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 
Hey Zeus…
Hey Zeus…
“Neither. Hilarious. Who the hell cares, btw”?
You guys are all starting to sound the same, that’s all. Sorry for my post above. I’m new to this blog. NSS
For the genius who searched my name on PubMed, perhaps you should search other citation indices, since my area of research is not medicine…
since my area of research is not medicine…
Department of Redundancy Department
“Department of Redundancy Department”
Goody for you – I see that you and Ms. Clark are self-appointed text editors for the universe…
Now, now Bri. Don’t want to be an angry parent again.
So as long as you’ve joined us again, care to take another stab at the science behind your beliefs?
Ms. Eden played Jeannie on TV but she didn’t believe she was a real Genie. I saw her turn Major Nelson into a Chimp right before my very eyes. Evidence enough
I repeat my offer that you email me directly such that you step from behind the veil of “clone3g.” I’m not interested in attempting to discuss science just for it to be shot down whimsically.
Mouse wrote:
“I have already noted on more than one occasion that I am a nitwit. for remaining on this blog site
Fixed it for you. Don’t thank me”.
– So you crossed out “for remaining on this blog site”. I have stated on numerous occasions that I am a nitwit, Mouse. I don’t have to put the stipulation in “for remaining on this blog site”. I am quite comfortable with being a nitwit in any sense. It is liberating. The fact is, I can turn to others for guidance in scientific discussions. You can’t. Your “science” doesn’t hold up.
An Angry Hooker said, my area of research is not medicine
Please forward that to your fanclub, the ones with one nostril in Evidence of Harm and the other in your tailpipe.
I think this is all of ’em. Sooooo impressive. Sooooo relevant. Sooooo shiny. Sooooo smooth. Sooooo precious. Now it comes to it. We were impressed by the Nature Biotechs until we saws that it was just a commentary, precious. If we want to knows about overexpressing a peptide in some plant, you’ll get an email.
TRANSGENIC RESEARCH, 14 (5): 627-643 OCT 2005
JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH, 4 (2): 268-274
BIOTECHNIQUES, 38 (2): 297-299 FEB 2005
PROTEIN EXPRESSION AND PURIFICATION, 37 (1): 89-96 SEP 2004
BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 86 (1): 178A-178A Part 2 Suppl. S JAN 2004
ADVANCING SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH GREEN CHEMISTRY AND ENGINEERING, 823: 145-161 2002
MOLECULAR BREEDING, 6 (3): 277-285 JUN 2000
TRANSGENIC RESEARCH, 9 (1): 43-54 FEB 2000
APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 77-9: 689-699 SPR 1999
TRANSPORT IN POROUS MEDIA, 35 (1): 49-65 APR 1999
JOURNAL OF CONTAMINANT HYDROLOGY, 31 (3-4): 359-372 JUN 1998
GROUND WATER MONITORING AND REMEDIATION, 18 (2): 79-92 SPR 1998
WATER RESEARCH, 31 (10): 2479-2486 OCT 1997
PLANT PHYSIOLOGY, 114 (3): 1584-1584 Suppl. S JUL 1997
GROUND WATER, 34 (5): 934-942 SEP-OCT 1996
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING-ASCE, 122 (9): 833-839 SEP 1996
CURRENT OPINION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY, 7 (3): 317-320 JUN 1996
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING, 48 (6): 659-666 DEC 20 1995
APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 51-2: 727-734 SPR 1995
APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 51-2: 785-797 SPR 1995
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING, 45 (3): 279-284 FEB 5 1995
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING, 44 (2): 211-218 JUN 20 1994
APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 45-6: 775-785 SPR 1994
ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 207: 36-ENVR Part 1 MAR 13 1994
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING, 43 (6): 521-528 MAR 15 1994
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING, 39 (7): 765-774 MAR 25 1992
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING, 35 (3): 296-304 FEB 5 1990
PLANT CELL REPORTS, 8 (9): 546-549 JAN 1990
ENZYME AND MICROBIAL TECHNOLOGY, 11 (8): 484-490 AUG 1989
ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 196: 113-MBTD SEP 25 1988
That’d be cool – email away…
I love the whole notion of overexpression of blood factors in plants… Given that the cost of Factor VIII for hemophiliacs can eclipse $200K per year, any opportunity to safely cut cost for these individuals would be welcome.
