The Daily Mail published another MMR piece earlier this week. As usual it had the predicted results in that it stirred up the usual frenzy of illogic and fallacy.
Why do I say that?
In order to explain we need to fast-forward a couple of days to where Melanie Phillips, Andrew Wakefield’s staunchest media supporter in the UK, published her own follow up to the Mail story. I urge you to go read both pieces now before you read the rest of this.
OK, done? Good.
So lets talk about what was said. Basically, the gist of both articles is now the medical community in the UK _have_ to take the MMR link seriously because Dr Peter Fletcher, ex-Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health has said a few things about it.
On the face of it thats pretty impressive – this isn’t some no-nothing from nowhere – this is an *ex CSO*. But once you get past the fact of who he _is_ and start to isolate what he’s actually _saying_ then, to borrow a phrase, the facade starts to crack.
First is the fact that this sort of argument – based on his good standing in the past – is a sort of reverse Argumentum Ad Hominem in that it is argued that it is equally or of more importance regarding who Dr Gordon _is_ as oppose to what he _says_. This is, of course, a fallacious position from which to start.
So what does he (and the original article) actually say?
[Dr Gordon]….has accused the Government of “utterly inexplicable complacency” over the MMR triple vaccine for children.
Thats simply an assumption based on his circular reasoning that the MMR has routine or above average negative effects: as an argument it relies on the reader agreeing that there is a case for the Gvmnt being complacent in the first place. Since the establishment of this case _is whats actually being debated_ its safe to ignore this as pre-conceived bias.
[Dr Fletcher]…..said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, _”the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history”_.
Well, d’uh. How is that news? Its obviously true and equally obvious entirely irrelevant to establishing a case for believing MMR has a role in causing autism. Its a tactical appeal to emotion – nothing more.
He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents’ lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see. He said he has seen a “steady accumulation of evidence” from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.
This is at the heart of the two articles. Dr Fletcher however simply invokes the spirit of these ‘thousands of documents’ and doesn’t discuss them or what they contain at all. It may well be that he’s hampered by the legal constraints of the case(s) in question but thats really besides the point. What we need to know is – what can Dr Fletcher _add_ to the debate? Both the epidemiology and the hard science have refuted the MMR link on more than one occasion. If Dr Fletcher has peer reviewed journal based evidence that contradicts or invalidates the science done so far then he should state it. At the moment he is simply repeating a fallacy of intuition, magical thinking and an argument to the future. None of these lend any scientific credence to making a case that supports the idea that the MMR jab caused or contributed to anyones autism. If there’s evidence lets get it peer reviewed and published in a respected journal – anything else is simply hearsay.
But he added: “There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”
This is a combination of Galileo gambit and a fallacy of the assumed but hidden truth. In other words its the invocation of a conspiracy theory. Its an easy thing to say because one doesn’t have to prove or even allege who these ‘powerful people’ actually are and thus there is no one available to defend the given proposition. I always think of this as the last refuge of the truly desperate. If someones case is strong enough then why resort to such a transparent and desperate tactic?
Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children,” he said.
It is? Where? In fact the vast weight of scientific evidence has very recently concluded that there is no link.
There was no credible evidence behind claims of harm from the MMR vaccination. This is the conclusion drawn by the Cochrane Review Authors, an international team of researchers, after carefully drawing together all of the evidence found in 31 high quality studies from around the world. They also highlight that the policy of encouraging mass use of MMR has eliminated the scourge of measles, mumps and rubella from many countries. _”In particular we conclude that all the major unintended events, such as triggering Crohn’s disease or autism, were suspected on the basis of unreliable evidence,”_ says lead author Dr Vittorio Demicheli who works at Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, Alessandria, Italy.
By contrast, Dr Fletcher yet again fails to say _what_ this ‘vast weight’ of scientific evidence was, where it could be found and who produced it. He just says its there. And we should just trust him because he’s cleverer than us.
