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 
“Paul Offit the guy who killed a bunch of babies a few years back with an unsafe Rotavirus vaccine.”
That’s a pretty serious charge, Sue. I assume you’ve filed the necessarily police reports charging Dr. Offit with all sorts of crimes.
Didn’t think so.
_” I would be interested in hearing about the “celebs†that I have been worshipping here (not that it’s relevant or anything).”_
Celebs in your case: Andrew Wakefield, Boyd Haley, Dan Olmsted, David Kirby etc etc – people who have had nothing of any substabce to say for quite some time or who’s work is basically error strewn. You’ve shown time and time again you’re awed by anyone who has a byline or who might be making a movie – I guess thats easier to deal with than the actual science.
_”Given the fact that you don’t want to accept Dr. Fletcher’s opinion about the possible dangers of the mmr,”_
Damn Sue, how many times do I have to say it before you hear it? I can accept that he has an _opinion_ on it. Everybody does. What I’m taking issue with is his fallacious and misleading presentation of his opinion as having any scientific merit when no one has any access to the science which allegedly underpins his opinion. Science without peer review is not science, its gossip.
_”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.”_
Mike’s provided the source. A peer reviewed, journal published source. And yet again, you go off on the _person_ producing the science rather than the science itself. If Paul Offit is such a terrible scientist then it should be easy for you to refute the cite with better science that supports your position – go ahead. I’ll wait here for you to do that.
Mouse wrote:
“That’s a pretty serious charge, Sue. I assume you’ve filed the necessarily police reports charging Dr. Offit with all sorts of crimes”.
– No, I didn’t, mouse… Paul Offit held a patent for the Rotashield vaccine. It was pulled from the market in 1999 after some children developed serious bowel constructions after getting the vaccine. Now, I said “a bunch” of kids died. Listen, I don’t know how many actually died… Officially, they say actual deaths was less than 5 but of course I have heard that the number was greater than that but they could only conclusively tie a very small number to the vaccine. The point is, it was pulled from the market over safety concerns. Let’s imagine for a second that they decided to vaccinate children with 10,000 RotaShield vaccines just to test Offit’s theory (as seen above)… Do you really think that that would have been a good idea?
– Sue M.
Kev wrote:
“Celebs in your case: Andrew Wakefield, Boyd Haley, Dan Olmsted, David Kirby etc etc”.
– I imagine that they would be surprised to be called “celebs”.
Kev wrote:
“Mike’s provided the source. A peer reviewed, journal published source. And yet again, you go off on the person producing the science rather than the science itself. If Paul Offit is such a terrible scientist then it should be easy for you to refute the cite with better science that supports your position – go ahead. I’ll wait here for you to do that”.
– So, just because this paper happens to have appeared in a peer reviewed journal published source means that it is “sound science”. A doctor claims that it would be safe to inject infants with 10,000 vaccines and that is considered “science”? This is an opinion, Kev. Dr. Offit’s OPINION is that it would be ok to inject infants with 10,000 vaccines… certainly, no one can say this for sure unless you are willing to actually inject babies with 10,000 vaccines (obviously this would never happen). As stated above, imagine if infants were injected with 10,000 RotaShield vaccines… That would have nightmare written all over it. If this is what you call “sound science”, you can take it.
– Sue M.
Sue M,
I wonder if you really believe how absolute your position sounds. I also wonder whether you really believe it.
You see to be a sensible, rational person. You are annoyed (with some justification, I must admit – I don’t appreciate the nastiness either) by some of the people posting here. You and John Best Jr (who has been banned) seem to be the only people opposing the rest of the posters here and elsewhere. It’s a big job. Why not ask some of your friends, who hold the same viewpoints as you, to come here and argue as well? Isnt’t the awareness of the autism=mecury cause growing? I notice that Bettwice also angled for people to help him out by posting his blog address (and Skeptico’s) to EoH. But maybe only one or two people came to help out. How come? Are there only a few people left who can make a coherent argument for autism=mercury?
Dave: “Verbal abuse and bullying really pisses me off.”
To be honest, she probably gets off on that. I have yet to see her put in a single good piece of evidence for anything she says, and to actually show any sign of having seriously considered any evidence offered by others. She’s not here to discuss… the reason for Sue being here is to get just that reaction. Her posts are full of logical fallacies, to the point where discussing such fallacies actually (at least from observations of her behaviour here) makes her uncomfortable (she probably knows that this is all she has to go on, as a counter to anythign rational). You’ll never get sense out of her and nor will you get a change in her behaviour.
