EmpowHer blogs the autism vaccine story…and fails

12 Oct

Empowher is a blogging network that bills itself as “Improving Health. Changing Lives”. EmpowHER.com “facts” include this statement:

EmpowHER.com provides credible, evidence-based health content from over 400 world-class health care professionals, experts and providers.

Unfortunately, their recent autism coverage has not been credible nor evidence-based. It is not “improving health”. I am referring to a number of articles by Joanna Karpasea-Jones. Here is a list of some recent articles. Even from the titles you can probably guess the slant these stories have taken:

An Introduction to Autism and its Prevalence
Autism’s Theoretical Causes: Diet and Dietary Deficiency: An Editorial
Autism’s Theoretical Causes: Mercury Amalgam Fillings and Anti-D Injections: An Editorial
Autism’s Theoretical Causes: Diet and Dietary Deficiency: An Editorial
Autism’s Theoretical Causes: Genetics and Metabolism–An Editorial
Autism’s Theoretical Causes, Ultrasound Scans: An Editorial

A short example of the problems that plague Ms. Jones’ analysis can be found on her website, Vaccine Awareness Network, where the top article listed on the main page is “Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent.”

This was a study by Maddy Hornig, Ian Lipkin and D. Chian from 2004. It was dubbed the “rain mouse” study at the time and was touted as an demonstration that thimerosal might cause autism. A few years later, researchers at the MIND Institute tried to replicate the study. They tried hard. They used 10 times as much thimerosal as Prof. Hornig’s group. They couldn’t recreate the results. They concluded, “Considered together the present results do not indicate pervasive developmental neurotoxicity following vaccine-level thimerosal injections in SJL mice, and provide little if any support for the hypothesis that thimerosal exposure contributes to the etiology of neurodevelopmental disorders. ”

In other words, “Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent” is a study which has been superseded by a more recent study.

When people give you the Hornig study and don’t mention the MIND Institute study, it’s time to be suspicious.

The articles by Joanna Karpasea-Jones are full of examples like this. Old studies which support her idea are presented. Other studies, old and new, which clearly don’t support the idea of vaccine causation are just not mentioned.

There is another recent article on EmpowHer by Dr. Daemon Jones “Vaccinations: Do They Support or Harm the Health of Our Children?” Dr. Jones is a naturopath, so you likely won’t be surprised that her article is very non-specific and presents statements like “This debate will continue in the medical community until there is more concrete data for one side than the other.”

I have news for Dr. Jones: this isn’t a debate in the medical community. This is a debate amongst bloggers like those on EmpowHER who don’t keep up with current research.

On EmpowHer you can vote for each article. You are given three choices: this article (1) Improved my health (2) changed my life and (3) saved my life. You can’t vote, say, “this article is tired old ideas which were discarded years ago” or, “Doesn’t anyone at EmpowHER check the facts of the articles?”

Advertisements

97 Responses to “EmpowHer blogs the autism vaccine story…and fails”

  1. stanley seigler October 17, 2011 at 19:54 #

    LBRB,

    i posted the below several times…if inappropiate pls advise…if not pls post and delete others that i guess are hung up somewhere…

    stanley seigler

    THE BELOW:

    [chris say] Mr. Seigler, about that report. Please stick to real scientific literature and do not quote clueless reporters.

    COMMENT

    thanks for the link…is this the real scientific literatureto which you refer…anyway;

    is the following statement the basis for your opine the reporter is clueless?

    “Vaccines have saved untold millions of lives, and the vast majority of people who get them suffer no major problems.”

    do you disagree with the clueless reporter’s statement…ie, perhaps VAXes have not saved millions…and many suffer major problems

    or perhaps you disagree with the following clueless statement:

    “However, many of the same experts don’t dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain damage.”

    “real scientific literature” would add little to the painfully obvious by a clueless reporter…and;

    never sure whether it’s real or promotional scientific lit…being published in “real scientific literature” journals, etal…doesn’t make it factual…

    the original rhetorical was/is: “dont most accept: 1) vaccines cause injuries; 2) diseases are more harmful than vaccines…at least accepted, based on today’s science…and general laymen’s opine.”

    most of my opinions re VAX/anti are based on what i read on LBRB.

    stanley seigler

  2. stanley seigler October 17, 2011 at 19:56 #

    LBRB,

    i submitted same message here several times…it has not shown up…if inappropiate pls advise so i can move on…

    stanley seigler

  3. Chris October 18, 2011 at 00:40 #

    Rachael:

    . Chicken pox is highly infectious, but usually a very mild illness.