Yet there has been a tenfold increase in autism and related forms of brain damage over the past 15 years, roughly coinciding with MMR’s introduction
Really? Obviously Dr Fletcher (and the Daily Mail) don’t examine the actual science which states:
The new study, which involved 10,903 preschool children in the United Kingdom, confirmed the elevated autism rate, but clearly demonstrated that autism prevalence is not increasing.
Fletcher also makes the mistake of matching correlation with causation – a schoolboy error for any scientist.
He said there was “no way” the tenfold leap in autistic children could be the result of better recognition and definitional changes, as claimed by health authorities.
Another totally specious statement with nothing to back it up. Fletcher might well believe it but as he provides no evidence then its just an opinion. In fact, scientific studies in the US indicate the rise in rate _is_ down to better recognition and diagnosis.
“It is highly likely that at least part of this increase is a vaccine related problem.” he said.
Again, this may be Fletcher’s opinion but he provides nothing in the way of support for it. This isn’t science, this is just gossip.
And thats just about all of Dr Fletcher’s contribution to the debate. Fallacy, lazy reasoning, assertion and unverified claims. It comes as no surprise that other lazy thinkers hype such garbage when they have so little science to support their position.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Nice work Kev!
The UK health researchers did not sit on their hands whilst all this was going on. They researched this and found that the epidemic is better explained via diagnostic changes. They found methodology errors in Wakefield’s research. Folks on this side of the Atlantic in the inter-department research center I am affiliated with can’t seem to replicate Wakefield’s research (except for Dr. Singh who is no longer part of our center), but who is still at my University.
The reverse ad hominem is the “Argument from elitism”.
Or maybe since Dr. Fletcher has been out of the loop “The argument from false authority” would be a more approproiate label.
I think that it’s important for someone to go check on Dr. Fletcher. I think that it’s entirely possible that some of the “mercury militia” have gotten to him. I wonder if they flew over in their multi-million dollar jets to tie him up with all their money and stuff him in his closet hanging by his toe nails… they are forcing him to say such blasphemy about the mmr. What a bunch of meanies.
Keep grasping at those straws, Kev.
– Sue M.
_”they are forcing him to say such blasphemy about the mmr.”_
The point is Sue that he’s said *nothing* about the MMR that we didn’t already know.
Keep placing importance on the people not the science Sue.
Damn it Sue! You almost made 24 hours this time.
Kev wrote:
“The point is Sue that he’s said nothing about the MMR that we didn’t already know”.
– No, Kev, the point is you don’t know what information he has that you don’t have. Is it possible that this guy has a bit more knowledge that you do on this topic? Maybe you should find out BEFORE you dismiss him. What’s wrong with that?
This should have been the title of this entry….
Trust the scientists UNTIL they have an opinion which differs from you.
– Sue M.
Clone wrote:
“Damn it Sue! You almost made 24 hours this time”.
– Too funny, Clone. I read those comments from you guys this morning. I’ll be sure to let you know when I’m leaving for good… if I don’t, just ASSUME that I’ll be back. I’ll try to clarify from now on.
– Sue M.
Sue,
The issue isn’t about trust or mistrust of a scientist (or so I see it).
Its about arguing from elitism. This is a bad idea.
And now you have helped morph it into arguing via assumed, but hidden truth.
Where are the data or relevant info that would back Dr. Fletcher up? He is most welcome to present these.
Jonathan wrote:
“Its about arguing from elitism. This is a bad idea”.
– Hello, Jonathan, IOM ??
– Sue M.
I do have to say you guys seem to care more about analyzing fallacies than you do about the actual topic… Just an opinion (nope, you didn’t ask).
– Sue M.
“– Hello, Jonathan, IOM ”
(grins) Hello Sue….
Will you explain your IOM statement?
Hi Mr. Kline,
Prometheus pretty cool, but I was interested in the forms illogic takes long before I stumbled across his blog.
Will you be so good as to provide an example of our, as you say, invalid, idiotic reasoning and of course why, it meets those conditions.
Or Mr. Cline, rather.
I will blame misspelling your name on my yo-yo-ness.