No point trying to explain to her.
Sue M: Paul Offit held a patent for the Rotashield vaccine. It was pulled from the market in 1999 after some children developed serious bowel constructions after getting the vaccine.
Yeah, that would be intussusception, but don’t get hung up on details when you are calling people baby killers. So a vaccine was voluntarily pulled from the market after it may have been linked to rare side effects and you have a problem with that why? Oh yeah, this stuff is right out of the anti-vaccine groups’ talking points.
Speaking of Offit, where did he suggest it would be safe to inject 10,000 vaccines in to a baby? A little embellishment there Sue?
You know what Sue, not only do I think you worship celebs, I think you wish to be one. All of your EoH buddies enjoy your silly disruptive comments here and send along congratulatory emails, makes you feel like you are somebody. Great, you’re somebody, happy?
I’d like to suggest that we all ignore Sue unless she has something useful, on-topic, or accurate to contribute.
_”So, just because this paper happens to have appeared in a peer reviewed journal published source means that it is “sound scienceâ€. A doctor claims that it would be safe to inject infants with 10,000 vaccines and that is considered “scienceâ€? This is an opinion, Kev.”_
[Sigh], once more into the breech.
Its _science_ Sue because its been peer reviewed. In other words a whole bunch of impartial, internationally based scientists decided that the science underpinning it was sound. Thats not opinion, its a fact.
As to the conclusions drawn – feel free to debate them. I’ve already asked you once to provide the counter-science that supports your beliefs. So far you don’t seem able to do that. You again just fall back on supposition because you can’t believe the Offit paper is right – newsflash Sue – people once couldn’t believe the Earth orbited the Sun. If that happens to float your boat then good for you but don’t pretend that what you espouse is in any way science based because it isn’t.
Dave Said,
“Verbal abuse and bullying really pisses me off. While your brand is milder than your neighbor John, it’s just as hostile and unnecessary.”
Are you people kidding me?
It’s everyone here against Sue M.!
It’s always all of you that start with the belittling and hostility first!
If Sue M. left this blog, what would all of you talk about?
Sue M. is right on with her comments on the the Paul Offit so-called “peer reviewed” published paper. I guess it doesn’t matter to any of you as long as it’s “peer reviewed”!
Well …where is Bartholomew Cubbins when we need him? Paul Offit’s peer reviwed paper doesn’t mean squat because he did not go out and conduct double blind, placebo controlled, multi-centered, cross-over trials that showed that ANY children can handle 1000 or 10,000 vacinations! I agree with Sue M., are you people kidding with Paul Offit!
Do you know that about 70 percent of adult autistics have a college degree? A very high number of them have masters degrees, but do you know what percentage of them are actually working and using their degree? Less than one percent! Do you know why? Do you also know why 90 percent of adult autistics stay home with thier parents?
They can’t handle social situations, that’s why!
If chelation or biomedical treatments will help these children recover and help them overcome these social pitfalls that it’s time you all got on board! Quit wasting so much time here and start helping to recover these kids! If you’re a scientist at a big university, I suggest you stop making videos on your blog and get to studying what causes autism.
Someday the unchelated kids are going to meet the chelated kids?
What will they say to each other? What questions will they ask each other?
Will there be jealousy …or animosity?
I hope they get along better than the anti-chelation, and pro-chelation parents parents did!
_”It’s everyone here against Sue M.!”_
No. Sue makes points she can’t back up, she fails to understand the basics and then starts her own unique brand of sarcasm.
_”It’s always all of you that start with the belittling and hostility first!”_
Go and read Sue’s first contribution to this thread.
_”If Sue M. left this blog, what would all of you talk about?”_
What we all talked about before she turned up.
_”Sue M. is right on with her comments on the the Paul Offit so-called “peer reviewed†published paper. I guess it doesn’t matter to any of you as long as it’s “peer reviewedâ€!”_
No, neither you nor she is correct. You also fail to understand what peer reviewed means. It doesn’t mean a paper is automatically correct, it means the science underpinning it is valid. As I’ve explained to Sue twice now, if she has equally valid science that invalidates Offits paper then she should cite it. As long as she can’t, hers and your fulminating against the _person_ rather than the _science_ is simply irrelevent. You’re simply reacting because you don’t like Paul Offit. Thats fine but don’t assume it has any relevancy to the point at hand as it doesn’t.