    Only someone who is heartless would say that. Chicken pox involves several dozen itchy and painful pox, which are open wounds. Why would you want a child to suffer two weeks of itchy pain?

    Natural infection from chicken pox has a better than 99.99% complete recovery rate followed by life-time immunity.

    That is a lie. The varicella virus does not go away, it just becomes dormant. The person who gets chicken pox is eligible for shingles, and sometimes another full blown chicken pox outbreak. Before the vaccine over a hundred people died from chicken pox, and several more were disabled (for example blindness when the pox get into the eyes). Also the open wounds raise the risk of secondary bacterial infection.

    Show us that you really don’t want children in pain and harmed: give us the real actual factual scientific evidence. Give us the journal, title and date of the papers that show that the vaccine causes more harm than the disease. Do not post any web addresses, and do not go on about shingles.

    Because to say that vaccinating children for chicken pox causes more shingles is very heartless. It is cruel to make children go through a vaccine to prevent shingles, when the older adult can have a vaccine.

    Mr. Seigler, you will be ignored until you come up with real evidence, not hearsay. I have given several examples, you have no excuse.

  4. Andrew October 18, 2011 at 01:50 #

    Chicken pox kills (directly – I’m not counting sequelae like shingles) about 6 or 7 children out of every 100,000 infected . The swine flu vaccine that caused so much controversy in the 1970s supposedly caused about 1 case of Guille-Barre syndrome per 100,000 vaccinated – but that’s probably an overestimate. Even mild diseases like chicken pox are more dangerous than vaccines.

  5. stanley seigler October 18, 2011 at 03:00 #

    [chris say] Mr. Seigler, you will be ignored until you come up with real evidence, not hearsay. I have given several examples, you have no excuse.

    oh/my sigh i’m going to be ignored…what real evidence do you require for the painfully obvious…ie;

    “Vaccines have saved untold millions of lives, and the vast majority of people who get them suffer no major problems.”

    and

    “…experts don’t dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain damage.”

    you beg the simple yes/no question: do you agree or disagree…if you disagree…site evidence…your scientific literature would be interesting reading.

    as would your scientific evidence re connection between tobacco and cancer was being made at a hundred years ago for chewing tobacco. 🙂

    stanley seigler

  6. Chris October 18, 2011 at 03:13 #

    I gave you that source: The Emperor of All Maladies. Since I checked the book out of the library, I do not have the book. Also PubMed does not go back a century. A check on Amazon’s “Look in the book” feature shows that it is on page 239, and I made an error… it was “snuff” not chewing tobacco.

    So go and read the book. And in the future be sure to show your evidence.

    I did check PubMed and the oldest articles go back to the 1950s. I found one that was free online (the second oldest) that has references that go back to 1908:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1613573/pdf/annsurg01301-0106.pdf

    Please stop confusing tobacco advertising for real research, and be sure to include references to any of your claims. In fact, you should have checked out what tobacco research existed before you even made claims about it!

  7. stanley seigler October 18, 2011 at 03:45 #

    [chris say] Please stop confusing tobacco advertising for real research

    i am not confused…tho many are…much tobacco ads are taken for real science…eg ABA autism science as discussed by ms dawson. and;

    i could give a rat’s ear less about chewing tobacco/snuff related to cancer…not sure why you even originally brought it up…i was just having fun re asking for evidence.

    the main point is: why do you continue to beg/avoid the question: DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE:

    “Vaccines have saved untold millions of lives, and the vast majority of people who get them suffer no major problems.”

    and

    “…experts don’t dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain damage.”

    opine: it seems painfully obvious…and most you/LBRB keep discussing the obvious.

    stanley seigler

  8. Chris October 18, 2011 at 03:47 #

    And yet you post no real evidence. You are welcome to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

  9. Chris October 18, 2011 at 03:49 #

    i could give a rat’s ear less about chewing tobacco/snuff related to cancer…not sure why you even originally brought it up…i was just having fun re asking for evidence.

