The Daily Mail published another MMR piece earlier this week. As usual it had the predicted results in that it stirred up the usual frenzy of illogic and fallacy.
Why do I say that?
In order to explain we need to fast-forward a couple of days to where Melanie Phillips, Andrew Wakefield’s staunchest media supporter in the UK, published her own follow up to the Mail story. I urge you to go read both pieces now before you read the rest of this.
OK, done? Good.
So lets talk about what was said. Basically, the gist of both articles is now the medical community in the UK _have_ to take the MMR link seriously because Dr Peter Fletcher, ex-Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health has said a few things about it.
On the face of it thats pretty impressive – this isn’t some no-nothing from nowhere – this is an *ex CSO*. But once you get past the fact of who he _is_ and start to isolate what he’s actually _saying_ then, to borrow a phrase, the facade starts to crack.
First is the fact that this sort of argument – based on his good standing in the past – is a sort of reverse Argumentum Ad Hominem in that it is argued that it is equally or of more importance regarding who Dr Gordon _is_ as oppose to what he _says_. This is, of course, a fallacious position from which to start.
So what does he (and the original article) actually say?
[Dr Gordon]….has accused the Government of “utterly inexplicable complacency” over the MMR triple vaccine for children.
Thats simply an assumption based on his circular reasoning that the MMR has routine or above average negative effects: as an argument it relies on the reader agreeing that there is a case for the Gvmnt being complacent in the first place. Since the establishment of this case _is whats actually being debated_ its safe to ignore this as pre-conceived bias.
[Dr Fletcher]…..said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, _”the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history”_.
Well, d’uh. How is that news? Its obviously true and equally obvious entirely irrelevant to establishing a case for believing MMR has a role in causing autism. Its a tactical appeal to emotion – nothing more.
He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents’ lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see. He said he has seen a “steady accumulation of evidence” from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.
This is at the heart of the two articles. Dr Fletcher however simply invokes the spirit of these ‘thousands of documents’ and doesn’t discuss them or what they contain at all. It may well be that he’s hampered by the legal constraints of the case(s) in question but thats really besides the point. What we need to know is – what can Dr Fletcher _add_ to the debate? Both the epidemiology and the hard science have refuted the MMR link on more than one occasion. If Dr Fletcher has peer reviewed journal based evidence that contradicts or invalidates the science done so far then he should state it. At the moment he is simply repeating a fallacy of intuition, magical thinking and an argument to the future. None of these lend any scientific credence to making a case that supports the idea that the MMR jab caused or contributed to anyones autism. If there’s evidence lets get it peer reviewed and published in a respected journal – anything else is simply hearsay.
But he added: “There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”
This is a combination of Galileo gambit and a fallacy of the assumed but hidden truth. In other words its the invocation of a conspiracy theory. Its an easy thing to say because one doesn’t have to prove or even allege who these ‘powerful people’ actually are and thus there is no one available to defend the given proposition. I always think of this as the last refuge of the truly desperate. If someones case is strong enough then why resort to such a transparent and desperate tactic?
Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children,” he said.
It is? Where? In fact the vast weight of scientific evidence has very recently concluded that there is no link.
There was no credible evidence behind claims of harm from the MMR vaccination. This is the conclusion drawn by the Cochrane Review Authors, an international team of researchers, after carefully drawing together all of the evidence found in 31 high quality studies from around the world. They also highlight that the policy of encouraging mass use of MMR has eliminated the scourge of measles, mumps and rubella from many countries. _”In particular we conclude that all the major unintended events, such as triggering Crohn’s disease or autism, were suspected on the basis of unreliable evidence,”_ says lead author Dr Vittorio Demicheli who works at Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, Alessandria, Italy.
By contrast, Dr Fletcher yet again fails to say _what_ this ‘vast weight’ of scientific evidence was, where it could be found and who produced it. He just says its there. And we should just trust him because he’s cleverer than us.