_”The fact is, I can turn to others for guidance in scientific discussions.”_
Like David ‘2005, no wait- 2007! Don’t look at me!!’ Kirby? There’s someone with a firm grasp of the science. Or maybe Robert ‘no autism in china’ Kennedy Jr? How about Dan ‘no autism amongst the amish’ Olmsted? How about Evelyn ‘its all a plot’ Pringle..or the latest – Ken ‘it’ll all end in marshall law’ Stoller? Heh. You’re funny o)
I commend you for coming clean on your ability to understand science intuitively Sue. I’m exactly the same but I do have the benefit of being able to turn to scientists who have been published in decent journals as opposed to medical vanity publications.
I’m not interested in attempting to discuss science just for it to be shot down whimsically.
Well you tried to give it a whack earlier. Why the change of heart?
You should probably know this already but science, good science, either stands on it’s own or it doesn’t. Whimsy notwithstanding.
Hey Zeus wrote:
“Please forward that to your fanclub, the ones with one nostril in Evidence of Harm and the other in your tailpipe”.
– Pretty funny coming from someone who must consider Orac’s Tom Cruise eats placenta posts worthwhile.
Clone3g – Sorry, I have a life…
You’ll have to venture off of the set of “Momma’s Family” to discuss science with me
You’ll have to venture off of the set of “Momma’s Family†to discuss science with me
Hooker makes Baby Jesus cry out in anguish.
Peace be with you, brother.
Oooh.. SNAP!
You may want to watch a little less TV-land there TJ Hooker, MD.
OK, I’ll email you with all of my personal info, SS#, home address, Phone#, blood type, anything else you’ll be needing before you can discuss science like a scientist?
I know I can trust you with my personal information because you are a doctor, you know Jesus, and you have a security clearance.
Mail sent.
Kev wrote:
“Like David ‘2005, no wait- 2007! Don’t look at me!!’ Kirby? There’s someone with a firm grasp of the science. Or maybe Robert ‘no autism in china’ Kennedy Jr? How about Dan ‘no autism amongst the amish’ Olmsted? How about Evelyn ‘its all a plot’ Pringle..or the latest – Ken ‘it’ll all end in marshall law’ Stoller? Heh. You’re funny o)”
– Actually, Kev, I would say that you are the funny one here. I mentioned “scientific discussions”. I am under no illusions that the people that you mentioned above are scientists. I am unclear as to why you would attempt to misrepresent me in that way. For scientific information, I would go to Burbacher, Haley, Deth, Wakefield, etc. Sure, I respect the other people on your list for relaying the science or asking the questions or whatever but not for being “leaders in science”. Come on, Kev, you know that.
Since you brought up Kirby though, let’s have a quick lesson in Kev Leitch’s “blog of hypocrisy”. You are still up in arms about whether Kirby said 2005 at any time as for when the rates of autism would go down. You claim that he “moved the goalpost” or whatever. I say, who cares? Of course, we’ve gone done this path before and it leads nowhere. So, instead, I will ask you this in all seriousness… Let’s say that Kirby did, in fact, move the goalposts. Shame on him. Now, how does that compare with the Danish studies? Can you legitamately have a change in diagnostic code mid-study and not recognize that it would screw up the number of autistic children being diagnosed? Can you suddenly add in children who are diagnosed with autism as “outpatients” when you did not do this in the beginning of the study? Can you (mid study) add in cases of children diagnosed in a busy clinic in Copenhagen whereby finding a spike that same year (1992) when mercury was removed? Can you do all that Kev and still consider your study to be valid? Can you, Kev? Or would that be a case of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Now, truth be told… IF Kirby moved the goalposts, it will do nothing to change the outcome. It essentially has no effect on anything (other than some name calling on your part — childish stuff like… liar, liar pants on fire)! You know 1st grade stuff. Now, on the other hand, the Danish studies being bogus. That’s a big deal. IOM used them. Parents believed them. CDC posted them as “proof” of no connection. Not good, Kev. It would be a good idea for you to comment on this Kev… Are the Danish studies valid or not?
What email address did you use there, clony?…
Kev wrote:
“I’m exactly the same but I do have the benefit of being able to turn to scientists who have been published in decent journals as opposed to medical vanity publications”.
– You mean like Chakrabarti? What did Chakrabarti have to say about your daughter’s ambulance ride and visit to the ER on the night of her first set of immunizations as you have discussed previously? Possibly Chakrabarti needs to focus less on getting published and more on the little ones that he treats and/or diagnoses. His desire to be “published” in respected journals may be clouding his better judgment and critical thinking skills.