    You brought it up. Stop using it unless you learn about its history.

  10. stanley seigler October 18, 2011 at 04:18 #

    [chris say] And yet you post no real evidence. You are welcome to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

    to what point do you want real evidence…

    certainly agree w/ your mobvious, too oft used, comment re opine/fact…which has NOTHING to do with the question asked but NOT answered:

    why do you continue to beg/avoid the question: DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE:

    “Vaccines have saved untold millions of lives, and the vast majority of people who get them suffer no major problems.”

    and

    “…experts don’t dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain damage.”

    just answer the question…

    stanley seigler

  11. stanley seigler October 18, 2011 at 04:46 #

    [chris say] You brought it up. Stop using it [snuff chewing tobacco:)] unless you learn about its history.

    guess i will have to take history of snuff 101…btw

    [chris say] The connection between tobacco and cancer was being made at a hundred years ago for chewing tobacco [Chris October 14th, 2011]…which was the original ref to chewing tobacco/cancer.

    the end of this sillyness…you can have the last word…which seems important to you…and hopefully your last word will answer the question…probably too much to hope for.

    stanley seigler

  12. Chris October 18, 2011 at 04:48 #

    I only agree if the data supports it. It would be helpful if you actually wrote full grammatical sentences, because half the time I don’t know what you are going on about. Just provide the data that contradicts the following:

    Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story

    Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States

    Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.
    Dales LG, Kizer KW, Rutherford GW, Pertowski CA, Waterman SH, Woodford G.
    West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.

    Impact of universal Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination starting at 2 months of age in the United States: an economic analysis.
    Zhou F, Bisgard KM, Yusuf HR, Deuson RR, Bath SK, Murphy TV.
    Pediatrics. 2002 Oct;110(4):653-61.

    Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
    Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.

    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
    Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.

    Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus.
    DeStefano F, Mullooly JP, Okoro CA, Chen RT, Marcy SM, Ward JI, Vadheim CM, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Davis RL, Bohlke K; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
    Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112.

    Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
    On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.
    Smith MJ, Woods CR.

    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S210-5.
    Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.
    Lee B, Ying M, Papania MJ, Stevenson J, Seward JF, Hutchins SS.
    Epidemiology Program Office, and National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.

    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
    Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.
    Gindler J, Tinker S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Dales L, Papania MJ.
    National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

    J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93. Epub 2005 Oct 12.
    Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.
    Bellini WJ, Rota JS, Lowe LE, Katz RS, Dyken PR, Zaki SR, Shieh WJ, Rota PA.
    Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Branch, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.

    Pediatrics. 2009 Jun;123(6):1446-51.
    Parental refusal of pertussis vaccination is associated with an increased risk of pertussis infection in children.
    Glanz JM, McClure DL, Magid DJ, Daley MF, France EK, Salmon DA, Hambidge SJ.

    Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Dec 15;168(12):1389-96. Epub 2008 Oct 15.
    Geographic clustering of nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements and associations with geographic clustering of pertussis.
    Omer SB, Enger KS, Moulton LH, Halsey NA, Stokley S, Salmon DA.

    JAMA. 2000 Dec 27;284(24):3145-50.
    Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization.
    Feikin DR, Lezotte DC, Hamman RF, Salmon DA, Chen RT, Hoffman RE.

    Pediatrics. 2010 Apr;125(4):747-55. Epub 2010 Mar 22.
    Measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population, San Diego, 2008: role of the intentionally undervaccinated.
    Sugerman DE, Barskey AE, Delea MG, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Bi D, Ralston KJ, Rota PA, Waters-Montijo K, Lebaron CW.

    N Engl J Med. 2006 Aug 3;355(5):447-55.
    Implications of a 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana for sustained elimination of measles in the United States.
    Parker AA, Staggs W, Dayan GH, Ortega-Sánchez IR, Rota PA, Lowe L, Boardman P, Teclaw R, Graves C, LeBaron CW.