Yet there has been a tenfold increase in autism and related forms of brain damage over the past 15 years, roughly coinciding with MMR’s introduction
Really? Obviously Dr Fletcher (and the Daily Mail) don’t examine the actual science which states:
The new study, which involved 10,903 preschool children in the United Kingdom, confirmed the elevated autism rate, but clearly demonstrated that autism prevalence is not increasing.
Fletcher also makes the mistake of matching correlation with causation – a schoolboy error for any scientist.
He said there was “no way” the tenfold leap in autistic children could be the result of better recognition and definitional changes, as claimed by health authorities.
Another totally specious statement with nothing to back it up. Fletcher might well believe it but as he provides no evidence then its just an opinion. In fact, scientific studies in the US indicate the rise in rate _is_ down to better recognition and diagnosis.
“It is highly likely that at least part of this increase is a vaccine related problem.” he said.
Again, this may be Fletcher’s opinion but he provides nothing in the way of support for it. This isn’t science, this is just gossip.
And thats just about all of Dr Fletcher’s contribution to the debate. Fallacy, lazy reasoning, assertion and unverified claims. It comes as no surprise that other lazy thinkers hype such garbage when they have so little science to support their position.
Left Brain Right Brain 
SueM: “– Coming from someone who has some “pending†diploma of some kind is somewhat interesting…”
“Pending” because it is to be subsumed into the MEd at the end of my studies, dipshit! LoL
See, you don’t think, do you?
I registered for the MEd initially, so the separate award of a PgCertSpEd in applied educational psychology (specialising in autistic difficulties in adult life) isn’t possible, so it has to remain pending. If I decided to chuck in the studies, I can leave with that, and extra academic credit; I could also decide to take another subject module (instead of the practitioner inquiry module) and leave with a PgDipSpEd. Since I’m going on for the MEd, I can’t be awarded the PgCertSpEd (although, if it were a separate award, I could have it anyway).
You studied… what exactly?
Oh, and the papers I debunk….?
I debunk clinical reports for my clients, and write it into my research; it’s a pity the journal for which I function as an associate editor isn’t called Bad Autism Practice… I can list a good few places and people who engage in it.
About time SueM learned to think before she opened her mouth (maybe literally as well as figuratively). We still know sod all about Sue’s education, except that she claims – as does JBJr – to have one (but behaves like someone who has none).
Yes… so it is interesting… since at least I can demonstrate an education.
Why can’t you? You say you graduated form a reputable college and yet I have seen no evidence of this. You’re all ad hominem, strawman, and just about any one of the list of logical fallacies that Jonathan listed on his blog a while back. I have yet to see you post anything that makes sense, that isn’t pure supposition, that isn’t based on an idea in your head for which you have produced no evidence in real life for.
I do real work in the autism field, Sue. What do you do, apart from troll this sort of blog?
BC: “How about this Sue, we’ll consider this matter over (your head)… ”
🙂
Priceless.
Would be funny if it weren’t true.
Arrgghhh… it was clone3g I was quoting…. and here I am, quoting again: “Peer review doesn’t guarantee correctness, Wakefield’s work is one example that comes to mind, and being listed in PubMed doesn’t equate with good science.”
Sadly, as far as I’m aware, Wakefield’s work did not go through peer review. Had it done so, it would undoubtedly have been rejected.
Professor Patricia Greenhalgh reviewed the paper for Brian Deer’s investigation. She found the paper wanting. There was actually no research hypothesis stated in the paper; there was no conctrol group; the sample was too highly selected and too small; and the investigation into the children’s difficulties was not conducted in the appropriate manner (parental recall, without mechanisms for countering confirmation bias issues as far as I can tell; and there was no “blinding” of investigators in order to eliminate any bias from which systematic error might arise). The design was inadequate for the demonstration of any causal link between MMR vaccine and autism.
