After the launch of Put Children First, JB was flushed with pride at the mighty accomplishments of his lovely new website. So much so that he posted the following to the EoH group:
I have been watching the web hits on PutChildrenFirst.org. The most hits are from the CDC’s router. Hey CDC, go fuck yourself!! Lots of love, JB
Woah! Pretty impressive!
Except….lets delve a little into the murky geek-ridden world of web stats for a moment. What is a hit? Why do people think they are a good thing?
There is a common misconception that ‘a hit’ means a person has visited a site. Not so. A ‘hit’ refers to one _object_ on a page being accessed once. For example, if a user visits a page that contains 14 images and nothing else then 14 hits will be registered. If we wanted to get really worked up by ‘hits’ we could all add a million images to a web page and then as soon as one person visited that page – we’d have a million hits! – cool huh?
No, not really. I hope its clear why.
What’s worth getting excited over in terms of web statistics are _unique visitors_ . This refers to the amount of unique visitors that the site has received. Obviously, this is a much better indicator of how many users have actually seen your pages. But even this does not necessarily refer to _people_ as search engines, RSS spiders and a whole host of other automated bots are counted as users too. But still, this is the best way to get a reliable approximation on how many people visited your site.
So, what have we learnt? Hits are nothing to get excited about.
But that wouldn’t make much a blog post now would it?
Two of my favourite visitors to my humble little blog are Sue M and Erik Nanstiel. Together they can be counted on to loudly trumpet anything and everything that comes from the holy apertures of a select group of people, including JB. So when the putchildrenfirst site was launched, along came Erik and Sue to mention it at every available opportunity.
Well, someone must’ve followed a link from here to there because someone from there subsequently followed a link from _there_ back to _here_. And how do I know this?
Let me introduce the concept of _referrers_ – basically, the page you are coming _from_ leaves a footprint in the page you are coming _to_ – its how web statistics packages track who links to the site they sit on.
So, my referral to putchildrenfirst.org shows up in JB’s web stats package – whomever it is monitoring these things (JB, one would assume based on the above post to EoH) – is curious and clicks the link which in turn places the referring page from putchildrenfirst.org into _my_ web stats package.
So, I login to my webstats package this morning and lo and behold – what do I find but a link straight into the heart of putchildrenfirst.org’s web stats package. Cool :o)
Let’s see how well its doing shall we?
I could point you to the relevant page if you like: It’s right here and you can see for yourself. But, I also took the precaution of making a copy and uploading it to this site – just in case ‘someone’ decides to finally get smart and apply some basic security to their web stats.
I also thought it would be polite to offer an explanation of what’s going on for the less techy amongst you.
OK, the first line to note is the average visits per day. PCF got an average of 444 unique visits per day through April. For a site that was advertised all over the press, apparently seen on TV and was heavily promoted at a rally, that’s pretty crap. My own site, by comparison, gets an average of 3140 unique visits per day.
But lets also look at the section entitled _Daily Statistics for April 2006_ as this gives us a very clear picture of the popularity of the site. Remember that ‘visits’ – the yellow column in that table – is the key indicator. Using that we can see that on only 3 occasions did PCF get more than 1000 visitors per day – the 5th, 6th and 7th. After that, the visitor stats take on the appearance of a slowly deflating balloon. By the end of the month, PCF is barely scraping in 100 visitors a day.
Like a lot of single issue group websites, PCF suffers from the fact that it never has anything new to say. To have a successful site the absolute _biggest_ point to address is that of fresh, engaging content. I don’t know who the copywriter was for PCF but the breathless, barely concealed hysterical conspiracy theory-esque edge really does the site no favours. To put it simply – PCF was a novelty site who’s novelty value lasted 3 days and who reached the wrong audience.
What do I mean the wrong audience? Well, as JB says, one of the most popular visitor IP’s referred back to the CDC. Scroll down to the section headed _Top 30 of 10917 Total Sites_ for evidence of that.
One of the largest amount of visitors (please note this table is *not* sorted on amount of visitors) came from WilliamsBailey.com….a firm of lawyers…guess what one of their specialties is….can you guess?
I have to admit I’m very confused by this as JB recently wrote an open letter to Paul Offit on EoH which stated amongst other things:
No one who paid for the Ad is a vaccine litigant. No one who paid for the Ad is involved with trial lawyers.
I guess it must just be one of those strange coincidences that the joint 10th most popular visitors was a firm of thiomersal/autism lawyers.
However, the most popular group of visitors indeed came from the CDC – 38 visits. The second most popular was the MSN Search Engine bot. This is not the MSN search engine referring people to PCF, this is a visit from the automated script that ‘collects’ sites. Another notable visitor seems to be the AAP. The rest I don’t recognise so I would assume are ordinary visitors.
Now, if I was pushing a website in a national newspaper ad, and splashing the URL all over the TV and on placards at a rally, then I’d really want the ordinary folk of the country to be my visitors. That’s who need to hear my message. However, its clear that the main people who heard PCF’s message were the CDC, the AAP and thiomersal/autism lawyers – oh yeah, and an automated script or two.
Isn’t that kind of a waste of time? Don’t they already know how you feel?
So, lets move on to the referrers list – the section entitled _Top 30 of 1121 Total Referrers_ is the one you want. This lists the top 30 sites who have provided links to PCF – sorted by ‘hits’ unfortunately, which as we’ve already discussed is a meaningless statistic.