_”Do you know that about 70 percent of adult autistics have a college degree? A very high number of them have masters degrees, but do you know what percentage of them are actually working and using their degree? Less than one percent! Do you know why? Do you also know why 90 percent of adult autistics stay home with thier parents?”_
You of course have cites for all those figures. Otherwise people might think you simply pulled them out of your arse.
The rest of your rant is just bizarre and totally off topic. There are other threads that discuss chelation. Go post your chelation related points in one of them.
Replying to Sue, who wrote
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.
Evidence please for your claims about Paul Offit. Have you read the paper I referenced? Perhaps you could specify your objections to the research paper rather than to the author.
Gotta Go
I’m right here but I haven’t been keeping up with this thread and I haven’t read Offit’s work. He got slotted into the jerk column of my dividing-the-world-sheet when he said that he thought that all lab mice were autistic. I just haven’t been able to get past that. I’ll work on it.
Bartholomew wrote:
“He got slotted into the jerk column of my dividing-the-world-sheet when he said that he thought that all lab mice were autistic. I just haven’t been able to get past that. I’ll work on it”.
– Hey Bart, we agree. He is a jerk (an arrogant one at that). Unfortunately for you, though, he’s one of your greatest allies… good luck with that!
– Sue M.
Hi GottaGo,
You wrote “Do you know that about 70 percent of adult autistics have a college degree? A very high number of them have masters degrees, but do you know what percentage of them are actually working and using their degree? Less than one percent! Do you know why? Do you also know why 90 percent of adult autistics stay home with thier parents?”
Where did this come from. It is a new one to me.
Actually, I make it a habit to ignore Sue M. I very often will not read her posts unless I need to understand a response to her by someone else.
I am only commenting right now because this morning while using news.google.com for “measles” I came across this article:
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=449655&category=CAPITOL&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=2/11/2006
I think it would be a good thing that instead of just asking for an exception (which happens in our state, and why when someone comes to the airport with measles it can spread throughout a private school)… a parent would have to spend a couple hours in a class, and THEN write an essay about their reasons.
Clone wrote:
“Speaking of Offit, where did he suggest it would be safe to inject 10,000 vaccines in to a baby? A little embellishment there Sue”?
– Apparently Clone has not been keeping up with this thread. See Mike Stanton’s comment above in regards to the estimate of how many vaccinations an infant could withstand according to Offit:
“The authors estimate that an infant can withstand up to 10000 vaccinations, so 4 more is not going to make any difference at all”.
– Then, if that doesn’t help you could go directly to the so-called “scientific” article that we have been discussing. If you bother to read it, it says:
“…then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time…”
– Now, I imagine you are thinking… look it says “theoretical capacity”, blah, blah, blah… Well, that’s great, except for the minor problem that medical officials such as Sir Liam Donaldson are able to take that “science” and perpetuate a false sense of security by stating:
“Science shows that a baby’s immune system can cope with thousands of vaccines”.
– No, Sir Donaldson, “science” does NOT show this… this is a theoretical comment (opinion) of one doctor who has proven himself to be tied quite tightly with pharma companies. That’s all this is… opinion masquerading as “science”. Quite honestly, the first indication of this was the very beginning of the article which states:
“This article will provide health care professionals with information about the effect of vaccines on the infant’s immune system and the capacity of the immune system to respond safely to multiple vaccines”.
– He may well have just written… This article is to give health care professionals something to reference when they have wacko parents who are concerned about the welfare of their babies and actually have the nerve to question the sanctity of our vaccination policy. That would have been a bit more honest.
– I suppose no one else wants to talk about the irony of this article being published in 2002. This is 3 years after his failed rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn after injuring babies. So, it is safe to inject 10,000 vaccines into a baby but it is NOT SAFE to inject ONE of his rotavirus vaccines into babies… What about 10,000 thimerosal containing vaccinations would THAT be enough to injure (or kill) a baby? How about 5,000 thimerosal vaccines and 5,000 mmr’s? Would that do the trick? Come on people, wake up… Again, if this is what you call “science” you can keep it.
Clone wrote:
“You know what Sue, not only do I think you worship celebs, I think you wish to be one. All of your EoH buddies enjoy your silly disruptive comments here and send along congratulatory emails, makes you feel like you are somebody. Great, you’re somebody, happy”?