Eegads. I would never want Brian Hooker PhD to have my personal info. I don’t want him calling me at home, Deth style.
If clone3g emailed you s/he’d just end up having to quote you back here so we could all judge your argument logically.
We only get really silly when your arguments are really dumb.
You say your area of expertise/research is not in medicine but you speak about getting human blood proteins from plants… now I’m confused. Will you have stuff indexed on pubmed soon?
I don’t know who Hey Zeus is. I was thinking it was Mady-Hornig-got-a-conscience. Or maybe it’s Marha Herbert. She has a way of flip flopping on the mercury thing.
I agree Sue is a nitwit about medicine and science and has no clue about who to go to for authoritative advice.
Sue, what about them urine injections?
I used brian.hooker@pnl.gov is that not the right address?
Haven’t received it yet… I’ll refer you to my private address regardless (brian@dream-big.us). There is no guarantee of privacy if you were to use my work address…
Ms. Clark wrote:
“I agree Sue is a nitwit about medicine and science and has no clue about who to go to for authoritative advice”.
– Who do you suggest, Camille? Should I go to the placenta eating blogger, Orac?
Why should I worry about privacy? Just because you work for the government doesn’t automatically make you a part of the conspiracy.
No, I’ll stick with your work address. I hope I didn’t make any errors while typing the address. You better check with IT before they send it up.
Then I probably won’t ever see the email… Lots of stuff gets filtered out…
Brian wrote:
“Then I probably won’t ever see the email… Lots of stuff gets filtered out…”
– I wouldn’t worry too much about it, Brian. You have given your e-mail address out a few times here … If Clone really wants to communicate with you, he certainly SHOULD be able to figure out the e-mail address which will allow him the best opportunity to contact you. If not, he’s not worthy of your time.
Wake me up when Captain Hooker does anything but whine about getting the blog treatment, claim that his .gov email account drops emails, spam pubmed abstracts, and pose as a fountain of human biomedical expertise.
clone3g – that pitterpatter sound you hear are his gov’t conspiracy extremist buddies dropping off that dingleberry after learning that he’s a big, bad gov’t employee.
What’s up with the posters on this blog not wanting to talk science with the other side? I don’t get it. NSS
SueM: “Should I go to the placenta eating blogger, Orac?”
Are you saying that Orac eats placenta?
David wrote:
“Are you saying that Orac eats placenta”?
– Hee hee. I don’t know. I would be surprised if this were the case, I imagine he just likes to blog about it.
What’s up with the posters on this blog not wanting to talk science with the other side? I don’t get it.
There has yet to be anyone who can competently argue that thimerosal causes autism.
There has yet to be anyone who can competently argue that the MMR causes autism.
There has yet to be anyone who can competently argue that an autism epidemic exists.
And it’s not just on this blog – it’s everywhere. So you’re right, you don’t get it.
Ok, so there should be an open debate, right? So why are you so closed minded? Why are you so quick to piss the other side off so quickly that they leave this blog? Why are you so ignorant?
“Why are you so ignorant?”
“So why are you so closed minded?”
“Why are you so ignorant?”
“Why are you so quick to piss the other side off so quickly that they leave this blog?”
“Why are you so ignorant?”
You sound like Sue M. crying about Hooker leaving the thread. I think she said that goin’ on a year now she ain’t had nothin’ twixt her nethers weren’t run on batteries! Obligatory Kaylee quote. Hi Joss!
Not Sue M., nice try though. NSS
I also note that Sue apparently still hasn’t looked at my posts about the Geiers, preferring instead to perseverate about a piece of fluff from three weeks ago that it took me a few minutes to crank out. It would seem to me that it is Sue, not I, who is obsessed with placenta eating.
Anything to avoid reading about how shoddy the Geiers’ “research” is, eh?
_”You mean like Chakrabarti?”_
Exactly! Glad you’re getting it finally :o)
_”What did Chakrabarti have to say about your daughter’s ambulance ride and visit to the ER on the night of her first set of immunizations as you have discussed previously?”_
He promised me a fully signed up membership to the Big Pharma Mole Club with all the gold I could eat if I never mentioned it….oh wait….
