impact on the study.

            – Severe Adverse Events and Autism can be “deadly “.

            – Study design would preclude exposing people to danger.

            – The study design does not exclude vaccination

            – I’d question whether the FDA and Good Clinical Practice would be relevant.

            – Harvard University already conducts such studies skeptics call unethical and unfeasible.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 9:30 pm #

            I suggest you go back and reread the link Stacy and I posted.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 9:32 pm #

            Is there not independent evidence of the skeptic position ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 9:35 pm #

            Your going to have to define “skeptic” first. So far, you’ve been throwing it around without regard to it’s normally understood meaning. Under the standard definition of skeptic, there isn’t a difference, in position or even in personhood, between “skeptics” and the medical community at large.

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 9:50 pm #

            Words mean what AC says they does, and that can change from post to post. He is Humpty Dumpty, and I fear may already be in pieces, as evidenced by his many delusions.

            He can’t tell you what ‘skeptic’ means objectively, as that would involve ceding authority to a dictionary; I doubt he even knows what it means to him except that he experiences it as a vaguely pejorative handle for those who disagree with him.

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 1:14 am #

            Actually, I think you may have hit upon his definition there, as well as the reason no links are sufficient to show that Wakefield’s study is fraudulent and/or not to be relied upon. A skeptic is anyone who disagrees with AC upon the topic of vaccination and/or Wakefield.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:24 am #

            Thing is, he won’t even mention Wakefield, just keeps pressing on with
            the names of the retracting authors-though careful to expunge all notice
            of that embarassing fact. The Lancet is obviously very precious to AC, and he mentions that a lot, again without mentioning the retraction.

            Show him something objective-like YCCP’s link to the article-which if AC bothered to read it gave Wakefield some air time in which to defend himself-and he won’t even acknowledge it.
            Life in his head can’t be easy.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 10:27 pm #

            Just come up with an independent link …

          • Young CC Prof
            February 20, 2015 at 11:06 pm #

            Here’s an independent link:

            http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/autismvaccine-study-was-fraud-says-journal-2177927.html?origin=internalSearch

            It says Wakefield was a fraud. Any questions?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 12:22 am #

            Very comedic … clap.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 12:32 am #

            Link to what? How can I argue against something when you won’t even make your claim clear?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 1:33 am #

            I’ve made my claim abundantly clear – a vacc v unvacc study can be constructed that is ethical and feasible.

            A reminder – you are saying the opposite . Defend your argument with something that does not link to a clearly provaccine blog or if not quote directly and we’ll discuss the nuances of that argument.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 1:34 am #

            I never said a comparative study couldn’t be made. I said a double blind placebo study couldn’t be made.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 10:30 pm #

            …or you can quote from your ‘skeptic’ source and you can defend the skeptic position.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 12:33 am #

            How the hell am I supposed to defend the “skeptic position” when I have no fucking clue what the hell you think skeptics are or what their position is?

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:14 am #

            He doesn’t know what he means himself. Watching him try would be like seeing a sheep walk on its hind legs-unnatural and a little bit cruel. It’s really kinder to let him stay in the echo chamber he’s built.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 1:30 am #

            Come now I think everyone is well aware the general gist …vaccines are safe, Wakefield is a fraud , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases don’t exist … blah blah blah.

          • Who?
            February 21, 2015 at 1:30 am #

            Oh great we can all go home. You’ve finally got it!

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 1:32 am #

            Well, two out of three of those are, as I said, the opinion of the general medical community.

          • Playing Possum
            February 21, 2015 at 4:58 am #

            Inflammatory bowel disease exists. The Crohn’s disease – ulcerative colitis spectrum exists. Plus there are colitides which are caused by inflammation but aren’t called inflammatory bowel disease. But inflammatory bowel disease or colitis wasn’t what was described in the Lancet paper, despite the misleading name it was given.

            You still don’t get it do you? What was reported in the Lancet paper wasn’t colitis, it wasn’t inflammatory bowel disease, and (with the exception of the three focal active colitis cases and the lymphocytic infiltration) was normal.

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 6:08 am #

            Do you really think he will take this in and change his mind?
            Thank you from those of us who are capable of that and aren’t actually well-versed in the topic though.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

            Mr Possum you can verbiage all you like … you didn’t get past ‘non specific colitis’ ..

          • Playing Possum
            February 21, 2015 at 10:14 pm #

            Huh? Nonspecific colitis is not a thing – at least as described in the lancet paper. It is sometimes used as a clinical (not pathological) term that approximates irritable bowel syndrome. It has been used in the past to describe the current term “indeterminate colitis” which is true inflammatory bowel disease that doesn’t manifest itself clearly as either UC or Crohn’s. But that wasn’t what was found in the Lancet paper, by their own description of inflammation confined to the lamina propria (a normal variant), except for the four cases with intraepithelial inflammation.

            I truly do not understand the point you are trying to make. Please be clear about what you want to argue.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 11:07 pm #

            I don’t need to argue anything . My point has been made – non specific colitis was (1924) and is a term still in practical use today (2015) even if the nomenclature has changed as you now admit.

            Therefore the rest of your argument falls … for your argument to be sustained you need to show – (for it is your argument not mine)

            1. That you have examined all necessary material (pathology , biopsy specimens , medical records , patient observations and professional knowledge) that the three gastroenterologists Professor John Walker-Smith, Professor Simon Murch and Dr Mike Thomson used to arrive at their conclusions. That if any conclusion has been made you have done so independently and without bias.

            2. You would also have to provide accurate and clear data that identifies each and every child with ASD and the controls.

            3. You would have to provide alternative and clearly evidenced clinical diagnosis of another disease condition found that fulfills the evidence presented.

            4. Finally you would have to show that Inflammatory Bowel Diseases / non specific condition is not a condition that has been found in other populations.

          • Playing Possum
            February 22, 2015 at 12:09 am #

            If your standards of discourse are so high that you can’t even have a conversation about established science with people practicing that science then I’m not sure what you are doing here. This is not the Rest Home for Discredited Researchers. This is a (peripheral to your sphere of interest) skeptic site which happens to be frequented by people who have actual qualifications in the fields they comment upon. I do not need to have seen the slides to know that they have been misdiagnosed, because their description is in the actual Lancet paper.

            I suggest you open up dialogue with the organisations who criticized and forced the retraction of the Lancet paper, or perhaps with the international groups that make decisions on pathological nomenclature. The AFIP fascicles and WHO guides on tumors are somewhere to start if you have issues with the way histological patterns and findings are reported. Or you could contact the relevant colleges – they can probably refer you to the working parties that meet to discuss classifications and grades.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 22, 2015 at 1:27 am #

            If you were interested in conversation then you would have freely admitted that opinions you expressed in regards to non specific colitis for one were errant.

            Would I be interested in your second paragraph, unfortunately it to is not free from error.

            1. organisations who criticized and forced the retraction of the Lancet paper,

            I do not know of any organizations that forced the retraction of the Lancet paper on grounds related to the clinical research work on gastroenterology.

            I do know that Professor John Walker-Smith was very much supported by the peak European organization that deals with Pediatric Gastroenterology, Histopathology and Nutrition. As this editorial confirms –

            “The editors of JPGN is pleased to announce that a high court judge has nullified any finding of professional misconduct against Professor John Walker-Smith in relation to the Wakefield debacle. Prof Walker-Smith has made significant contributions to the understanding and treatment of paediatric gastrointestinal diseases, such as coeliac disease and inflammatory bowel disease. He has helped characterise cow’s milk–sensitive enteropathy, worked tirelessly within the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition to help establish practical diagnostic criteria for coeliac disease, and
            served as an editor-in-chief of JPGN. He has taught and trained young paediatric gastroenterologists from countries around the world, many of whom are now leaders in our field. In June 2010, the European
            Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition awarded Prof Walker-Smith the well deserved and first Distinguished Service Award.”

            2. The AFIP fascicles and WHO guides on tumors are somewhere to start if
            you have issues with the way histological patterns and findings are
            reported.

            Whilst I am the first to recognize that nomenclature, nosology and diagnosis changes over time referencing new material that Professor John Walker-Smith was unable to access would as an exercise be pointless.

            3. If it is a contention that he and the other gastroenterologists committed any type of clincial fraud then you should avail yourself, with permission of course for the medical records of those children and other materiel as outlined previously above.

            Or alternatively frame your opinion as a difference of opinion and provide supporting evidence.

            4. You should also avail yourself of the research conducted below and referenced for easier access –

            ———————————————-

            The Co-Morbidity Burden of Children and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders
            Kohane 2012 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033224

            Comorbidity clusters in autism spectrum disorders: an electronic health
            record time-series analysis. Doshi-Velez et al doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-0819.

            Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-analysis
            McElhanon et al Pediatrics 2014 doi:10.1542/peds.2013-3995

            Gastrointestinal Dysfunction in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders. Kang et al Autism Research. 2014 Apr doi: 10.1002/aur.1386.

            Thank you for your time and energy in this matter

          • Montserrat Blanco
            February 21, 2015 at 10:19 am #

            Well, so, if Ethical Boards have approved such studies, what is the problem? you will have the results pretty soon.

            No, it is a study to find out side effects of an approved drug, side effects that were not reported during the studies that led to the approval of the vaccines. That means that the side effect is at best, really infrequent, and those studies are conducted on regular basis on a different type of study, not a prospective double blind study, which is what you are asking for.

            Severe adverse events can be deadly, yes, there is less than 1 in a million deaths attributed to the MMR vaccine. The problem is that with measles alone the death rate is 1 in 1000 in developed countries, so it is unethical to do not vaccinate children agaisnt measles in order to find out a small increase in autism that is not a deadly disease. I have not found a single citation where autism per se, without epilepsia increases death rate. If you have one, please share.

            The study that you are proposing excludes vaccination on half of the population entering the study. Asuming you would have enough participants to demostrate a decrease in autism, you are exposing a lot of children to a disease with a 10% admission rate in developed countries and 1 per 1000 deaths, not to speak about permanent disabilities.

            Well, yes, you can question good clinical practice, FDA, ethical boards, the Department of Health, the Office for Human Research Protections… But probably the rest of the world would prefer to participate in regulated research, not on a trial that you got from your hat and regulated by yourself.

            In clinical trials.gov does not appear a single study on vaccines with the characteristics that you ask for conducted at Mass Gen, the hospital of Harvard University. I pointed a good free resource available online where you could learn something about designing clinical research and you somehow take that as Mass Gen conducting said research, well, does not say a lot about your reading comprehension, but in any case, if you know of a trial with said characteristics, please point it out, as I could not find it.

            Relevant references:

            – Institue of Medicine. Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants.

            – National Commission for the portection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural research. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection fo human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research.

            – Department of Health and Human Services: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html

            – US General Accounting Office: Continued vigilance critical to protecting human subjects.

          • Montserrat Blanco
            February 21, 2015 at 4:18 pm #

            To clarify why this trial is not possible. Measles carries a 1 per 1000 of death, 10% of hospital admissions and 1% of meningitis. The MMR vaccine presents a less than 1 in a million deaths, less than 1 in 1000 hospitalizations and 1 in a million meningitis. This is literal from the Code of Federal Regulations. It applies to children:

            §46.406 Research involving greater than minimal risk and no
            prospect of direct benefit to individual subjects, but likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the subject’s disorder or condition.

            HHS
            will conduct or fund research in which the IRB finds that more than
            minimal risk to children is presented by an intervention or procedure
            that does not hold out the prospect of direct benefit for the individual
            subject, or by a monitoring procedure which is not likely to contribute
            to the well-being of the subject, only if the IRB finds that:

            (a) THE RISK REPRESENTS A MINOR INCREASE OVER MINIMAL RISK;

            (b)
            The intervention or procedure presents experiences to subjects that are
            reasonably commensurate with those inherent in their actual or expected
            medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational situations;

            (c) The intervention or procedure is likely to yield generalizable
            knowledge about the subjects’ disorder or condition which is of vital
            importance for the understanding or amelioration of the subjects’
            disorder or condition; and

            (d)
            Adequate provisions are made for soliciting assent of the children and
            permission of their parents or guardians, as set forth in §46.408.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 5:55 pm #

            So, you clearly either didn’t read the article I posted, don’t know what’s being asked for, or don’t understand at least one of them.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 7:37 pm #

            One single point perhaps that you could argue ?