– Except for a few posts here where someone agrees with me either completely or agrees with a single point of mine… I can honestly say that I have NEVER received a single congratulatory e-mail from anyone. I guess I must be a real loser. If, on the off chance, this admission suddenly sends a flurry of them into my inbox, I’ll be sure to let you know.
Clone wrote:
“I’d like to suggest that we all ignore Sue unless she has something useful, on-topic, or accurate to contribute”.
– That’s fine. You are all entitled to ignore me. Now, that doesn’t mean that I’ll stop posting but of course, feel free to ignore…
– Sue M.
Kev wrote:
“It doesn’t mean a paper is automatically correct, it means the science underpinning it is valid. As I’ve explained to Sue twice now, if she has equally valid science that invalidates Offits paper then she should cite it”.
– It does not take a scientist to invalidate this article, Kev. It takes common sense… nothing else.
– Sue M.
_”No, Sir Donaldson, “science†does NOT show this… this is a theoretical comment (opinion) of one doctor who has proven himself to be tied quite tightly with pharma companies. That’s all this is… opinion masquerading as “scienceâ€.”_
Yes Sue, science _does_ show this. This is the conclusion of a peer reviewed journal based study authored by _multiple_ scientists – not just Offit. I’ll ask you *for the third time* – if you have valid science to refute this study then cite it. Until you do, you’re simply doing what you always do – base your beliefs on the personalities and make a lot of outraged noises. It does get a bit tedious after awhile.
Kev wrote:
“Yes Sue, science does show this”.
– Kev, you are off your rocker on this one. Where are the studies with the infants receiving 10,000 vaccines at one time? I would hope that one of your “groupies” will have enough balls to speak up here… I won’t count on it, though.
It’s pretty pathetic when “theoretical science” can trump plain old common sense. In theory, I could run across a 4 lane highway in barefeet and dark clothes during evening rush hour and make it unscathed… or, in theory, I could become road kill. Feel free to insert bad jokes here…
– Sue M.
Hi Sue,
Well twelve year olds (even ones wise beyond their years) are a little young to be a groupie, so I probably can’t be accused of that.
You are right and you are wrong re the many vaccines of Dr. Offit.
You are right and that this has never been empirically assessed and is therefore questionable.
However, this is a stage of science in that Dr. Offit has made a claim that is testable that his peers either agreed with or found acceptable enough for publication. This is an early stage of science on this issue.
I think you are wrong to displace this via common sense. Who’s common sense? Yours? Mine? Kev’s? Who can lay claim to common sense in this case.
_”Kev, you are off your rocker on this one. Where are the studies with the infants receiving 10,000 vaccines at one time? I would hope that one of your “groupies†will have enough balls to speak up here… I won’t count on it, though.”_
Whats that old line about taking a horse to water but not being able to make it drink?
I’m going to take you through it stage by stage.
Peer review does not assure correctness. It assures that the scientific methodology underpining the study is sound.
Donaldson said: _”Science shows that a baby’s immune system can cope with thousands of vaccines.”_
When he says this, he is saying that, based on the available science – *which is valid and sound* it is his (and Offits) conclusion that a young immune system can cope with thousands of vaccines.
Now, on a practical level this is never going to be tested – we don’t need to offer thousands of vaccines so why bother testing it?
However we have the theoretical science that shows its legitimate to conclude that it would be OK to do such a thing.
And so we come back to you. If you disagree with the conclusion then you need to show whats scientifically wrong with either the conclusion itself or the science that underpins the conclusion – for the fourth time of asking: can you?
Kev,
I will accept your attempts to belittle and talk down to me as a defensive mechanism of yours as you become aware that your “science” in THIS case is BOGUS. I believe that you know that, Kev.
Kev wrote:
“And so we come back to you. If you disagree with the conclusion then you need to show whats scientifically wrong with either the conclusion itself or the science that underpins the conclusion – for the fourth time of asking: can you”?
– I may have to refer to Jonathan on this but… can we say that this is Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (#18 on Jonathan’s list of fallacies):
http://interverbal.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-logic-fallacies-_113650316997218009.html
Kev wrote:
“However we have the theoretical science that shows its legitimate to conclude that it would be OK to do such a thing”.
– It would never, ever, ever be OK to do this… Not in a thousand years. To say so, is irresponsible and disgraceful.
– Sue M.