The most popular links to PCF is…..PCF. Not surprising – Webalizer (the stats package PCF uses) can (I think) be configured to ignore its own domain but nobody did I guess.
However, the next referrer is a _doozy_ – David Icke, shellsuit wearing, self-professed ‘son-of-god’ who believes we are ruled over by a race of lizards.
The rest of the referrers are other anti-vaccine groups. The only two of any note are ‘The Hill’ and a Press Release site. Neither generated a lot of traffic for PCF.
So, in closing, I think its fair to say that PCF was about as successful as a Thames whale rescue. I’d like to thank Erik and Sue M, without whom, whomever clicked through from PCF would never have been able to do so and I would never have been able to access PCF’s web stats.
JB – if you’d like a decent web developer to handle your sites from now on, I’d be happy to provide a quote. I promise not to leave your bare arse hanging out for the world to see either.
UPDATE: Looks like JB’s up to his old tricks again.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Sue-
Do I just vanish into the ether because some doctor says I never existed?
My problem with thiomersal causes autism is not just the dose makes the poison, but the timing determines the damage done. Thalidomide caused limb reduction in some infants exposed in utero, but caused autism if exposure occurred earlier. And thalidomide given when the child is full grown does not a damn thing. Exposure to German measles causes autism in the first trimester. By your reasoning, children should become autistic if they have rubella at age 18 months.
“Unvaccinated JB or unvaccinated with thimerosal? Why do we need a large-scale study when we already know there are plenty of newly diagnosed kids who never saw a thimerosal containing vaccine? Thimerosal gone. Autism still here. ‘nuff said.”
Just unvaccinated, Clone3g. Why the defensiveness? Pure unvaccinated is the only way to put this issue to bed once and for all, and there is an enormous data set (estimates of 2 million kids) from which to draw.
JB
Not defensive, just wondering why we need to look at pure unvaccinated kids when there is already a large population of kids who were never vaccinated with thimerosal containing vaccines. Unless of course you don’t think it’s the thimerosal and just vaccines in general.
The issue has been put to bed JB. Thimerosal has been removed and autism rates are stable.
Ruth wrote:
“Do I just vanish into the ether because some doctor says I never existed”?
– Yes, you do… poof 🙂
clone3g wrote: “Thimerosal has been removed and autism rates are stable.”
Get your facts straight Clone3g, the above statement is simply untrue.
Click to access e.2.pdf
You can also look at this chart – children by the age of 5 will receive 53% of the mercury received by children at the peak of mercury exposure in the mid-1990s: http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/e.17.pdf
In Britain, they blame MMR.
In America, they blame Thimerosal.
Are both right? Is one right? Are neither right?
If neurodevelopmental outcomes of unvaccinated children are the same as the national average, recently reported by CDC, then neither of us are right. It’s a simple study, and I would think all of you would be supportive of it being done to put this issue to bed once and for all, no?
JB
Zeus:
Man, you really, really got me. Well done, pats on the back and all that.
Except that the following has been on our website sice May, 2005 when we launched. I should know, I wrote it. Per the above, I think it’s both, only a test of the unvaccinated will tell us if it’s neither. The fact that some of you have chosen to oversimplify our message is not my problem.
You should all welcome a test of neurodevelomental outcomes of the unvaccinated children. If rates are the same as the CDC just reported, you will prove both wrong in one fell swoop!
From http://www.generationrescue.org
“Myth #10: You say mercury from Thimerosal causes autism. Others say the MMR vaccine causes autism. But, the MMR vaccine has never contained Thimerosal. How can both be true?
The MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine does not contain Thimerosal. Unlike most vaccines, the MMR is a live-virus vaccine and therefore does not need Thimerosal as a preservative. However, the fact that the MMR is a triple live-virus vaccine is part of the problem. The goal of a live virus is to trigger a mild immune response and build immunity. This may work in a healthy child. However, many children who develop autism are already burdened with mercury poisoning by the time they receive the MMR at 12-18 months. Mercury impairs the immune system, and the live virus, rather than triggering a mild response, can overwhelm an impaired immune system. A virus’ goal is to find a host and recreate. There is scientific proof that many autistic children have their intestinal walls lined with the measles virus received from the MMR vaccine. The virus is able to host and replicate due to the impaired immune system of the child. Some doctors believe the live MMR virus traps heavy metals within the cells of the body and further impairs the body’s ability to excrete metals. The reason some parents report immediate regression in their child’s behavior after an MMR vaccine is that, for some children, it may be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.”
clone3g:
Why wouldn’t you just say the study of neurodevelopmental outcomes of unvaccinated children would be a gret way to shut us up?
Are you concerned about what it might show?
Also, you continue to assert “no thimerosal”, which isn’t remotely true, as my above links demonstrate. A reduction of thimerosal is not a removal of thimerosal. You should know better.
JB
I’m trying to think whether I’ve been able to get past the idiocy of the first three Myths. It is quite possible that I quit right there.
A virus’ goal is to find a host and recreate.
Recreate? Boy, you’re trying hard not to piss anyone off. You didn’t want to get the Dan Brown treatment from the pointy hat guys in Rome?
it may be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.