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 7:52 pm #

            Avoiding the issue, again.

            If you’re the finest mind anti-vax has to hand, and at all representative of their rhetorical style, it’s pretty clear the future of vaccination is safe.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 9:28 pm #

            Single point of what?

          • Stacy48918
            February 20, 2015 at 6:18 am #

            Studies:
            http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/2013/12/21/the-one-study-or-why-the-anti-vaccine-movement-doesnt-really-understand-science/

            ETA – oops, scroll up! You already posted this link. Well….the graphic is still great. 😛

            The fact that you continue to ask for the “one study” shows you have no real understanding of science and how studies are designed, conducted or the reliability of their results.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 7:22 am #

            Unfortunately I have never “The fact that you continue to ask for the “one study” … therefore your argument and opinion is meaningless to me or any else for that matter.

            Though I am always fascinated by the way skeptics ‘thunk’ because they don’t think through their arguments.

            Thanks for your input , as it was.

  9. Dorothea Pfeiffer
    February 16, 2015 at 7:07 am #

    Since there are so many knowledgeable people here, I thought I go ahead to ask my question: My whole family is fully vaxxed, and Dr. Amy helped me out so much during my pregnancy by answering my questions by email and reassuring me to not fall for the woo, therefore I’m a huge fan and follower. OK, after reading a little bit about vacvine injuries, I got the impression that a large percentage is totally bogus (no cause and effect, presumed damage appears years later etc), but some reports of parents sound legit. E.g. some of the reports of receiving a MMR shot, directly reacting with high fevers and seizures, and having a modified development from that point on. I know that correlation is not causation, but IF these reports were true, a strong correlation should raise suspicion. Now I know that study after study discarded the autism MMR connection, I’m just wondering how these parent reports fit in. Any information available? Are they all interpretations ex post? Have studies/debunking efforts been carried out?

    • Stacy48918
      February 16, 2015 at 8:24 am #

      As I understand (and please correct me if I’m wrong), yes, some children may have fevers subsequent to vaccinations that are high enough to induce a seizure. But (1) it’s the fever causing the seizure, not the vaccine itself. Control the fever, control the seizure; (2) while the idea of my child seizing is horrifying, there typically are no long term effects (i.e. no neuro damage).

      Also bear in mind that infantile seizures in and of themselves are common in the first year of life. If a child is going to receive vaccines on roughly 5 different appointments in the first year of life, that’s a 5/365 chance that an infantile seizure will coincide with a date of vaccination. That’s not all that small.

      • Daleth
        February 16, 2015 at 9:53 am #

        And it’s 10/365, or almost 1/36, if you count the day after the child gets the shot. I think most parents would blame the shot if their kid got a high fever out of nowhere 24 hours later.

        • Stacy48918
          February 16, 2015 at 10:04 am #

          Paul Offit recounts a story in his book Deadly Choices of a father that took his child to a public vaccine clinic, waited in line for hours, and eventually left without getting the vaccines. That night the baby died of SIDS. One can imagine how easy it would have been for that grief stricken father to have blamed his child’s SIDS death on vaccines if he had stayed for the shot.

          Many common conditions in the first year of life could coincide with vaccination, which just makes an easy plot for blaming the vaccine, rather than random chance.

          • Dorothea Pfeiffer
            February 16, 2015 at 10:12 am #

            A lot of good answers, I think that I should read Offit’s book. Further, the probability that an adverse advent happens around a doctor’s appointment in the first year actually convinced me, it’s with 1:36 quite high. Btw, I never meant to claim that there is a conspiracy or an attempt to cover things up going. I just never thought a lot about vaccinations, and am not knowledgable. Have not “done my research”, lol. So thanks to all of you..

          • Wren
            February 16, 2015 at 10:42 am #

            Honestly, even if a child only got one vaccine a year 1/365 is still pretty high.

          • Who?
            February 16, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

            My friend took her baby out for his jab, they ran the rule over him and he was fine, but when they went to do it found they were out of vax and sent him home. He had a seizure in the car on the way, his first one. Scary, but he was fine.

            As you say, a lot of things happen all the time in babyhood. One thing coming after another, on its own, means nothing.

          • Medwife
            February 18, 2015 at 7:42 pm #

            My son had a febrile seizure with a temp of only 100F. I’m fairly sure that non-medical type parents would not have recognized it because it was focal, but it was definitely a seizure. (No vaccines around that time, btw.) infantile seizures are probably more common than they’re given credit for.

          • Sullivan ThePoop
            February 17, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

            I had a friend whose daughter tragically died from SIDS. She was supposed to have a well visit and shots that day, but the appointment was rescheduled for a later date.

        • Wren
          February 16, 2015 at 10:48 am #

          I’ve read plenty of “vaccines harmed my baby” stories in which the fever occurred up to a week after the vaccine but was still blamed on the vaccine.

          Of all the claimed vaccine damage stories, those involving a fever bother me the most. If the fever from the vaccine is so terrible, what about the fever if they got the disease?

    • KarenJJ
      February 16, 2015 at 8:40 am #

      I looked about on the internet about adverse reactions when my immunologist started asking me about my vaccine reactions and I couldn’t help but wonder about whether some of the kids that showed severe fevers and reactions to vaccines were also affected with rare auto-inflammatory syndromes. These syndromes are incredibly rare (they’re also called periodic fever syndromes) and illness/injury can also cause a flare, but it only would take one or two cases with a flare post-vaccine to be repeated chinese-whisper style amongst the anti-vax movement.

      There was also this high profile case where I live which came about after my state introduced free flu vaccines for under 5s. It brought about some changes, including which flu vaccines can be given to children and many GPs wouldn’t give the flu vaccine for children for a while there.
      http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/parents-launch-flu-shot-damages-claim/story-e6frg153-1226032663603

      But this information is openly available and prompted changes to the vaccine schedule and one of the flu vaccines is now not recommended to kids under 5 (from memory the researcher was unable to determine the mechanism behind the high fevers but it was believed to be an overall issue with one particular flu vaccine and not just a bad batch). The idea of an overall conspiracy of doctors hiding thousands of cases doesn’t seem plausible. There were a hundred children with severe fevers in a state of 2 million people and it was public and changes were made.

    • Alain Couvier
      February 16, 2015 at 4:21 pm #

      The parents in the original Lancet study reported gastrointestinal diseases and regression of previously learned skills and speech…

      Professor John Walker-Smith and his team of gastroenterologists reported findings of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases that did not fit the usual clinical profile ie non specific colitis or autistic enterocolitis

      Both the findings in regards to regression and Inflammatory Bowel Disease / non specific colitis have been independently verified by by both Harvard Universoty researchers and Johns Hopkins researchers.
      As has a relationship between GI and seizures and two vaccines two vaccines with IBD the DTP vaccine and the Polio vaccine.

      • Nick Sanders
        February 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm #

        By “the original Lancet study” are you referring to Wakefield’s totally bogus piece of crap?

        • anonnon
          February 16, 2015 at 8:01 pm #

          It’s interesting how Alain Couvier just posts the same stuff about autism and gastro issues all over the net, like he’s been doing here.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 16, 2015 at 8:10 pm #

            I wouldn’t know, his account is private.

          • anonnon
            February 16, 2015 at 8:39 pm #

            All I did was search for his name, I was curious what kind of person he was. I found a lot of posts on autism scattered around, all saying the same stuff he’s saying here.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 16, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

            Wonderful.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 2:33 am #

            So back to the medical science …anything you need explained ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 2:34 am #

            How you missed one of the most high profile controversies in recent history would be a good start.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 2:40 am #

            I haven’t … but what is it that you don’t agree with about the medical science in the Lancet paper ?

            You have read the paper in its entirety ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 2:46 am #

            Why is this about me? The entire medical community has refuted and renounced the paper. That’s enough for me, and it should be more than enough for you.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 2:48 am #

            It has ? That would be something new to the medical community ?

            Or does the skeptic community choose carefully the medical science it likes ?

            Read the paper by the way ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 3:24 am #

            Well, the giant red “retracted” all over the paper is the first clue.

            Then there’s this, which I already linked you to once, and you seem to be vigorously ignoring.
            http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full

            But it doesn’t end there.

            He had his license to practice medicine revoked:
            http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

            The CDC,
            http://web.archive.org/web/20080407015528/http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/mmr_autism_factsheet.htm
            the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences,
            http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Immunization-Safety-Review-Vaccines-and-Autism.aspx
            the UK National Health Service,
            http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4002972
            and even one of his coauthors,
            https://web.archive.org/web/20080913173824/http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/basics/truths.php
            have all said there is no evidence for a connection between MMR and autism.

            There are many papers to back this up:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17928818
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22184954
            http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=197365
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17168158
            http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=1239
            http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)24018-9/fulltext
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10376617
            http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

            Further, Wakefield failed to disclose multiple and significant financial conflicts of interest:
            http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/11/autism.vaccines/?hpt=Sbin
            http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm
            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2011/01/wakefield_tried_to_capitalize.html
            http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20110111/mmr-doctor-planned-make-millions-journal-claims

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 3:27 am #

            Or is this, in fact, all a giant conspiracy to keep the brilliance of Wakefield and now AC hidden from the world? Because as we know the more people there are in a conspiracy, the easier it is to keep it secret, nod, wink.

            You’ve had time to post all that and he still hasn’t posted what he offered me.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:13 am #

            So have you read the full paper ?

            Have you read the varying authors (accused) responses ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:14 am #

            Have you considered how much you sound like a broken records?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:20 am #

            It’s up to you Nick and the skeptic community. There’s a lot of sock puppets in support….

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:21 am #

            Up to me how?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:22 am #

            Show me the ‘fraud’ ?

            Show me the medical science that disproves the Lancet paper ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:23 am #

            I just did like half an hour ago.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:28 am #

            I see a whole lot of links ?

            What specifically do you say is fraudulent about the medical science in the Lancet paper ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:29 am #

            You see the links? That’s good. Now read them.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:37 am #

            Yes and I’ve asked you for specifics.

            Which part of the Lancet study or the medical science within it do you and the skeptic community say is in error ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:39 am #

            All of it.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 4:35 am #

            Do you think the medical board kicked Wakefield out for being an honest practitioner? Did The Lancet withdraw the article on a whim?

            Surely if either of those are prestigious institutions when you want to talk about how good you think Wakefield’s work is, and that he was allied with them, the fact they’ve both disowned him should give you a hint he is no longer in good odour?

            Or is the trouble that the whole world is wrong and Wakefield and you are right?

          • KarenJJ
            February 17, 2015 at 5:00 am #

            Seriously? What websites do you regularly visit where sock puppets are such a common thing? Maybe the reason you are finding so many people against you here is because you are by far in the minority position – in the real world and even more so on this site.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 5:03 am #

            It is instructive to remember that the overwhelming majority of people support vaccination. It’s easy to forget that when the professional stirrers like AC get into the mix.

            AC, you are the one on the outer, in real life as well as on this site.

          • yugaya
            February 18, 2015 at 5:22 am #

            The only sock puppets I’ve noticed around here appear when a specific type of snakeoil-peddling parachuter drops by and has their “science” dissected in detail ( that type is people with direct personal or financial interest in peddling nonsense). It’s their version of damage control I guess, inventing others that are in full agreement.

          • Dr Kitty
            February 18, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

            I have, actually, and I agree with the GMC, the Lancet and the opinion of the medical establishment that the entire thing was fraudulent based on flawed and unethical research, at its root caused by a serious financial conflict of interest in the main author (Wakefield). The paper was retracted for good reason and its findings should be dismissed as junk.

            Would you like to respond to this?
            http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/343/bmj.d6823.full.pdf

            It is the BMJ piece from 2011which describes how the pathology samples used by Wakefield in his study were shown to other histopathologists, who classified them as normal, with no evidence of colitis.