_”Possibly Chakrabarti needs to focus less on getting published and more on the little ones that he treats and/or diagnoses. His desire to be “published†in respected journals may be clouding his better judgment and critical thinking skills.”_
Damn Sue, that’s quite possibly the most infantile thing I’ve ever heard you say and believe me – that’s quite an achievement. Are you seriously suggesting scientists shouldn’t seek to get important work published? I mean I realise you actively seek to be ignorant but that really does take the cake.
All – the poster calling herself ‘Kev’s Morons’ is Sue M. She managed to change her email address this time but still hasn’t learnt what an IP address is.
All – the poster calling herself ‘Kev’s Morons’ is Sue M. She managed to change her email address this time but still hasn’t learnt what an IP address is.
it was obvious. the funny thing is that she posts here so often, that she’s one of ’em. comical, really.
Sue – just switch to a different browswer and that’ll shake ’em off your tail. or maybe start typing with 2 hands. no offense to the hunt-n-peckers.
NSS = No Shit Sherlock!
It’s nice to see that once again Kev gets off on “outing” people from my side. So Kev who is Hey Zeus? How about Rip Van Winkle? How about medicine man? How about GOD? Another example of your hypocrisy, Kev. Eventually I knew that you couldn’t contain yourself… No Shit Sherlock! Congrats, Kev.
“preferring instead to perseverate about a piece of fluff from three weeks ago that it took me a few minutes to crank out”.
– That took you a few minutes to crank out? I would have guessed at least a day…
Keep up the good work of dodging the bullet, Kev.
Sue,
Do you take delight in being a pathological obsessive with a persecution complex?
Why did you bother to lie when someone asked you point-blank if you were Sue M?
Why are you assuming multiple nicknames on this blog?
If we’re all such idiots, why do you keep bothering to come back again and again after numerous protestations that THIS time you’re going to leave?
Face it, you can’t stay away. Deep down, you find people like Kevin Leitch threatening to your position, ranting to the contrary. When you apply logic and science to the autism-mercury position, you find at best that the link is tangential and shaky. At worst, it’s non-existent.
Nicknames are cool. Ask your friends here. They will agree. Zeus, God, Rip Van Winkle, Medicine Man oh wait, even you know that it’s fun to have a nickname… don’t you, Mouse?
I missed this one.
_”Actually, Kev, I would say that you are the funny one here. I mentioned “scientific discussionsâ€. I am under no illusions that the people that you mentioned above are scientists. I am unclear as to why you would attempt to misrepresent me in that way.”_
Really? Odd, because all you talked about at one point was Evidence of Harm and how authoritative Kirby is/was on the science. I remember one of our first conversations was about
the horror of the Hornig skull chewing and how it established EoH as an authoritative source. Do you really have that much trouble keeping your story straight Sue?
_”For scientific information, I would go to Burbacher, Haley, Deth, Wakefield, etc. Sure, I respect the other people on your list for relaying the science or asking the questions or whatever but not for being “leaders in scienceâ€. Come on, Kev, you know that.”_
You have a fascinating memory Sue. I wonder if I should have a quick search through my archived comments for a few Sue M gems? :o)
_”You are still up in arms about whether Kirby said 2005 at any time as for when the rates of autism would go down.”_
No. He _did_ claim it. What I’m up in arms about is why he then moved the goalposts by two years and then sought to conceal it.
_”You claim that he “moved the goalpost†or whatever. I say, who cares?”_
I realise you don’t care. This is because you don’t ever look at the bigger picture Sue.
Firstly, David Kirby claims to be acting impartially in pursuit of the truth. I say someone who accepts financial favours from SafeMinds and the NAA is far from impartial. I say someone who is not honest enough to admit when they’re wrong should be viewed with deep suspicion.
Secondly, since Kirby swallowed Rollen’s old twaddle about the CDDS data wholesale and repeated it ad nauseum (and so did the rest of you) then there needs to be a full and frank discussion about why this data – once called the gold standard by Kirby – is not showing what he claimed. He rests a good deal of his case on these figures. Simply adding on 2 years to a hypothesis because the current one is showing what you want it to is not good enough.
Thirdly – this discussion is highly important for me in a way it never can be for you. The future of my daughters education/role in society is at stake. You don’t have an autistic child so this is essentially just a bit of a jolly old jape for you. If Kirby is right then we need to discuss that but if he _is wrong_ we need to discuss that too. By the criteria _he_ set out, using the data _he_ called the gold standard and within the time frame _he_ specified he is moving very firmly into the ‘wrong’ camp. For the sake of my daughter and people like her everywhere I _will not_ allow this issue to get swept under a rug and forgotten about.