As opposed to the perverted straw. GR straw grasping fun! Ooops, looks like someone drew the short straw. Those loopy straws can actually be fun and a big fat straw with a milkshake can actually be good OT/ST.
Why does this domino cascade sound so much like some effort to CYA? What happens if you alienate the HBOT and sauna people, will the “coalition” fall apart?
From the outside it looks like the thought is “everyone’s happy, everyone’s included, so who cares if the table doesn’t have four good legs”? I see the little smokies sliding off this snack table.
And clone brings up an excellent point: a study of vaccinate versus unvaccinated, if includes children exposed to thimerosal-containing and virus-containing vaccines, cannot distinguish between thimerosal and virus-specific effects. There has to be a real question that drives the research. In this case there apparently isn’t. It’s simply a swing in the dark / shotgun guess-ery.
What could be done with the money you piss and are prepared to piss away is truly extraordinary.
And clone, the cool thing about the Ti-1000 is that the key punching was so difficult that one almost couldn’t get carpal tunnel before collapsing from exhaustion.
A reduction of thimerosal is not a removal of thimerosal. You should know better.
Steady autism rates isn’t a decrease in prevalence, and the Lupron morons should know better.
Say what you will about the Sinclair, it took a licking and kept on clicking. Literally. It was the first spill proof harsh environment keyboard. Smaller than my Libretto too. (excluding the Zenith display)
I for one would welcome a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids. JB, why not get this off the ground? It could be a really simple study, similar to the CDC study just released. You’d have to make more phone calls, though, to find those kids who were never vaccinated. Simple questions: How old are your children? Have any of your children never been vaccinated? If so, how old are they? Has a medical professional ever told you any of your children have autism? If so, how old are they? The CDC got ethical approval for making these random calls. Get one of your friendly professors to lead this one, and ask for ethical approval. You could hire a independent company to do the phone calls, removing you from conflict of interest. It wouldn’t cost much more than a full page ad, I imagine. Go ahead.
Creating money-making “science” doesn’t make one a scientist and the hucksters, especially a mudfud, should know better.
JB Said: “I’ve long since concluded that the parents who blog here and folks who share my view have no chance of finding common ground, which is too bad, because in the end we are all parents who are sharing a common challenge, and we all love our children first and foremost.
You’re long done conclusion of no chance of common ground is quite likely a false one (difficult overnight) but nonetheless a complete bull$h!t defeatist or divide and conquer-ish attitude. Let me give you an example – Wade Rankin is admittedly pretty heavily committed to the belief (sharing your view) of the role of Mercury in autism. Here are some conclusions in his most recent blog post.
“First is the need to educate the public in general, and people in positions like army recruiters in particular, to recognize and understand the disabilities involved with autism. One recruiter told Jared’s mother that he (the recruiter) had dyslexia and it was no big deal. He didn’t particularly want to listen to a lecture on the differences between dyslexia and autism.”
— I think we could discuss this with Wade and arrive at a mutual consensus of – Understanding autism and promoting its understanding as important in the “how are our kids treated” sense.
“Second, we, as a country, need to develop alternative means of service for autistic adults so that they may contribute to worthwhile enterprises like national security in a meaningful and appropriate way.”
— I think we could discuss this with Wade and arrive at a mutual consensus of – Everyone deserves a meaningful life and opportunity for contribution.
“Third, this story underlines for me, as a parent, the need to do everything I can do to get my child to a point where he can recognize the danger or inappropriateness of a choice, and he can advocate for himself. Does that mean I want to cure my son? Yeah, I guess it does.”
— This does present a challenge and is a different way of looking at it, but there is a lot of underlying common ground: concern about our children’s futures and addressing the need for advocacy in a society that does not necessarily understand autism is important common ground.
I bring up Wade because, while I disagree with his ‘scientific’ position, I think he also might agree that cooperative attitudes will do more for all of our children in the long run – more common ground.
Correction:
“is admittedly pretty heavily committed to the belief (sharing your view) of the role of Mercury in autism”
“seems admittedly pretty heavily commited to the belief (sharing your view) of the role of Mercury/vaccines in autism”
I wholly agree with Jennifer’s points, I think the study would be as simple as she outlines, and I think the CDC methodology to determine current prevalance rates, from how I have heard it described, was sound and logical.
Yes, you would need to do more calls here, but I think all of you would assert that the rates of autism for the unvaccinated kids should be exactly the same, right?
Zeus wrote,
“study of vaccinate versus unvaccinated, if includes children exposed to thimerosal-containing and virus-containing vaccines, cannot distinguish between thimerosal and virus-specific effects. There has to be a real question that drives the research. In this case there apparently isn’t. It’s simply a swing in the dark / shotgun guess-ery.”
Zeus, this is preposterous. Ask any pediatrician, the issue of vaccines and autism is a huge problem in this country. What question would this study answer? IT WOULD ANSWER WHETHER OR NOT VACCINES PLAY A CENTRAL ROLE AS THE CAUSE OF AUTISM. How much more obvious a question does there need to be? All of you, I believe, are certain this study would show comparable rates. If true, the study would blow us to smithereens.
If, on the other hand, the rates of autism were materially lower, much more analysis would be warranted. I think this study would be highly productive. Just for the sake of argument, would it impact you if the rate of autism amongst unvaccinated kids was 1 in 5,000? After the CDC reporting its roughly 1 in 175 for the general population? If not, why the heck not?