            This is what Playing Possum has already told you.
            Wakefield re-classified normal specimens as abnormal, using his own set of criteria, in order to add weight to his claim of a vaccine mediated gut injury. Those claims are bogus, and have been shown to be bogus, repeatedly.

            You are the one who doesn’t get the science Alain. You.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 19, 2015 at 6:15 am #

            Even the most cursory knowledge of the Lancet paper identifies the gastroenterolgists and pathologists that undertook clinical care, investigation and reporting relating to the children with gastrointestinal disease.

            I must assume you are familiar with scientific papers, therefore it is difficult to understand how you arrived at your … opinion ?

            As for direct criticism of the article from a non medically trained journalist … who better than Professor Amar Dhillon.

            “The BMJ’s articles on these grading sheets in the issue of 12 November show several misunderstandings.

            Many are a result of a lack of understanding of the difference between,
            on the one hand, the systematic documentation of specific microscopical
            features in a grading sheet by a “blinded” pathologist and, on the
            other, conclusion of an overall clinicopathological diagnosis by
            integrating clinical information with diverse lines of investigation.
            The difference between the two activities should be understood better.”

            In common parlance … ouch.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 19, 2015 at 6:46 am #

            When you and the Messr Possum are ready to apologize please feel free to do so and add my favorite chocolates and some flowers. I remain sentimental to the old world charms of manners and good behavior.

          • birthbuddy
            February 20, 2015 at 5:09 am #

            Manners and good behaviour???
            Do you genuinely believe that is how you come across?

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 5:26 am #

            I think he probably does believe he is a model of civility, as well as an island of knowledge and wisdom in a sea of ignorance. Like the soldier marching with the wrong foot forward, he thinks everyone else is out of step.

            And he’s ignoring me which is doing me so much good, I can’t tell you.

          • Dr Kitty
            February 19, 2015 at 9:54 am #

            Really?
            His defence is that he found something wrong BECAUSE HE WAS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING WRONG, when other histopathologists, when blinded to the history, FOUND NOTHING WRONG.

            That is a defence of his actions, it is not actually a defence of the trials methods, nor of his findings… which are still JUNK.

            Tell me why the Lancet retracted the paper?
            Why no other subsequent studies have been able to replicate Wakefield’s findings?

            Come on Alain. We’re not the ones looking dumb here…

            Saying “I believe the findings of a tiny, unethical, discredited study which has been retracted and denounced by its publisher and torn apart by multiple peer reviewers. I continue to believe in its findings, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, and without out any subsequent corroborating studies” isn’t making you look too smart.

            Arguing with a pathologist about the histopathology of colitis REALLY doesn’t make you look smart.

            Wakefield’s study should never have got out of peer review. It should never have been published and now it has been retracted it is insane to still treat it as having worth of any kind.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 19, 2015 at 3:41 pm #

            I suppose in a personal observation I have a bias to medical science, so when some of the most renowned gastroenterologists and pathologists in the United Kingdom , Professor John Walker-Smith, Professor Simon Murch, Professor Amar Dhillon and Dr’s Mike Thomson and Susan Davies tell me the children have an inflammatory bowel diseases I put a great more weight behind their professional opinion.

            Do you npt believe in professional experience and judgement ? (rhetorical)

            Thanks for your input but you haven’t really made any sort of argument , except a flurry of yelling and shouting.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 3:33 pm #

            Since you clearly didn’t read them the first time, here they are again:
            http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)24018-9/fulltext
            http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=1239

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 4:32 pm #

            Can you clearly articulate why you choose to back a retracted study and use that as your evidence in this discussion?

            It has been retracted and has not been replicated. How is that a valid citation for anything?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 7:56 pm #

            I don’t like to see children, especially children with ASD suffer from a
            treatable inflammatory bowel condition, that has been described by
            gastroenterologists and researchers as

            “incredibly horrible raging … it’s torturing kids …think about that.”

            But that’s just me.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:33 pm #

            Well, then worry no more, because they aren’t.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:41 pm #

            You are in error then two separate research papers have confirmed inflammatory bowel diseases and non specific colitis in children with Autism.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

            Show me.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 9:12 pm #

            http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2014/co-occurring-conditions-workshop-slides-sept23.shtml

            A reminder then … from your source (independent ?)

            ““They had to create a new disease, and when Susan Davies got
            normal results they were in trouble,” argues Tom MacDonald,
            a gastrointestinal immunologist and dean of research at Barts
            and the London school of medicine. He has published on
            Wakefield’s findings with Domizio,33 and both have consulted
            for vaccine manufacturers
            , inspecting some of the biopsy slides.
            “If there wasn’t IBD [inflammatory bowel disease], then
            Wakefield’s whole theory collapsed, and with it the litigation
            which was paying him.”

            pop

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 9:19 pm #

            Two problems:

            Firstly, your link just goes to a page called “IACC Workshop on Under-Recognized Co-Occurring Conditions in ASD Slide Presentations”
            Is there a specific presentation you wish me to look at, and would you kindly explain how vaccines are involved?

            Secondly, how does pointing out Wakefield’s own conflicts of interest bolster your point?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 9:58 pm #

            1. Isaac Kohane

            2. Dr Wakefield’s alleged COI is well known … other disclosures of importance less well known.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 10:42 pm #

            1. Ok, now I have a name, what am I supposed to do with it?
            2. It’s not “alleged”.

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 11:01 pm #

            Ooh! I know the answer to number one!

            You look at the slides in the page he linked earlier, realise they have nothing to do with AC’s claims, then realise he didn’t even pay enough attention to notice it is the presentation below that one that has any relationship to autism plus GI issues, and even that has very little and no claims of non-specific colitis.

            Oh, wait. I probably have that wrong. You are probably meant to trust his citation of just a name and believe Wakefield was all a witch hunt and he should now be head of medicine everywhere, with only his own special vaccines given.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

            Holy shit, a range of 9% to 91%? That is a wonky ass scattering of data.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 11:09 pm #

            That is entirely up to you.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 11:34 pm #

            Then you have a problem, given the burden of proof is on you.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 11:42 pm #

            No problem here … I watched the presentation and read the paper.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22511918

            pop

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 9:28 pm #

            I don’t think you are interpreting that quote correctly. Tom MacDonald is saying Wakefield needed to have IBD shown in the results, which it was not, in order to maintain his funding from the litigation.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 9:46 pm #

            pop

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 10:24 pm #

            Is that intended as a meaningful response?

            It is not meaningful.

            Sorry. This was intended for the second “pop” comment, not the first one which just ended in “pop”. Why you feel “pop” is meaningful is beyond me.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 10:40 pm #

            Elsewhere on the page he claims he is “popping skeptic bubble myths”.

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

            Some evidence might be helpful in that endeavour.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 22, 2015 at 12:02 am #

            Yes it is visual thinking – the meaning of course is implied – in this case the popping of a balloon , the balloon represents a skeptic narrative.

          • birthbuddy
            February 22, 2015 at 1:32 am #

            So, should we respond to you with “thud”, as in lead balloons?
            Or, perhaps “bang”, as you shoot yourself in the foot?

          • Wren
            February 22, 2015 at 11:26 am #

            Or, of course, it refers to yet another neuron of yours popping out of existence.
            You should perhaps be more careful in your choice of words. Not everyone is in your head thinking the way you do.

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 9:31 pm #

            How is that relevant to this paper, which has been retracted?

            I don’t like seeing unethical studies done, particularly on children who had excessive and sometimes painful testing done for no reason.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 9:41 pm #

            How is that relevant to this paper, which has been retracted?

            ‘We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder.”

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 10:23 pm #

            The paper has been retracted. I cannot be used to provide evidence for your argument in any meaningful way.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

            Let’s see, John Walker-Smith was struck off by the GMC, and Susan Davies says they do not have such a disease.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:39 pm #

            You are in error in again

            Professor John Walker-Smith had all charges from the GMC quashed by the UK High Court.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:44 pm #

            Skeptic website … not interested.

            http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:47 pm #

            That’s an appeal, the GMC still struck him off. That a different legal court overturned their ruling does not change the fact that it happened.

            And if you aren’t interested in viewing relevant sources, I must ask again, why are you here?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 9:02 pm #

            Your sources have shown a lack of accuracy and bias . I prefer to work with independent sources , is that not reasonable ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 9:15 pm #

            Given that you have not demonstrated either claim, nor paid any attention to the many independent sources you have been provided, I say you are indeed being unreasonable.

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 9:44 pm #

            http://www.gmc-uk.org/news/12288.asp

            The GMC’s response: the issue was not clearly laying out reasoning, not that Walker Smith was in fact in the right. Note that this does not change the MMR-Autism debate as there is still not evidence for the link.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 9:50 pm #

            1. The accusations have been quashed by a UK High Court

            2. Inflammatory Bowel Disease and non specific colitis has been proven in ASD children.

            Two very large holes in the skeptic narrative.

            Now we can begin to focus the research on the care and treatment of children with ASD whatever causation.

            That would be my reasonable position.

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 10:05 pm #

            1. In the case of Walker Smith, yes, he won his appeal. In the case of Wakefield, not at all.

            2. Proven? We are still awaiting your proof. The paper was retracted and remains retracted. Even if it were not, it was, at best, a small preliminary study and hardly conclusive had it not been fraudulent.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 10:11 pm #

            1. Credibility – if you get two major issues wrong then … one is want to question the accuracy of your other opinions. Unless of course they are verified by say … the UK High Court.

            2. Harvard University researcher has already given his presentation to the NIH IAAC

            http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2014/co-occurring-conditions-workshop-slides-sept23.shtml

          • Wren
            February 21, 2015 at 10:16 pm #

            1. The issue in the case of Walker Smoth concerned the reasoning given, not the final conclusion. Wakefield’s case included far more egregious breaches and even Wakefield has chosen to be struck off rather than attempt an appeal. Credibility is a much larger problem for the paper than for those who agree with the retraction.

            2. “Harvard University researcher”? Intriguing name. has his study been published in a peer reviewed journal?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 10:53 pm #

            1. Then why should we believe you, who has gotten every major issue wrong so far, about anything?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

            Ho ho ho …

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 5:32 am #

            http://briandeer.com/solved/bmj-pathology.htm

            “But Dhillon’s reports produced results that pathologists, gastroenterologists, and a gastrointestinal immunologist to whom we have shown them say are overwhelmingly normal and might be found in almost anybody’s gut.”

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 5:52 am #

            Your sources are unreliable at best.

            “But Dhillon’s reports …”

            There’s your error … all others are of course cumulative.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 6:00 am #

            Please, do enlighten me how that is an error.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 7:40 am #

            Professor Amar Dhillon simply says 20 of them are not his – different handwriting apparently.

            Ouch.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 5:54 pm #

            And you can demonstrate that this is the case?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 7:38 pm #

            I take a esteemed Professor’s word … are you suggesting he is lying ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 9:28 pm #

            I’m suggesting there’s good reason to think so.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 9:40 pm #

            sigh Then your on your own. But please feel free to write down your accusations against Professor Dhillon and I’ll be happy to forward them.

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 9:37 pm #

            Implicated in one of the greatest research frauds of the 20th century, partly responsible for probably thousands of deaths and permanent injuries from vaccine preventable measles.

            Why would he lie?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 20, 2015 at 10:41 pm #

            ..and I believe Brian Deer concurs.

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

            You also believe Wakefield is an honest researcher, which makes all your other beliefs highly suspect.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 3:27 pm #

            Show me where.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 7:52 pm #

            In your reference – you should read more closely

            “The grading sheets were also used for small intestinal biopsies, which could not show colitis, and reports compiled by Andrew Anthony, a trainee pathologist assisting Dhillon…

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 7:59 pm #

            At first, I was going to point out that you apparently didn’t see the word “also” in that passage, but it’s worse, you are taking it out of context to blatantly misrepresent what is said.

            “But experts we consulted say this interpretation is wrong. The grading sheets were also used for small intestinal biopsies, which could not show colitis, and reports compiled by Andrew Anthony, a trainee pathologist assisting Dhillon, used a different form that included the term “non-specific changes,” although he did not tick that option for any of the biopsies.”