Sue,
We didn’t ask, but your opinion is welcome anyway.
I am not a fan of Mother’s/Father’s intuition or any other kind of magical thinking. Dollars to donuts, that a lot of folks who comment here have a low opinion of this sort of reasoning.
A lot of us look at statement and see if the conclusions are supported by the premises. When we find that this isn’t the case we speak up. We do you absolutely no favors by staying quite, and pretending these errors of thought which are present in the statements you make, just don’t exist.
That looks pretty on topic to me….
Jonathan…
Don’t expect Sue to get that… or at least to acknowledge that… The reason she finds it tiresome is that it probably does get tiring for her being shot down in flames every time she utters an inane statement…
Even to her, that could get boring, man….
Jonathan wrote:
“I am not a fan of Mother’s/Father’s intuition or any other kind of magical thinking”.
– That’s because you’re about 12, right? I didn’t believe in mother’s/father’s intuition either until I had kids. It is not “magical thinking” when you see the before/after effects of vaccines on your kid. Duh!
– Sue M.
Frank Cline sounds like another incarnation of John Best Jr. Remember that “whack a mole” game from carnivals and state fairs?
“That’s because you’re about 12, right?” Nice Sue, go ahead and belittle Jonathan as you’ve tried to do before. Fortunately, he’s above that. You may not like what he has to say, but he’s never spoken to you with level of discourtesy. Before you ask: no, I don’t have anything more substantive to add to the discussion. When do you plan to start?
Even when as a referee for Wakefield’s paper, “Through a Glass Darkly, Dr Fletcher came out in support of Wakefield’s thesis that there were unanswered questions about the safety of MMR he still told the BBC that
Dr Wakefield’s research paper did not contain any extra evidence to alarm parents, but that this would be the inevitable effect. He said: “Parents should definitely continue to have their children immunised against these illnesses.”
He did not mention whether that was single vaccines or triple vaccines.
Another old favourite turned up today in the Mail’s scare story on Meningititis vaccination.
Dr Richard Halvorsen, a GP and child vaccination expert said: “By introducing these new jabs there is the worry that we may be overloading the baby’s immune system.
Dr Halvorsen of course offers parents a choice between MMR and single vaccines. Shouldn’t a “child vaccination expert” know which is the safest option and offer only that option instead of leaving clinical judgement to parents?
“Will you explain your IOM statement?”
Jonathan,
I don’t like to speak for others generally, but I believe Sue’s reference was to the fact that the IOM report, which so many believe to be the crown jewel of the argument against a thimerosal-autism connection, is the epitome of arguing from elitism.
Frank Cline said “Jonathan, a good source for an illogical argument would Kathleen Seidel’s latest blog entry. Let’s see if you can spot the fallacies there.”
Do you mean this part of http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/76/rollens-rages-mind-responds … this quote from Rollins:
“Hey Diva (or whoever you are): How about coming out of your hole and debating me face to face on the autism epidemic?
It’s about time that you are exposed for what you are..a cowardly, misguided sole, who is so insulated in one’s own world and mind to not even see and recognize the epidemic of full syndrome, regressive, vaccine induced autistic children all around you.”
Or the fack that Kathleen Seidel says she is not the Austism Diva?
Could you point it out to us?
Also… Clarify for us: is the problem vaccine the MMR or the ones that contain thimerosal? Please include all verifiable references.
I would hardly call it a crown jewel, Wade, but I also don’t see it is an example of arguing from elitism. The purpose of the IOM meeting wasn’t to argue for or against a connection. The purpose was to hear testimony from many different sources and make recommendations on based on that testimony. The fact that they listened to presentations from many sources, including several with questionable credentials, doesn’t sound like elitism to me. If you read the final conclusions again, it also doesn’t sound like they stated as fact vaccines don’t cause autism. If convincing evidence had been presented the outcome may have been different. If another meeting was scheduled for next week there wouldn’t be any more convincing evidence and the recommendations would probably be the same.