And yes, I am just as shocked as you are that I am attempting to talk fallacies with you all… Uuuugggghhh! I figure it’s the one thing that you guys know so well.
– Sue M.
Obviously SueM has a serious manic defence problem going on here, since she has not yet come up with any science to back up her position and yet still finds it necessary to lay heavily into those who do.
I agree with Kev… it’s getting tedious.
And I dunno what sort of ideas she has as fallacies, but I didn’t see a single one I recognise from my philosophy of science classes.
Make one wonder what kind of college Sue went to… if she went to one.
This may be the root of her issue with science… she may be one of those who didn’t go and feels empty because of that, and has to berate anyone who did go in order to try to feel equal.
Sadly, she’ll never be that while ever she spouts rubbish.
_”I will accept your attempts to belittle and talk down to me as a defensive mechanism of yours as you become aware that your “science†in THIS case is BOGUS. I believe that you know that, Kev.”_
I know no such thing. If you feel belittled and talked down to thats your issue Sue. To borrow a phrase from you: why don’t you cry about it?
_”I may have to refer to Jonathan on this but… can we say that this is Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (#18 on Jonathan’s list of fallacies):”_
Er, no. The argument from ignorance is like someone saying: ‘God exists!’ and because its not a disprovable hypothesis, that statement becoming a fact. What has been repeatedly shown to you is that the science _does_ exist to contradict the point you tried to make. Its not an argument from ignorance. Your lack of ability to counter it is always going to be an issue if you want to debate the point in terms of science. However, you don’t. You want to debate it in terms of you having a strong aversion to Paul Offit and a subsequent inabaility to believe anything he says.
_“It would never, ever, ever be OK to do this… Not in a thousand years. To say so, is irresponsible and disgraceful.”_
We’re going around in circles here Sue. If you believe that to be the case then thats fine – carry on in that belief. If however, you want to carry it past just being your opinion (as you did when you started this side issue) then you need to show why either the underpinning science is not good or why the conclusion its based on is not good.
All I’m saying to you is that its perfectly OK for you to believe whatever you want. You think Paul Offit is Satan personified – thats up to you. However, your belief doesn’t alter the facts at hand. I’ll urge you once more Sue – look past the personalities involved and look at the science. Then maybe after my *fifth time of asking* you can tell me where the science is that contradicts the Pediatrics paper.
I was particularly intrigued by Dr. Fletcher’s comment:
“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.”
I take this to mean that he thinks that a conspiracy exists to “suppress” the “truth” about the MMR vaccine. I am disappointed.
Certainly he is intelligent enough to know that all it takes to “blow” a conspiracy of silence is for one person to feel that they have more to gain than they have to lose. This is why large conspiracies are almost always either fictional of delusional. Given the high newsworthiness of this issue, I would have expected someone to have “blown the whistle” by now.
Unless Dr. Fletcher is accusing the “government” of killing would-be whistle-blowers, then he has to explain why the conspiracy has remained intact. If he is accusing the government of murder to protect the conspiracy, he has to explain why he hasn’t had a mysterious accident or simply disappeared.
Conspiracy claims are almost always a sign that the data on their side is weak or non-existent.
Regarding the Institute of Medicine’s report on vaccines and autism, I don’t think that any scientist considers that to be data. It’s just the consensus opinion of a group of senior scientists who have reviewed the available data. Hardly the “crown jewel”. Those who suggest that it is are betraying the woeful state of their understanding of science.
This is not to say that the IOM’s report will have no impact on the debate. Many people who have not taken the time to acquaint themselves with all the data will certainly take it as the “final word”. Just as others – who have also not bothered to acquaint themselves with the data – will see it as a “whitewash”.
Prometheus
Kev wrote:
“You want to debate it in terms of you having a strong aversion to Paul Offit and a subsequent inabaility to believe anything he says”.
– Kev, you have that backwards. I have an aversion to Paul Offit BECAUSE of what he says. You know like the outrageous and bogus things that he says such as:
“…then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time…â€
– You know that this is bogus and I know that this is bogus and even our friend, Clone, knows that this is bogus… In fact, Clone even thought that I had been embellishing upon Offit’s words. Clone wrote:
“Speaking of Offit, where did he suggest it would be safe to inject 10,000 vaccines in to a baby? A little embellishment there Sue”?
