Dr. Harrison Explains Why Lyn Redwood of SafeMinds is Wrong About Genetic Research and Autism
Nov 05, 2014

journalsEvery Child By Two is pleased to launch our new Expert Commentary Series which will be referenced here on Shot of Prevention with links to the in-depth articles that will be permanently housed on the Every Child By Two website.

This series will feature guest writer Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, a retired epidemiologist who has worked in the areas of preventive medicine, infectious diseases, medical outcomes research, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.  Dr. Harrison’s passionate desire to combat false vaccine information is evident in his introductory bio and mission statement:

“Outbreaks of totally unnecessary vaccine-preventable diseases have been occurring as a consequence of misinformation and disinformation from anti-vaccine advocates who don’t understand science, don’t apply critical thinking, display poor scholarship….

I decided to devote time combating the misinformation and disinformation of the anti-vaccinationist by showing the level of poor scholarship, irrational, unscientific, and sometimes even lacking common sense claims made by anti-vaccinationists. My approach is quite simple. I will use accurate direct quotes from their articles and show, using accurate direct quotes from other articles and documents, together with clear explanations of scientific method, etc. that they literally don’t know what they are talking about. Each of my articles will contain detailed footnotes, including page numbers, and references with the URL/hyperlink to any papers available on the web.”

The idea for this new Expert Commentary Series was inspired by one of Dr. Harrison’s previous articles which was printed in The Open Vaccine Journal and featured here on the Shot of Prevention blog on May 16, 2014.  This article systematically debunked the claims regarding the dangers of vaccines made by Andrew Wakefield in his book “Callous Disregard.”

Today’s submission, written exclusively for Every Child By Two, is a review of Lyn Redwood’s ArticleScience as a Means of Social Controlposted by SafeMinds on August 23, 2013.

In his article, Dr. Harrison counters a series of arguments made by Lyn Redwood regarding genetic research and autism.  Redwood’s piece echoes the sentiments of another article she located on the internet which she believed validated her instincts that “science is being used as a means of exonerating industry and/or government for culpability by blaming the individual for having the poor luck of bad genetics.”  Dr. Harrison’s critique of Redwood’s premise is both thorough and quite insightful.

We are pleased to present this article, Wrong About Genetic Research & Autism, Lyn Redwood’s “Science as a Means of Social Control” as the latest piece in our Expert Commentary Series and we look forward to future articles by Dr. Harrison.

Please note: The opinions in this article reflect the views of the author who is not an employee of Every Child By Two and do not necessarily reflect the views of Every Child By Two.  Dr. Harrison volunteers his time to provide in-depth, well-researched analysis of articles which ultimately make false claims about the safety of vaccines.  His articles are summarized here on Shot of Prevention with links to the full response on the Every Child By Two website.

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...

Every Child By Two asks you to join in urging Congress to protect crucial funding for immunization programs.  Politics aside, if and when the Affordable Care Act is repealed, nearly $600 million in funds...


213 responses to “Dr. Harrison Explains Why Lyn Redwood of SafeMinds is Wrong About Genetic Research and Autism”

  1. reissd says:

    Thank you, Dr. Harrison, for this thorough debunking, and Shot of Prevention for the new series.

    I look forward to further discussions of articles.

  2. Another Vaccine Pusher for Profit, Dr. Harrison, working to pHARM children like Dorit Reiss does. People paying attention are waking up to the real science & it’s not on the side of Vaccine Pushers for Profit or their parrots.

  3. Chris says:

    Ms. McClennand: “Another Vaccine Pusher for Profit”

    Please provide us the economic evidence that would show that eliminating vaccines would be cost effective. Explain clearly how disease prevention is more costly than treating the diseases. It should be equivalent to Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009.

    “People paying attention are waking up to the real science”

    Please provide that “real science.” Just post the PubMed indexed studies by qualified reputable researchers that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is more dangerous than the diseases.

    Thank you in advance.

  4. Not playing your game, Chris. I have more important things to do besides fall for the tactic of bait in back & forth banter to distract from facts. If I thought you serious I would be glad to teach you the real science but you have seen it all & still deny so why waste my time.

    People paying attention are waking by the masses. They count. You & the deception don’t. The cat’s not going back in the bag no matter how many times the lies are repeated. Or how many are hired to repeat the same old worn out rhetoric being parroted by those who can’t or won’t do the proper research for whatever reason.

    More & more doctors are joining the moral side of this war against our children. See Vaccination Liberation for countless numbers of doctors & scientists who have tried to warn us. Even Salk who testified his vaccine actually caused the disease it was supposed to prevent.

    The newest doctor to our ever groing list of honest & credible doctors is Toni Bark. Look her up & learn. She sends another TRUTH BOMB here. This one comparing the vaccinated & unvaccinated in her practice

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC1p2EJww_4

  5. Lawrence says:

    LOL – you mean Toni “I believe in Homeopathy even though it violates several known laws of physics & is basically just water” Bark?

    Barking Mad, more like it……too funny.

    The anti-vax crew needs to flay around & twist facts into more positions than a pretzel to even begin to relate to anything close to reality.

    The average anti-vaxers doesn’t even begin to comprehend even the most basic biological functions of the human body or have any understanding of chemistry at all. Your grade schools teachers should be ashamed.

    • Typical deniar & liar this Lawrence. Ignoring the facts & attacking people & their messages instead. Learn for yourselves people. Don’t be parrots like these regulars here. Good & decent people recognize truth when they hear it & are well able to do their own research to learn more.

  6. novalox says:

    @marsha

    [citation needed] within 3 posts, or we can assume that you are lying as usual.

  7. Chris says:

    Ms. McClelland: “Not playing your game, Chris. I have more important things to do besides fall for the tactic of bait in back & forth banter to distract from facts.”

    What game is that? It is the one where you make a series of claims sprinkled liberally with baseless insults, and I ask you to support those claims with actual factual evidence?

    You said “Another Vaccine Pusher for Profit.” Having had a child taken to the hospital by ambulance due to seizures from an actual disease before its vaccine was available, I am extremely interested in the costs. This is why I want the data that shows it is cheaper to treat measles, mumps, pertussis, Hib, etc. than it is to prevent them.

    Come on, just post that economic analysis that would show it is cheaper to treat kids in the hospital for pneumonia, encephalitis, seizures, etc that can happen with the vaccine preventable diseases.

    • reissd says:

      In addition to the other questions Ms. McClelland was asked and on which she provided not evidence, it would be appropriate if she provided any evidence that Dr. Harrison gets any profit from speaking up to correct misinformation.

      She cannot, because it’s untrue.

      I would say that I have been asking Ms. McClelland to provide evidence for her claims for a long time now. I have yet to see any.

  8. jgc56 says:

    ” I have more important things to do besides fall for the tactic of bait in back & forth banter to distract from facts.”

    What ‘facts’ are you referring to here, Marsha, and exactly how has it been demonstrated that what you believe to be facts actually ARE facts?

    “Ignoring the facts & attacking people & their messages instead.”

    Again: what facts do you believe we’re ignoring, Marsha? Be specific.

  9. novalox says:

    @marsha

    Strike 1.

    Also, your Facebook posts are laughable.

  10. Chris says:

    Ms. McClelland, we cannot assume anything because you refuse to provide any kind of actual evidence to support your claims.

    I actually linked to an economic analysis of the pediatric vaccines used in the USA. Did you bother to even click on it? If you are going to make claims about vaccine profits, then you are going to have to explain how they are much more than the cost of providing medical care for some very serious diseases.

    Your refusal to provide that economic data would lead us to believe that you somehow profit from children getting sick. It could be by being a supplier to hospitals, or profiting by selling child sized coffins. Which is it?

  11. jgc56 says:

    Marsha, I’m not assuming anything. I’m simply asking a basic questions: you’ve claim we’re ignoring facts, and I’d like to know two simple things: what specific facts you believe are being ignored and how they’ve been demonstrated to actually be fact.

    Surely that’s a reasonable question, whose answer could only advance the dialogue?

    • I’m not refusing to back anything up. I’ve been this round many times here with you who think they’re fooling anyone. I’m not interested with dialog or debate here. Been there done that. A big waste of time. Too many regulars here so I won’t do the circular argument as one wise voice put it.

      I call it the distract tactic. A big tell right out of the Pro Vax play book where Vaccine Pushers for Profit & their parrots try to bait us in back & forth useless banter designed to distract from fact & the real science.

      Truth’s out & I’m only here to show anyone who may be watching the dishonesty here & what’s really what.

      Squeal all you like. Truth’s truth & that’s that. People watching can tell who real & who’s not concerning this vaccine war waged against our children.

      For those interested in truth on this matter go to Twitter & see #CDCwhistleblower & #hearthiswell

  12. Chris says:

    Or, Ms. McClelland, is this your actual job?

  13. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – I think you need to look in a mirror. You’ve outed yourself as a hypocrite on this very comment thread when you posted:

    “Typical deniar & liar this Lawrence. Ignoring the facts & attacking people & their messages instead.”

    After you your very first post in this thread where you said:

    “Another Vaccine Pusher for Profit, Dr. Harrison, working to pHARM children like Dorit Reiss does. People paying attention are waking up to the real science & it’s not on the side of Vaccine Pushers for Profit or their parrots.”

    So, please tell me how your statement above is not “Attacking people and their messages instead?” You are the pot & the kettle wrapped up in one burrito.

    • I will answer this one as it’s not designed to bait in the back & forth banter.

      It is not attacking when it’s the truth. BIG difference.

      • reissd says:

        Ms. McClelland,
        A. Asking you to support your points with evidence is not a diversion tactic. On scientific matters like this, it’s the data and evidence that should govern. The question is what the data shows. If there is no evidence behind your beliefs, maybe you should change them; at any rates, the readers deserve to know that your beliefs are unsupported by data and evidence.

        B. “It is not attacking when it’s the truth.” You have brought no evidence that Dr. Harrison profits in any way from showing the problems in Ms. Redwood’s claims. You cannot, because he does not. He is retired and speaking up for public health. In other words, it’s not the truth.

  14. thirdwarning says:

    Marsha, in the time it takes you to sit here and make several comments refusing to back up anything you’ve said, you could easily have provided links to the sources for those claims, thereby actually becoming credible. Why aren’t you doing that? Is it because you don’t really have those sources? Or is it that you simply prefer to keep this at the level of a playground game?

  15. Spencer Love says:

    Marsha, thank you for the video on Toni Bark!

  16. Chris says:

    Mr. Spencer, what is 2,236,678,735 divided by 1595? Also where is the verifiable economic analysis that it is cheaper to treat diseases instead of preventing them?

    And do please provide the PubMed indexed studies by qualified reputable researchers that show homeopathy works better than antibiotics for bacterial infections.

  17. Melody RN says:

    I am very glad to see that Dr. Harrison is going to be able his work via ECBT’s social media platforms. It’s a great opportunity for the vaccine controversies to be addressed and debunked (once again). Thank you Shot of Prevention for giving Dr. Harrison a voice and ability to speak up about the importance of vaccinating. He is a great example of how healthcare workers are dedicated to improving the health of communities and education. Even when retired he continues to seek to help others- how inspiring!

  18. Lawrence says:

    I, too, applaud Dr. Harrison’s work, as it shows what real research looks like.

  19. Chris says:

    Ms. McClelland: “I’m not refusing to back anything up.”

    Yes you are. You have been asked several direct questions based on your claims that you have refused to answer. Instead you just resort to name calling and insults.

  20. Chris says:

    Ms. McClelland: “For those interested in truth on this matter go to Twitter & see #CDCwhistleblower & #hearthiswell”

    Also, social media is not scientific evidence. You need to provide real verifiable scientific evidence, where the authors are both reputable and qualified. Having a Twitter account does not satisfy either of those attributes.

  21. Chris says:

    “There goes another illusion.”

    🙂

    Though your law degree does make you qualified to discuss the legal matters. I just don’t remember you writing any epidemiological papers.

  22. reissd says:

    Sometimes, I miss being able to like comments (like Chris’) on websites like this. 🙂

  23. Chris says:

    Thank you!

  24. Lawrence says:

    @Chris / Dorit – no worries, I “like” all these comments…. 😉

  25. Gray Falcon says:

    YouTube and Twitter as evidence? I could post videos titled “Antivaccine Advocates Practice Sorcery” and tweet out things like #MarshaMclellandisawitch, but would that make any of that true?

  26. novalox says:

    @marsha

    Strike 2 and 3, yer out

    So I guess you admit that you’ve been lying here as usual, and admit that vaccines are beneficial, since you continually refuse to show any evidence for your “assertions”

  27. jgc56 says:

    “I’m not refusing to back anything up”

    I’m sorry, but you are refusing to back up your claim that we’re ignoring facts, by your continued refusal to identify 1) what facts you believe are being ignored and 2) how it’s established that what they actually are facts.

  28. Gray Falcon says:

    I suspect Marsha thinks using Twitter and YouTube is backing up her claim. Never mind that literally anyone can say (almost) anything they want on there. The reason we want data from peer-reviewed journals is because there is some standard of information.

  29. Jim Polk says:

    It comes down to which you think is worse: outbreaks of usually mild VPDs like measles or pertussis, or a lifetime with autism. Those of us with experience of both universally stand with Lyn and prefer the diseases.

  30. Lawrence says:

    @Jim – since there is no link between the onset of autism & vaccines, yours is a false choice. All you are doing is encouraging a resurgence in vaccine-preventable diseases – which aren’t mild in not a small number of cases (for example, measles still kills over 100,000 people per year, mostly children).

    So, since your position holds no water, there is no choice – just the bad decisions that you are making or insisting upon.

  31. jgc56 says:

    No Jim, it doesn’t. It would only come down to a choice between outbreaks of diseases or a lifetime of autism if there were evidence demonstrating the existence of a causal association between routine vaccination and the development of autism spectrum disorders.

    So….got any?

  32. Chris says:

    Ah, another day, another sock puppet. The claim that measles and pertussis are mild diseases is so Ms. Parker.

  33. jgc56 says:

    Yup, tha’s measles–a ‘mild’ disease that killed 122,000 people worldwide in 2012 (that works out on average to 330 deaths a day). Of course, compared to the mortality rate prior to widespread measles vaccination that’s almost neglible–in 1980 we saw 2. 6 million deaths due to measles (more than 7000 deaths each day).

  34. For those actually looking for truth & not here as the regulars to try & discredit anything we say or show, take note.

    See these people in the comments discrediting You tube & Twitter? Perfect example of how they discount the content & say bogus. Ridiculous. Every site we send. Real studies or what have you they just say the same things. So here, I don’t bother unless I feel a sincere person is asking a genuine question. I really don’t think many read this forum but some do & I thank those few here for helping set the record straight.

    Sometimes these bogus articles written by Chris don’t get comments. I like to see that.

  35. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – random links to twitter and YouTube by individuals who aren’t scientists or researchers, or who have been thoroughly discredited (i.e. with retracted papers and such) isn’t evidence of anything – other than your blind obedience to the handlers over at AoA.

  36. Lawrence says:

    How about responding to my question about your initial response & why you would consider it different than what you accuse the rest of us of doing?

    How about answering the question as to what conflicts Dr. Harrison has? Be specific.

    Otherwise, you’re just parroting the party line, once again.

    • I’m the parrot? I have told you people over & over you need new material. Your tactics parroted in the playbook are old & worn out. Don’t be using & copy catting what I normally use in exposing your team. Get your own stuff. No I don’t have a patent on the word but you did steal it from what I always say & have been calling you people parrots for years because it’s the truth.

      When you use it it’s a bonafide lie. 🙂

  37. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – here are some valid & true points that refute your post:

    1) While a relatively small number of people did die of the Measles (one of my ancestors was one of them, btw) many more suffered from the severe complications of the disease – including blindness (one of the reasons why we don’t have whole chains of schools for the blind anymore – vaccinations).

  38. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – and this:

    2) Mortality does not equal incidence. Did the mortality rate of measles decrease over time? Yes it did. But, did the rate of measles infection drop? Heck no – not until we could vaccinate.

    Doctors did an excellent job of keeping people from dying from things like measles-induced pneumonia….but there was nothing they could do from keeping people from getting infected by one of the most contagious diseases on the planet.

  39. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – and lastly,

    There is SSPE. A horrible, terminal disease that results from early measles infections.

    So, that pretty much says it all when it comes to your link. Why don’t you think critically for a change, instead of parroting the party line.

  40. Chris says:

    Ms. McClelland: “Sometimes these bogus articles written by Chris don’t get comments. I like to see that.”

    What articles have I written?

    “Okay. Here’s one of many good researchers on measles. I will ignore the rabid comments denying the real fact & science as is usual here.”

