Even Blogging Requires A Bit of Housekeeping
Sep 26, 2012

This post is a response to a question that has been repeatedly asked of me by a certain participant here on this blog.  Since the question was posed to me publicly, I felt it was necessary to respond likewise. 

The way in which this blog is moderated is understandably a concern for all our participants.  Hopefully, this post will help to remind our readers of what Shot of Prevention has tried to accomplish since it was established several years ago.   There are unique challenges that come with allowing an open discussion of immunization issues and we appreciate your patience as we continue to work through them.    

@End Censorship/Lama/Anne
I would like to point out that you have repeatedly questioned this blog regarding “how many people from both sides” have been blocked from posting.  However, your question actually reveals a great deal about the way in which you believe we operate, without a thorough understanding of our policies and limitations.  Therefore, please allow me to explain.

First, you have inaccurately assumed that Shot of Prevention somehow keeps track of “sides”. That is absolutely not the case.  One of the main reasons this blog was created was because we recognize the numerous positions that people hold in regards to immunization issues.  While your comments suggest that you are concerned about censorship, you have failed to recognize the different viewpoints that are repeatedly expressed in the comments on this blog, and yet you continue to identify an extremely complex topic, such as immunizations, as having two “sides”.  In our effort to facilitate discussion, we feel it is unproductive to pigeon-hole all positions into two “sides”. Rather one of our main desires is to allow an open forum so that people who have legitimate concerns or questions about immunizations can get the answers they need to make evidence-based, informed decisions. Also, it is important to acknowledge that even people who have similar views regarding vaccinations may disagree in regards to immunization practices and policies.   That is why we want Shot of Prevention to be a place for discussion and an exchange of ideas among all participants.  This helps to educate everyone, myself included.
In regards to our comment policy I wish to assure you, and all our readers, that our decisions to limit a person’s ability to post on this blog are not based on a person’s vaccination views, but rather the way in which they choose to communicate those views with others.

It is true that both people who support vaccines, as well as those who do not, have had their comments removed because of something that was deemed inappropriate.  Additionally, WordPress will often place comments directly into moderation, or even spam, based on the way in which the server identifies specific links or key words.  Unfortunately there are glitches and limitations within the WordPress system, just like any other server, and we are constantly working to address those to the best of our abilities.  However, there have also been a few instances in which a person was blocked from further posting after inappropriate conduct.  Recently, we’ve even had an issue where a person who had been blocked has, on occasion, returned to post under another name.  Once we are able to confirm this, all subsequent comments that a banned person has made will be removed, regardless of content.

I should also point out that thanks to this great country we live in (and to the many honorable people who have sacrificed their lives for this right) you are not being censored and are free to speak your mind.  In fact, you are free to create your own blog, establish your own comment policy and enforce it as you deem necessary.  When you do so, I hope you will consider allowing an open forum because we have found that to be one of the reasons we have gained so much support for this blog.  It is disappointing that we have yet to find a blog or Facebook page that heavily criticizes vaccines that will also allow people to post evidence in support of vaccines.  Many of our blog followers participate here because they were immediately banned from participating at other sites simply because their immunization views differed from the blog and Facebook administrators of those other sites.  If you feel this is evidence of censorship, than perhaps you may want to venture onto those blogs and Facebook pages and take up your cause there. If you are unsure where to start, I’m certain that there are plenty of people who would be happy to point you in the right direction.

In closing, I wonder if you may care to explain why you feel it is necessary to create several identities for yourself on this blog (such as End Censorship, Lama and the more recent Anne – not to be confused with the Anne which also posted under the names of Meg and Ella). Unfortunately, this is a tactic that we find misleading, dishonest and even disrespectful.  Several people have taken the time to respond to your comments under your various identities, so perhaps you will be considerate enough to explain why you feel you must misrepresent yourself in this way.  May I remind you that none of your identities have been blocked from posting so you are completely free to respond under the name of any of your multiple personalities.   Of course, I too will be anxious to hear your response.

Now that we have this concluded our housekeeping for the day, we hope to get back to our regular programming tomorrow.  Thank you to all our readers for your continued patience and understanding while we work through these policy concerns.  With everyone’s help, we can continue to maintain an open forum in which we can discuss current immunization issues.  Of course, if anyone should have any comments or suggestions for us, please feel to email us at info@vaccinateyourfamily.org.

Related Posts

This guest post was written by Alethea Mshar out of concern for her son Ben.  A version of this post originally appeared on her blog Ben’s Writing, Running Mom. Like all parents, my child’s health...

By Christine Vara Thank you, thank you to the authors of the recent Parenting article, Your Most Common Vaccine Questions, Answered.  I would like to encourage every parent to read this, share this and comment...

98 responses to “Even Blogging Requires A Bit of Housekeeping”

  1. kathe gustafson says:

    Excellent post, clearly laying out your policies and rules, and the tactics of the complainant.

  2. End Censorship says:

    When I have time I will properly look at what you have written but I want to set the record straight on your opening line. I am me. I am not “anne” nor am I “lama”. When your post starts on the wrong foot it usually doesn’t bode well for the rest but again I will look at the content in depth later. My wife and I have plans today.