– Yes, even Clone knows that this is bogus… Everyone with any common sense knows… Imagine “opinions” being paraded about as “science”. This paper belongs in the trash right next to those “scientific” Danish epidemiological studies. So, Kev, you can ask me one hundred times about the science that contradicts the Pediatrics paper and I will have to remind you 100 times that this Pediatrics paper is a bunch of words on paper – no more. So, I will ask FOR A SECOND TIME: do any of your groupies have the balls to admit that this paper is bogus?
– Sue M.
David wrote:
“Make one wonder what kind of college Sue went to… if she went to one”.
– As if this is relevant… I will say that yes, David, I did go to College. In fact, I went to a well respected College. I even graduated with a decent GPA. I also had a bunch of fun… So, if it is really that important to you (or to anyone else) than I will reveal that College name and forward my transcript… otherwise, just take my word for it.
– Sue M.
Hi Sue,
The Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam would not apply for Kev’s statement. That argument is based upon stating “that something hasn’t been disproven, therefore it is true”.
I was not unhappy to see that you used this argument. I fact I was very pleased. If you see an error of logic I (this is just my opinion) I would like to be told about it.
Along the same lines, while challenging folks to see if they have any “balls” (golf balls?) looks like fun, I don’t think there is much accuracy in it. You could ask anyone here how much trouble I have challanging the people who I generally agree with, when they write something i dissent from. The other folks here also don’t seem shy about this.
_”Kev, you have that backwards. I have an aversion to Paul Offit BECAUSE of what he says. You know like the outrageous and bogus things that he says such as: “…then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time…—_
So you have an aversion based on what he says. OK, good – so show me where the science is that makes what he says here bogus. Its really not a difficult thing to understand – I can take the word of you or Offit. As he can back up his claims and you patently can’t you’re not very convincing.
_”and I will have to remind you 100 times that this Pediatrics paper is a bunch of words on paper – no more”_
Well, except its peer reviewed. EoH – now _there’s_ a ‘bunch of words on paper – no more’.
FAO: Jenny M. Webster – we can do this here or via email. kevleitch@gmail.com
Jonathan said,
Where did this come from. It is a new one to me.
Kev said,
You of course have cites for all those figures. Otherwise people might think you simply pulled them out of your arse.
I can’t find the original source for my figures but I found new sources and new figures here and the study below from Margaret Farelly.
Margaret Farelly (2001): What Happens To ASD Adults After College?
Dr. Farelly interviewed 14 Irish young aadults with Asperger’s Syndrome, all in their 20’s, who had spent at least several years in college. The following is a summary of her findings:
– 14/14 were living at home
– 1/14 had obtained a B.A.
– 1/14 had full-time employment
– 11/14 reported no friendships
– 10/14 reported that they did not socialize outside of the family
– 12/14 reported significant sucicidial ideation
My original source was Steven Gutstein’s presentation at the NAA conference. Steven Gutstein is the co-founder of the RDI Program.
GottaGo — Interesting, even suggestive, but hardly definitive. Fourteen subjects is a very small sample size. Has there been any follow up study? Any data at all from the US?
I should mention that I know more than fourteen autistic and AS adults, most of whom are past their twenties, all of whom have full-time employment and none of whom live at home. This is anecdotal evidence, of course, but true nonetheless.
Even granting for the sake of argument that there are people out there with what *you* might consider to be social issues, there’s certainly no data to support the notion that chelation or any other biomedical intervention would change that.
SueM: “I will say that yes, David, I did go to College. In fact, I went to a well respected College.”
Excellent.
Why do you come out with nothing of any value here then? Didn’t seem to do you much good, did it?
Oh, and my latest paper (in child psychology) came back… 5th distinction out of 5 papers handed in… getting boring now…
Why distinctions (yeh, highest grade)… because I do the job scientifically. I back things up.
You have yet to do that here.
If the college student can’t cope with the working world, then that implicates the working world as much as it implicates the graduates.
If business valued a hard working, dedicated, intelligent person, then the autistics would be employed.
But the autistics are forced to working with a mixture of NTs among whom there always seem to be vampires and trolls, thugs and slimeballs, witches and thieves. The bad guys always seem to win, too. The autistics can’t play office politics and some vicious people just love to torment us.
Meaning that there’s some sicko virus warping the minds of a certain class of NT people and it needs a cure, now.
The idea that chelation is going to help autistics of any age is so funny, when in it isn’t deadly, that is.
Chelate the bullies, first. Then we’ll talk.