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:06 pm #

            …and what did Professor Amar Dhillon say ?

            That 20 of them were not his.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:06 pm #

            And I still have no reason to take his word for it.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:07 pm #

            You do now or don’t you believe your own sources ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:07 pm #

            At what point have my sources contradicted me?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:11 pm #

            If you can’t get your source material correct all else falls … as does the ‘expert’ opinion.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:13 pm #

            So, we’re just going to pretend that your complete fabrication didn’t happen? Is that what we are doing now? Because you have yet to show any contradictions between my statements and my lsources.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

            It is up to you to check your sources.

            To bolster your rather innocuous case – you could verify each child against each pathology report.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:19 pm #

            And it’s up to you to back your claims. I’m not going on a wild goose chase looking for some mythical contradiction that you claim is there on the basis of you don’t feel like being proven wrong.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:22 pm #

            These are your claims Mr Sanders … check your sources. Apologies that I burst another skeptic bubble … but hey that’s just me.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 21, 2015 at 8:23 pm #

            I have checked my source, there is no contradiction. If I am wrong, please, feel free to point out where.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 21, 2015 at 8:26 pm #

            Did you check your primary sources ? The documents themselves ?

            When you do , because they are ‘your’ sources let me know how you went.

            Otherwise case closed.

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 6:15 pm #

            What is ‘ouch’? Is it the more aggressive form of ‘meh’?

            Much like your hero Wakefield you have co-opted bits of language for your own use.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 2:43 am #

            Autism and GI disease is one of the most important issues in our community. Now that it is firmly established that Gastrointestinal Diseases, including Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Epilepsy / Seizures and systemic inflammation are all found at substantially higher greater rates, then the Autism community and the general community need to know that information.

            Is there any reason why the skeptic community would find that problematic ?

          • KarenJJ
            February 17, 2015 at 3:26 am #

            As someone with a lifelong serious issue with systemic inflammation, I’d say the research is far more interesting and diverse than what you are trying to discuss here. Yes chronic inflammation can cause progressive brain damage (eg with NOMID), but that is not autism.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 3:42 am #

            Higher greater rates than what and when?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 3:43 am #

            And among whom?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:04 am #

            Children.

            Is there anything else you do not understand about the medical science ?

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 4:05 am #

            One out of three, good.

            So now, higher greater rates where and when?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:06 am #

            Well, there’s why you cloak yourself in undeserved smugness, but I can’t be certain that’s a medical issue.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:12 am #

            Stick to the medical science … is that not enough challenge ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:13 am #

            I’d be happy if I could get you to stick to a thread once I show you medical science, but so far, that’s been a pipe dream.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:18 am #

            Your link above does not work … but then it links to a skeptic site so I don’t think I’ll bother anyway.

            Over to you then …

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:20 am #

            I love this, you accuse me of choosing the science I like, then you say that.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:21 am #

            Your link doesn’t work … and the site you link to is clearly biased. You don’t understand that ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:23 am #

            The link has been fixed. That much was an error on my part. The rest is on you.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:40 am #

            Why did you change to another site ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:43 am #

            I didn’t, I accidentally appended the link to the end of this site’s URL. (Long story) But that does raise a question, if you found the URL objectionable, and it started with this page’s URL (to this very article actually), why are you here?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:45 am #

            To debate the issue ? Is that not simple enough ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:46 am #

            Given that you appear to wish to engage not in debate but in sophistry, I’d say it’s a valid question.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:50 am #

            How is it sophistry ?

            Here’s what I am debating

            “Skeptics are fundamentally wrong about nearly every aspect if not all of the medical science of vaccines , particularly the Lancet paper.”

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:52 am #

            Debating involves offering supporting evidence for one’s position as well as considering the evidence of opponents. You have shown no willingness to do either.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 5:04 am #

            Can you give me a specific ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 3:12 pm #

            Specific what?

          • birthbuddy
            February 17, 2015 at 5:10 am #

            How do vaccines work, AC?

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 5:23 am #

            Definition please-who are, by your definition-‘skeptics’?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:24 am #

            For that matter, since the link didn’t work, how could you have assessed bias in the site?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:30 am #

            The link contains the name all else is self evident.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:31 am #

            What name?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:35 am #

            The name of the site.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:41 am #

            Which is?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:36 am #

            Your link still not working ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 4:41 am #

            Sonnova… wow, I just cannot copy and paste that one right for some reason. Going back to fix it now.

          • birthbuddy
            February 17, 2015 at 7:41 pm #

            Maybe AC is Wakefield??

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 1:00 am #

            Certainly makes more sense than 2 independent people believing this nonsense.

            If he is times must be tough on the autism circuit.

          • yugaya
            February 18, 2015 at 4:06 am #

            i don’t think that Wakefield believes it, fraudsters don’t believe the lies that they tell and Alain probably does not either because he’d have to be really daft in that case and not a skepticism crusader. It just appears to him that it reinforces his opinions, so he brings it along when he attempts to assume the authority of medical science as a whole:

            “Unfortunately medical science speaks louder …”
            “Is there anything else you do not understand about the medical science ?”
            “Stick to the medical science … is that not enough challenge ?”
            “So back to the medical science …anything you need explained ?”

            Alain’s claims = medical science, once you swallow that everything else will fit in nicely.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 4:33 am #

            I don’t know about the state of their belief-the idea of living a lie and exploiting people like that horrifies me and I can’t imagine living that way. But we’re not all made the same-which is a good thing-so I have to concede that what you say is certainly possible.

            I suppose if Alain wins you over with what passes for charm, then what he says must make sense. I experience him as creepy with a paternalistic style that I respond very badly to. No doubt others find him compelling.

            Anyway he’s making a goose of himself here which is a good thing, since for one he’s unlikely to win anyone over, and he’s also making lots of people very aware of his positions.

          • yugaya
            February 18, 2015 at 5:04 am #

            When I see such persistence in repeating the same logical mistakes and fallacies in argumentation it usually is not because someone is being deliberately deceptive.

            His complete inability to accept feedback, lack of self-assessment skills and blaring absence of empathic listening in communication terms mean that there is much, much more wrong with how he communicates with others in general, as opposed to someone just trying to fraud their way through a debate.

        • Alain Couvier
          February 17, 2015 at 12:51 am #

          Unfortunately medical science speaks louder …

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 1:19 am #

            It does, which is how we now it was a bogus piece of crap. So, I ask again, are you referring to Wakefield’s faked paper?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 1:45 am #

            I am referring to ” Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” thanks .

            Any of the medical science you’d like explained ?

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 1:55 am #

            Oh yes please do explain, in full. With all your citations.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 2:25 am #

            Certainly is there a particular area you don’t understand ?

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 2:29 am #

            The whole lot. Give me everything. From scratch.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 5:16 am #

            Crickets…

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 2:01 am #

            I’d like an explanation of how you don’t understand that paper is fraudulent.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 2:25 am #

            I haven’t seen any evidence of fraud… it’s pretty straightforward. Is there a particular area you don’t understand ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 2:26 am #

            http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/02/whither-the-anti-vaccine-movement-now-that-it-has-been-http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full.html#comment-1859418243

            That’s the most pertinent, but hardly the only one. The paper was pulled, everyone but Wakefield took their name off of it before that, and it led directly to him losing his medical license.

          • Playing Possum
            February 17, 2015 at 4:46 am #

            Ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia is a normal finding in ALL children. It would be notable for its absence. Non specific colitis is an incredibly common non-specific finding that can be due to a huge range of insults … including the laxative solution used to empty the bowel in order to do the colonoscopy.

            All of the biopsies taken were originally reported as normal by an essentially blinded pathologist. They were then re-reported by pathologists recruited by Wakefield, who were using a non-standard and broad set of diagnostic standards which were concocted by Wakefield. These diagnostic standards basically reported normal variants (that are routinely ignored by pathologists because otherwise each biopsy would have a diagnosis list of many pages), thus increasing the pickup for “abnormal” findings.

            ETA: And I don’t think it was even correctly attributed as “colitis”, at least not active colitis, which is the diagnosis that should be measured.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 5:00 am #

            Ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia is a normal finding in ALL children.

            Cite

            It would be notable for its absence.

            Cite

            Non specific colitis is an incredibly common non-specific finding that can be due to a huge range of insults …

            Cite

            You know the routine.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 5:01 am #

            Do you?

          • birthbuddy
            February 17, 2015 at 5:05 am #

            Hi AC, back for more I see.
            You still haven’t realised that you are dealing people far more knowledgeable than you.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 5:44 am #

            I think you’ve scared him off.

          • Playing Possum
            February 17, 2015 at 6:15 am #

            PMID: 21188221
            PMID: 22428565
            PMID: 22849731
            cover the histology and development of GALT in the small bowel, the concept of “nodular lymphoid hyperplasia”, and the differential diagnosis of colitides in biopsies.

            I will apologise for using the term “hyperplasia”, as it is obviously a red flag. The nodular lymphoid tissues in a child’s ileum are by definition hyperplastic compared to an adult.

            The absence or hypoplasia of secondary lymphoid tissue in a child’s biopsy is a big big deal, it will prompt an investigation into the child’s immune system to exclude an immunodeficiency. Or the kid could be on chemo.

            The Wakefield paper defined “non-specific colitis” as “infiltration by mononuclear cells”. It didn’t even need epithelial infiltration as a diagnostic requirement – however, colitis is defined histologically by epithelial infiltration. Mononuclear cells are a NORMAL population of the lamina propria of the colon – I won’t cite it because there are plenty of histology texts available online.

            And now I need to bleach my eyes after looking at that pile of fraudulent poop that is Wakefield’s Lancet paper.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 6:24 am #

            Sorry about your eyes.

            Think of all those kids with autism who thanks to the kind of thinking AC is pushing are given bleach enemas, and all those parents who think they are doing the right thing but have been lied to by these guys to boost their own egos and profit.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 6:42 am #

            I’m not sure your citations evidence your position

            Ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia is a normal finding in ALL children.

            I could not find a statement from your evidence that supports this.

            It would be notable for its absence.

            Nor this statement

            Non specific colitis is an incredibly common non-specific finding that can be due to a huge range of insults …

            Nor this

            Whilst your references are interesting and support an argument it does not support yours –

            a) that the children had ‘normal’ or even ‘common’ Gastrointestinal biopsies and pathology.

            b) that the findings were in any way fraudulent

          • KarenJJ
            February 17, 2015 at 10:31 am #

            Your point (b) would be dependant upon your understanding of the citations posted by Playing Possum above and how that relates to the original Lancet Wakefield paper. I’m not convinced of your understanding of the papers cited. Can you explain them to me simply (I’m a non-medical person)?

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 1:08 am #

            I think you may be on to something here. AC is fencing with Playing Possum who seems to have brought nukes rather than the usual epee to the contest.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:25 pm #

            Well so ends that issue.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 4:51 pm #

            You’ve convinced yourself! Again!

            So now it is just you and Wakefield, against the world.

            Did you ever post all that information you offered?

          • birthbuddy
            February 17, 2015 at 7:38 pm #

            For you maybe. The rest of us normal folk all seem to agree.

          • Playing Possum
            February 17, 2015 at 11:42 pm #

            Ok. The concept of ‘nonspecific colitis’ was made up. According to the lancet paper, it was defined as an infiltrate of mononuclear cells in the lamina propria. These are a normal component of the lamina propria. They didn’t require infiltration of the epithelium, which is the histological definition of colitis- even by neutrophils (which is a common finding in colonic biopsies – (‘focal active colitis’), or lymphocytes (‘lymphocytic’ or ‘microscopic colitis’). Both these entities are recognized and are found in any pathology textbook – they are also described in one of the papers. One of the other papers restates another thing that is found in any pathology textbook- that lymphoid nodules are numerous and large (hyperplastic) in the child.

            The findings were fraudulent because they created a pathological entity from accepted normal variants. Most people see ‘nonspecific colitis’ and think, wow, sounds serious. But it isn’t _colitis_ and would be reported by pathologists as normal. That is the issue at least from the biopsy point of view. You can use the term to describe clinical symptoms such as in IBS, but it has no pathological correlate or significance.