So, here you go:
1. We would sponsor this study and we would do everything possible to make it both arms-length and objective. It would be critical that the standards for the number of parents called ensured that it established national prevalence.
2. If the study proved that autism rates for unvaccinated children are the same as for the general population (which includes both), we would place an ad in USA Today apologizing to the CDC for blaming them for the epidemic and we would encourage other national organizations to do the same.
3. And, we would encourage the dollars for autism to be spent on “more productive areas”
Do you guys still not want to endorse having a study done?
If so, I give up. And, per Dad to Cameron, I’m trying to be inclusive!!
JB
JB, your proposed study wouldn’t show the rate of autism, it would show the rate of diagnosis. That is why, in the Brick Township study, the CDC went beyond preexisting autism diagnoses.
Also, how would you account for the obvious geographical disparities that you can see from looking at the California numbers?
For these reasons I think your proposed epidemiological study would be flawed, but hey, aren’t they all?
_”Glad to see I’m a headliner in 2 of your recent blogs, thanks for all the PR.”_
No problem JB – you’re a constant source of inspiration :o)
_”While your at it, make sure you apply your analytical gifts to the GR webstats, too:”_
Already did. They’re frankly worse, considering the GR site’s been up and around for quite awhile. You averaged 700 per day last month. Ouch. How much do you pay per month to AdWords?
_”I’ve long since concluded that the parents who blog here and folks who share my view have no chance of finding common ground, which is too bad, because in the end we are all parents who are sharing a common challenge, and we all love our children first and foremost.”_
That’s partly down to the attitude of you. Let’s not forget you’ve called autistic adults ‘trailor dwelling coo-coo’s’ and ‘mentally ill’. Aren’t you supposed to be an autism advocate? Or does that stop when an autistic person passes 16?
You support and encourage extremists like JB Jr. You foment stigma, ignorance, absolutism and hate. You seem to delight in picking on women. You like to send ‘open letters’ to people from the safety of a closed access list.
_”I’ve become convinced that the only way this issue gets resolved is by a large-scale study on neurodevelopmental outcomes of unvaccinated children. Wouldn’t you agree? Especially now that CDC has released up-to-date numbers on autism prevalence.”_
No. If such a study was performed (and why not? Go for it) and the results showed that unvaccinated people never got autism then it would show that – that unvaccinated people didn’t get autism. It wouldn’t show _why_ . Thats why this whole Olmsted generated Amish thing is a load of bollocks. The Amish don’t drive cars either – maybe cars cause autism. Or watching movies, or any one of a multitude of unaccounted for, unfactored in reasons.
No – here’s how to be sure. You look at how many people had autism when thiomersal was in use. You then compare that to how many people have autism now its no longer in mainstream use. If the numbers are reduced, you have a case. If they aren’t, I do.
Interestingly, David Kirby has already shifted the goalposts by 2 years. After saying if autism rates in the key cohort of 3 – 5 year olds didn’t decline by 2005, he added on 2 years when it was clear they weren’t declining. I wonder why?
_”If any of you scientists or psuedo-scientists want to recommend a scientist of unimpeachable integrity and no conflicts on either side, we are all ears and eager to help fund.”_
I think you’ve managed to alienate most of the scientists who might’ve once been happy to work with you. Lying about their beliefs and their results in national ads or fallaciously vilifying them (as your colleagues in the NAA did) means that most scientists will only want to stay away from the whole issue. Well done JB. You’re now left with the Geier’s.
_”Kev, the only thing that really bugs me that you wrote was the inference (and it was a strong inference) that we are somehow linked with tort lawyers or vaccine litigants.”_
Well, you read into it whatever you want. I merely reported the *fact* that a very high percentage of your site visitors were thiomersal lawyers. I found it strange, considering your pronouncements. Maybe they were just looking for material.
_”I think a retraction or clarification would be the British thing to do.”_
Of what?
_”“Idiot†is fine, just quit implying I’m in this for the money, which I am certainly not.”_
JB – I don’t require your skills as proof reader. Its my opinion that you are a single-issue absolutist who’s extremist views will lead to a poor future for autistic people all over the world. I’ll continue to state that.
As far as thiomersal lawyers go – if they continue to be tied to you in some way, as they are here, then I’ll mention that too. I _do_ find it curious how they mysteriously appear near mercury militia events/websites etc. I fully accept that there’s not a lot you can do about who visits your sites but maybe you should add large disclaimers to them asking these lawyers to stay away.
You might also face up to the fact that whilst you personally might have no tie to lawyers or legal action, a lot of people you claim to represent do. You’re either part of GR or you’re not.
Kev: “Thats why this whole Olmsted generated Amish thing is a load of bollocks. The Amish don’t drive cars either – maybe cars cause autism. Or watching movies, or any one of a multitude of unaccounted for, unfactored in reasons.”
Let’s not forget, there is actually DSM-IV diagnosed (secondary) genetic autism among the amish.
Source
Indeed – I’d be curious as to who exactly this ‘unvaccinated population’ would be.
JB and Kev,
This would be a strength of a random telephone survey. You wouldn’t select just the Amish, or just the homeschoolers. You might have to call something like 20x more people than the CDC called because vaccination rates are of the order of 90%, and you are only looking for people who have never been vaccinated, not people who were partially vaccinated. In thinking about this further, I am not certain it is even necessary to get IRB approval to do this. Perhaps simply hiring a prestigious polling company, and asking them to complile the results without interference would be enough.