“The autistics can’t play office politics and some vicious people just love to torment us.”
Are you a victim?
Do vicious people torment YOU, or do YOU just have a way of making people vicious?
Poor, Poor, Camille.
So Sad!
If a vaccine is a way to introduce an antigen to a baby’s immune system in such a way that the baby can form antibodies to that antigen then compared to all the antigens that a baby is exposed to, 10,000 vaccines is only a raindrop in an ocean of antigens.
Think of baby’s exposure immediately after birth to all the fawning relatives and the bacteria and viruses(virii?) they bring along with them.
Anyone expressing shock and horror at the theoretical statement that a baby could withstand 10,000 vaccines is being willfully stupid; college educated or not.
Nana is really Camille or Ms. Clark or AKA AutismDiva.
She has many pseudonyms. sometimes they even argue with each other. It’s actually kind of scary.
Hi GottaGo,
I just checked she didn’t submit this for peer review.
Did she control for random and systematic statistical errors?
Why didn’t she use a minimum of 30 individuals, this is often cited as the minimum (n) for descriptive epidemiology?
Which she are we talking about jonny?
_”Dr. Farelly interviewed 14 Irish young aadults with Asperger’s Syndrome”_
You’re basing those stats on a study involving 14 people? Please.
I take it that Margaret Farelly’s research kind of butts heads against everything you were just taught in school?
Steven Gutstein PhD. had a lot more stats than I was able to supply here when he spoke at the NAA conference last fall. I would hope you would look him up and at least see what his RDI program is about. I think that the man is a true genius when it comes to stats on autistics!
You’re basing those stats on a study involving 14 people? Please.
Kev, do you have a better study? A study that says otherwise?
Kev, is up early. Or late?
We owe it to these kids to treat them through biomedical treatments so that they will have a more level playing field when they reach the work place.
Society will not change for these kids. Ruthless greedy corporate America will not accommodate a majority of these kids down the road!
The parents of autistic kids, regardless of what side of the Mercury issue they are on, need to stick together and get to the bottom of this epidemic!
Both. I was up late and now early.
I can’t find Farelly’s study in PubMed so can you provide a link to her study. Decent studies need to clearly demonstrate why the population that was selected was decided upon. You’ll forgive me if I don’t just take your word for it.
As for the NAS piece you link to I can see no mention of:
_”Do you know that about *70 percent of adult autistics have a college degree*? A very high number of them have masters degrees, but do you know *what percentage of them are actually working and using their degree? Less than one percent*! Do you know why? Do you also know *why 90 percent of adult autistics stay home* with thier parents?”_
_”Kev, do you have a better study? A study that says otherwise?”_
I’d like you to provide a study that backs up your position first.
So if it’s not on Pubmed, then we should call it quackery? Is Pubmed the that credible?
_”Society will not change for these kids. Ruthless greedy corporate America will not accommodate a majority of these kids down the road!”_
Defeatism.
_”The parents of autistic kids, regardless of what side of the Mercury issue they are on, need to stick together and get to the bottom of this epidemic!”_
What epidemic?
_”So if it’s not on Pubmed, then we should call it quackery? Is Pubmed the that credible?”_
Yes PubMed is pretty credible. Do you know what it is?
If a study isn’t in PM then its not automatically quackery but I am suspicious. Science needs to be transparent and reproducable. Do you have any link at all to Farelly’s piece?
Steve Gutstein will be in London soon, maybe you can find time to see him. No matter what side of this whole mercury/autism issue somone stands on, I think you will find Mr. Gutstein very interesting. He doesn’t even mention chelation, he is all about getting fair treatment for all autistic people and he has some interesting ideas on how to get most of them there.
_”Steve Gutstein will be in London soon, maybe you can find time to see him.”_
Do I take it that thats a ‘no’ from you then?
Kev, it’s not a no. Did you really read anything that I said? Kev, do you really trust pubmed? See, it’s that gov part of their wed address that makes me a little leery. well, …actually a lot leery.
http://www.rdiconnect.com/
I am not stupid and I know that your definately not stupd either, so why do you repeatedly ban me but when I come back under another name you still let me post for a while. I know that you know who I really am right now. Kevin, I am going to post an update on my son’s progress soon on my blog and I am going to forawrd it to Pat Sullivan junior and I think it’s going to have you scratching your head. My son is doing so well lately that no one can explain it away, no one!