All you have to do is look at Wakefield’s hypothesis and the papers he uses to support it. Shouldn’t Wakefield know better than Fletcher how it is the the MMR could possibly cause autism?
Wakefield’s hypothesis is totally bogus, the papers he cites don’t show anything that support the idea that autism could be caused by measles.
It’s like if I wrote: “Autism is caused by a platinum deficiency and shown by the seminal work of Fringle & Nudnem (1956) and Glorioski (1972) regarding platinum in the brains of green spider monkeys.”
Then you go and read those papers and see that there’s nothing there, just barely anything that could be used to support a vague hypothesis. But since I wrote it it looks like what I wrote must mean SOMETHING because, after all I AM Dr. Zelda Wakeforest, and I did get it published somewhere!
That’s how bad the support for his hypothesis is. There’s no there there. He just keeps blustering about how the gut is the seat of the soul and how autism is like being stoned on opiods or drunk or something. Never mind that he never talks about the actual neurons in the actual brain and how they are configured differently in autism and how changing the diet doesn’t configure the neurons differently.
Measles virus in the gut doesn’t cause autism, there’s no reason to think that it could and there’s no reason to think that Wakefield ever found measles there. His finding has not been replicated even though people have looked.
Time to trot out a conspiracy theory, right? I’ve heard it already.
Fletcher is in the pocket of people trying to sue for damages isn’t he? I mean isn’t that stated openly in one of these articles? He might feel that he’s tired of not having nice things and that it’s worth it to lie to the public because the lawyers are paying him to do it. That happens. He’s one man spitting against a hurricane of evidence against any causal connection between MMR and autism. Then there are the big problems with the credibility of the Mail.
No one in the US is really freaked about the MMR but Rollens, he apparently keeps his son on powerful antibiotics because of some theory related to Wakefield’s. Rollens is preaching against thimerosal mainly to keep the mercury parents thing going for them.
I talked to a scientist at the MIND about Rollens. He said that Rollens knows that he (the scientist) doesn’t believe that vaccines had anything to do an increase in autism. That scientist thinks that there has been an increase in autism. I don’t think the evidence is there, but I told him that he could be right. MAYBE there has been an increase in the rate of PDD,nos and MAYBE it has been a doubling over 30 years. That’s not an epidemic and it’s not connected to vaccines.
The point is that even this guy, who I think is wrong in several areas, this scientist says it’s not the vaccines, even though he thinks that there has been a significant increase in the incidence of the birth of spectrum kids. They are looking at prenatal factors and genes, not at environmental exposure to stuff during toddlerhood, as I understand it.
Rollens won’t harass this scientist about his not believing it’s vaccines, but Rollens will harangue the rest of the world about it. I find that interesting.
Seems kind of two faced. Another person I spoke to at the MIND about Rollens’ recent public statements and nasty emails about vaccines causing autism said, “He doesn’t still think it’s the vaccines, does he? I thought he gave up on that.”
Weird business.
“I am not a fan of Mother’s/Father’s intuition or any other kind of magical thinking.”
This might be the coolest thing I’ve read in a long time.
I’m about 3X 12 years old and I agree.
Sue leaves again “for [the] good” in 3….2….1….
Hi Wade,
Thank you for the help.
I have carefully read the IOM report, I saw no evidence that they were arguing from elitism. I guess that is why it didn’t seem obvious.
Arguing from elitism; is to argue that an individual or set of individuals are inherently correct on an issue, aside from any evidence they present.
The IOM committee reviewed available research and concluded that there was no autism=thimerosal connection and that future research should not be conducted. The two IOM decisions may or may not be accurate.
That is not the foundation of an argument from elitism.
Hi Sue,
You wrote:
“– That’s because you’re about 12, right? I didn’t believe in mother’s/father’s intuition either until I had kids. It is not “magical thinking†when you see the before/after effects of vaccines on your kid. Duh!â€
Well, there is a grain of truth in this……I probably would have identified Mother’s/Father’s intuition as magical thinking even when I was twelve (certainly by age fourteen).