    Pediatrics Vol. 126 No. 2 August 1, 2010 (doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-1496)

    Lack of Association Between Acellular Pertussis Vaccine and Seizures in Early Childhood
    Wan-Ting Huang, MDa,b, Paul M. Gargiullo, PhDc, Karen R. Broder, MDb, Eric S. Weintraub, MPHb, John K. Iskander, MD, MPHb, Nicola P. Klein, MD, PhDd, James M. Baggs, PhD,b, for the Vaccine Safety Datalink Team
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/2/263.full

    Pediatrics. 2010 Sep 13.
    Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal From Vaccines and Immunoglobulins and Risk of Autism.
    Price CS, Thompson WW, Goodson B, Weintraub ES, Croen LA, Hinrichsen VL, Marcy M, Robertson A, Eriksen E, Lewis E, Bernal P, Shay D, Davis RL, Destefano F.

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400.
    Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.
    Mrozek-Budzyn D, Kieltyka A, Majewska R.

    Neuropsychological Performance 10 years after Immunization in Infancy with Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
    Authors: Tozzi AE, Bisiacchi P, Tarantino V, De Mei B, D’Elia L, Chiarotti F, Salmaso S.
    Source: Pediatrics, February 2009, Vol. 123(2):475-82

    Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.
    Hornig M et al.
    PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
    *Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)

    Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
    Baird G et al.
    Arch Dis Child 2008; 93(10):832-7.
    Subjects: 98 vaccinated children aged 10-12 years in the UK with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); two control groups of similar age: 52 children with special educational needs but no ASD and 90 children in the typically developing group

    MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan.
    Uchiyama T et al.
    J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37(2):210-7
    *Subjects: 904 children with autism spectrum disorder
    (Note: MMR was used in Japan only between 1989 and 1993.)

    No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study.
    Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.
    J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.

    No Evidence of Persisting Measles Virus in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells from Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
    D’Souza Y et al.
    Pediatrics 2006; 118(4):1664-75
    *Subjects: 54 children with autism spectrum disorder and 34 developmentally normal children

    Immunizations and Autism: A Review of the Literature.
    Doja A, Roberts W.
    Can J Neurol Sci. 2006; 33(4):341-6
    *Literature review

    Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links with Immunizations.
    Fombonne E et al.
    Pediatrics. 2006;118(1):e139-50
    *Subjects: 27,749 children born from 1987 to 1998 attending 55 schools

  13. stanley seigler October 18, 2011 at 16:39 #

    [chris say] I only agree if the data supports it. It would be helpful if you actually wrote full grammatical sentences, because half the time I don’t know what you are going on about. Just provide the data that contradicts the following:…

    my previous post said it was the end of the silly ness…but perhaps an explanation of “what i was going on about” would help chris…so:

    it is not hard to follow…even tho sentences are not complete nor grammatically correct… my original rhetorical was:

    “…dont most accept: 1) vaccines cause injuries; 2) diseases are more harmful than vaccines.”

    a simple yes/no would have sufficed…assume chris missed the point due to lack of, “full grammatical sentences”…he sure wasted a lot of rambling ink by not addressing the question.

    finally, in a left handed way he addresses the question…

    [chris say]”…I only agree if the data supports it”

    then he must agree as his refs confirms:

    “Vaccines have saved untold millions of lives, and the vast majority of people who get them suffer no major problems.” and “…experts don’t dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain damage.”

    i am not trying to contradict…tho there is the possibility contradicting data exist…or will/may exist in the future…science is dynamic.

    stanley seigler

  14. Chris October 18, 2011 at 16:49 #

    i am not trying to contradict…tho there is the possibility contradicting data exist…or will/may exist in the future…science is dynamic.

    Then you will post it. Until then, be sure to you have the references on hand for any claim you make.

    Oh, and go to your local library and check out The Emperor of All Maladies. It describes the nefarious behavior of the tobacco companies in light of overwhelming evidence linking tobacco and cancer. It is nothing like what pharmaceutical companies nor public health agencies have done.

  15. stanley seigler October 19, 2011 at 04:30 #

    LBRB,

    the below submitted …NOT posted…pls advise.

    stanley seigler

    THE BELOW

    chris say] be sure to you have the references on hand for any claim you make.

    references not necessary for the obvious…besides i didnt make any claim just ask a rhetorical question…didn’t expect your response or any response

    as seems to be chris’ SOP; the goal post moved several times…and we have now moved to a discussion (without addressing the original rhetorical) of “nefarious behavior of the tobacco scientists and big pharma’s ethical science.”