Oh, and you’d need to make sure the questions about the diagnosis were worded exactly the same way as the CDC worded them. And the methodology for choosing the phone numbers was also the same.
Ask any pediatrician, the issue of vaccines and autism is a huge problem in this country.
A perceived problem manufactured by those set to benefit.
What question would this study answer? IT WOULD ANSWER WHETHER OR NOT VACCINES PLAY A CENTRAL ROLE AS THE CAUSE OF AUTISM.
No it would not. It would be nice to canvas 10e6 to10e7 families by telephone in order to reach a substantial portion who report their child as having not been vaccinated, but now there is introduced massive human error/interpretation issues. Then, what about the diagnosis itself? (to prove a point go to the links that KC provided a few days ago as proof that some kids “recover” from autism, it’s sad) So once again, there is a poll. There are no molecules, there’s no pathway, just Zogby predicting that Dewey and Al Gore both win.
Your confusion abounds. You’ve chosen to shotgun a question that can actually be parsed out into testable and more meaningful chunks. And I think I know why you’re doing it: despite the Vulturian dishonesty machine creatively “interpreting” statistics, the numbers just aren’t going down with the reduction in thimerosal exposure. And now you’ve got Butter injecting piss, yes actual urine, into children. Moreover, you’ve got the Vultures inventing chemistry in order to inject Lupron into kids. The freaks in your carnival used to be just the HBOTers and sauna finatics. Now you’re really in trouble trying to say on your real message: that it’s not the parents’ fault that their kids are the way they are and someone else is to blame.
It’s so bloody obvious why you told an entire organization to “fuck off”.
HeyZeus H Christ, this is old.
The study would be highly beneficial, and yet you all reject it?
I think you don’t want this conflict to go away.
It would be a simple way to determine if vaccines cause autism.
Thanks for all the rancor,
JB
Some of us had only smallpox and polio vaccinations, yet have ASD. We can see older family members on the spectrum who never had vaccines. Just seems pointless.
JB, As I suggested this study, I don’t think you can say we “all” reject it. Go ahead and fund it. Please.
Being from Canada, I KNOW you are wrong about mercury causing autism. But many parents in Canada still blame vaccines. I’d like that question answered, if possible. I’d also support a real study similar to the Fombonne one but bigger, and looking at vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated children. But the phone survey option is much cheaper, easier, and as the CDC has just shown, does appear to give accurate estimates of prevalence. If you are willing to pay for this, I think people here should support you.
It’s clear to most of us, and probably to JB too, that the autism=mercury equation is not correct, and so I know he’s grasping at the bigger “autism is caused by vaccines” argument now.
But Ruth, studying this is not pointless. Parents are forcing weirder and weirder treatments on their children, all these treatments somehow springing from the “autism is caused by vaccines” argument. Of course you can’t convince someone who has adopted this as a religion, but if you can prevent some children from getting Lupron injections, IV chelation, huge risks and quack bills, you are doing some good.
Jennifer wrote:
“Being from Canada, I KNOW you are wrong about mercury causing autism. But many parents in Canada still blame vaccines. I’d like that question answered, if possible. I’d also support a real study similar to the Fombonne one but bigger, and looking at vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated children. But the phone survey option is much cheaper, easier, and as the CDC has just shown, does appear to give accurate estimates of prevalence. If you are willing to pay for this, I think people here should support you.”
JB: Jennifer, thank you. This was really the response I thought I would get from all of you. Why wouldn’t you want this study done, I just do not get it? You and I can strongly disagree (as I obviosuly do with what you say), but we can find common ground in a study that should clearly show which one of us is right and which one is wrong.
Kevin wrote:
“Thats why this whole Olmsted generated Amish thing is a load of bollocks. The Amish don’t drive cars either – maybe cars cause autism. Or watching movies, or any one of a multitude of unaccounted for, unfactored in reasons.”
JB: Kevin, you mean to tell me that a national survey, transcending race, geography, religion, and social class, looking at unvaccinated children and autism rates wouldn’t get us closer to an answer? You’re telling me that in this national survey, if we discovered that the rates for unvaccinated kids was 1 in 5,000, there would be other reasons? Give me a break!!! I can only conclude that you are scared we might actually be right, that vaccines, and the mercury in them, causes autism.
Kevin wrote:
“You look at how many people had autism when thiomersal was in use. You then compare that to how many people have autism now its no longer in mainstream use.”
JB: No longer in “mainstream use”? That’s very Clintonian. 53% of the Thimerosal kids got at the peak is what they get today. Is that no longer in mainstream use? My son was born in August 2002. All his shots had Thimerosal. Is that no longer in mainstream use? I will concede that the LEVELS of mercury began to decline in late 2002, but because of the flu shot, they remain at 1/2 of previous levels. Is that clear data to you?
Let’s look at what the CDC JUST reported, by age, for rates of autism:
9-11 year olds: 1 in 147
6-8 year olds: 1 in 132
4-5 year olds: 1 in 227
Umm…isn’t 1 in 227 a lower rate than 1 in 147? Ummm, those are the CDC’s own numbers.
clone3g: “If you think everyone is going to sit back and forget your past extremism while you quietly move away from the doomed thimerosal hypothesis over to a general anti-vaccines position, you are mistaken.”