I suppose it could be worse; having a twelve your old question your logic might be embarrassing, but what if I was ten and did this. Now puzzle me this Sue, would the fact that I was ten years old change the accuracy or validity of what I say?
I think you have no way you could know what vaccines did or did not do to your child. Your reasoning comes after the fact, and your datum point, is uncontrolled for extraneous variables.
I have no interest in invalidating your experience as Mother and as a person. What I question is your statements of causation. Do you see the difference? If not ask for clarification.
Hi Mr. Cline,
I went back and double checked Kathleen’s post.
I didn’t find any errors of logic.
I may have missed them though.
I would love to know what fallacies she employed.
Educate me!
Hi David,
I see you point, but I would rather try and fail.
I have always been stubborn about things like that.
_”No, Kev, the point is you don’t know what information he has that you don’t have. Is it possible that this guy has a bit more knowledge that you do on this topic? Maybe you should find out BEFORE you dismiss him. What’s wrong with that?”_
Please try and understand Sue. I’m not saying he might have more information. He really may well have. The point is that presenting it and discussing it in the fallacious way he has adds nothing to the debate. We can all go around saying we have more evidence that backs up our position – thats pretty much useless though _unless you’re willing to a) discuss it and b) submit it for peer review._
Oh and Frank Kline is JBJr – he’s swapped ISP’s to uu.net by the looks of things. Please everyone just ignore him and I’ll ban him and delete his comments.
_”but I believe Sue’s reference was to the fact that the IOM report, which so many believe to be the crown jewel of the argument against a thimerosal-autism connection, is the epitome of arguing from elitism.”_
So not only is Sue invoking the IOM report which has nothing to do with the subject underdiscussion (MMR), she’s also saying that because the IOM did it, is OK for everyone else to. Great points Sue, way up to your usual standard.
Hi Jonathan…
Can relate to that… used to do it myself, but eventually I just got tired of getting nowhere with that sort of person.
Has everyone seen this?
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=1266
We love the Daily Mail 🙂
Nice find M – pretty typical Daily Mail. I’m just amazed they haven’t blamed autism on dole-scum evil asylum seekers yet.
Mike, who comments above, has a great post on the same subject. He closes with:
_”My final message is for the government. Have you ever considered why parents turn to bad science? It is because you do so little for us and our children. Government responses to autism are so bad that bad science like Andy Wakefield’s theories and snake oil remedies from DAN! seem preferable to some parents. You could make this whole MMR debate irrelevant if you spent a lot more time and money on positive autism specific policies and less defending the present indefensible status quo and producing ill thought out legislation that adds to our difficulties.”_
Kev wrote:
“So not only is Sue invoking the IOM report which has nothing to do with the subject underdiscussion (MMR), she’s also saying that because the IOM did it, is OK for everyone else to. Great points Sue, way up to your usual standard”.
– Before I post separately about the elitism comment, I would like to reference the IOM report again for Kev’s sake, considering apparently he has forgotten (or has not read) the IOM report that I am referring to. It is:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/504_iom.html
– I hope that you can clearly now see that this report references both the thimerosal issue as well as the mmr issue at hand. PLEASE READ IT. Therefore, I hope that we can now agree that it does, in fact, have to do with the discussion at hand. Thank you for your consideration.
– Sue M.
Jonathan wrote:
“Arguing from elitism; is to argue that an individual or set of individuals are inherently correct on an issue, aside from any evidence they present”.
– On the IOM/elitism comment that I had made yesterday. Wade was correct in what I was trying to relay. Whether or not the IOM is ACTIVELY arguing on this topic or not, whether they present certain evidence or not is almost irrelevant. It is about perception. It “seems” that what they say is Gospel. When they made their report in 2004, I imagine that there were ped’s all over the country/world who breathed a big sigh of relief. Phew, the IOM have stated that vaccines (thimerosal-containing and mmr) have been cleared in the association with autism. To the world, that was the final answer… I guess it’s just too bad that it might be the wrong answer.
– Sue M.