    [chris say] “It [tobacco science] is nothing like what pharmaceutical companies [BP] have done…”

    does chris say BP more egregious…probably not. perhaps tobacco more egregious than BP…however they are a lot a like…may want to read: “Agnotology [the making & unmaking of ignorance]” (proctor).

    stanley seigler

  16. stanley seigler October 19, 2011 at 17:59 #

    LBRB,

    the below submitted …NOT posted…pls advise.

    stanley seigler

    THE BELOW

    [chris say] be sure to you have the references on hand for any claim you make.

    references not necessary for the obvious…besides i didnt make any claim just ask a rhetorical question…didn’t expect your response or any response

    as seems to be chris’ SOP; the goal post moved several times…and we have now moved to a discussion (without addressing the original rhetorical) of “nefarious behavior of the tobacco scientists and big pharma’s ethical science.”

    [chris say] “It [tobacco science] is nothing like what pharmaceutical companies [BP] have done…”

    does chris say BP more egregious…probably not. perhaps tobacco more egregious than BP…however the science is a lot alike…may want to read: “Agnotology [the making & unmaking of ignorance]” (proctor).

    stanley seigler

  17. stanley seigler October 20, 2011 at 00:13 #

    LBRB,

    the below submitted several times…NOT posted…pls advise.

    stanley seigler

    THE BELOW

    [chris say] be sure to you have the references on hand for any claim you make.

    references not necessary for the obvious…besides i didnt make any claim just ask a rhetorical question…didn’t expect your response or any response

    as seems to be chris’ SOP; the goal post moved several times…and we have now moved to a discussion (without addressing the original rhetorical) of “nefarious behavior of the tobacco scientists and big pharma’s ethical science.”

    [chris say] “It [tobacco science] is nothing like what pharmaceutical companies [BP] have done…”

    does chris say BP more egregious…probably not. perhaps tobacco more egregious than BP…however they are a lot alike…may want to read: “Agnotology [the making & unmaking of ignorance]” (proctor).

    stanley seigler

  18. stanley seigler October 20, 2011 at 04:04 #

    LBRB,
    the below submitted …NOT posted…pls advise…PLEASE
    stanley seigler

    THE BELOW
    [chris say] be sure to you have the references on hand for any claim you make.

    references not necessary for the obvious…besides i didnt make any claim just ask a rhetorical question…didn’t expect your response or any response

    as seems to be chris’ SOP; the goal post moved several times…and we have now moved to a discussion (without addressing the original rhetorical) of “nefarious behavior of the tobacco scientists and big pharma’s ethical science.”

    [chris say] “It [tobacco science] is nothing like what pharmaceutical companies [BP] have done…”

    does chris say BP more egregious…probably not. perhaps tobacco more egregious than BP…however they are a lot alike…

    Agnotology [the making & unmaking of ignorance] (proctor) say: “manufacturing uncertainty on behalf of big business has become big business in itself.”…there are discussions of the tobacco and BP promotional science in this book.

    stanley seigler

  19. stanley seigler October 20, 2011 at 04:26 #

    LBRB, the below submitted …NOT posted…pls advise…PLEASE
    stanley seigler

    THE BELOW
    [chris say] be sure to you have the references on hand for any claim you make.

    references not necessary for the obvious…besides i didnt make any claim just ask a rhetorical question…didn’t expect your response or any response

    as seems to be chris’ SOP; the goal post moved several times…and we have now moved to a discussion (without addressing the original rhetorical) of “nefarious behavior of the tobacco scientists and big pharma’s ethical science.”