JB: Man, clone3g, you sound like such a victim. Get some exercise or something. I still believe, as I always have, that autism is a misdaignosis for mercury poisoning. But remember, as we have said in our website from day one: “Mercury alone is not the cause of all of these symptoms, but it is the spark that sets off a cascade of damage in the body.”
The reason I am advocating a look at vaccinated versus unvaccinated is that it is the only way I know to get an uncorrupted data set because Thimerosal continues to be in vaccines for children at high levels. That’s not a retreat from a previous held view, it’s a logical way to look at the question without the reality that our kids are still being injected with high levels of mercury. As a second example, my son got a flu shot in 2003 and a flu booster in 2004, total mercury was 50 micrograms. Is he part of the Thimerosal-free generation because of his August 2002 birthday? OF COURSE NOT!!! We don’t have a Thimerosal-free cohort, except for one type of kid: an UNVACCINATED ONE!!
Why is this so hard to understand?
JB
Jennifer-
You have a point, it may convince the rational members of the group. But I think some will just move on to a new pet theory and try new weird stuff.
JB said “Let’s look at what the CDC JUST reported, by age, for rates of autism:
9-11 year olds: 1 in 147
6-8 year olds: 1 in 132
4-5 year olds: 1 in 227
Umm…isn’t 1 in 227 a lower rate than 1 in 147? Ummm, those are the CDC’s own numbers.”
If you look at the confidence limits, though, it is clear that a rate of 55 in 10000 would be consistent with all the age ranges of both surveys. In other words, the difference between the age groups is NOT statistically significant to the 95 percentile.
And even if you are willing to accept a lower confidence limit, there are good reasons why the numbers for the youngest group are lower. It is because some of those kids are not yet diagnosed with PDD-NOS, Asperger’s or autistic spectrum disorder yet. The survey clearly includes all these categories, since they didn’t specify “autistic disorder” or “full-blown autism”.
“Yes, a study that looked at an unvaccinated vs. vaccinated population and that could eliminate other confounders would be ideal. ”
Thanks, anonimouse, I guuess 2 of you are now on board!!
I’m really not sure what the “confounders” would be in a national, large scale survey, but I would welcome your input.
I think our tax returns will disappoint you if you’re looking for a conspiracy, but feel free to dig.
JB
anonimouse: “But here’s what I don’t get. If you’re claiming that thimerosal really wasn’t out of vaccines in 2002 and subsequently claiming the incidence in autism among 4-5 year olds reflects a real decline, then wouldn’t that suggest that thimerosal has had little to do with the decline in autism?”
JB: That’s my point, the data set is corrupt. There is absolutely LESS Thimerosal, but there is far from none, and how in the heck do you find and isolate the none? If CDC had recalled ALL Hg-vaccines in 1999, we’d already have the data. They didn’t, and that’s not something I can change. Do I think less Thimerosal would produce less autism, yes I do, and the CDC numbers reflect that, don’t they? You can point out other possible reasons why, but the rate is still lower.
The only national, uncorrupted data set is unvaccinated kids, it is the only place to go to get clear analysis. Why someone would try to argue that we won’t learn something from that anlysis is beyond me. And, while I’m at it, I believe this would be a statistical analysis, not epidemiology, no? I’m sure the “scientists” on this list will correct me.
If we sponsor an arms-length national prevalence survey, using the same methodology CDC just used, we should get the same prevalance rate, even if we look at only unvaccinated kids (according to those who say there is no correlation between vaccines and autism).
If we get that study done, and it shows 1 in 175, our side will be like Geraldo opening King Tut’s tomb (or whatever the hell he opened and there was nothing there). Since you guys are so damn sure vaccines and autism are unrelated, you should be begging us to do this study, which we are committed to doing.
On the other hand, if we do this study and the rates are 1 in 5,000 or some other statistically different number, well….I’ll let you ponder that one.
JB
Do I think less Thimerosal would produce less autism, yes I do, and the CDC numbers reflect that, don’t they?
Hey clone3g, what’s in these brownies?
I keep wondering what would happen if the guy kept repeating, “the sky is green” over and over again.
Zeus:
I just really wonder, what is the benefit of your ongoing sarcastic cynicism?
You’re the same guy who wrote:
“that it’s not the parents’ fault that their kids are the way they are and someone else is to blame.”
So, Zeus, you think autism is the parent’s fault? I think that will alienate you from even this crowd.
JB
Two questions JB:
How long before you would guess your little phone survey will be complete?
How long before you would expect autism rates to start dropping now that very few children are exposed to thimerosal?
P.S. If you do start calling parents by telephone – hire someone else to make the calls. No offense but some of the mercury folks need work on their phone etiquette.
Mr. Handley,
“JB: That’s my point, the data set is corrupt. There is absolutely LESS Thimerosal, but there is far from none, and how in the heck do you find and isolate the none?â€
You can’t; science and logic are not equipped to do it. If you want to good push this ad infinitum, in the manner of a shell game where cups are being whipped around and you have to guess where the ball is you could. [Is it here, in the lights, or is it here, in the computer screens? Or is it here is the old mines? NO WAIT, it could be here in the amalgams; STOP, it might be in the air near coal plants. So, which is it sonny, place your bets].