As a point of clarification, the link that I posted above is not the IOM report itself. It is the FDA commentary in regards to the IOM report. If anyone would like to post the actual report and/or show the group where the commentary falls flat in regards to the actual report, I would welcome it.
– Sue M.
_”Therefore, I hope that we can now agree that it does, in fact, have to do with the discussion at hand.”_
You obviously didn’t get the report Sue. The MMR references in the IOM report come from the UK, based on the Lancet paper by Wakefield. Therefore the IOM report _adds_ nothing, it makes no mention of anything about Peter Fletcher, therefore its got little to nothing to do with this post. Especially in the context Wade stated and you concurred with:
_”which so many believe to be the crown jewel of the argument against a *thimerosal-autism* connection”_
My point about two wrongs making a right still stands.
_”To the world, that was the final answer… I guess it’s just too bad that it might be the wrong answer”_
Wrong again. Numerous studies, incluing the ones I linked to in my post, have _continued_ to refute the MMR link.
Absolutism continues to serve you badly Sue.
Dave wrote:
” Before you ask: no, I don’t have anything more substantive to add to the discussion. When do you plan to start”?
– Dearest Dave, I think that it is quite obvious that you don’t have anything to add to the discussion. I would estimate that 8 out of 10 of your posts here have been solely about me and how I am an annoyance to this blog. This is fine. You may be under the impression that I actually care what you think. Here’s a hint. If I did, I wouldn’t still be here. At lease I make an attempt to add to the discussion. Unlike you, who simply wants to jump in when you see a comment by me which “offends” you.
People that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones…
– Sue M.
Kev wrote:
“Therefore the IOM report adds nothing, it makes no mention of anything about Peter Fletcher, therefore its got little to nothing to do with this post”.
– For future reference, after you post, can you please jot down what IS and what IS NOT acceptable to comment on in our responses. It may also help in eliminating about 95% of Ms. Clark’s responses (a bonus).
Thank you,
Sue M.
Sue, you’re right, there is no point in my continuing to complain. It clearly does no good. The offense is quite real, but I’ll just have to ignore it when it inevitably recurs. As far as your contributions go, I hope you either find a better outlet for your specious arguments or learn to make better ones.
Dave wrote:
“Sue, you’re right, there is no point in my continuing to complain. It clearly does no good. The offense is quite real, but I’ll just have to ignore it when it inevitably recurs”.
– Perfect. If it makes you feel better, there are plenty of comments made here which offend me as well. I just don’t feel the need to bring it up each time it happens. So I will ignore, and you will ignore. This should work well.
– Sue M.
_”For future reference, after you post, can you please jot down what IS and what IS NOT acceptable to comment on in our responses.”_
What is acceptable? I made no mention of that. I asked you to concentrate on whats relevant.
I think I’ve finally figured you out Sue. I got my first clue when you seemed to find EoH more relevant than the science its alleged to discuss. I got another one when you crowed about the possibility of there being a movie based on the book. I got confirmation when I realised that throughout this post you want to concentrate on the source rather than the issues.
You’re a celeb-worshipper aren’t you? Someone who finds their own significance vicariously in what those more ‘famous’ can offer to your life. Thats fine Sue. Getting your news from E! rather than BBC doesn’t make you a bad person. It does however confirm you as someone incapable of seeing the issue due to being blinded by the person raising the issue.
Hi Sue,
Actually, I agree with you that to argue against a thimerosal/autism conenction just because the IOM said so, is an argument from elitism. It is worth noting, that the error, in this case, is not with the IOM, but in others who improperly discuss their results.
Kev wrote:
“You’re a celeb-worshipper aren’t you”?
– I would be interested in hearing about the “celebs” that I have been worshipping here (not that it’s relevant or anything).
I do have a question/comment for you, Kev. Take a look at the article that Mike Stanton posted above. In that article there is a doctor, Sir Liam Donaldson, who says the following:
“Science shows that a baby’s immune system can cope with thousands of vaccines. Children that are given vaccines tend to grow up to be more healthy”.