            It would have been a great breakthrough and of massive benefit if what Wakefield reported was true. It would have kickstarted research that might have led to real benefits for these families and for science. And instead of spending that research money and time on something useful, it was wasted on Wakefields distraction. Do you honestly believe there is solid, plausible science being kept from the public about this? There are too many people (millions) and too much innate goodwill in the major players (doctors and nurses and scientists) for such conspiracy.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 18, 2015 at 12:45 am #

            The concept of ‘nonspecific colitis’ was made up.

            Burrill Bernard Crohn, a name you may or may not be familiar with, was using the term back in the day (1924 ).

            http://amaprodu.silverchair.netdna-cdn.com/data/Journals/JAMA/5901/jama_83_5_003.pdf.gif

          • Playing Possum
            February 18, 2015 at 1:02 am #

            No problem. The concept of ‘non specific colitis’ as defined histologically by the Lancet study was made up. It described an established variation of normal.

            You missed the ulcerative in ‘Non specific colitis’. If we were talking about the inflammatory bowel disease spectrum including UC then colitis histologically requires intraepithelial inflammation, architectural evidence of chronic colitis or granulomatpus change.

            ETA – granulomatous change. Although granulomatpus is kind of apt…

          • Alain Couvier
            February 18, 2015 at 1:11 am #

            Let’s go back …

            The concept of ‘nonspecific colitis’ was made up.

            pubmed/1089084

            “Ulcerative colitis and granulomatous colitis are distinct entities, but up to 10 per cent of colectomy specimens remain unclassified.”

            “Even by colectomy, 29 of 300 specimens were sufficiently atypical so as not to warrant a label of Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis”

            pubmed/670413

            “It is stated that 10-20% of cases of non-specific inflammatory bowel disease cannot be classified. ”

            pubmed/7597492

            “We report two cases in which the presence of an anal fissure delayed the diagnosis of nonspecific colitis in premature infants”

            Your argument falls on that first statement.

          • Playing Possum
            February 18, 2015 at 1:25 am #

            The articles you cite are referring to true colitis – that is surface infiltration including cryptitis/ crypt abscesses. The Lancet paper described the majority of their specimens having inflammatory cells in the lamina propria (a normal finding) and NOT having surface infiltration – because they note the four that DO have surface infiltration – one lymphocytic and three neutrophilic (these three represent ‘focal active colitis’). The nonspecific colitis of Wakefield is histologically very different to inflammatory bowel disease, because they involve different areas of the mucosa. Like I said, it would have been great, a huge benefit to mankind if it had been true. But it isn’t.

            Well, it’s been fun. And I got a good review on Peyers patches and colitis to pull out next time I have a tricky time … reporting pediatric endoscopic biopsies.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 1:27 am #

            Thanks very much for this. Really interesting and very worthwhile.

            AC will be back with the ‘yes, but’ I’m sure…

          • KarenJJ
            February 18, 2015 at 1:49 am #

            I’ve thoroughly enjoyed myself following this exchange and reading Playing Possum’s posts! The difference between a google education and a university level medical education followed by medical training and practice.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 1:56 am #

            Yes there really is nothing like a thorough education and professional experience is there? And what is exactly nothing like that? Doing your ‘research’ on the internet.

            I wonder when AC will be back? Or if he’ll try one more time before fading away?

          • Playing Possum
            February 18, 2015 at 2:17 am #

            I just like talking about science. I love it!! There’s just so much to explore, and be awed by, and to see in action. And I hate the idea that doctors are hiding something or deliberately ignoring evidence, we wouldn’t do the job (it can be very thankless and soul sucking) if we didn’t care. It’s kind of offensive to suggest otherwise.

            I really really mean it when I say how great it would have been if the lancet study was true. Just think of the incredible leap forward for immunology and autism and the activities of the human biome. It would have been amazing. Instead, science was held back for all that time and we lost herd immunity. And kids got Sspe. What a waste of research time and money.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 2:24 am #

            It’s been really interesting, I know nothing about science or medicine but rely on those who do and enjoy watching knowledge come out to beat noisy ignorance whenever that show is in town.

            AC will be back-he’s expunging Wakefield’s name up thread, continuing with his coyness about the true name and nature of his hero.

            Perhaps we are now dealing with a ‘he who cannot be named’ in the anti-vax world as well as in Harry Potter.

          • KarenJJ
            February 18, 2015 at 3:02 am #

            I work in a tech field and know very little about biological science. It’s been fascinating meeting doctors and researchers that actually deal with this since becoming a rare disease patient and seeing some of the science being done. There was a breakthrough reported this week in inflammation that I’ve been following with the sort of eagerness I guess I should have reserved for the size of the respective Kardashian arses.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 3:41 am #

            Sorry to hear you’re meeting too many doctors in their professional guise-I know lots socially and hope to keep it that way!

            I have nothing of interest to add on the Kardashians.

          • KarenJJ
            February 18, 2015 at 3:49 am #

            Oh no – it’s definitely a good thing. Turns out my strange and rare syndrome is helping scientists understand inflammasomes. It’s really, really cool.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 4:37 am #

            Well that’s all good news. You seem pretty chirpy so whatever is happening seems to be working. I always hope to be the least interesting patient-medically at least-and have managed it so far, even with the kids in tow. Fingers crossed that continues.

          • Playing Possum
            February 18, 2015 at 3:44 am #

            It’s ridiculous sometimes how excited I get about science-y type things so I hear you on the “eagerness I should have reserved for the Kardashian asses”. Even dumb things like a drop of detergent in an oily pan – there’s such satisfaction in knowing how and why something happens and then … seeing it happen!! And it must be so so cool to see the science of your own disease getting gradually clearer.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            February 18, 2015 at 3:05 pm #

            It’s ridiculous sometimes how excited I get about science-y type things

            Yep, I always figure, you REALLY have to get off on this stuff to be a pathologist. Because normal levels of scientific passion won’t get there.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 20, 2015 at 1:49 am #

            If that’s a dumb thing, I’m a complete idiot, because I love watching it every time.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 18, 2015 at 2:02 am #

            The nonspecific colitis of …….. *is histologically very different to inflammatory bowel disease, because they involve different areas of the mucosa.

            Thanks for the clear acknowledgement … when you wish to respond to the further commentary below please feel to do so.

            *Clinical examinations, pathology, care treatment and reporting of the gastrointestinal aspects of the Lancet children was undertaken by Professor John Walker-Smith, Professor Simon Murch, Professor Amar Dhillo, Dr Mike Thomson, and Dr Susan Davies.

            ps I enjoyed the ‘fluff’ but sometimes attempts at sophistication …well.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 18, 2015 at 2:05 am #

            Now over to the socks ….

          • KarenJJ
            February 18, 2015 at 2:14 am #

            Who are you specifically calling a ‘sock’?

          • Young CC Prof
            February 19, 2015 at 9:44 am #

            Can you imagine how fast you’d have to type and how little you’d have to sleep to pretend to be all of us? I couldn’t do it, even if I didn’t have a job and child.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 2:09 am #

            The doctors who retracted I’m sure would be delighted to have you mentioning them and leaving out Wakefield. Still, what do you care about what actual doctors say?

          • Playing possum
            February 18, 2015 at 2:31 am #

            Fluff?

          • Playing Possum
            February 18, 2015 at 2:56 am #

            Nah, I get it now. I apologise for the overload of words when I first replied to you. I always assume that people have the same knowledge base as me (unless they obviously don’t – children for example). I assumed that you would understand the concepts I was trying to explain (lamina propria vs intraepithelial inflammation, “colitis” vs histological colitis vs inflammatory bowel disease, normal lymphoid hyperplasia in the ilea of children, normal populations of the colon). I apologise if you thought I was trying to mislead you. A non-pathologist doctor would probably have read the Lancet paper and have accepted Wakefield’s interpretation of a normal variant as “non-specific colitis”. I should have been clearer.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 3:39 am #

            You were very clear even to a non doctor-I just looked at what you were saying, compared that with your links, and saw where AC was fudging-he is the master of obfuscation.

          • Dr Kitty
            February 18, 2015 at 4:24 am #

            Playing Possum, thank you for your patience, as a pathologist, in trying to explain things to AC.

            I think AC might want to look up the concepts of incidentalomas and VOMIT, and maybe know when he’s talking to someone who understands the concepts much better than he does.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            February 18, 2015 at 3:02 pm #

            I always assume that people have the same knowledge base as me

            I’ve always said that pathologists are probably the scariest people I know. Not just because of the stuff they know, oh no, a lot of professions have a lot of facts and details you have to know. But the extent that they get off on this stuff, man. It’s kind of like having an affinity for lutefisk. Normal people just don’t do it. As Bill Murray says in Striples, “There’s something WRONG with us! Seriously WRONG!”

            That’s what I think about pathologists.

            I know a lot of really smart people, but pathologists just scare me.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 19, 2015 at 6:59 am #

            That proclamation of non specific colitis …ouch.

            Never mind

            Identifying Wakefield as the pathologist … ouch.

            Oh dear.

          • Playing possum
            February 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

            I see. I’ve already apologized for assuming that you knew the difference between a nonexistent entity ‘non specific colitis’ as defined by Wakefield et al, and true colitis.

            I was well aware that Wakefield wasn’t the pathologist, I was using the term ‘Wakefield’ as shorthand to describe the entire paper. I think I even mentioned that Wakefield (the person) had the slides reviewed by his own pathologists.

            You still haven’t acknowledged that the colitis described in Wakefield isn’t a real entity. I’ve presented you with plenty of information (not just my own statements) that confirms that what was reported in Wakefield (with the exception of the three ‘focal active colitis’ biopsies and the one lymphocytic infiltrate) was in fact normal histology.

          • KarenJJ
            February 18, 2015 at 2:57 am #

            You know, all that science-y stuff you’ve been going on about over the past few posts. That fluff. I think it broke ACs google page.

          • yugaya
            February 18, 2015 at 4:40 am #

            Yup, you are “fluff” and he is “medical science”. Thanks for breaking it down so that even I could understand it. 🙂

          • Alain Couvier
            February 18, 2015 at 5:54 am #

            That’s OK

          • yugaya
            February 18, 2015 at 6:04 am #

            *checks whether her comment was maybe misworded or misdirected or mislabeled*

            *nope, it wasn’t, it still says clearly yugaya to Playing possum at this end of the internet*

            *wonders why anyone else would in any way assume any part-taking in what Playing possum was thanked for directly in that comment*

            *gives up*

          • Playing Possum
            February 18, 2015 at 6:05 am #

            you broke the disqus!

            ETA – I’m still not convinced that AC understands that what the Lancet paper reports is a) a variation of normal, and b) not true colitis.

          • yugaya
            February 18, 2015 at 6:08 am #

            He started it! ::)))

          • yugaya
            February 18, 2015 at 6:15 am #

            He never acknowledges hearing or understanding anything that contradicts him, instead he moves on and takes the goalposts with him.

          • Playing possum
            February 18, 2015 at 6:27 am #

            All I can think of now is that scene from Father Ted where Dougal is guarding the corner flags …

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 6:32 am #

            It was interesting how cagey he was about acknowledging Wakefield by name-Is it that he knows Wakefield is a charlatan, and that others may have negative associations with the name; or that he believes the findings were somehow stolen from him by Wakefield.

            It must be an odd and lonely life, flogging a dead horse in between being ritually humiliated.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 18, 2015 at 2:40 pm #

            The other day he thanked me for a compliment I gave to fiftyfifty1.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 4:07 pm #

            AC is very needy and a tiny bit egotistical, if he sees anything at all postive anywhere he assumes it is directed at him.

            Or his sarcasm meter has a calibration error.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 3:01 am #

            Do carry on, don’t let making a fool of yourself slow you down.

            You’re doing a better job of showing the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your position than anyone who disagrees could ever do.

          • Who?
            February 18, 2015 at 4:48 am #

            Can he stick the flounce this time though? That is the really interesting question here, since Playing Possum has cleared up the actual question.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 18, 2015 at 2:05 am #

            Well so ends that issue …again .

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

            Funny how you ask for citations but never give any.

      • yugaya
        February 18, 2015 at 3:24 am #

        “The parents in the original Lancet study reported…”

        “After the allegation of an adverse reaction to MMR was eventually recorded in 2001, it became more dramatic in subsequent accounts. Thus,in 2001 the description was: “Distressed after injection. Had fever. Eyes glazed, dilated and fixed.” E’s account became more florid over time, with references to screaming, jolting, spasming and a persistent
        vegetative state. In her final statement she said that: “M died within six hours of the MMR.” In the witness box she gave a full account of theevents on the day on which the MMR was administered and M’s reaction toit. E acknowledges in her final statement that she uses certain words and phrases in her own particular way. For example, for her the phrase
        “vegetative state” means “slipping in and out of consciousness, not responding and appearing lifeless.” And her use of the word “died” to describe what happened to M means “stopped breathing and lost consciousness””

        “The authority’s submission was that “E” was a case of “factitious disorder imposed on others” (previously known as “Munchausen”s syndrome by proxy”). The case before the court was that the fraudulent MMR injury was a concoction by the mother to get attention for herself, and that the quack remedies were instruments of control.”

        ” Also worth noting is that this individual showed developmental issues well before the MMR vaccine.”

        full judgement: http://briandeer.com/solved/mother-lied-protection-judgment.docx

        http://briandeer.com/solved/mother-lied-protection-mmr-2.htm

        http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2014/10/12/brian-deer-wakefield-mmr-mother-fabricated-injury-story/comment-page-1/

        Reading all of this reminded me of the class when we dwelled on semantic issues of animacy in nouns. It’s a rather simple concept across most of the languages of being *alive -* when you are “dead”, just like the concept of not being injured by a vaccine relies on you having documented signs of “vaccine injury” months before being vaccinated.

    • Pregnant Guest
      February 16, 2015 at 4:51 pm #

      Thanks for asking this. I also vaccinate on schedule, and admit I haven’t really looked that far into it (because…I trust science and my doctor…) But every once in a while one of the anti vax rants that come up constantly on my facebook feed gives me pause, simply because I don’t know the counter argument. I frankly don’t have the time or the know-how to find the counter argument, and I usually have far more pressing concerns to discuss w/my pediatrician. The stories about (non-autism) vaccine injury are the ones that scare me most. Maybe I’ll add Dr. Offit to my to-read list. (To reiterate, none of it scares me enough to stop vaccinating- I’m an anxious mom, but I know better than to let random internet screeds affect medical decisions for my family!)

    • Andrew Lazarus
      February 16, 2015 at 6:18 pm #

      One of the lead plaintiffs in the Autism Omnibus proceeding had the indignity of experts’ showing her daughter’s autistic behavior in home movies, before the shots.

      Now, in the 1 in a million case of vaccine-induced encephalitis or meningitis, absolutely there can be brain damage and permanent developmental deficits (as was just as true with the diseases). But in the vast majority of these cases, the doctor visit is a condensing point around vague fears that were already evident. And then, Happy Days, Andy Wakefield gave them someone to blame, and someone to sue.

      • Alain Couvier
        February 17, 2015 at 2:36 am #

        So what causative factor did the ‘experts’ establish ?

        Don’t forget to cite.

        • Andrew Lazarus
          February 17, 2015 at 2:58 am #

          Here‘s a description of the home movie testimony.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 3:03 am #

            A description ?
            Author please ?
            Is this a skeptic website ?

            What causative factor did the ‘experts’ establish ?

          • Andrew Lazarus
            February 17, 2015 at 3:09 am #

            What causative factor do you mean? I don’t think they gave any causative factor for the autistic behavior demonstrated in the home movie, except it was certainly not the MMR vaccination that hadn’t yet happened.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 3:13 am #

            So you don’t know and the experts do not know what the causative factor was ?

            Is it the skeptic community position that vaccines, even MMR has no intersection with human physiology, neurology or immunology ?

          • Andrew Lazarus
            February 17, 2015 at 3:14 am #

            No, what I said is that no one in the mainstream community (not the skeptic community) believes MMR causes autism even before it is injected. I would have thought that obvious, but the epistemological methods of the crank community are hard to parse.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 3:58 am #

            So at what age was a specific diagnosis of Autism given to these children then ?

            Or is that something else you don’t know ?

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 3:59 am #

            What children, and anyway what does it matter?

            If you’re going to do a chorus of the post hoc ergo propter hoc blues, you will get roundly dissed.

          • Andrew Lazarus
            February 17, 2015 at 10:15 am #

            What color PJs were they wearing? Or is that something you don’t know?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 4:20 pm #

            It’s a pity your argument fell apart so quickly. When you have something more insightful get back to me.

          • Andrew Lazarus
            February 17, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

            Causation is irrelevant to this discussion, inasmuch as it is not the vaccine, which had not yet been administered. On your “logic”, until the end of the 19th Century when the cause of typhus was understood, it would be quite alright to go with the idea Jews were poisoning the wells, no matter how little evidence there was for that.

            Your epistemology here is bankrupt.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 19, 2015 at 7:11 am #

            Is there some reason why you don’t seem to grasp even the basics of the Lancet study or Autism such as the key concepts of –

            Neurodevelopmental and Regression ?

          • Andrew Lazarus
            February 19, 2015 at 11:08 am #

            Where in the Lancet study do they discuss how future injections of MMR cause autism?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 19, 2015 at 3:33 pm #

            Nor do you seem to understand simple concepts of genetic risk or two hit insults ?

            The skeptic mind is fascinating.

          • Who?
            February 20, 2015 at 6:12 am #

            It would be the kind of nonsense that would fit nicely into what AC coyly refers to as The Lancet Study.

            He won’t mention his idol Wakefield. It must be hard to on one hand still believe in him and on the other to be too embarassed to mention him.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 5:02 pm #

            Can you stick the flounce this time though?

            Actually, to be fair last time was more of a disappearance when you realised what a fool you had made of yourself.

          • KarenJJ
            February 17, 2015 at 3:19 am #

            If someone knew what caused autism we’d have a win for science and could finally put that MMR issue to rest.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 3:22 am #

            Who says there needs to be a causative factor?

            But if this particular child was displaying symptoms of autism before she had the vax-as the mother’s home movies showed-then surely the vax could not have caused the autism.

            Or is this an incorrect assumption?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 3:27 am #

            Vaccines travel through time, everyone knows that.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 3:28 am #

            Forgot, sorry, back to the bottom of the class for me!

          • KarenJJ
            February 17, 2015 at 3:29 am #

            What happened to you Who? ? Did you recently get a vaccination?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 17, 2015 at 3:30 am #

            He’s getting one next week.

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 3:31 am #

            Well I did have an MMR booster back in October, and it did give me a red lump on my arm for a few days, perhaps it stole part of my brain too!

            Though thankfully the tum is fine.

  10. Dr. W
    February 15, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

    I bet she still has not gotten her boys their MMR. I bet she has vaccinated for polio and DTaP, and is being purposefully vague in her language, because she is tired of taking fire.

  11. Red Ear Reviewer
    February 15, 2015 at 3:38 pm #

    I’m seeing a lot of pseudo-libertarian rants against vaccination (and fluoridation) — not about the value of vaccines, but about personal rights being violated. They seem to have a knee-jerk response to anything done by government — even when it is the very best of government. They should be applying their own “non-aggression principle” to themselves when they put others at risk when they don’t vaccinate their own kids.

  12. Sara O'Brien Farmer
    February 14, 2015 at 9:53 pm #

    Dr. Amy, you should check out Modern Alternative Mamma’s latest post complaining about people “trashing the natural birth movement”. I would love to hear what you think of her. It won’t let me paste the link here.

    Keep on giving it to people straight!

    • Guest
      February 15, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

      Well, she says that no healthy child ever died from the flu. They all had underlying conditions. Of course. I wonder f she would be willing to say that to the family’s of those completely healthy children who died of the flu this season and last just in my local town?

      http://www.modernalternativemama.com/blog/2014/10/07/safer-flu-flu-shot/

      • Andrew Lazarus
        February 16, 2015 at 6:20 pm #

        Well, she says that no healthy child ever died from the flu. They all had underlying conditions.

        The technical name for this rhetorical fallacy is No True Scotsman and it applies just as well for organic-raised kids who get sick: someone must have smuggled in a Big Mac.

        • Alain Couvier
          February 17, 2015 at 2:46 am #

          Would it not be important to identify groups of infants and children at higher risk of illness or death ?

          Or is this something the skeptic community disagrees with ?

          • Who?
            February 17, 2015 at 2:48 am #

            Your point has nothing to do with AL’s point. Everyone wants to know how to better target all kinds of medicine-to suggest otherwise is wrong.

            That has nothing to do with the kind of thinking that says that only a person with underlying conditions (or indeed, that a person who is stupid) dies of the flu.

          • Andrew Lazarus
            February 17, 2015 at 2:53 am #

            I submit that hardly refutes the obvious No True Scotsman nature of this argument.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 17, 2015 at 3:06 am #

            Puzzling then ? Do you not think it important for treatment options and care that differing factors are identified ?

          • Andrew Lazarus
            February 17, 2015 at 3:13 am #

            You are, of course, quibbling. At least in flu deaths I’ve seen in the newspaper, I’ve read of babies described as healthy until they get sick. The antivaxers’ original imputation that death from flu just can’t be something that happens to healthy people, not that postmortem discovered hitherto unknown problems.

          • Young CC Prof
            February 17, 2015 at 9:42 am #

            Personally, I want no children to die of flu, previously healthy or not. There are two things we can do to prevent pediatric flu deaths:

            1) Vaccinate as many children as possible to reduce flu deaths.

            2) Among children with preexisting conditions or those showing signs of severe illness, begin aggressive treatment immediately, including antiviral drugs, steroids, oxygen, if necessary ventilator support, antibiotics to prevent secondary pneumonia, etc.

            So you vote to bypass strategy 1 (cost $20 per child) and rely exclusively on strategy 2, with a higher risk of side effects and astronomically higher cost. Who’s the pharma shill, again?

      • Young CC Prof
        February 16, 2015 at 10:12 pm #

        Of the over 300 confirmed pediatric deaths from h1N1 during 2009-2010, at least 100 had NO preexisting health problems. Most of the rest were basically healthy kids with asthma or something, kids who would almost certainly have lived to grow up if they hadn’t caught it.

        • Alain Couvier
          February 17, 2015 at 3:10 am #

          Asthma or something ? Do you not think a life threatening respiratory disease may be a fairly important observation for due care and treatment in the future ?

  13. Alain Couvier
    February 14, 2015 at 1:31 am #

    1. We need to facilitate a variety of controls and protocols to
    reduce medical errors including vaccine implementation – that cost
    200,000 lives per annum.

    2. We need to supply and implement the best practice solutions and vaccines to reduce mortality, morbidity and raise the quality of life not only for children in the Western World but those that live in other countries without the resources or self sufficiency to do so. Regardless of Race, Gender, Age, Sexuality or Spirituality.

    3. We need to understand that there is a complexity to vaccine administration that is not yet clear, because our knowledge of human physiology, neurology, immunology and genetics is not complete.
    Understanding can reduce morbidity, save lives and enhance quality of
    life.

    4. Each and every child has the right to high quality, personalized health care including vaccines that undertakes to fully consider and understand their, health status, physiology, neurology , genetics and any other factors including race, gender, sexuality, spirituality, socio-economic and to abide by the principles of ‘do no harm’.

    5. Each of us is a member of a wider community as such we have an obligation to support all the members of that community with thoughtful decisions whether we choose to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. These discussions should be in conjunction with a sincere and honest dialogue with a family physician, pediatrician or other relevant medical professional ie neurologists. When harm is done either directly or indirectly through vaccine implementation then we should all have the right to speedy decision making that is itself thoughtful and non adversarial, in regards to compensation.

    • Who?
      February 14, 2015 at 2:00 am #

      So what proportion of these medical errors are vaccine related?

    • Wren
      February 14, 2015 at 2:00 am #

      Is this supposed to be meaningful? You have copied your own previous posts as though repeating yourself changes something.

      • Who?
        February 14, 2015 at 2:06 am #

        He’s added some bits in an attempt to soften his essentially anti-vax, anti-science, egotistical and paternalistic message.

        • yugaya
          February 14, 2015 at 4:07 am #

          I edit for clarity, I’m a non-native speaker and often I only catch that my wording is wrong or not adequate after I post a comment. If someone has already commented on the initial statement as is, it’s probably better and more honest to address the things in the follow up comments along the lines of ….what I was trying to say…instead of editing out a whole line of argumentation.

  14. Joe
    February 13, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

    I’m glad my parents chose to vaccinate.

    Thanks mom and dad!

    • Alain Couvier
      February 14, 2015 at 1:08 am #

      Joe , birthbuddy, who? …. it’s getting awfully crowded Mike.

      • birthbuddy
        February 14, 2015 at 1:11 am #

        So, AC, how do vaccines work?

        • Alain Couvier
          February 14, 2015 at 1:16 am #

          meh

          • birthbuddy
            February 14, 2015 at 1:17 am #

            Point well made.

          • Who?
            February 14, 2015 at 2:01 am #

            At least he’s less prolix than many of our trolls here, though he does share HCM’s conviction that we are all the same person posting under different ‘personas’.

          • KarenJJ
            February 14, 2015 at 7:11 am #

            Why does that surprise people? around 80-95% of people tend to vaccinate. Pro-vax is by far the majority position, especially amongst medical people like many of the people that post on this blog.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 14, 2015 at 2:05 am #

            Unfortunately your opinion that intellectual disability is an infectious disease ‘cured’ or ‘protected” by vaccine is the point that should be noted.

            It’s not.

          • Who?
            February 14, 2015 at 2:07 am #

            Did you hit your head? It’s just you seem a little dazed and confused.

          • birthbuddy
            February 14, 2015 at 3:54 am #

            Nice try.
            Still just a dodge.

          • birthbuddy
            February 14, 2015 at 5:00 am #

            We all know that FragileX is the single biggest contributor to intellectual disability.
            Get a grip and look up sarcasm. My comments are directed at your very unique brand of stupidity.
            The ‘AC-S-Ag’ would be the target of the vaccine in your case.
            Your biggest mistake is that you thought you were going to pop in and enlighten a bunch of uneducated pro-vaxxers.
            This site’s regulars include many medical specialists, doctors, nurses, scientists, epidemiologists.
            You don’t get away with spouting crap here.
            You came, you played, you lost.
            Get over it.

  15. Alain Couvier
    February 13, 2015 at 8:30 am #

    That moment has arrived. Let the backpedaling begin!

    Seems as though the “provaccine” side has taken the lead in the great backpedaling race. Unsurprising really.

    My “So Called Antivaccine Position” ..

    1. We need to facilitate a variety of controls and protocols to reduce medical errors including vaccine implementation – that cost 200,000 lives per annum.

    2. We need to supply and implement the best practice solutions and vaccines to reduce mortality, morbidity and raise the quality of life not only for children in the Western World but those that live in other countries without the resources or self sufficiency to do so. Regardless of Race, Gender, Age, Sexuality or Spirituality.

    3. We need to understand that there is a complexity to vaccine administration that is not yet clear, because our knowledge of human physiology, neurology, immunology and genetics is not complete. Understanding can reduce morbidity, save lives and enhance quality of life

    … all commentators are of course free to argue against any if not all of these
    ‘so called antivaccine positions”.

    • FormerPhysicist
      February 13, 2015 at 8:36 am #

      Oh, you are oh so reasonable. But we *are* working on all of those. Researchers are working diligently on reducing medical error. From simple things like checklists in the OR, to standardized medical history forms, to computer screening of pap smears … lots and lots of work.

      Distributing resources to low resource areas. Lots being done there. Not always enough, but lots. Go volunteer and donate.

      Complexity to vaccine administration. Weasel words, but yes, immunologists and public health professionals do study that. Otherwise we couldn’t even have recommended schedules. The schedules come from studying what is most effective and least overall risk.

      • Alain Couvier
        February 13, 2015 at 8:51 am #

        I’m not seeing my ideas and principles being expressed on this skeptic site for one … any explanation for that ?

        Error … oversight … forgetfulness …”UNeducated” …

        “The schedules come from studying what is most effective and least overall risk.”

        Apparently the schedules can cause in some cohorts a doubling of mortality … that’s death. I’m not seeing that expressed on skeptic sites either.

        But then that’s some of the complexity that is named ‘weasel words”. As a reminder

        My “So Called Antivaccine Position” …

        2. We need to supply and implement the best practice solutions and vaccines to reduce mortality, morbidity and raise the quality of life not only for children in the Western World but those that live in other countries without the resources or self sufficiency to do so. Regardless
        of Race, Gender, Age, Sexuality or Spirituality.

        • Alain Couvier
          February 13, 2015 at 8:56 am #

          Of course this leads inexorably to the next position statement

          4. Each and every child has the right to high quality, personalized health care including vaccines that undertakes to fully consider and understand their, health status, physiology, neurology , genetics and any other factors including race, gender, sexuality, spirituality, socio-economic and to abide by the principles of ‘do no harm’.

          Of course skeptics can now put forward their opposing arguments – one assumes it will make interesting reading.

          ps I haven’t seen principle 4 on skeptic websites either.

          • Wren
            February 13, 2015 at 9:07 am #

            Ideally, I think most people here would like to see all children given access to high quality health care including vaccines. The fact you don’t see that as a major theme on sceptical blogs in no way makes that something pro-vaxers are against.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 9:16 am #

            It remains a very interesting omission never the less …

          • Wren
            February 13, 2015 at 10:05 am #

            I have not seen you mention even once that all children deserve access to food and water.

            A very interesting omission…

          • yugaya
            February 13, 2015 at 10:31 am #

            ” position that all children should be vaccinated without considering their individual health ”

            As if an omission to address that position on this blog ever happened. As if this comment I’m quoting and any and all similar ones:

            “It is time for sweeping and coercive legislation, with mandatory vaccination administered through the school system without ANY warnings. No opting out for ANY reason. That kid gets the needle no matter what. Because we are not asking sweetheart — this time, we’re telling. And “no” isn’t on the menu.The End.”

            receive unanimous approval around the “unskeptical” here.

            http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/01/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-anti-vaccine-parents.html

        • Young CC Prof
          February 13, 2015 at 9:53 am #

          In which cohorts can vaccines double mortality? Please provide evidence.

          • birthbuddy
            February 14, 2015 at 5:12 am #

            Crickets.

      • yugaya
        February 13, 2015 at 9:05 am #

        “3. We need to understand that there is a complexity ….that is not yet clear, because our knowledge of human physiology, neurology, immunology and genetics is not complete. Understanding can reduce morbidity, save lives and enhance quality of life.”

        Someone has no idea how much “because microbiome” pseudoscience gets debunked around here on regular basis:

        http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/01/the-wacky-world-of-dr-sarah-buckley-author-of-the-childbirth-connection-report.html

        • Alain Couvier
          February 13, 2015 at 9:33 am #

          I’d imagine without reading the OP by a skeptic that it contains very little of interest or adds to the knowledge of understanding ourselves as an ecology.

        • Nick Sanders
          February 13, 2015 at 12:10 pm #

          http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/gut_fauna.png

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:19 pm #

            Females typically develop higher antibody responses and experience more adverse reactions following vaccination than males. These differences are observed in response to diverse vaccines,including the bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, the yellow fever virus vaccine and influenza vaccines.

            Sex differences in the responses to vaccines
            are observed across diverse age groups, ranging from infants to aged individuals. Biological as well as behavioral differences between the sexes are likely to contribute to differences in the outcome of
            vaccination between the sexes. Immunological, hormonal, genetic and microbiota differences between males and females may also affect the outcome of vaccination.

            Identifying ways to reduce adverse reactions in females and increase immune responses in males will be necessary to adequately protect both sexes against infectious diseases.

            Whilst flippancy may have a place in debate … it seems medical science prefers to move forward and use these insights into the human microbiome for the benefit of children.

            It is an interesting observation that researchers are acknowledging and coninue to explore sex differences in vaccines.

            See “so called antivaxxer” principles No 2.

            Please feel free to provide the skeptic arguments against …

            1. Exploration of the effect of the microbiome on vaccine safety or efficacy ?

            2. The exploration of gender, to personalize and improve vaccine administration to infant girls ?

            2.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 13, 2015 at 8:25 pm #

            Do you have a point, or did you just intend to post unsourced speculation irrelevant to my post?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

            The point is self evident … skeptics are being left behind by advances in medical science.

            Back pedaling does not assist … nor does “EGO”

          • Nick Sanders
            February 13, 2015 at 8:57 pm #

            You don’t seem to know the definition of “skeptic” or of “back peddling”.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

            Setting aside ‘defintions” You don’t seem to be arguing against being left behind though …

          • birthbuddy
            February 13, 2015 at 9:03 pm #

            Left behind?
            You mean vaccines have stopped working?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 9:30 pm #

            In some cases – Yes.

            Waning immunity

            Mutation

          • Nick Sanders
            February 13, 2015 at 9:05 pm #

            Being left behind from what?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 9:30 pm #

            Medical science

    • Wren
      February 13, 2015 at 9:01 am #

      Unless those arguments are being used to justify not giving vaccines, those are not anti-vaccine positions.
      I have yet to meet anyone who would prefer medical errors not be reduced, whatever side of the vaccine argument they fall on. There is constant work in this area.
      No one I know who is for vaccination argues that the developing world’s children do not deserve safe vaccination as well. Poor access to resources is the issue, not a desire to inject third world children with whatever we happen to grab. What are you doing to improve that situation?
      Vaccine research continues in many countries, as does research into human physiology, neurology, immunology and genetics. Vaccines have a track record of reducing morbidity, saving lives and enhancing quality of life.
      Again, you have an unstated major premise, which is that we should not vaccinate anyone until vaccination is 100% perfect.

      • Alain Couvier
        February 13, 2015 at 9:18 am #

        Unless those arguments are being used to justify not giving vaccines, those are not anti-vaccine positions.

        Is the skeptic position that all children should be vaccinated without considering their individual health position ?

        That seems to be the very ‘literal’ thinking I have seen expressed time after time …

        Any explanation for a lack of thoughtful , critical thinking taking place and being expressed then ?

        • Alain Couvier
          February 13, 2015 at 9:41 am #

          ps Again, you have an unstated major premise, which is that we should not vaccinate anyone until vaccination is 100% perfect.

          No I don’t … all that I have said is common sense and a touch of humanity and social justice …

          …or is their a skeptic argument against common sense, humanity and social justice ?

          • Wren
            February 13, 2015 at 10:03 am #

            Perhaps you should clearly, with all premises mentioned, state your opposition to vaccines. You have failed to do so thus far.

          • yugaya
            February 13, 2015 at 10:34 am #

            ” … all that I have said is common sense”

            Common sense in the shape of stating that adult vaccines are deliberately being given to children….”sometimes”.

            “and a touch of humanity and social justice …”

            Sounds like the same fictional movie I caught on this blog the other day in which similarly globally concerned souls raised their voices for us folks in “third world” places where Big Pharma tests vaccines that kill on ignorant human subjects.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:13 pm #

            Testing vaccines on subjects that have or may have differing physiology,genetics, socio-economic conditions, and other environmental conditions may well be problematic.

            Let alone accessing children and parents that would have difficulty in understanding the necessary ethical protocols and outcomes of medical science research.

            Former NEJM editor Marcia Angell has an erudite commentary … The Ethics of Clinical Research in the Third World.

          • Wren
            February 14, 2015 at 2:18 am #

            You are failing to realise that the claimed “third world” being referenced here is actually Europe.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 14, 2015 at 2:27 am #

            Explain ?

          • yugaya
            February 14, 2015 at 4:41 am #

            Not just any Europe, European Union.