_”Now, how does that compare with the Danish studies? Can you legitimately have a change in diagnostic code mid-study and not recognize that it would screw up the number of autistic children being diagnosed? Can you suddenly add in children who are diagnosed with autism as “outpatients†when you did not do this in the beginning of the study? Can you (mid study) add in cases of children diagnosed in a busy clinic in Copenhagen whereby finding a spike that same year (1992) when mercury was removed? Can you do all that Kev and still consider your study to be valid? Can you, Kev? Or would that be a case of changing the rules in the middle of the game.”_
As I’ve said to you before, I have no issue with your belief that the Danish studies are less then perfect. Clearly they are not. I’d be delighted to see better designed studies conducted.
_”Now, truth be told… IF Kirby moved the goalposts, it will do nothing to change the outcome. It essentially has no effect on anything”_
Dead wrong Sue. Every day this crap gets perpetuated, more people are put off vaccinating their children and more people are hospitalised, more people run a risk of severe injury and death.
_This is not a game_ . This is already happening.
_That’s a big deal. IOM used them. Parents believed them. CDC posted them as “proof†of no connection.”_
Can you hear yourself? You seem to be using the bizarre argument that two wrongs make a right. They don’t. I’ve said to you in the past and I say it again now – the Danish studies are far from perfect. Can you bring yourself to admit the same about Kirby’s exercise in face-saving?
_”It’s nice to see that once again Kev gets off on “outing†people from my side.”_
No – just you Sue, just you :o)
_”Eventually I knew that you couldn’t contain yourself… No Shit Sherlock! Congrats, Kev.”_
Heh – Sue, don’t embarrass yourself further by pretending you were trying to catch me out. Its clear that your knowledge of how the intraweb works is on a par with your knowledge of autism related science.
Pat on the head for trying to save face though ;o)
Kev wrote:
“Really? Odd, because all you talked about at one point was Evidence of Harm and how authoritative Kirby is/was on the science”.
– Really, Kev. Go back and take a look at that. Kirby didn’t CONDUCT the studies. He wrote about the studies. Big difference. You should be able to get that.
Kev wrote:
“I’ve said to you in the past and I say it again now – the Danish studies are far from perfect. Can you bring yourself to admit the same about Kirby’s exercise in face-saving”?
– Far from perfect? Understatement of the year?
Funny Kev, you didn’t catch on to the NSS did you? I obviously knew what I was doing. Actually, you could have figured out who I was by checking out my e-mail address. I mean come on… heykev@msn.com. You are losing it.
_”Really, Kev. Go back and take a look at that. Kirby didn’t CONDUCT the studies. He wrote about the studies. Big difference. You should be able to get that.”_
Finally! This _exactly the point I’ve been trying to make to _you_ , when you repeatedly castigated me for discussing the science that Kirby wrote about. You criticised me for not reading every page of EoH. I tried repeatedly to get it through your head that the science I was talking about was a matter of public record. It existed independently of EoH – one didn’t have to read EoH to read or process the science. Seriously – what don’t you get about that?
_”Kev wrote: Can you bring yourself to admit the same about Kirby’s exercise in face-savingâ€?”_
_”– Far from perfect? Understatement of the year?”_
So that’s a ‘no’ then? Next time you want to call me a hypocrite Sue, come back and take a look at this comment. Bring someone who understands English to explain it to you, but just in case, I’ll recap the salient points: you asked me a direct question which I answered directly. I asked you (as I have on so many occasions I’ve lost count) a direct question and you dodged it. What a surprise.
_”Funny Kev, you didn’t catch on to the NSS did you?”_
You are seriously suggesting that I didn’t notice that ‘Kev’s Morons’ signed off saying ‘NSS’ and that there was a subsequent poster called ‘NSS’?
Oddly, I did. I just didn’t care very much. At that point NSS’s contribution to the thread was ‘NSS = No Shit Sherlock’ which is both disappointingly unoriginal and has no real relevance to anything that had been said up to that point. But I’m guessing that’s a feeling you’re well used to :o)
_”I obviously knew what I was doing.”_
If it genuinely makes you feel better to believe that Sue then go right ahead :o) – would you like it if I made a comment stating that you’d caught me out? That I was outfoxed by your interweb mad skillz? I wouldn’t mind – it could be our little secret :o)
_”it could be our little secret :o)”_
Wait – did I say that out loud? Oops ;o)