Greenhalgh states: “In conclusion, the Wakefield study was scientifically flawed on numerous counts. I am surprised that neither the editor nor the reviewers spotted these flaws when the paper was submitted. Had they done so, the public would have been saved the confusion and anxiety caused by false credibility conveyed by publication of the study in this prestigious journal.”
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-greenhalgh.htm
I am not convinced that the paper was in fact subjected to proper peer review, since the flaws (so blindingly obvious as they were) were not detected, and a reasonable peer review process would have allowed them to be picked up on and the paper would have been either rejected outright or referred back for improvements and resubmission. I, as an associate editor for a journal, would have rejected this flawed a paper.
_”Thank you, Kev. I’ll consider this matter over”_
I tell you what Sue. I’ve come to expect a lot of prevarication from you over the last few months but even I never expected anything quite so pathetic. Even when I thought you were wrong I usually came away with some respect for how deeply held your convictions were. Today I realise that its not really strength but a flimsy kind of desperate, wilful self-deception. This may sound patronising but I honestly do feel really sorry for you if this is the best kind of defence you can muster.
Something that gets me about the whole MMR thing, and I made this point (on a different forum) about the diagnosis of autism following MMR administration, suggesting that what was being seen might well have been Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, or Heller’s syndrome. The parent to whom I posted this idea was adamant that it was autism, not CDD.
However, it seems that Wakefield’s protocol, when submitted to the RFH Ethics Committee, was not for MMR and autism, but for MMR and CDD. The original title: “A new paediatric syndrome: enteritis and disintegrative disorder following measles/rubella vaccination”.
If anyone has seen “regressive autism” after MMR vaccinations, then chances are it was not an onset of autism but rather the onset of CDD, which has been misdiagnosed as autism. “Regressive autism” does not exist in the diagnostic categories.
Gets messier, doesn’t it?
http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2006/01/two-potential-rotavirus-vaccines.html
One dare not defend anything vaguely related to Paul Offitt without taking one’s life into one’s hands lest the antivaxer crowd decide that one is supporting the dark side and that one’s children are in need of threatening.
I believe that Sue M just made my point – and I quote:
“I’ll consider this matter over. The Offit paper is junk.”
Again, running away from the issue without providing any data or even citations to support her/his/its assertions.
Just another drive-by shouting by Sue M.
Sue – go ahead and consider the matter closed, but it doesn’t sound like you’ve managed to convince anyone here that your position is correct. I’d say that the matter was never actually opened, since you never bothered to provide any data to support your assertion in the first place.
Sue, I wonder what your role in this little cyber-drama might be. You are clearly not trying to convince anyone, since you never provide anything other than the flimsiest evidence – when you bother to provide any at all. And you are in the wrong forum to try and “get the word out” to parents of autistic children – most of the parents here don’t seem too receptive to your message.
From my perspective, your role seems to be to make the mercury-autism movement look foolish and ignorant, a role you fill admirably. I couldn’t make up someone who could better highlight the logical, scientific and moral failings of the movement you claim to support.
I sometimes find myself wondering if you aren’t actually opposed to the mercury-autism movement and doing this just to embarass them.
Prometheus
Thus spake Prometheus: “From my perspective, your role seems to be to make the mercury-autism movement look foolish and ignorant, a role you fill admirably. I couldn’t make up someone who could better highlight the logical, scientific and moral failings of the movement you claim to support.”
This is a point I’ve made before with regards to both Sue and John Be[a]st Jr. We should probably include Kevin Champagne as well. There’s a saying that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but these guys are constantly shooting themselves in the foot and making their entire “movement” look pathetic. Good work, you three.
David wrote:
“Arrgghhh… it was clone3g I was quoting”.
– This seems to happen to you all the time. I pity your “clients”.
– Sue M.
Dave wrote:
“This is a point I’ve made before with regards to both Sue and John Be[a]st Jr. We should probably include Kevin Champagne as well. There’s a saying that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but these guys are constantly shooting themselves in the foot and making their entire “movement†look pathetic. Good work, you three”.
– Isn’t this shocking? Another post from Dave whose only point is to put down other people. How big of him. Good work to you as well. Didn’t both you and Clone say that you were going to be ignoring me? When does that kick in? Maybe you can call me the “Diva” or the Kathleen Seidel of my “movement”. I mean, it’s a wonder anyone even speaks to or e-mails your wife anymore. My God, you do and within minutes it’s up on internet for everyone to read. How dirty…
– Sue M.
SueM: “– This seems to happen to you all the time. I pity your “clientsâ€.”
Actually, you’re wrong and you know it.
And I suspect you also know that you contribute nothing of any use here.
And I suspect that you know that your skills in academics are poor.
At least my being dyslexic leads (especially with client matters) to more thorough reviews AND proofing work both with my colleague and the client concerned. You, on the other hand, show up here with supposition and opinion, without the slightest piece of evidence to back it up, an when you are asked to provide evidence, you run away like a frightened chicken.
Incidentally, my clients are very happy with the work that I do for them.
I pity anyone who has the misfortune to deal in any way with you… I can imagine anyone you deal with coming away from meeting you feeling far more confused than they were before they met you. That else totally pissed off with you since you just irritate the shit out of people generally…. as many here would gladly testify (as indeed they would, I am sure, to the fact that I do in fact get my quotes very correct about 99% of the time… which is infinitely better performance than yours, given that you have never provided a single verifiable reference to support anything you say).
I’d pity you, too; but I’d be wasting my pity, since you’re too opinionated to appreciate anything that people might say to you, do for you, or feel for you.
You don’t really reflect very well on your college…
Look at what Prometheus says: “Sue – go ahead and consider the matter closed, but it doesn’t sound like you’ve managed to convince anyone here that your position is correct. I’d say that the matter was never actually opened, since you never bothered to provide any data to support your assertion in the first place.”
Who else….? Dave Seidel… a good man, says: “This is a point I’ve made before with regards to both Sue and John Be[a]st Jr. We should probably include Kevin Champagne as well. There’s a saying that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but these guys are constantly shooting themselves in the foot and making their entire “movement†look pathetic. Good work, you three.”
Oh, yes… and Kev: “I tell you what Sue. I’ve come to expect a lot of prevarication from you over the last few months but even I never expected anything quite so pathetic. Even when I thought you were wrong I usually came away with some respect for how deeply held your convictions were. Today I realise that its not really strength but a flimsy kind of desperate, wilful self-deception.”
Then this: “If I were cynical – and I am – I would say that all of these iterations of vaccines/mercury-causes-autism promoters are fully aware that they have nothing but their own twisted imaginings to support their outrageous claims. And as soon as someone asks them to back up what they say, they either leave in a huff (temporarily) or change the subject.” That was Prometheus…. you see, SueM, I do indeed get my quoting correct very much of the time… let us see you come up with one solid piece of objectively-researched evidence to back up any single one of your claims… can you at least do that? I can name my quotees correctly and give you evidence… so my challenge to you… give me some serious evidence to back up a claim you make.
Fact is SueM, you’ll never be able to do it. You haven’t so far, and you won’t in the future. And this is why it has become very clear to just about everyone here that you are nothing but a poorly education idiot with no clue of how to do anything other than troll a blog like this.
Anyone agree with me?
SueM: “Isn’t this shocking? Another post from Dave whose only point is to put down other people.”
Says she who knows how to do fuck all else! LoL
Evidence that you’re stupid at every step of the way. That is pathetic. The correct term: tu quoque fallacy; in English… kettle calls pot black.
Snappy comeback there Sue.
BC quoted me and David quoted him. I guess we’ll need to shoot him for being human.
You see, when a person’s sense of honor is greater than his or her pride, they’ll often feel compelled to correct their own misstatements, as minor as they may be. These traits earn credibility and respect from others with a similar set of ethics and honor. It’s sort of an unwritten rule though some, like yourself, may see it as weakness.
clone3g, I thank you for those kind words. I do appreciate them.
*blushes, and feels humbled… seriously*
Sue-
There’s one problem with your assertion that Paul Offit killed people with the Rotashield vaccine. Paul Offit had nothing to do with Wyeth’s Rotashield vaccine. (other than vote for its approval as a member of the ACIP)
His patent is for a live vaccine called RotaTeq, which is produced by Merck and I believe was just recently approved by the FDA.
That’s why making bold pronouncements like “Paul Offit kills babies” need to have a pretty high standard of proof. Actually, Sue, start with a little bit of proof – I’ll lower the bar for you.
Thank you, David. You know you’re doing good work, and you also know that Sue’s uninformed opinion of it is completely irrelevant.
Sue, regrading your ignorant remarks about Kathleen, I’ll simply say that she is fully capable of defending herself — not that you warrant the attention. I’ll also add that you can start to compare yourself to her or the Diva when and if you start doing a fraction of the work they do. I’m not holding my breath.
Dave: “Thank you, David. You know you’re doing good work, and you also know that Sue’s uninformed opinion of it is completely irrelevant.”
You’re very welcome, Dave; and thanks also. As a result of my work, one young man in Helsinki managed to find out why he kept not getting through the entrance exams here… was offered a place uconditionally at a UK university, and realised the game he had to play for the idiots who set the entrance exams here. He is a continuing client as long as I have the funding from the current stipend I receive… sadly, that ends in July. After that, I am clueless as to what will happen. Another two cases I dealt with put children’s parents wise to the fact that the public schools system hereabouts had been abusing their children. Another case of mine – lad needing information for the Social Insurance Institution regarding ability to work and needs for financial support, pending outcome of someone else’s assessment of him for AD/HD. Yet another one… diagnosis of AS in the face of a Finnish paediatrician who rarely dx’s it… and who seems now to be more prepared to make the dx, since she knows that there is someone to whom she can refer her patients for accurate and up-to-date information on AS (two in one, there…) – and a number of others where an educational diagnosis has been accepted by employers and line managers in lieu of a formal clinical dx.
Yeh, I suppose I do have a resume with some good work on it, Dave, and thanks for reminding me. I’d like to see Sue do even half as much useful work in this field. Like I said to her, I do real work; this isn’t a modern apprenticeship or welfare to work scheme… this is my job until the stipend runs out. I should maybe have more pride in myself for this, but I am actually a very self-effacing person regarding my work (I was never allowed to feel competent when I was growing up… mainly because of professionals’ malpractice). My PgCertSpEd portfolio contains a shitload of this sort of work… my two papers for my professional studies (including the one which Michelle Dawson completely disagrees with), as well as the small-scale research project in the Helsinki lad; all these marked at Master’s with distinctions level. There’s also about a dozen pieces of practicum work, mostly assessments but some other things; and then my most recent two pieces of work… defining my profession and defining part of my role as a reviewer of others’ practice (not just as a final-stages student on an MEd degree, but also as a recognised expert in this field… I was chosen as associate editor for GAP)… again, this pair were met with Master’s with distinction level grades. Apparently, I’m not just “good enough” at what I do… I seem to be rather competent and proficient at what I do. Thanks for prompting this, Dave… I think I needed to review my work… not just to show Sue what I do for a living (as if she’s actually worth sharing this with), but also to get a handle on the contribution I actually make to my clients’ lives.
Kevin,
I wondered how you would face such a stunning admission in your own backyard. Rather than say:
“Wow, someone in a position of such knowledge is breaking ranks with his peers, taking tremendous risk for his own personal reputation, risking being accussed of being a baby killer by triggering a vaccine panic, and still standing up and saying there is merit to the MMR/autism hypothesis. Wow, I’m going to listen closely and decide if this new information has any consequences for how I deal with my daughter’s condition.”
That, IMO, is what an open-minded parent who only has their child’s welfare as their primary MO would likely do. Instead, you partake in the double-speak that has typified your approach throughout this blog: act like you see both sides, concede everyone has a right to their own opinion, but consistently come down on the side of the delusional notion that autism is just a condition of the mind and somehow pre-ordained. In many ways, you are the David Kirby of the other side. David acts like an objective player, buy anyone with a brain knows where he actually stands.
You don’t say, “I’m eager to hear the substance of Dr. Fletcher’s argument” but rather you try to infer what science he may or may not have reviewed based on a single article.
Kevin, I think you have no interest in finding out if Dr. Fletcher may have a point. Like many of the parents on this blog, I think you are scared to dickens that you may not be treating your child properly. Even as the evidence mounts that our children are physically sick, that the physical sickness is the cause of the behaviors known as autism, and tha treatment of the sickness results to a loss of symptoms, you stay with your head buried in the sand.
We have videotape of fully recovered children. We have more than 400 doctors in America treating thousands of children. Each Doctor has dozens of stories of recovery. We have medical tests providing proof that these children all share the same core physical problems including gastrointestinal distress, heavy metal accumulation, genetic deficits in folate processing, and immune system disregulation.
And yet, when someone with the knowledge and position of Dr. Fletcher speaks up, you bury your head in the sand as do many of the parents on the list.
You would all simply be case studies of extreme denial were in not for one sad fact: you are, unfortunately, the guardians of your children’s future. In your denial, your children are headed for a trajectory of a sub-par existence, their extreme medical needs never to be properly tended to.
May Dr. Fletcher’s stunning admission awake you from your Stupor of Denial before it is too late. Wake up!!!
Yours truly,
An Angel
Oh shit…. a fuckwit is back!
David:
From everything I have read of your posts, it is YOU who is the fuckwit. Your astonishing immaturity can only be excused by the fact that you are mentally ill, at least according to you.
An Angel
Did I hear an admission that David Kirby really isn’t an “objective player” but a tool of the anti-mercury movement? It’s not like that wasn’t patently obvious from day one, but still…
David, I recommend that you ignore the troll. The rest of us should as well.
Annoyingman said: We have videotape of fully recovered children. We have more than 400 doctors in America treating thousands of children. Each Doctor has dozens of stories of recovery
It’s times like these when I wish I had paid more attention in math class.
400 doctors X 12(x) recovery stories = 1 videotaped recovered child.
Impressive! Must be the new math.
Hi Dave…
“David, I recommend that you ignore the troll. The rest of us should as well.”
What troll? 😉
Just went to my pal’s birthday party… his wife made a Real Man’s Quiche… and a very chocolate cake so rich it could shop at Harrod’s! Yum….
Might go out in a bit and have a couple of beers in his honour… just prepping for the Lad’s night out later this week…. 🙂
clone3g: “Must be the new math.”
Nah. I taught maths. Including some new maths.
That was what we in the trade call “shite-o-mathics”…
“400 doctors X 12 = 1 video of recovered children (well they talk now don’t they?)
Sometimes I wish we had awards for this sort of stuff.
“The Pure Light That is Mathematics Award”, maybe for this one.
Jonathan: “The Pure Light That is Mathematics Awardâ€, maybe for this one.?
maybe even… “The Pure Shite That is Mathematics Awardâ€, maybe for this one….? 😉
_”Wow, I’m going to listen closely and decide if this new information has any consequences for how I deal with my daughter’s condition.—_
Sometimes the lack of intellect makes me want to cry.
I listened closely. I read the Daily Mail piece, I read Phillips follow up. Now, either I’m deaf and didn’t hear the discussion of all this ‘new information’ or (gasp!) there wasn’t any.
Maybe you, as someone more attuned to this kind of stuff could translate Fletchers quotes into the extra scientific information you think he has. I’ll be waiting…..
Kev: “I’ll be waiting…..”
I wouldnae bother, man…. glaikit bugger’s away wi’ the faeries… an’ he’s aye bin.
As he kens weel.
Dave wrote:
“I’ll also add that you can start to compare yourself to her or the Diva when and if you start doing a fraction of the work they do. I’m not holding my breath”.
– I guess it would take some work to filter through thousands of posts to a yahoo group to pick and chose the really mean ones to cry about. I guess it would also take a few minutes to post personal e-mails from people on your blog. I underestimated that work. You are correct, Dave.
– Sue M.
_”I guess it would take some work to filter through thousands of posts to a yahoo group to pick and chose the really mean ones to cry about. I guess it would also take a few minutes to post personal e-mails from people on your blog.”_
Waaaaahhh……I’m being held to account for things I said!!
Ahhh, cute picture, Kev. Is that a picture of Kathleen? Is that her crying over what all the “meanies” have to say on the EoH yahoo group? I can hear the sobs from here.
– Sue M.
Snappy comeback Sue. I see you’ve upped your reading list from Descarte to ‘Sarcasm for Dummies’. Here’s a tip though – read it first _then_ attempt to apply what you’ve learnt.
Anyway, thank you for confirmation of your ability to comprehend simple English Sue. It obviously ranks alongside your ability to muster anything approaching a cogent debate.
umm … i’m still waiting for Sue M. to inform us of where she went to school and what she got her degree(s) in.
Nice, Sue, very mature. You’re really impressing us now.
If you check the patent office web site you’ll see that Offit is not the owner of a rotovirus vaccine. The owners are The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology and The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia .
patent number 5,626,851
Just another example of mis-information propagated by the anti-vaccine brigade.
SW: “umm … i’m still waiting for Sue M. to inform us of where she went to school and what she got her degree(s) in.”
No point waiting, because the info won’t come. My info can be vouched for: it’s listed in my bio notes for the book I wrote a chapter in (Coming Out Asperger, edited by Dinah Murray), and my name appears in the list of international associate editors in the journal for which I am such an editor. Again, SueM will be unable/unwilling to provide anything verifiable.
Nana wrote:
“If you check the patent office web site you’ll see that Offit is not the owner of a rotovirus vaccine. The owners are The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology and The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia .
patent number 5,626,851
Just another example of mis-information propagated by the anti-vaccine brigade”.
– Good try, Nana (or is it Ms. Clark). Paul Offit is listed as the “inventor” of a rotavirus vaccine on the patent website. I imagine that you must also know that Paul Offit works for The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and has associations with the Wistar Institute, right?
http://www.chop.edu/consumer/pat_care_fam_serv/staff_profile_page.jsp?id=20627&sid=26617
– Then, if that wasn’t enough, you could also see where he admits to being a co-holder of a patent for a rotavirus vaccine.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:4M7WQUf65ugJ:www.upi.com/view.cfm%3FstoryID%3D20030718-012134-4422r+upi+vaccine+offit+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
– Read the rest of that article as well. It’s pretty interesting. It’s cute that Merck bought a bunch of his books about the importance of vaccines to hand out in doctor’s offices… I wonder how much money Offit made off of that? Yuck.
– Sue M.
Dave wrote:
“Nice, Sue, very mature. You’re really impressing us now”.
– Did the cry baby picture that Kev so maturely posted impress you as well?
– Sue M.
Mouse wrote:
“Paul Offit had nothing to do with Wyeth’s Rotashield vaccine. (other than vote for its approval as a member of the ACIP)”.
– Clearly, I must give Mousey credit here. It looks as if I misspoke on the RotaShield vaccine. Paul Offit did not hold the patent on that one but it was another rotavirus vaccine which he holds the patent on (see above post). He did in fact vote for the RotaShield’s inclusion into the infant vaccination program so I imagine one cannot say that he had NOTHING to do with it… Good detective work, Mouse.
– Sue M.
Clone: +1
And on that note…[/close]