  3. Lawrence says:

    @end censorship – given that the blog owner has access to the identity of email & IP addresses of all posters her, I would believe Christine over yourself, any day of the week.

  4. Christine Vara says:

    @end censorship – What Lawrence says is accurate. Perhaps you can explain why End Censorship, Lama and Anne all have the exact same IP address? The only reason I can imagine is that all three of you may live in the same household and share the same computer. If that is the case than I stand corrected and will edit the post. However, the remaining content of my post still applies as a response to your concerns about censorship.
    I would like to add that even though I was aware that the IP addresses for these 3 identities were the same, I refrained from restricting your posts because you have remained relatively respectful of people with varying viewpoints. However, I do believe that your conduct is deceptive and I believe our admins would agree that this behavior could be reason to restrict you from further commenting.

  5. lilady says:

    Thanks so much Christine, for your comments about “censorship”.
    The interesting part of your post is that you have identified the tactics used by the sockies and their shared IP addresses.
    Why is it, that I post on many science-blogs under my same ‘nym?
    Why is it that many of the Shot of Prevention “regulars” post under their same ‘nyms on this blog and other science blogs?

  6. Lara Lohne says:

    Nicely done, Christine. Thank you for running this blog with tact and understanding.

  7. End Censorship says:

    I am so sorry to rain on your parade Christine, but it would appear that your knowledge of the internet is limited. I am me and only me. If someone else has the same IP address, you can easily confirm what that address is. It is a very public and easily accessible proxy service as I value my privacy. That others are using it is purely coincidental I’m afraid.
    I note that you haven’t actually said how many have been banned. So some posts have been removed from varying viewpoints, how many pro-vaccine commenters have been banned and how many, shall we say, vaccine questioners have been banned?
    “In regards to our comment policy I wish to assure you, and all our readers, that our decisions to limit a person’s ability to post on this blog are not based on a person’s vaccination views, but rather the way in which they choose to communicate those views with others. ”
    I guess we have to take your word for this because you have not really addressed my initial concerns.
    There are a limited number of commenters on here who are or were regular. The only ones who have disappeared are ones who have questioned the integrity of sources, the logic or lack of logic in thought and assertion and one who did obviously personally attack people, namely putin who also provided compelling evidence and logic to support his claims when he wasn’t name calling.
    When you speak of multiple identities I have nothing to say. I am me and me alone. I am an advocate for open debate. I have taken no stance about vaccines except to say that there are compelling points for and against mass vaccination and I miss the debates that have now disappeared.

    • Lara Lohne says:

      The time stamps of the posts in question could also be telling as one IP address cannot be online more then one time, someone would get kicked off. Something I learned every time I happened to be online and my ex-husband booted up his computer, back when our computers were connected to our Internet connection via a hub rather then a router. Those were the very early days of the Internet and while we had a dedicated phone line to connect (which was eventually transferred to DSL once it was available) we could only connect one computer at a time as we only had one IP address from our connection.
      Another good question; are the connections these people use broadband or dial up? Typically broadband is always connected to preserve the IP address. Even if the computer is off, the ‘modem’ is still connected, unless that is turned off, but I don’t know a lot of people who turn off their internet modem/routers on a regular basis.
      I agree with Lawrence though, highly unlikely that three people on the same blog would have the same IP, unless they are in fact the same person.

  8. Lawrence says:

    @christine – it is easy to confirm “end’s” story. Just do a trace on the IP address and you can find the owner. If it is some kind of public proxy, he may be telling the truth.
    Of course, I find it highly suspicious that three separate commenters would resolve to the same IP address…..

  9. Kelly says:

    I guess at this point, End Censorship, all you can do is start your own blog and run things as you see fit.
    Thank you Christine for taking the time to explain the comment policy of the blog. I’m also very appreciative that posters that continually post the same misinformation will no longer be posting and I’m hoping that we can now have opportunities to discuss vaccines without having to debunk the same nonsense over and over again.
    Since End Censorship’s question has been answered, I’m hoping he’ll now move on to other endeavors. Obviously this blog is not a good fit for his view although I do find it ironic that he asks for debate but yet has nothing to offer to that debate.

  10. End Censorship says:

    Let me make it easy for you Christine. Just copy and paste the ip address into your browser and press enter. I must admit that I am surprised at how cocksure people are when they can be wrong. Maybe there is a lesson in all of this about opening minds and viewing things without prejudice. I do disagree with Christine that there are multiple “sides” to vaccines. It appears that most people have blinders on and filter everything through these preconceived notions. There seems to be very little between for and against.
    On both sides things are dismissed if they come from an opposing view web site. “Oh that’s from Orac, he’s biased” or “Oh that was from Age of Autism. Dismiss that now!” Has it ever occurred to you people that the open debates that have raged on here have actually saved Shot of Prevention from being pigeon-holed as an exclusively pro vaccine website?
    As far as it goes Christine the proof is in the pudding. If some of these mysteriously silent commenters return then perhaps you are opening back up to free and open debate. Time will tell.

  11. lama says:

    would like to ask that Th1Th23 and Putinreloaded be unblocked. They had a lot of intelligent points to contribute, and each had a unique and funny style. P. was often angry, as was natural under the circumstances, but he was insulted quite a bit by several of the other posters. You have mentioned the affection you felt for Thingy, as you liked to call her, so why block her?

  12. Lawrence says:

    @lama – because “Thingy” doesn’t live on the same planet as the rest of us & clearly was either the greatest Internet Poe of all time or severely mentally ill.
    The other poster was just vile – but, if you want to go consort with an antisemitic AIDS & Holocaust denier, I believe you can very easily Google his blog & participate in conversations over there.
    I believe Christine stated her opinion very well – ultimately, the owners of the blog make the rules – if you don’t like them, go somewhere else.

  13. Lawrence says:

    @end censorship – we look forward to your thoughtful insights & regular contributions on future posts here on the blog…..

  14. End Censorship says:

    If all has gone well you will now see a different IP address Christine. Perhaps this will convince you that I am telling the truth. Thank you for admitting that I “may” be telling the truth Lawrence. Without any direct information whatsoever you have drawn a false conclusion and now are forced to back track on it.

  15. End Censorship says:

    Lawrence :
    @lama – because “Thingy” doesn’t live on the same planet as the rest of us & clearly was either the greatest Internet Poe of all time or severely mentally ill.
    The other poster was just vile – but, if you want to go consort with an antisemitic AIDS & Holocaust denier, I believe you can very easily Google his blog & participate in conversations over there.
    I believe Christine stated her opinion very well – ultimately, the owners of the blog make the rules – if you don’t like them, go somewhere else.

    Oh no! Lawrence you have gone and broken the policy as outlined above! What did Christine say? Oh, yes “our decisions to limit a person’s ability to post on this blog are not based on a person’s vaccination views, but rather the way in which they choose to communicate those views with others.”
    The way you have chosen to communicate those views is highly offensive. Prove me wrong Christine and remove that comment and ban this commenter!

  16. Lawrence says:

    @end censorship – it is still highly suspicious that three different posters here would resolve to the same IP address.

  17. Lawrence says:

    @end censorship – by your very posts, you are confirming Christine’s opinion and statement of reasoning. It isn’t what you post, it is the way it which it is posted…..

  18. End Censorship says:

    I now have a different IP address. I can have tens of thousands more. So can you if you know where to look. You see, I value my privacy. I have nothing to hide but my background is none of your business. That makes it easy. Take my views as they are for what they are without the baggage of prejudice. I mean I could point out that Christine for all of her blogs actually has no background in science or vaccines. No she is a mass communications professional in Washington DC who is a “successfull communication specialist with over 20 years of varied experience in sales, marketing, advertising and public service.” Oh and we can add MLM marketing to the list as well. How do I know? It is easily accessible information. I am not trying to disrespect what Christine is doing. I am only pointing out why I value my privacy.

  19. End Censorship says:

    Lawrence :
    @end censorship – by your very posts, you are confirming Christine’s opinion and statement of reasoning. It isn’t what you post, it is the way it which it is posted…..

    What on earth are you talking about? I have not been in any way offensive. I have not called people names. To coin Lilady’s phrase “vile” names in fact. It doesn’t even matter if it is true or not. It is still offensive. That was you not me calling people those vile and offensive names. How is pointing out the truth about your post offensive? That somehow seems like Orwellian doublespeak. You offend and call me offensive for highlighting it…. Bizarre.

  20. I can’t believe there’s actually a discussion about such a simple point being made by Christine.
    Regarding Christine’s background, she isn’t a science denier, so obviously she’s well engaged in her topics. That’s why I read what she writes. And she’s writes it well. I wish I had her writing skills, but I spent 30 years in science. 🙂

  21. Lawrence says:

    I think Christine’s point was very well articulated. For those that disagree – I would recommend, as she does, that you start a blog of your own & feel free to write and enforce your own rules.
    Now back to your regularly scheduled programming – already in progress.

  22. Lawrence says:

    @end censorship – and congratulations on proving that you too, can type a search into Google & hit enter.

  23. Very well done post, Christine. I don’t come over as much as I used to, because I am so tired of refuting the same tired claims about the dangers and shortcomings of vaccines.
    Say, here is a 7 year old post on comment moderation that is still apropos today.

  24. Christine Vara says:

    @End Censorship Oddly enough, your IP address has not changed, like you believe it has. Additionally, from my very first post on Shot of Prevention, I made it clear that my interest in immunizations comes from the fact that I am a parent, not a medical professional or scientist. (https://shotofprevention.com/2010/04/08/join-me-on-my-journey-as-a-concerned-parent/) I certainly hope people will take this opportunity to review my first post and remember why I have been contributing here. Make no mistake about it, my contributions on this blog are as much about learning as they are about trying to educate others, which is why I value comments that can add to the conversation, not distract from it.
    However, as I do not expect to be addressing you again, allow me to explain why you have offended me with your recent behavior. While you value your privacy and hide behind a fake name (as I’m fairly certain that your parents didn’t name you End Censorship), I am the one taking all the risk, putting myself out there and dealing with personal harassment from irrational and unstable people who simply don’t agree with what I have to say. I resent the fact that you try to use my personal business experiences in an attempt to discredit what I am trying to facilitate on this blog – which ironically is open dialogue about a very important health issue that impacts us all. I will not apologize for my career successes and I am proud of the businesses that I have built, all while supporting my husband in a very demanding career, raising five amazing children and dedicating a great deal of time to various advocacy efforts.
    That being said, since I do not feel as though you are contributing to the conversation, only distracting from it, I reserve the right to block you from posting now or in the future. You have proven to be dishonest and deceitful and I feel that my readers deserve better than to have to constantly be distracted by your complaints and accusations. Perhaps when you start your own blog you’ll let us know so that I can come and visit.

  25. lilady says:

    You should be very proud of your career and your blog Christine. Not only do we share information here, but we all learn about the latest and best studies about vaccines and the diseases they prevent.
    Unfortunately, the more successful blogs attract morphing trolls…who add nothing to the dialogue…and whose sole purposes is to distract and drive posters off the site.
    Thank you for all your great posts and best wishes for your continued success.

  26. Quokka says:

    What Lilady and Lara said!

  27. anne says:

    Quokka, Lilady, and Grumpygirl are given names? Die Gedanken sind frei, should not the points made take precedence over the name of the poster?

  28. Lawrence says:

    @anne – morphing into a series of sock puppets, just to relate the same tired, old, debunked points over and over again isn’t the way to hold a conversation…..

  29. Nathan says:

    I don’t think that Christine is implying that everyone needs to use their real name. She was pointing out the difference between End Censorship’s tactics and hers. She is willing to put her name on the line for what she believes. EC is simply content to snipe at her from anonymity.
    I truly enjoy this blog because Christine compellingly writes from the perspective of a mother and concerned citizen, not the perspective of a scientist. There are plenty of scientific blogs on the subject, but Christine brings a human nature to the discussion that is otherwise missing far to often. I imagine that she reaches out to a lot of parents in a way that science blogging never could, and I expect this is why she maddens some antivaxers so and has accumulated some rather offensive and creepy personalities.
    She is never rude, and rarely sarcastic in her blogging, and has put up with far rudeness than she deserves. As she has stated before, this blog has been quite lenient for some time regarding its comment policy, but there comes a time when commenters who chronically make the most serious and offensive violations should be banned. And if those commenters are antivaxers, then that’s how the chips fall.
    Dialogue from people with all perspectives has occurred on the blog for years and I’m sure it will continue, but that does not mean that terms offensive against mentally disabled and continually changing identities should be a part of it
    Thanks, Christine, and keep up the good work.

  30. End Censorship says:

    I inadvertently chose another proxy that was on the same server, hence the IP address showing the same. I have not stalked you Christine. I pointed out your business experience in relation to how propaganda works. Mass marketing is a form of social manipulation, as is the attempt of this site. It fits hand and glove especially when considering that this site is funded by ECBT which is funded by AAP who is funded by various pharmaceutical companies. What you say makes no sense Christine. You are learning from the leadership role on this? How can you lead if you are the student? Or are you really the paid lackey of the industry? Like I am sure some of your most ardent supporters are.
    Nathan all I can say is that Orwellian Doublespeak is a famous phrase defined essentially as using a pleasing phrase to describe the opposite activity. Fight for peace. Liberation through destruction. And so on. The fact that others have used it is meaningless. But then again many of the arguments that are brought forward on here for vaccines really make no sense at all. It mostly degrades to fear mongering. Yes there are arguments on both sides but the ones made on here are really not compelling unless you only get to hear the same old platitudes and slogans repeated over and over again. You know what that is called? Mass Marketing.

  31. Lawrence says:

    @end censorship – once again, you’ve proven that you aren’t actually interested in a discussion, but merely to attempt to make some sort of point (and a bad one at that). So you ignore the mountains of Science that have been presented here, not only by the contributors to the articles, but by the commentators as well – along with the thorough debunking that has been done of the standard anti-vaccine myths.
    Yet, these same trolls keep coming back, under different identities, to push the same-old, same-old debunked myths – and you think that is what makes this a “debate?” A debate is when both sides have arguments that make sense, have evidence & can be presented in a reasonable and logical manner – unfortunately, that isn’t the case with the anti-vaccine cranks – they don’t have evidence, they don’t act reasonably & they certainly aren’t logical either.
    And finally, you pull out the “Pharma-Shill” card as well……I think that says it all.

  32. novalox says:

    @end censorship
    Why should be listening to a lying sockpuppet troll like you?
    And the old pharma-shill gambit? You do know that is a sign that you have no argument.

  33. Chris says:


    It fits hand and glove especially when considering that this site is funded by ECBT which is funded by AAP who is funded by various pharmaceutical companies.
    And yet you and your various sock puppets continue to refuse to answer simple questions. Like what is to the left of the word “Vaccines” on page thirty of this document, and explain what it means, especially what is to the right of that word on the row.

    Yes there are arguments on both sides but the ones made on here are really not compelling unless you only get to hear the same old platitudes and slogans repeated over and over again. You know what that is called? Mass Marketing.

    What is the “argument from the other side”? I don’t believe you have ever brought any up that involved actual verifiable evidence. Like your claim that we are all shills for “Big Pharma” or that there is some kind of conspiracy with all of the public health agencies on this planet. Then there is the moaning and groaning that the massive numbers of studies used here as evidence were not done correctly or actually have a phrase cautioning about the accuracy of the data… a disclaimer that is on every proper scientific paper!
    So if you have another valid side of the issue to discuss, bring it up. Just make sure that there is real evidence behind, and not cherry picked stuff like this example where whole chunks of data were removed by someone you admire, which is just like what Dr. Obomsawin did with Canadian measles incidence. Also if you claim that a paper has been dismantled as inaccurate, then link to that dismantlement so that we can see if the reviewer is actually qualified to make that judgement, and not someone who has just a Master’s in Business Administration.

  34. Chris says:

    Mucked up the blockquotes by not properly closing the first paragraph as a quote from EC.

  35. anne says:

    Have you applied Occam’s Razor to the conundrum explored here?

  36. Chris says:

    anne/lama/EC/ect, who is GF, and what are you going on about? No one with the initials “GF” has commented on this thread.

    • Lara Lohne says:

      @Chris, I’m pretty sure lower case anne is cia/ella/meg in yet another disguise. Her use of abbreviations of people’s posting nyms and names is a dead give away. Upper case Anne/lama/End Censorship is, in my opinion, Steve Micheals. The tone of commenting is the same for all of them, slightly defensive and unusual feeling of one who is grossly offended and feeling slighted and taking something personally. (AK: Prima Donna)
      I don’t really have anything to add to this topic of conversation other then to say, wake me up when it’s over. I tire of the whining about ‘censorship’ and the whole first amendment violation thing. What doesn’t seem to ever be considered by these whiners is freedom of speech is a two way street, and as long as that freedom does not infringe on another’s freedom it’s all good. As soon as it degrades to personal attacks, which only show lack of argument by that party, that is where the freedom ends. And if I recall, End Censorship/Steve Micheals et al, lives in the UK, as an ex pat, so the first amendment wouldn’t apply to him anyway. Either way, I’m off to get my son ready for school!

  37. Gray Falcon says:

    I am, and I haven’t commented here. Anne’s attempting the same accusation that Christine was able to back up, and which End Censorship responded to with, essentially, “That’s impossible! I covered my tracks!”

  38. anne says:

    I neither made nor attempted to make any accusation. What would such an accusation be? You had mentioned Occam’s Razor before, and I wondered how you would apply it here.

  39. Nathan says:

    Nathan all I can say is that Orwellian Doublespeak is a famous phrase defined essentially as using a pleasing phrase to describe the opposite activity.

    Oh, gosh, yes, thank you for the literary lesson, EC, though I am familiar with the phrase as I have read a fair amount of George Orwell. Nonetheless, it is remarkable that only one other person has ever used that particular term commenting on this blog, and when he was banned for offensive comments including insulting the mentally disabled, you show up using a proxy, upset that he was banned. Quite a coincidence Beggars belief, if one is inclined to use that phrase.

  40. Gray Falcon says:

    Then why address me? Anne, you and End Censorship have the exact same message, the exact same language, the exact same logic, and the exact same IP address. What else can I conclude?

  41. Chris says:

    I conclude that they have no argument from actual evidence, that they must use subterfuge to make it appear they have bigger numbers.
    And I sincerely doubt George Orwell during his short life would agree with any of their multiple personalities. Especially since most of the “doublespeak” comes from them. One of being that preventing disease is a bigger money maker for pharmaceutical companies than treating disease.

  42. Chris says:

    I am off to do other things. But I’ll leave with a couple papers. This is an editorial that is free online: A Broken Trust: Lessons from the Vaccine–Autism Wars. And then there is this behavioral study, but only the abstract is available but has been discussed at the Science Base Medicine blog:
    Vaccine. 2012 May 28;30(25):3778-89. Epub 2011 Dec 13.
    Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm–an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement.

  43. anne says:

    You haven’t used the Razor correctly, that’s actually not the simplest explanation. And I am female, not the same as EC. But that’s really not important, the ideas are the message.

  44. Gray Falcon says:

    anne :
    You haven’t used the Razor correctly, that’s actually not the simplest explanation. And I am female, not the same as EC. But that’s really not important, the ideas are the message.

    Actually, that is the simplest explanation, as it is the one that requires the least number of grossly improbable coincidences. And frankly, I have no reason to trust someone who thinks Putinreloaded had a valid point.

  45. lilady says:

    One thing that is consistent here is that the “regulars” who post here, use their own ‘nym and do not resort to sock puppetry and lying about their sock puppetry.
    Anne, why don’t you and your sockies move on? Feel free to start your own blog; feel free to post on anti-vaccine blogs, where your remarks and your utterly fact-less posts would be welcome.

  46. anne says:

    Steve would have the Magna Carta over there. And you haven’t mentioned the inimitable style that each of us has.

  47. anne says:

    We come here to discuss news and views on vaccines. It is not a requirement that we all agree with you. And good to let people know there are other views and facts you would, unopposed, not mention.

  48. Gray Falcon says:

    @Lara, that does seem to be consistent with Christine’s account. I did get confused by two of the sock-puppets using the same name, and I ended up mixing up upper-case Anne and anne.

  49. Gray Falcon says:

    anne :
    We come here to discuss news and views on vaccines. It is not a requirement that we all agree with you. And good to let people know there are other views and facts you would, unopposed, not mention.

    Anne, are you aware that facts, by definition, must be true?

  50. Lawrence says:

    @anne – you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own set of facts. We’ve shown, time and time and time again, that the standard anti-vaccine myths are just that, myths, misinformation, and distortions…..if you’d care to relate actual evidence, please do so, otherwise, please refrain from spreading the same tired old lies.

  51. INF-b says:

    Over at the SBM, a provax denies that vaccines actually kill host cells. Unfortunately, I got banned by Dorkski because he and his minions don’t want to look stupid.

  52. Chris says:

    INF-b = Th1Th2
    Ignore Thingy.

  53. INF-b says:

    1. Pro-apoptotic bacterial vaccines to enhance cellular immune responses.
    Douglas S. Kernodle et al
    2. Apoptosis: Key to the Attenuated Malaria Vaccine? Eric James.
    3. Single-Cell Approach in Influenza Vaccine Production: Apoptosis and Virus Protein Production

  54. Gray Falcon says:

    I know I shouldn’t ask this, but do those references even exist outside of Th1Th2’s mind?

  55. INF-b says:

    Gray Falcon the Germ Denialist will always be a germ denialist.

  56. INF-b says:

    Oh this is fun.
    Curr Opin Immunol. 2000 October; 12(5): 597–603.
    PMCID: PMC1955758
    Building better vaccines: how apoptotic cell death can induce inflammation and activate innate and adaptive immunity
    Nicholas P Restifo
    So Christine are you going to ban me (again) for posting this?

  57. Lawrence says:

    Perhaps for off-topic posting…..that’s legitimate right there (as crazy as this troll is anyway).

  58. Lawrence says:

    legitimate crazy, I mean….

  59. INF-b says:

    . Rather one of our main desires is to allow an open forum so that people who have legitimate concerns or questions about immunizations can get the answers they need to make evidence-based, informed decisions

    I think Lawrence is the legitimate troll here. He has not posted a single evidence-based commentary in this forum yet he is allowed to label someone as being “crazy”.
    This blog site is suffering from FTT.

  60. novalox says:

    Remember, sockpuppeting confirms that you have no legitimate argument and makes you look like a coward.

  61. novalox says:

    Okay, since we have a confirmed case of sockpuppeting here by his/her/its own admission, and it seems that you are not here to contribute to any meaningful conversation, as previously evidenced by your previous handle as th1th2,, but instead to disrupt conversation with your little fact-free rants and ad hominems, as evidenced above, I guess you’ll get the banhammer soon.
    Try again, thingy, and please do get some help, it certainly can’t hurt you.

  62. Gray Falcon says:

    Th1Th2, you want my opinion? Just because a word looks scary, doesn’t mean that it means something bad. That article you linked said nothing that you think it does. Now, tell me why anyone should take you seriously if you say this:

    It’s easy to see you’re in a bargaining stage. Sorry but you can’t turn back time. It’s a tragedy to have an autistic child, not a blessing. Nobody wants to have an autistic child. You should be blamed for everything but you were in denial for a long time. You’re just digging yourself deeper into the hole. Learn from your mistakes. Sorry, but there’s no second chance. Poor kiddo.

    This is why nobody wants to talk to you. It’s because they don’t want to touch your pure evil.

  63. lilady says:

    Lara…Please don’t feed the Thingy troll. 🙂

  64. novalox says:

    @thingy sock
    Wow, down to insulting parents of autistic children, why am I not surprised?
    (back to ignoring the thingy troll)

  65. Lara Lohne says:

    For the record, as the mother of six children, I feel extremely blessed by all of my children. Each one of my children is a blessing, and each one of them has their own personal strengths, weaknesses, quirks and struggles. But I love each one of them for who they are and what they add to my life.
    Yes, my youngest has autism, but that is just what he has, not who he is. There is so much more to him then his diagnosis. He has the prettiest eyes anyone could want, the cutest little dimple in his right cheek. He gives the best hugs and he laughs and plays. He loves his stuffed animals, his movies, his trains and cars and helicopters and loves to be tickled. He is funny as well and capable of such abstract thoughts and ideas it takes my breath away at times. He has made friends and is getting better all the time at pretending and sharing and speaking. He willingly ate broccoli this week, three different times, for the first time in his life.
    Is autism a blessing? Not a fair question because while autism is not what my son is, autism is a part of him and without it he wouldn’t be the amazing little boy that he is. I don’t view it as a curse because I’d have to view my son as a curse and that isn’t fair to him, or to me. He is just what he was meant to be, and while there are challenges and struggles and he has to work harder for each new achievement then a neurotypical child does, he is making progress and has a bright future ahead of him. So I guess I’d have to say yes, since my son is a blessing, and autism is a part of him, then autism is a blessing too. It’s a package deal, you can’t have one without the other. If your child is a blessing and he or she has autism, then by default autism is a blessing right along with your child. Autism is the not problem, it is ignorance and intolerance from other people that is the problem.

  66. Quokka says:

    Lara you are an amazing advocate for your children. Blessings work both ways.

  67. lilady says:

    Please ignore INF-b, sockpuppet of Th1 Th2 troll a.k.a. Thingy. It craves attention and was banned at another science blog because it always reverts to nasty insults directed at parents who have children who have disabilities.

    • Lara Lohne says:

      Thanks Quokka. I am by no means perfect, but I do my best.
      @lilady, my purpose in posting that really didn’t have anything to do with feeding the troll. Rather I want to let people know, autism is not the end of the world, and even with that diagnosis a child can be funny, bright and have a very bright future, but much of that will depend on the attitude of the people who’s care that child is in. If they see that child as a curse and damaged, guess what? That child is not going to have much of a chance.
      People with autism have challenges, I won’t deny it, but each one can be worked through, so it really isn’t that bad at all. It’s just knowing your child, what sets them off and what calms them down. My son rarely has full blown meltdowns anymore because I’ve actually learned to recognize situations that might trigger them and I help him to keep calm rather then allowing the outward stimulus to get to him. Just like with vaccines, an ounce of prevention is worth more then a pound of cure. The same is true of the autistic meltdown also. Redirection, allowing them to stim, giving them something they like to focus on, all of these can prevent a meltdown, if they are done correctly.
      So how can autism be a blessing? My son is teaching me so much more then I ever knew before about patience and parenting. He is so honest and sincere in everything he says and does, I don’t ever have to worry that he’s trying to manipulate me to get something, or lying to me about something else. I found it actually very easy to raise my other five children, I guess I had it too easy so now I’ve been given a challenge, LOL! I’ve become much more aware of what my limits are and have learned that I am a good parent, because for a long while, my ex-husband, ex-mother-in-law and my older sister had me wondering. That’s really all it comes down to, my son is my son and he is a blessing, he just happens to have autism.

  68. lilady says:

    Please ignore *censorship* troll

  69. Chris says:


    Censorship is not refutation!

    And neither is you whining about censorship. You have yet to present any kind of cogent argument with actual factual scientific evidence to support your position on vaccines. And whining about what constitutes actual scientific evidence is also not a refutation.

  70. lilady says:

    @ Lara: I can appreciate your response to Thingy…because she pushed my buttons by labeling my deceased disabled son as “vaccine damaged”.
    She craves attention and she has really has severe problems with reality. So, it really is best to just ignore the sockies, so that they don’t get the attention that they so desperately crave.
    We are undergoing a major sock puppet invasion because those who have been banned…repeatedly…are morphing by using different ‘nyms and different IP addresses.

    • Lara Lohne says:

      @lilady, I know you feel the same way about your children as I feel about mine.
      My comments are for everyone else who may be reading/watching so they can know, a special needs child is not a burden, except to those that see their child that way. I feel very lucky to be given the opportunity to raise a child with autism, and since I know he was born this way, I know there isn’t anything I could have done differently then I have. He is loved, he is happy and everyone who meets him can tell and falls in love with him right from the start. I’d love for you to be able to meet my son so you can see for yourself what a charmer he is. My mom died before my son was born and my son’s father doesn’t speak to his mother so my son has no grandma figure. He could use one, is it presumptuous of me to ask you to fill that void for him?

  71. novalox says:

    end censorship :
    Novalox, you said “Remember, sockpuppeting confirms that you have no legitimate argument and makes you look like a coward.”
    That’s a good one!! I thought that substantive argument was the way to refutation. If someone has been banned and comes back because they refuse to be silenced, it actually highlights that there has been no refutation. Censorship is not refutation!

    And yet you have never contributed anything much of note, and also ask for censorship by demanding that people who have contributed here be banned.
    D-K much?

  72. lilady says:

    @ Lara: I think you may know who I am, because I sponsored you for a walk for autism research last year, and I enclosed a short note with my email address with my donation. Check back to see who sponsored you. You son is an adorable handsome child and I have seen pictures of him 🙂

  73. novalox says:

    Yawn, more whining from you.
    And again, why should we listen to a sockpuppet troll like you?

  74. novalox says:

    And your admission that you have sockpuppeted invalidates anything that you have said.
    Keep telling yourself that you are important, you have contributed nothing of value here.
    And again, why should we listen to a sockpuppet troll like you?

  75. Lara Lohne says:

    END censorship :

    I have been blocked so many times for nothing more than disagreeing and providing logical argument to back my points at least three times now. I have insulted nobody. If Christine wants this site to be private with only members who agree, she should close it to the public.

    You have never insulted anybody? I know this is not correct, since we know you are in fact Steve Michaels and I distinctly remember you stating (not an exact quote) that you believe me to be autistic, which was your polite way of saying ‘stupid’. Did you forget that one? I do believe that is the one that got you banned. Now own up to the fact that it wasn’t the first time you’ve insulted someone and call it a day.

  76. Lara Lohne says:

    I didn’t actually get any notes, just notification that donations was made and the amounts. I also am not able to access any of the information from last year. I didn’t participate this year due to getting my son ready to start kindergarten. I believe I did add my email address to my profile here, you may be able to find it.

  77. Lawrence says:

    @lara – if End Censorship is in fact Steve Michaels, he didn’t say you were autistic & implied you were stupid, he called you flat out, “stupid.”
    Christine put forth this post & the response to End Censorship (and whomever else he might also be) – so if he’s not satisfied, he should do as Christine has suggested & start his own blog, where he can enforce whatever rules he feels are appropriate.
    End of Story.

  78. lilady says:

    Lara, I cannot find your contact information, but Christine has my email address. I would love to hear from you. 🙂

    • Lara Lohne says:

      I’m not certain I feel comfortable asking a third party for someone else’s contact info. Do you do Facebook at all? If you do, you could search for me there by my name and send me a msg and I’ll send you my email address. Does that work? If you don’t have Facebook, well, I’ll need to think about something else hehe.

  79. lilady says:

    Sorry Lara..I don’t do Facebook…sigh.

    • Lara Lohne says:

      Hmm, let me see if I can do this without it being too obvious… My ‘nym’ (as opposed to my name) zero one numerals at the same email server that Christine told you, me and Lawrence to send emails to from now on. Does that make sense?

  80. Lawrence says:

    @EC – Christine already responded to you. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.

  81. novalox says:

    Tough luck, you brought no relevant argument, attacked a poster by calling her stupid using your original name, and admitted to being a sockpuppet.
    If that is your modus operandi, then that just proves your dishonesty, and the utter weakness of your position.
    But if you want to keep proving how much of a dishonest individual you are, relying on sockpuppets to try to bolster your “position”, and trying to shout down other people instead of saying something relevant, then please keep on going. Prove to the world your hatred of science, honest argument, and true debate.

  82. Quokka says:

    EC I think you could be of great benefit to others if you go and start a blog about universal knowledge, the different kinds of truth and the impact of relativism on philosophy. Then you can invite others who are interested in joining you there.
    I don’t think this is the best venue for you to really explore your opinions regarding logic, truth and censorship in any detail. You are causing others to become frustrated and that is not giving you the chance to engage people in the type of conversations you appear to be wanting.

  83. Chris says:


    Summary dismissal of any argument based on the character of the source alone is a cop out to avoid addressing the argument itself. That does seem to be a common theme here.

    Hmmm, that is an interesting statement. As I recall someone who was mentioned in a comment I made that is in moderation insisted that nothing from the CDC or Denmark could be trusted because some guy called Thorsen played a minor part in one study. Funny that.

  84. Lawrence says:

    @EC – so what about Christine’s response didn’t you understand?

  85. Chris says:

    EC, so you agree that the person who dismissed all of the CDC and Danish studies because the actions of one person who played a minor part on one paper was wrong?

  86. Chris says:

    Thorsen. Or did you not read my previous comment? i have a comment in moderation that links to a conversation where someone you claim to not be refused to consider any study from the CDC or Denmark because that one person committed financial fraud with the CDC.
    You see you are telling us that we should not dismiss studies due to the character, and someone who you claim to not be did it all the time. I am just making sure you are not that person and would never ever dismiss all of the studies paid for or conducted by the CDC for the actions of one Danish person.

  87. Chris says:

    Sorry to not be clear. It is just that three of my comments in a row went into moderation, and I think it is because I used the name of someone who was banned.

  88. Chris says:

    Perhaps I’ll try just his quote from the “It’s Not To Early To Think About the Flu” article:

    How about the pillar of studies, the Danish study ‘proving’ no link between vaccines and autism? One of the researchers (Thorsen) embezzled 10% of the funding for personal use AND was on the CDC payroll while not disclosing this, AND the CDC pressured Pediatrics to ‘fast track’ the study after other journals refused to publish it….

    And from the “Listing Vaccine Ingredients” article he said:

    If you look at my last post on the next entry, “Why worry about the Unvaccinated” you will see that I quote the very report about Paul Thorsen, hero of the ‘autism and vaccines aren’t linked crowd’ as well. The structure of vaccine ‘science’ is falling apart, hence the desperation we can see in calling for banning opposing view ads and the like. Paul Offit, another pro-vax hero was caught on the vaccine recommendation board voting on vaccines he helped produce and was paid royalties on, now Thorsen has been accused of fraud with funding from the CDC AND his results have always been questioned.

    So you are telling us to not dismiss the argument because of a character, yet it seems that someone that claim to not be did that all the time. I can just assume that on a thread that is actually about vaccines and science, you would not resort to such tactics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.