“If CDC had recalled ALL Hg-vaccines in 1999, we’d already have the data. They didn’t, and that’s not something I can change. Do I think less Thimerosal would produce less autism, yes I do, and the CDC numbers reflect that, don’t they?â€
No, they don’t. You need to wait a few more years, or compare the 3-5 group with the 3-5 group pf days gone by.
“You can point out other possible reasons why, but the rate is still lower.â€
Which is meaningless as is, you can’t turn prevalence rates like this into incidence rates (which is what you need).
“The only national, uncorrupted data set is unvaccinated kids, it is the only place to go to get clear analysis. Why someone would try to argue that we won’t learn something from that anlysis is beyond me. And, while I’m at it, I believe this would be a statistical analysis, not epidemiology, no? I’m sure the “scientists†on this list will correct me.â€
No, it called descriptive epidemiology. The problem with your proposed analysis is that it doesn’t offer the necessary statistical controls to be meaningful. You would have to put those controls in place. Also, since the results are going to be contested no matter what they say, you had better go a little bit extra hard core in terms of controls to prove this.
“If we sponsor an arms-length national prevalence survey, using the same methodology CDC just used, we should get the same prevalance rate, even if we look at only unvaccinated kids (according to those who say there is no correlation between vaccines and autism).â€
Which was a bit sloppy, in my opinion. You would want to surpass the CDC in this regard.
“If we get that study done, and it shows 1 in 175, our side will be like Geraldo opening King Tut’s tomb (or whatever the hell he opened and there was nothing there). Since you guys are so damn sure vaccines and autism are unrelated, you should be begging us to do this study, which we are committed to doing.â€
I am begging, (pretty please do a well controlled descriptive study, and get someone who knows about epidemiology to run it for you).
you think autism is the parent’s fault? I think that will alienate you from even this crowd.
If people can’t handle the reality of genetics then so be it. I’ve accepted my responsibility and I’m still in the fight – the fight to understand autism and to make the world a better place for my son. It is my opinion that you and the hucksters are counterproductive to both of these efforts.
Brilliant, clone3g, I second your idea.
The unfortunate reality is that those who are not vaccinated fall into the following categories:
-Those with established contraindications to vaccines, most often immune disorders or severe allergic reactions to vaccine components. Those folks would confound any survey where you’re trying to isolate use of vaccines as a role in any particular condition.
-Those with religious and personal objections to vaccines. I would suggest (as the PP stated above) that those individuals would be far less likely to cooperate with any study that had the whiff of government or corporate involvment. And religious sects have other potential confounders, like genetic differences from other peer groups.
Those who are already aware of the “vaccine controversy” would be ready with pre-fabricated answers in any phone survey about how their children are perfectly healthy even if that isn’t reality. Trust me, word travels fast in the anti-vax crowd. They’re certainly going to have problems giving researchers access to medical documents to verify their child’s medical history.
So while in theory a study of the unvaccinated may offer some benefit, in practice it’s going to be very difficult. I just don’t see how it can work.
Jonathan Semetko: I am begging, (pretty please do a well controlled descriptive study, and get someone who knows about epidemiology to run it for you).
Clone3g: Yes, that we could get behind. Anything less would be a waste of good money and nobody wants that, right?Think about something that can be published in a quality scientific journal, rather than USA Today.
Jonathan and Clone3g, thank you, I appreciate the feedback and the insight and I wholly agree, the study should be extremely high quality. We are welcoming proposals and recommendations for researchers who have no fight in this game, have unimpeachable integrity, have proven to be able to run studies that have been well controlled descriptive studies, and are interested in studying neurodevelopmental outcomes of unvaccinated children.
All recommendations can be sent to: info@generationrescue.org
We are also hopeful that we will be able to convince autism organization who do not believe vaccines play a role in autism to co-fund the study to try to dilute the accusations of conflict that will inevitably arise.
And for the dude who just posted above me here: hate in your heart will consume you, too.
We all love our kids first, and we’re all trying to do the right thing. I think a well-designed study like this will bring us closer together.
Best and I appreciate those of you who engaged in honest input and debate,
JB
JB quote fun:
Hey CDC, go fuck yourself!! Lots of love, JB
hate in your heart will consume you
I think a well-designed study like this will bring us closer together.
I’ve long since concluded that the parents who blog here and folks who share my view have no chance of finding common ground
More JB quote fun:
“As a parent, it’s the difference between being in a deep dark cave and having bright light and oxygen,”
“Late 2006 should be the first time that rates go down,” said Handley. “If they don’t, our hypothesis will need to be reexamined.”
Here is Brian Hooker responding to JB Handley’s recommendation that the EoH gang show up here and read the discussion. If I was you, Sue M and Kev I’d feel hurt and betrayed by Dr. Brian Hooker:
sploobnoober@…. to EOHarm
I recommend that the site be used as the pilot for “The New ‘Mamma’s Family’.” The mental giants that post there are in keeping the grand tradition of such dizzying intellects as Barbara Eden, Suzanne Somers, Dick Van Patten, Paula Abdul and Anna Nicole Smith…”
sploobernoober?