    [chris say] “It [tobacco science] is nothing like what pharmaceutical companies [BP] have done…”

    does chris say BP more egregious…probably not. perhaps tobacco more egregious than BP…

    Agnotology [the making & unmaking of ignorance] (proctor) say: “manufacturing uncertainty on behalf of big business has become big business in itself.”…there are discussions of the tobacco and BP promotional science in this book…and they seem a lot alike.

    stanley seigler

  20. stanley seigler October 20, 2011 at 21:26 #

    LBRB

    please advise why my messages to this thread are not posted…

    stanley seigler

  21. stanley seigler October 21, 2011 at 01:22 #

    LBRB,

    pls delete my duplicate post and advise how this can be avoided.

    thanks

    stanley

  22. Chris October 21, 2011 at 02:22 #

    I honestly can’t figure out what you are trying to say. And the book is very long, I sincerely doubt you have already finished reading it.

  23. stanley seigler October 21, 2011 at 03:37 #

    [chris say] I honestly can’t figure out what you are trying to say. And the book is very long, I sincerely doubt you have already finished reading it.

    COMMENT

    not sure book to which you refer…if “The Emperor of All Maladies” you are correct…if “Agnotology [the making & unmaking of ignorance]”…incorrect…287 pages in paperback…relatively short read.

    honestly/sincerely it’s sooo simple…just respond to original rhetorical vice moving the goal post…which BTW as mentioned i didnt expect a respose and still wondering why you commented…

    to repeat original

    DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE: “Vaccines have saved untold millions of lives, and the vast majority of people who get them suffer no major problems.” and “…experts don’t dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain damage.”

    why do you continue to move the goal post and beg/avoid the question…

    stanley seigler

  24. Chris October 21, 2011 at 05:20 #

    I answered that I agreed with the data, and listed the papers. Perhaps you should look at them.

    From the Amazon site for The Emperor of All Maladies:

    Paperback: 608 pages
    Publisher: Scribner; Reprint edition (August 9, 2011)

    ……………….

    This is why you need to reference what you write, since you seem to have an error in the page count.

  25. stanley seigler October 21, 2011 at 21:56 #

    [chris say] I answered that I agreed with the data, and listed the papers. Perhaps you should look at them.

    you still avoid a simple yes/no answer to:

    “Vaccines have saved untold millions of lives, and the vast majority of people who get them suffer no major problems.” and “…experts don’t dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain damage.” [stated seversl times]

    if chris agrees: why his disagreement with racheal (Chris October 14th, 2011 16:54:44)…which was the original point…long lost in endless moving of the goal post…why oh why was/is a simple yes/no so hard…

    housekeeping

    [chris say] From the Amazon site for The Emperor of All Maladies:Paperback: 608 pages Publisher: Scribner; Reprint edition (August 9, 2011)…This is why you need to reference what you write, since you seem to have an error in the page count.

    [chris say] And the “book” is very long, I sincerely doubt you have already finished reading it.

    which book (you need to reference)…there were two books mentioned in this thread…soo my comment:

    [stanley say] not sure book to which you refer…if [1] “The Emperor of All Maladies” you are correct…if [2]“Agnotology [the making & unmaking of ignorance]”…incorrect…287 pages in paperback…relatively short read.

    This is why you need to reference what you write…

    stanley seigler

  26. Chris October 21, 2011 at 23:13 #

    Apologies for not indicating it was The Emperor of All Maladies, but I had asked to not refer to tobacco studies unless you had read that particular book. Therefore, I will ignore anymore questions that I have already answered. Plus I will ask you if you had read the book on cancer each time you mention the word “tobacco.”

  27. Chris October 21, 2011 at 23:27 #

    On October 14th, 2011 16:54:44 I said:

    Which you have failed to prove. All you have to do is show that the vaccines cause more harm than the diseases. You have ignored the harm from the diseases.

    Asking someone to prove that the vaccines cause more harm than the diseases moving goal posts. The issue on that subject is risk assessment, and people like Rachael claim that vaccines should not be used because they may cause injury and actively ignore the real harm from the diseases. The blow up the one in a more than a million chance of injury from the MMR and ignore the very real one in a thousand chance of injury from measles.

    Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I answered your question, the least you can do is read the links provided if you do not wish to look up the papers in PubMed. And I will again request that you write full sentences in the future, use standard punctuation, provide evidence for your statements and to not to mention off topic subjects like tobacco studies.

    This is the last off topic comment I will make on this thread.

  28. Chris October 21, 2011 at 23:28 #

    Except to correct an error: diseases is not moving goal posts.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: