Home > Expert Insights, Parent Perspective, Science & Research, Vaccine Myths > Dr. Oz Focuses On Fear, Offers Little Hope

Dr. Oz Focuses On Fear, Offers Little Hope

So there are doctors.  And then there are celebrities.  But in today’s society, we have a new breed of medical influence being packaged by what only TV ratings can create – celebrity doctors.    

One of the most notable of these is Dr. Oz, whose popularity soared after he appeared in over 55 episodes of Oprah.  Now, let’s give credit where credit is due.  Dr. Oz, who ranked third in the 2010 Forbes magazine list of Most Influential Celebrities, is a brilliant opportunist.  Yes, he is very well educated.  Yes, he is a bona fide heart surgeon.  But he is also an skillful entertainer and today’s episode, entitled What Causes Autism? clearly  illustrated that.

What I find most intriguing about this particular show was how Dr. Oz carefully crafted his message, and I quote, “We already know what we think we want to believe.”

Perhaps I was expecting too much.  When I tune in to hear a doctor discuss autism, I hope to hear an informed discussion regarding medical research and scientific advancements that can offer intelligent insight into the causes of autism.  While Alison Singer, of the Autism Science Foundation, was cleverly able to inject specific information regarding current research on autism, Dr. Oz made a deliberate choice to focus on emotions and fear rather than science and data. 

For example, on several occasions, Dr. Oz stated that autism was “a parent’s number one fear” and their “number one nightmare”.  Forgive me, but I wholeheartedly disagree.  My biggest fear as a parent is losing my child.  (Which tragically could happen if I were to refrain from immunizing them against vaccine preventable diseases).  With all due respect to the many people I know with autistic children, I believe the death of a child is worse than a diagnosis of autism.  However, I do recognize that there are many parents who are overwhelmed with the challenges, pressures and worries of raising an autistic child, which is why I had hoped Dr. Oz could offer more hope and less fear. 

Unfortunately, this program did not present much hope.  And with the exception of the studio audience – who were mostly in agreement with one another, but not necessarily in agreement with the majority of medical experts – the show didn’t offer much support either. 

When addressing a topic as emotional and controversial as autism, there are bound to be differences of opinions.  Add to that a discussion of vaccines and you are entering into an entirely new realm of debate.  That is why I had expected Dr. Oz, in his role as a medical professional, to spend a sufficient amount of time explaining the science and research that has failed to show any link between the two.   However, as a celebrity show host, I believe the decision to hold a Jerry Springer style town hall format with an audience that had predetermined opinions of the topic at hand was intentional, sensational, and possibly irresponsible.     

Dr. Ari Brown and Autism Science Foundation President Alison Singer, both appeared as panelists.

While I applaud Dr. Oz for inviting several knowledgeable and professional panelists to participate in this episode (including pediatrician and author Dr. Ari Brown), I was disappointed that he was selective in what information he solicited from them.  By his own admission, his “special” studio audience consisted only of parents with autistic children, as well as parents who were admittedly fearful that their young children might be diagnosed with autism.  By skewing the audience, Dr. Oz sensationalized the fears of a specific segment of parents with predisposed opinions, yet the panelists weren’t given adequate opportunity to fully address the audiences’ concerns.  While this scenario of eliciting questions and leaving viewers guessing can make for a more riveting show, I question whether it serves the viewers well?   Viewers want answers.  Viewers want facts.  But what exactly did Dr. Oz deliver? 

Perhaps you can view the episode yourself and attempt to answer Dr. Oz’s own question, “Where do we stand now?” 

Has the autism conversation moved forward as a result of this show, as Dr. Oz suggests he wants it to?  Does this type of format energize the emotional debate regarding vaccines and autism, while failing to illustrate the science? Are celebrity doctors acting responsibly when they suggest actions that differ from the overwhelming majority of doctors and the AAP?  How can we expect parents to overcome their fears by understanding the science if someone as influential as Dr. Oz fails to do so?  And in regards to autism, is it possible to support families who are dealing with autism if we continue to stir up controversy?  

 I’m not a doctor in real life, but I sure would love to play one on TV.  If I only had that same panel of experts, an hour of talk show time and an unbiased audience, I believe today’s viewers would have learned something entirely different.  But, with Dr. Oz on the job, I guess we’ll never know.

  1. Morgan
    February 18, 2011 at 1:13 am

    Personally, I’d rather take my pediatricians opinion about vaccine safety over some celebrity heart doctor. Listening to Dr. Oz is as bad as listening to Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey when you considering vaccinations.

    Like

  2. February 18, 2011 at 4:56 am

    I write about this topic all the time and specifically about how many shots my own kids get because once you’ve dealt with a family whose child faces death because of a failure to vaccinate, you believe in the miracle of immunization. But the arrogance of ignorance is a powerful beast, isn’t it?

    Like

  3. February 18, 2011 at 5:41 am

    As a parent of a child on the spectrum I totally agree.

    Like

  4. February 18, 2011 at 11:08 am

    Great observations, Christine. I had never watched Dr. Oz’s show for more than a few minutes, and I was appalled. I understand why Autism Speaks didn’t want anything to do with this circus. I’m still glad that Ari and Alison appeared on the show. They may not have pried open any closed minds, but their presence helps draw a contrast between the real world of data and evidence, and the celebrity soaked culture that holds autistic people in such low esteem. Thank God for the internets, where Oz’s shameful video will always be available to remind us all of what’s at stake.

    Ken
    Milwaukee

    Like

  5. Chelsea
    February 18, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    I completely agree that as a parent, my greatest fear is not austism. It’s losing my son. I know that caring for an autistic child is a huge task, but I would much prefer that to the dramatically reduced workload of a dead child.

    Like

  6. Chelsea
    February 18, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    whoops, mistyped “autism”

    Like

  7. Evangelos Karagounis
    February 18, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    I agree with you wholeheartedly, Morgan…as the parent of a child with ASD, I believe in proven medical science as opposed to the views of people such as Jennny McCarthy.

    Like

  8. Cara
    February 19, 2011 at 1:21 am

    In my personal opinion as an autistic parent, it is an equally close-minded approach to ignore research and parent stories about how they believe vaccines did affect their child’s condition. Why also should doctors who “help” these children get better constantly be villified in the media. The “evidence” showing no link is largely done by “in-house” pharmaceutical vaccine producers using cherry picked groups of the population … hardly a fair and balanced “scientific” approach. To date there is not one study that compares the vaccinated with unvaccinated. Not one study shows the effects of todays combined vaccine schedule which correlates with an increase of autism cases. Studies do indeed exist for those who care to look outside of the vaccine industry’s highly guarded system.

    Like

  9. Lisa R.
    February 19, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Cara, I don’t know where you got the idea that the studies we rely on to conclude there is no vaccine-autism link come from Big Pharma.

    Schechter 2008 – autism rates in California didn’t go down after thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines – California Dept of Public Health

    Thompson 2007 – exposure to thimerosal didn’t affect children’s performance on neuropsychological tests (that would reflect autism) – CDC, various HMOs, UCLA Center for Vaccine Research, Stanford

    Fombonne 2006 – thimerosal exposures over time did not correlate with autism rates – Canadian Institutes for Health Research

    Parker 2004 – studies that purport to support vaccine-autism connection are epidemiologically unintelligible and cannot be relied upon as evidence – National Institutes of Health

    Shall I go on? These aren’t even the most recent ones.

    Also, if there were such an obvious flaw in the evidence against a connection between vaccines and autism, don’t you think the Special Masters of the Court of Federal Claims would have taken notice? After all, their opinions in just the initial round of six cases ran to thousands of pages in which they dissected these studies in depth and negated the petitioners’ attempts to depict them as unreliable. Every one of those six cases has failed spectacularly.

    You are arguing an untenable point.

    Like

  10. jypsy
    February 20, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Cara, do you believe your autism was caused by vaccine? Do your parents believe that too?

    Like

  11. Steve Michaels
    February 20, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    I am so sorry to see Cara being bullied on here because she refuses to ‘preach to the choir’ like the other posters. I did not watch Dr. Oz nor do I follow his broadcasts, but to read this blog is to read a case study in contradiction, as is true of the comments. This to me is the most profound contradiction:

    “Dr. Oz made a deliberate choice to focus on emotions and fear rather than science and data.”

    followed by this:

    “My biggest fear as a parent is losing my child. (Which tragically could happen if I were to refrain from immunizing them against vaccine preventable diseases). With all due respect to the many people I know with autistic children, I believe the death of a child is worse than a diagnosis of autism.”

    Who is peddling fear here? A doctor who understands the fears that have been cultivated by a skyrocketing incidence of a disease who’s only correlation of incidence directly follows the number of vaccines given in recommended schedule or saying if you don’t vaccinate your child they will die? Something about pot, kettle, black in that one Chris!

    And to Lisa R., I have a news flash for you: the original research about vaccines and autism relate primarily to Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his study of gastro-intestinal problems in children following the MMR vaccine. That research had NOTHING to do with thimerasol. Thimerasol was NEVER used in the MMR because it would have killed the live measles viruses. It had to do with the fact that vaccine-strain measles viruses were found in the intestinal tracts of those children. Studies showing no reduction in autism rates between thimerasol or thimerasol free vaccines are totally worthless. The issue with vaccines are multi-fold, but revolve around several key issues. Firstly, the human immune system which has developed over tens of thousands of years has a specific way of dealing with pathogens. Injecting diseases directly into the body bypass the mucosal immune response which is responsible for 80% of human immune response. Part of the mucosal response is recognising which ‘invaders’ are friends or foes. This step is bypassed when injections are used. Thus, biologically inert material can be added to vaccines and cause an anti-body response. The result is called ‘auto-immune disease’. Read up on the ‘pregnancy’ vaccine that is being tested. Get a shot and your body will develop antibodies to the pregnancy hormone and cause a miscarriage. The other issues revolve around the manufacturing by-products and purposely added ingredients. Just to name a few, formaldehyde, rat poison, anti-fungals, antibiotics, monkey liver cells, cancer cells, egg cells, tissue from aborted fetuses and heavy metals including mercury and aluminium. If you think there is some redeeming value to these additives, please, please show me the double blind placebo controlled study of people injected with these things versus those who have not been injected with these things. Don’t tell me what the department of health from state ‘x’ says or what the CDC says or what the WHO says. Show me the double blind placebo studies. Fact is that they don’t exist, only double blind COMPARATIVE studies between existing vaccines. I have said it before and I’ll say it again, if you show that the cancer rates between Marlboro and Newport smokers are the same, it does NOT mean that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. But that is what your studies proclaim.

    Like

  12. Sara Gould
    February 22, 2011 at 1:19 am

    Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil and any other “Doctor” who has a TV show is a clear sign to pay no attention. Shows like these are not expected to hold to a strict standard like real news networks/shows/papers are. This is why they can get away with such bull. To people who actually take what these shows say to heart without doing their own research of facts, you deserve what you get for your foolishness.

    Like

  13. Steve Michaels
    February 22, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    Glad you don’t stereotype Sara. One of the purest signs that someone doesn’t think for themselves (whether they believe they do or not) is when they make inane and sweeping statements that would never hold up to scrutiny. ‘Real news networks/shows/papers’ (whatever you mean by that) actually are the outlets for the very doctors that you claim are discredited by appearing on those media. You should really look up the term ‘non sequitur’ and actually think before you type. I note that you don’t characterize Dr. Ari in the same category as the others even though she appears on shows. Is that because you only apply your ludicrous definition to those you disagree with?

    Like

  14. mandy
    February 23, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    Cara~ Actually, your information is incorrect. A 2002 population study of MMR and autism published in the New England Journal of Medicine did a statistical study of “ALL CHILDREN born in Denmark between Jan 91- Dec 98.” (they keep a record of ALL medical treatment given there and accessed that data base). They pulled out the children with an autism or ASD DX and compared rates for those who had and who had not been vaccinated. The rates of a AU/ASD Dx were virtually the same between the two sub groups. I find it hard to think that “in-house” pharmaceutical vaccine producers could “cherry pick” when the study include ALL THE CHILDREN, in the entire country, born over a 9 year time frame.

    Like

  15. Ross Coe
    February 23, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    The show was orchastrated and was about maintaining the status quo. Go to this site http://homefirst.com/info-1/vaccine-choice.html and read about the 35,000 non-vaccinated children they serve. There are no epidemics amongst them and they are extremely healthy compared to vaccinated.
    Dr Oz owns 150,000 option shares in vaccine/pharma company Siga technologies. He’s on their board of directors. He also lends his name/fame to REALAGE a marketing platform that helps most major pharma producers sell product.

    Like

  16. Gary
    February 25, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    “skyrocketing incidence of a disease who’s only correlation of incidence directly follows the number of vaccines given in recommended schedule”

    Except that this is a lie.

    Like

  17. Duncan
    March 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    mandy :Cara~ Actually, your information is incorrect. A 2002 population study of MMR and autism published in the New England Journal of Medicine did a statistical study of “ALL CHILDREN born in Denmark between Jan 91- Dec 98.” (they keep a record of ALL medical treatment given there and accessed that data base). They pulled out the children with an autism or ASD DX and compared rates for those who had and who had not been vaccinated. The rates of a AU/ASD Dx were virtually the same between the two sub groups. I find it hard to think that “in-house” pharmaceutical vaccine producers could “cherry pick” when the study include ALL THE CHILDREN, in the entire country, born over a 9 year time frame.

    “Longest safety trial of of the triple vaccine (MMR, all live attenuated viruses) was three weeks.”–Dr Fudenburg MD

    “Since the 1920s, virtually all continuing medical and public health education is funded by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, today, the FDA can’t even tell health scientists the truth about vaccine contaminants and their likely effects. The agency is bound and gagged by proprietary laws and non-disclosure agreements forced upon them by the pharmaceutical industry. Let us not forget that the pharmaceutical industry, as a special interest group, is the number one contributor to politicians on Capital Hill.”–Leonard Horowitz

    “Under normal conditions, healthy children do not die from or become disabled from the complications of measles and if they do, questions should be asked about their management.” —Jayne Donegan MB

    “Professor David Elliman, whose study said fears of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism were unfounded, admitted that he and Dr Helen Bedford had been given money by drugs giants SmithKline Beecham and Pasteur Merieux Merck Sharp & Dohme. Their report, MMR Vaccine – Worries Are Not Justified, is published in the current issue of the medical journal Archives of Disease in Childhood, and was used by the government to reiterate its view that the vaccine is safe.”

    The New England Journal of Medicine is HEAVILY subsidized by Big Pharma and rarely posts ANYTHING anti-pharma. Along with the Lancet and JAMA it is one of the main publications that is anything but impartial. Do 10 studies, if 9 show MMR to be unsafe and 1 to be safe, NEJM will publish the 10th one.

    Like

  18. Steve
    March 17, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    Lisa R. :Cara, I don’t know where you got the idea that the studies we rely on to conclude there is no vaccine-autism link come from Big Pharma.
    Schechter 2008 – autism rates in California didn’t go down after thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines – California Dept of Public Health
    Thompson 2007 – exposure to thimerosal didn’t affect children’s performance on neuropsychological tests (that would reflect autism) – CDC, various HMOs, UCLA Center for Vaccine Research, Stanford
    Fombonne 2006 – thimerosal exposures over time did not correlate with autism rates – Canadian Institutes for Health Research
    Parker 2004 – studies that purport to support vaccine-autism connection are epidemiologically unintelligible and cannot be relied upon as evidence – National Institutes of Health
    Shall I go on? These aren’t even the most recent ones.
    Also, if there were such an obvious flaw in the evidence against a connection between vaccines and autism, don’t you think the Special Masters of the Court of Federal Claims would have taken notice? After all, their opinions in just the initial round of six cases ran to thousands of pages in which they dissected these studies in depth and negated the petitioners’ attempts to depict them as unreliable. Every one of those six cases has failed spectacularly.
    You are arguing an untenable point.

    Thimerosal wasn’t removed from the influezna vaccine, which children get from 6 months upwards unless you the parent specifically requests otherwise. Do a test, ask your doctor what’s in the flu vaccine without looking, then look at the monograph together. I’d wager they don’t know half the ingredients.

    Because thimerosal is still used in influenza vaccines, which are to be taken annually despite NO scientific studies showing them to be effective, those studies you’ve linked to are all rather redundant or misleading I’d say.

    Like

  19. Steve
    April 22, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Mandy,

    There were holes all in the study you are referring to…

    “In our review of the Danish data we identified a flaw that resulted in a substantia­l loss of autism case records from the registry, which essentiall­y renders the findings from the JAMA study by Hviid and colleagues invalid,” said Sallie Bernard, executive director of Safe Minds. “The registry allows 10 to 25 percent of diagnosed autism cases to be lost from its records each year. The effect of this loss is such that the records will disappear from older age groups to a much greater degree than from younger age groups in any given registry year.”

    Like

  20. Steve
    April 22, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Can I get an Amen? Well written my freind. How many children were dying back in the 50’s, 60’s and even 70’s of these horrible diseases they claim to be protecting our children from? We all know that those vaccinated in that era did not get those much needed vaccines that would supposedly protect them from death. I was born in 1960 and had a measles vaccine, chicken pox…. I ended up getting both of those and believe it or not I’m sitting here typing my comments on this article. Didn’t make me sterile either, I have 5 beautiful children. The last one I chose not to vaccinate and she has the healthiest medical history.. Go figure!

    Like

  21. June 24, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    We did a satirical rap video calling Dr. Oz out for his pseudoscientific ratings-pandering: http://zdoggmd.com/2011/06/sucker-mds/

    Like

  22. Richids
    February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Yes let’s look at the more recent ones, ignoring of course that the 2008 Schechter study doesn’t acknowledge that thimerosal was to be removed from future batches and those already in production didn’t go thimerosal free for months:

    Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry (JIB-08876)

    Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?

    Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are serious multisystem developmental disorders and an urgent global public health concern. Dysfunctional immunity and impaired brain function are core deficits in ASD. Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator. Hence, adjuvant Al has the potential to induce neuroimmune disorders. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, two key points ought to be considered: (i) children should not be viewed as “small adults” as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; and (ii) if exposure to Al from only few vaccines can lead to cognitive impairment and autoimmunity in adults, is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 18 Al adjuvanted vaccines, are safe for children? By applying Hill’s criteria for establishing causality between exposure and outcome we investigated whether exposure to Al from vaccines could be contributing to the rise in ASD prevalence in the Western world. Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, pb0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western countries, particularly at 3–4 months of age (Pearson r=0.89–0.94, p=0.0018–0.0248). The application of the Hill’s criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.

    Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review

    Journal of Immunotoxicology, January-March 2011, Vol. 8, No. 1 , Pages 68-79

    Helen V. Ratajczak, PhD

    Autism, a member of the pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs), has been increasing dramatically since its description by Leo Kanner in 1943. First estimated to occur in 4 to 5 per 10,000 children, the incidence of autism is now 1 per 110 in the United States, and 1 per 64 in the United Kingdom, with similar incidences throughout the world. Searching information from 1943 to the present in PubMed and Ovid Medline databases, this review summarizes results that correlate the timing of changes in incidence with environmental changes. Autism could result from more than one cause, with different manifestations in different individuals that share common symptoms. Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain. The inflammation could be caused by a defective placenta, immature blood-brain barrier, the immune response of the mother to infection while pregnant, a premature birth, encephalitis in the child after birth, or a toxic environment.

    Like

  23. Chris
    February 14, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    About “Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?”:
    And global warming is caused by the decrease in the number of pirates or: Why an inorganic chemistry journal should not publish a vaccine epidemiology paper… by ophthalmologists

    And on .”Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review” by Helen V. Ratajczak, PhD teaches how to cherry pick, as described in The resident anti-vaccine reporter at CBS News strikes again. Also we get to learn something previously unheard of: homologous recombinaltion tiniker (you really need to put that phrase into Google).

    By the way, before you push anymore studies. Do a check of some real science blogs to see how well they were received (scienceblogs, PLoS Blogs, DiscoverMagazine, ScienceBasedMedicine). Also check to see what other papers the author has written, see if there is a pattern, like referencing papers by those who have had their license to practice medicine restricted. That is a step towards actually doing your own research and learning to think for yourself.

    Like

  24. Richids
    February 14, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Chris :
    About “Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?”:
    And global warming is caused by the decrease in the number of pirates or: Why an inorganic chemistry journal should not publish a vaccine epidemiology paper… by ophthalmologists
    And on .”Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review” by Helen V. Ratajczak, PhD teaches how to cherry pick, as described in The resident anti-vaccine reporter at CBS News strikes again. Also we get to learn something previously unheard of: homologous recombinaltion tiniker (you really need to put that phrase into Google).
    By the way, before you push anymore studies. Do a check of some real science blogs to see how well they were received (scienceblogs, PLoS Blogs, DiscoverMagazine, ScienceBasedMedicine). Also check to see what other papers the author has written, see if there is a pattern, like referencing papers by those who have had their license to practice medicine restricted. That is a step towards actually doing your own research and learning to think for yourself.

    LOL, Orac! Please, even when you remove the 99% of verbose gibberish that fool likes to talk you find virtually nothing of substance, just lots of “what ifs” and “almosts”. A bigger hypocrite there never was.

    Now, are you suggesting that if you had your licence revoked for failing to obtain ethics committee approval that your work along with many other professionals should no longer be referenced? Is that what you’re hinting at?

    Orac’s rebuttal of Ratajczak also consisted of a lot of “probablys” and “likely” – nothing of substance, just fodder for the vaccine apologists like yourself Chris.

    Like

  25. Chris
    February 14, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Orac’s rebuttal of Ratajczak also consisted of a lot of “probablys” and “likely”

    I see what level of education in science you have: none. Which is exactly why you do not understand much of what you cut and pasted, much less a blog post with multisyllabic vocabulary and full sentences.

    To be charitable I will suggest you take both a basic biology and basic statistics course to help you read an Orac blog post.

    Like

  26. Chris
    February 14, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    Because I thought it would be amusing, I looked at the Ratajczak article by Orac and searched for both “probably” and “likely”…

    Search for “probably”: none in the main article. First instance is in Comment #9, “Probably because it just ain’t so.”

    Search for “likely:

    First instance: “Consequently, the only likely currently known mechanism by which homologous recombination of human DNA from vaccines might conceivably result in such an autoimmunity phenomenon would be if the DNA from the vaccine somehow resulted in the expression of a foreign or altered protein on the cell surface that the immune system could recognize as foreign.”

    Second instance (same paragraph): “While not impossible, that’s pretty darned unlikely to happen on a scale that would affect more than a single cell, a few at most.”

    Third instance: in Comment #4 “And wouldn’t a more severe wild-type infection be *more* likely to infect lots more cells, inject DNA into more cells, and thus cause more and worse damage?”

    I’m sorry but you just demonstrated that you did not actually read Orac’s article. Perhaps you should also take some Adult Basic Education classes to help you with actually reading something before you make comments on its content.

    Like

  27. Richids
    February 15, 2012 at 9:12 am

    Skipped the straw man argument you made that I called you on, your MO is quite clear and has been for years.

    Like

  28. Chris
    February 15, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Then you need to answer the questions I have been asking for years. And to stop pretending you are a newby just asking questions, and go back to using one of the ‘nyms you have used before.

    Or should I just say: Hello, jen or Hello, Common Sue?

    Like

  29. Richids
    February 15, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Newbie just asking questions? I definitely don’t see anything that would cause such a bizarre assessment. But then again you read things into people’s posts that aren’t there, like methyl mercury in vaccines, so it’s hardly surprising you can’t follow a simple conversation.

    Like

  30. Chris
    February 15, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    The other thread that decided to list a series of questions.

    All it shows is that a discussion with a dishonest sock puppet with a closed mind is futile.

    Bye bye, jen/sue/alex/etc

    Like

  31. Richids
    February 15, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Chris :
    The other thread that decided to list a series of questions.
    All it shows is that a discussion with a dishonest sock puppet with a closed mind is futile.
    Bye bye, jen/sue/alex/etc

    Actually it shows you still can’t answer those two questions, nothing more, nothing less. And no, I don’t post under girl’s names.

    Like

  32. Frances Sauer
    September 18, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    I ordered Colon Cleanse 1800 Maximum Strength from an add on the internet that was promoted by Dr. Oz. I wish to cancel the automatic shipments and requesting a refund for unused product. I have not been able to contact the company that I ordered through. I need to get the number on the receipt that I was to call to cancel. Please help. It costs $64 and I am disabled. It didnt work and I need my money back and I dont want them sending me anymore. Frances Sauer 458 Longview Avenue Washington, Pa.

    Like

  33. August 29, 2013 at 11:09 pm

    What are the more recent facts and figures? I am a strong believer that my niece got autism from vaccinations…

    Lisa R. :
    Cara, I don’t know where you got the idea that the studies we rely on to conclude there is no vaccine-autism link come from Big Pharma.
    Schechter 2008 – autism rates in California didn’t go down after thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines – California Dept of Public Health
    Thompson 2007 – exposure to thimerosal didn’t affect children’s performance on neuropsychological tests (that would reflect autism) – CDC, various HMOs, UCLA Center for Vaccine Research, Stanford
    Fombonne 2006 – thimerosal exposures over time did not correlate with autism rates – Canadian Institutes for Health Research
    Parker 2004 – studies that purport to support vaccine-autism connection are epidemiologically unintelligible and cannot be relied upon as evidence – National Institutes of Health
    Shall I go on? These aren’t even the most recent ones.
    Also, if there were such an obvious flaw in the evidence against a connection between vaccines and autism, don’t you think the Special Masters of the Court of Federal Claims would have taken notice? After all, their opinions in just the initial round of six cases ran to thousands of pages in which they dissected these studies in depth and negated the petitioners’ attempts to depict them as unreliable. Every one of those six cases has failed spectacularly.
    You are arguing an untenable point.

    Like

  34. August 29, 2013 at 11:19 pm
  35. August 30, 2013 at 5:54 am

    @Allison – there are even more recent ones, since this was updated in April of this year:

    http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

    Not to mention this one as well:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23959427

    So, perhaps the anti-vax folks should stop relying on that old retracted study from 1998.

    Like

  36. January 26, 2014 at 10:08 am

    An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a co-worker who had been conducting a little
    research on this. And he actually bought me lunch simply because I stumbled upon it for him…
    lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!!
    But yeah, thanx for spending some time to talk about this topic here on your site.

    Like

  1. February 22, 2011 at 12:56 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s