_”Kevin, you mean to tell me that a national survey, transcending race, geography, religion, and social class, looking at unvaccinated children and autism rates wouldn’t get us closer to an answer?”_
No. What I *said* was that simply looking at unvaccinated vs vaccinated indicates little of any worth. You have to weed out the confounders. As DoC has pointed out to you – Olmsted went on a mad jag about there being no autistic Amish people when in fact there are. He just wasn’t bright enough to know what to look for. thats what happens when your primary source of medical data is a water cooler salesman.
You’re a guy who likes things in black/white, either/or, true/false but I’m afraid it simply doesn’t work like that. If you want to say that here’s a population of unvaccinated kids, none of whom are autistic, then you need to look at what else might be the issue as well as what you *think* might be the issue. That’s simply good science. Without that qualification you just have more meaningless results to stack up with the others. Or, as Orac is so fond of stating: correlation does not equal causation.
_”You’re telling me that in this national survey, if we discovered that the rates for unvaccinated kids was 1 in 5,000, there would be other reasons? Give me a break I can only conclude that you are scared we might actually be right, that vaccines, and the mercury in them, causes autism.”_
I concluded you might actually be right in my very first contact with you JB. I still say you might actually be right. I’ll continue to say it until you either are proven right, or proven wrong. However, you seem to be shifting the ground slightly. You suddenly seem to be referring to ‘vaccines and the mercury in them cause autsim’. Your website states flatly that all autism is mercury poisoning. These two statements do not match up. The difference is important. Are you conceeding that you might be wrong about autism being solely an issue of mercury?
_”JB: No longer in “mainstream useâ€? That’s very Clintonian. 53% of the Thimerosal kids got at the peak is what they get today. Is that no longer in mainstream use? My son was born in August 2002. All his shots had Thimerosal. Is that no longer in mainstream use? I will concede that the LEVELS of mercury began to decline in late 2002, but because of the flu shot, they remain at 1/2 of previous levels. Is that clear data to you?”_
Its rubbish JB. Cite me the paper that backs this 53% figure up. Prior to mainstream thiomersal removal, US kids got 187.5ug Hg. Nowadays they *might* get 25 ug Hg. Thats a seven fold decrease (Source). And not only that, you also have to be clear that this 25 ug Hg is *not mandatory* – it is in an optional flu shot. You should’ve started seeing a *massive* drop-off of autism last year. As agreed by David Kirby before he shifted the goal posts and then lied about it.
Interestingly, UK kids only ever got 75 ug Hg and since 2004 have got none. A report yesterday says that in Scotland autism rates are on the rise. Other reports for the same period showed MMR takeup on the decline.
The cracks are getting more and more obvious JB but by all means do your study. It would be very interesting if done well.
JB – a few thought provoking ideas about how much thiomersal containing vaccines have been around. Sallie Bernard posted the following in *June 2001*.
_”A group of university-based researchers needs several vials of the older DTaP vaccine formulations which contained thimerosal for a legitimate research study. If anyone knows an MD who might have some of these vaccines or knows where to get them, please email me privately. Thank you. Sallie Bernard, Executive Director, Safe Minds.â€_
Onibasu.
And here’s something not widely discussed JB – Burbacher used thimerosal free vaccines and added pure thimerosal in his _Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal_ paper. Did you ever stop to wonder why? Aside from raising doubts about how representative such a study would be of _actual_ thiomersal containing vaccines, it seems a safe assumption that he would’ve preferred to use thiomersal containing vaccines but couldn’t find any…
Seem like they were very hard to get ahold of in June 2001 and impossible to get hold of in 2005.
Travelling Medicine Show wrote:
“If I was you, Sue M and Kev I’d feel hurt and betrayed by Dr. Brian Hooker”
– I have already noted on more than one occasion that I am a nitwit for remaining on this blog site. Why would I feel hurt and betrayed by what Brian Hooker has to say? He’s correct. The good news… I have enough mental capacity left to know that injecting infants with poison is NOT a good idea. I am also able to acknowledge that while it would be somewhat difficult to study vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations (a lot of variables would have to be factored in), it can and should be done. No matter what, studies done on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations couldn’t possibly be more completely bogus and worthy of making spitballs than the Danish studies. Could they?
Hooker said, The mental giants that post there…
Mental giants who know that science is a bit deeper than a scan of pubmed abstracts of papers you’ll never read.
You want a bit of humor that’ll make Dick VanDyke jealous? Pubmed “Hooker BS”
What a joke. This guy is held up as knowledgable? A typical lab tech has a higher impact point value.
Maybe sploobnoober is actually appropriate.
Hey Zeus …
Are you Camille or Clone? NSS
So let me get this straight…..
Hooker shows up here making wild claims about metal excretion and SNPs, when pressed for science he offers random abstracts from Pubmed and various DAN-speak unsupported claims, fails to make a single point beyond his beliefs, then runs off to claim victory on a Hg friendly list?
If you want to be a giant slayer Brian, claiming victory over mental giants on par with Barbara Eden, Suzanne Somers, Dick Van Patten, Paula Abdul and Anna Nicole Smith, doesn’t say much about your grasp of the science.
Please, come back and argue the science and then we’ll talk about casting for the new MOM’s family of mindless lemmings.
btw, I’ve met Barbara Eden and she seems much more intelligent than anything I’ve read from you.
I have already noted on more than one occasion that I am a nitwit.
for remaining on this blog siteFixed it for you. Don’t thank me.
Neither. Hilarious. Who the hell cares, btw? I’ll let Kev chose to certify that I’m a different gal.