            He doesn’t bother read this blog in such detail, he knows all about it without investigating. Other ways of knowing at work again instead of doing one’s homework.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:07 pm #

            2. We need to supply and implement the best practice solutions and
            vaccines to reduce mortality, morbidity and raise the quality of life
            not only for children in the Western World but those that live in other
            countries without the resources or self sufficiency to do so. Regardless
            of Race, Gender, Age, Sexuality or Spirituality.

            Whilst you may define it as ‘opposition’ I’m happy to define it as “improvement” “best practice” and ” critical”.

            What are the skeptic arguments against principle 2 ?

            Skeptics obviously disagree with ‘antivaxxers’ so here’s a chance to express an opinion ?

          • Wren
            February 14, 2015 at 2:18 am #

            Best practice is not denying access to life saving vaccination until such as time that it is perfect.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 14, 2015 at 2:23 am #

            Who is “denying” access ?

          • Who?
            February 14, 2015 at 2:44 am #

            No, antivaxxers (an outlier minority) disagree with the mainstream position on vaccines, which is clear and can be seen by reviewing vaccine schedules in countries across the world.

            Tediously overwritten motherhood statements are not helpful to dialogue, assuming dialogue is what you are interested in.

          • Wren
            February 13, 2015 at 10:09 am #

            You do realise your “positions” on their own do not add up to a logical argument against the current vaccination policy in any way, don’t you? There are additional unstated premises.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:03 pm #

            They don’t have you thought that statement through ?

            1. We need to facilitate a variety of controls and protocols to reduce
            medical errors including vaccine implementation – that cost 200,000
            lives per annum.

            Current vaccination policy does not appear to have a whole country wide surveillance, investigation and reporting system for vaccine implementation errors ?

            Nor are figures present and historical published transparently to the general medical system nor to the general public ?

            What are the skeptic arguments against such common sense protocols ?

          • Wren
            February 14, 2015 at 2:16 am #

            Who is “we”?

            I live in the UK. The NHS is country wide and has a single reporting system for these and other medical errors.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 14, 2015 at 2:29 am #

            1. Community as in ‘We’ as a community need to…

            2. The you can tell the readership the number and outcome for vaccine injuries and errors for years 1994 – 2014 then.

          • Who?
            February 14, 2015 at 2:40 am #

            ‘We’ is the giveaway to the egotistical temperament and paternalistic values underlying AC’s positions. ‘We’ know best. ‘We’ will impose our common sense views on all you people who don’t know as much as us, all for your good, of course.

            At least this is a welcome rest from ‘all my freedom’, though it is coming out of the same egotistical framework.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 13, 2015 at 12:08 pm #

            “Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen.”

            I’ll take reasoned conclusions based on sound evidence, thank you.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 7:56 pm #

            So there is a skeptic argument against common sense …

          • Who?
            February 13, 2015 at 8:14 pm #

            That quote is Albert Einstein, I have no idea whether or not he was a skeptic but he learnt and shared a thing or two about science.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:30 pm #

            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
            Einstein

          • Nick Sanders
            February 13, 2015 at 8:43 pm #

            *Apocryphally* Albert Einstein. The provenance isn’t entirely clear.

          • Nick Sanders
            February 13, 2015 at 8:24 pm #

            There’s actually a better one, but it’s not as catchy:

            “The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counter-intuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what’s true.”
            Carl Sagan

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:28 pm #

            You find common sense puzzling ? Not the deepest argument I have seen, but not the worse skeptic argument either …

          • Nick Sanders
            February 13, 2015 at 8:41 pm #

            I don’t find it puzzling, I find it wrong. “Common sense” tells us things like the sun going around the earth and heavier objects falling faster. “Common sense” has no place in science, rational thinking backed by evidence does.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:52 pm #

            The skeptic argument then is that all knowledge has been made, especially in regards to vaccines ?

            Is it also the skeptic position on common sense not to explore the individual medical and socio-economic differences in vaccine implementation ? Even though research shows that they may well impact and interlink with infant health ?

          • Nick Sanders
            February 13, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

            I don’t even know how you got any of that from my post. It has literally nothing to do with what I said.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:57 pm #

            Answer the questions then …

          • Nick Sanders
            February 13, 2015 at 8:59 pm #

            I’ll answer the questions once you give a satisfactory answer to how you were told “common sense is not a reliable scientific resource” and came to the conclusion that the proper response was “well what about the socio-economics, huh?”.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 9:05 pm #

            Common sense mixed with a little science knowledge dictates that environmental factors (socio-economic) need to be considered in any vaccine implmentation program … simply because environment acts on us all, particularly as ‘we’ are an ecology of genes , neurology , physiology, bacteria and virus.

            Now over to the skeptic opposition to this ‘common sense’ argument …

          • Nick Sanders
            February 13, 2015 at 9:06 pm #

            Because germs give a damn how much money I make?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 9:29 pm #

            They certainly do.

          • Who?
            February 13, 2015 at 9:16 pm #

            Common sense is intellectual laziness combined with paternalism-it’s the equivalent of the ‘because I say so’ argument some parents use with children.

            You tell me it’s common sense that this or that should happen, and for you that’s the end of it. If I ask why, ‘common sense’ is the answer. If I disagree about what common sense calls for, and propose something else, we have a hopefully short and certainly fruitlless exchange about why each of our respective understandings of what amounts to common sense is better.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 9:28 pm #

            Inaction is laziness … promoting safety, exploring ways to reduce mortality and morbidity and increasing quality of life is the antithesis.

            There is no end to safety … especially with infant children. It may be of course a utopian goal, but it drives research and makes the world safer.

          • Who?
            February 13, 2015 at 9:34 pm #

            Do try, Alain to stick to the point. Following what your idea of common sense leads you to believe is necessary will not automatically lead to safety.

            When outcomes are not well understood, action is the refuge of the anxious. You must do something because there is suffering! And then come the calls on common sense, because how could anyone’s experience, goals or needs be different from those of the paternalistic actor?

            The thoughtful take time to attempt to truly understand not only what they think they might like to do to feel better in themselves and massage the ego that devised their version of common sense, but what those they propose to act on might find beneficial.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 9:48 pm #

            Thanks Mike .. I do wonder when you will ‘uncloak’.

            When outcomes are not well understood, action is the refuge of the anxious.

            Serious medical error is a real event.

            You must do something because there is suffering!

            Yes

            And then come the calls on common sense, because how could anyone’s experience, goals or needs be different from those of the paternalistic
            actor?

            Sorry I got lost in the faux intellectual meanderings.

            The thoughtful take time to attempt to truly understand not only what they think they might like to do to feel better in themselves and massage the ego that devised their version of common sense, but what those they propose to act on might find beneficial.

            zzzzzzzzzzz ….

        • Young CC Prof
          February 13, 2015 at 9:56 am #

          But we do consider individual health. We consider allergies, immune compromise and other issues, and sometimes a doctor will say that a particular vaccine should be delayed or not given at all.

          “all children should be vaccinated without considering their individual health position” is a classic anti-vaxxer straw man.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 7:53 pm #

            …and how do “we” ascertain the neurological status of an infant that has a genetic susceptibility to errors in synaptic function , neuroinflammation and a immunological dysfunction ?

          • Stacy48918
            February 13, 2015 at 8:22 pm #

            We shake the magic 8 ball that all doctors receive upon graduation.

            Seriously, dude, life is chance. Doctors and scientists have made vaccines that are incredibly safe for the majority of the population but nothing is perfect. As our understanding grows of “genetic susceptibility to errors in synaptic function, neuroinflammation and a immunological dysfunction” I have no doubt that alterations will be made.
            Only a complete idealist would say “until cars are perfect, I’ll walk everywhere”.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

            Only a complete idealist would say “until cars are perfect, I’ll walk everywhere”.

            I haven’t seen anyone making that argument including myself. But if you are going to ignore a patients medical history then that may be neglignce and should be awarded compensation. Or not over to you ?

            I am wondering why “I” rather thanskeptics promoted personalizes medicine , exploration of individual differences ?

            Strange omissions ?

          • Stacy48918
            February 13, 2015 at 8:37 pm #

            “Personalized care” does not mean that YOU get to direct your own care in opposition to the recommendations of every major medical organization on the basis of internet “research” and “theories”.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

            So you don’t think a parent has an insight into her infant child’s medical history that a pediatrician may use to provide the best medical care ?

            Even though vaccine inserts clearly state a variety of contraindications for vaccine or that a pediatrician may develop a health plan based on his own expertise ?

            Is the skeptic argument that parents and pediatricians have no flexibility in health care for infants and it should be mandated by others ?

          • Stacy48918
            February 13, 2015 at 9:54 pm #

            In rare instances, can patient insight/intuition lead to a break through in their care? Yes.
            But those are exceptionally rare. When you say “insight” or “personalized care” you mean “but I don’t think my special snowflake can handle it because she sniffled 6 times after the last shot so she must be sensitive and 4 other parents on a message board said their special snowflake sniffled 6 times after their last shot so it must be true.”
            There is and should be plenty of flexibility in health care – guided primarily by medical studies, not “insight”. Or do you think that medical studies do not have value?
            “Vaccine inserts” – B12! B12! Anyone got B12-Vaccine inserts?

          • yugaya
            February 14, 2015 at 4:35 am #

            It’s called clinical assessment, and it does not involve internet when done properly. It’s the best tool we as humans have at the moment, and unless you happen to own a crystal ball it’s also the best thing around to rely on as a parent of “an infant that has a genetic susceptibility to errors in synaptic function , neuroinflammation and a immunological dysfunction”.

        • Wren
          February 13, 2015 at 10:02 am #

          Who has argued for blindly vaccinating all children with no consideration for individual health?

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 7:52 pm #

            Nice wording … nice back pedaling.

          • Wren
            February 15, 2015 at 12:49 am #

            It is your wording and therefore unsurprising you find it nice.

            There was no back-pedalling. Perhaps you need to look up the definition of that term?

          • Who?
            February 15, 2015 at 1:08 am #

            Is AC back? Birthbuddy handed him his arse yesterday. It was beautiful-the handing back, obviously, not the arse.

    • Stacy48918
      February 13, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

      1. Already being addressed.
      2. Already being addressed.
      3. Already being addressed.
      You are “antivaccine” because until the system is perfect, you will use those excuses to disseminate doubt.

      • Alain Couvier
        February 13, 2015 at 8:41 pm #

        Yes there are many “so called antivaxxers” that are doing just that setting aside bias , prejudice and moving forward with the medical science that will reduce mortality, morbidity and increase quality of life.

        Nice backpedaling though …keep shaking the Magic 8 ball.

        • birthbuddy
          February 13, 2015 at 8:58 pm #

          Backpedalling?
          How exactly is that backpedalling?
          Everyone agrees the system isn’t perfect but it is better than the alternative.
          You are sounding more and more like a nutter.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 9:09 pm #

            Everyone agrees the system isn’t perfect but it is better than the alternative.

            Show me on this skeptic blog where ‘my’ points are consistently raised and solutions given ?

          • birthbuddy
            February 13, 2015 at 9:14 pm #

            Everyone agrees that system isn’t perfect but it is better than the alternative.
            Which bit did you not understand?
            We are all adults here, you are expected to support your own arguments.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 10:03 pm #

            Show me on this skeptic blog where ‘my’ points are consistently raised and solutions given ?

            Let’s start with raised ?

          • birthbuddy
            February 13, 2015 at 10:05 pm #

            It is not about you, Mr. Hole.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 13, 2015 at 11:00 pm #

            So stacy48918 and yourself think personal abuse will make vaccine implmentation , safety and efficacy questions go away …

            Is this a fundamental strategy in the skeptic armoury ?
            Or can you raise an intellectual question ?

          • birthbuddy
            February 13, 2015 at 11:17 pm #

            Here is a question: How do vaccines work?

          • birthbuddy
            February 13, 2015 at 11:19 pm #

            I apologize if you find the question personally abusive.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 14, 2015 at 12:52 am #

            You are a troll.

          • birthbuddy
            February 13, 2015 at 11:58 pm #

            Now, now AC, don’t get all sensitive now.
            You came along to shock us with your knowledge and insights but neither stacked up unfortunately.
            That’s about it really.

          • Alain Couvier
            February 14, 2015 at 12:52 am #

            Trolling again.