– Given the fact that you don’t want to accept Dr. Fletcher’s opinion about the possible dangers of the mmr, I would imagine that a comment such as this from another doctor would be equally as offensive to you. A doctor who is claiming that a baby’s immune system can cope with thousands of vaccines. Prove it. A doctor that says that children that are given vaccines tend to grow up to be more healthy. Again, prove it. No way, Kev. There is no possible way that this doctor can justify making these sort of outlandish comments. I hope that you will be equally as critical of Liam Donaldson as you are of Dr. Fletcher.
– Sue M.
Jonathan wrote:
“Actually, I agree with you that to argue against a thimerosal/autism conenction just because the IOM said so, is an argument from elitism”.
– Jonathan, you are wise beyond your years 🙂 …
– Sue M.
Sue M. Perfect. If it makes you feel better, there are plenty of comments made here which offend me as well. I just don’t feel the need to bring it up each time it happens. So I will ignore, and you will ignore. This should work well.
Sue, what would work well is whenever you read a comment here, or anywhere for the matter, try to remember comments are often just opinions. They are usually offered by way of support or disagreement with the original post. It really isn’t all about you and what can be said to offend you, believe it or not.
Why don’t you start your own blog like Best Fore Sam and argue with the commenters who offend you and your belief system. Wouldn’t that be a constructive outlet for all of those strong opinions and the axe you have to grind with three letter acronym agencies? Then maybe you can do something about offensive comments.
Go ahead, I promise I’ll comment on a regular basis. You can even get angry and storm off every now and then.
Of course another option might be to back up your criticisms with some sort of facts or even a clear opinion, but that wouldn’t seem to be the Best option for you. I sincerely hope I haven’t offended you by saying this.
3, 2, 1 *POOF*
Clone wrote:
“It really isn’t all about you and what can be said to offend you, believe it or not”.
– I believe it. Precisely the reason that I have chosen to ignore it. I suppose it is Dave Seidel who needs the lecture, not me.
– Sue M.
Regarding Liam Donalsdson’s claim that, “Science shows that a baby’s immune system can cope with thousands of vaccines.” The evidence for this is in the following paper: Offit P, Quarles J, Gerber M, et al. Addressing parents’ concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant’s immune system? Pediatrics. 2002;109:124-129. The authors estimate that an infant can withstand up to 10000 vaccinations, so 4 more is not going to make any difference at all.
You know, Sue, if had been paying attention anything I actually said, rather than automatically discounting my remarks because you find Kathleen’s work threatening, you would have noticed that what consistently offends me is when you get nasty and put people like Jonathan down instead of engaging in rational discourse. Verbal abuse and bullying really pisses me off. While your brand is milder than your neighbor John, it’s just as hostile and unnecessary. If you stuck with the subject at hand and stopped stooping to insult (which you probably think is just “bantering”), I would never have bothered. I’m not threatened in the least by views that differ from mine, but I have a low tolerence for ad hominem and condescension.
Finally, since you seem to be fond of ageist remarks, I’ll point out that I’m at least your peer and quite likely your senior, and I am hardly in need of any lectures from you.
Mike Stanton wrote:
“The evidence for this is in the following paper: Offit P, Quarles J, Gerber M, et al. Addressing parents’ concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant’s immune system? Pediatrics. 2002;109:124-129. The authors estimate that an infant can withstand up to 10000 vaccinations, so 4 more is not going to make any difference at all”.
– Are you kidding me? Seriously, Paul Offit? Oh boy. Paul Offit the guy who killed a bunch of babies a few years back with an unsafe Rotavirus vaccine. Come on, Mike, how can anyone say that it is safe to inject 10,000 vaccinations into an infant… You can’t, Mike, you CAN’T say that… hello? Am I in the twilight zone.
– Sue M.
Dave wrote:
“rather than automatically discounting my remarks because you find Kathleen’s work threatening…”
– What? I find Kathleen’s “work” threatening, since when? Get over yourself.
This ignoring thing is going really well, by the way…
– Sue M.