    Who is “Megan”, and what is her educational background? It obviously does not include basic math and reading comprehension. She claims that the rate of measles went down, but the graph was not measles incidence, but deaths. She must have failed the vocabulary portion of her college entrance exams.

  41. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – I just told you exactly why you were wrong.

    You responded with insults.

    If I am wrong with what I said, prove it.

  42. Chris says:

    Marsha: “When you use it it’s a bonafide lie. :)”

    What is it called when you make a claim about “rates of measles incidence”, but then post a graph on deaths instead? Is it an inability to use a dictionary or a lie?

    Now where is that economic analysis showing it is cheaper to treat disease instead of preventing them?

  43. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – it has been pointed out to anti-vaccine individuals, like yourself, that there is a substantial difference between “mortality” and “incidence”…like they aren’t the same thing.

    So, yes – you keep parroting the same misrepresentations over and over again – certainly sounds like a Parrot to me.

    Again, if I can said anything that is incorrect, when correctly your factually inaccurate link, then please point out specifically where I am wrong – because if you respond with nothing but insults, it means you got nothing.

    I also find it funny for a site called “VaxTruth” posts something that is a bonafide “lie” as you would put it.

  44. Liz says:

    Yes, thank you, Marsha! Great video, and great comments!

    • Timothy & Liz thank you for doing the research that opened your eyes. I used to beLIEve in vaccines until seven years ago when I watched this that clued me to the real science>>>

      Vaccine Nation;

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8nrdybZZzA

      Lots of evidence here & everywhere but the deniars pretend not to see it. They will say youtube videos don’t count overlooking the substance that can’t be denied. That used to work for them. It is one of many tactics they hope will thwart people from looking at them & learning the truth.

  45. Liz says:

    Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which the measles virus either from the natural disease or the live vaccine can cause in what is it? one in a million cases? Shudder!

  46. Lawrence says:

    Hello Ms. Parker – SSPE has never been shown to be vaccine-related.

    Prove me wrong.

  47. Chris says:

    Liz/Dina (Ms. Parker again!): “which the measles virus either from the natural disease or the live vaccine”

    Wrong:

    J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93.
    Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.

    Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;36(6):1334-48.
    Review of the effect of measles vaccination on the epidemiology of SSPE.

    Seriously, Ms. Parker, were you ever allowed to just use argument from blatant assertion when you were a lawyer?

  48. Timothy says:

    Thank you Marsha. I don’t know why you waste your time here, but I am glad you do!
    Enjoy your weekend.

  49. Chris says:

    Parker really does love her sock puppets.

  50. Timothy says:

    I love Parker and everyone else you call a sock puppet because that’s what you call people when you don’t like them, right Chris?

  51. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – you are “loving” a single person…because “Ms. Parker” keeps getting banned & returns under a new alias from time to time.

    So, when you are praising these people – you are really only praising a single, off-her-rocker, individual.

  52. Lawrence says:

    @marsha – I knew you couldn’t refute my points.

  53. Timothy says:

    Thanks for the video Marsha. The video is just a mechanism to get the information and story out. A video doesn’t make the message true or not true. You could say the same thing about this blog or a computer or any other tool used to get out information.

    Lawrence – I am confident that Marsha and Parker and Liz are all different people. Thank you for your concern.

    The bottom line is that vaccines are not tested properly and for long enough periods of time and they are not tested in combinations, only separately.
    There isn’t even proof that vaccines are responsible for the decline of diseases.
    I do know there is plenty of evidence in regards to the risks of vaccines.
    Have you seen the vaccinated vs un-vaccinated surveys? It’s quite evident that un-vaccinated children are much healthier.

  54. Chris says:

    The sock puppet presently known as “Timothy”: “I do know there is plenty of evidence in regards to the risks of vaccines.”

    Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is more dangerous than the disease.

    “Have you seen the vaccinated vs un-vaccinated surveys? It’s quite evident that un-vaccinated children are much healthier.”

    Yes. First there was the self-selected internet survey by a homeopath that is completely worthless. Then there is Vaccination Status and Health in Children and Adolescents, which showed the only health difference is that those who did not vaccines got sick with vaccine preventable diseases.

  55. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – the bottom line is, you are lying.

    Vaccines are always tested “in combination” before they are added to the pediatric vaccine schedule:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/resdev/test-approve.htm
    http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/developmentapprovalprocess/biologicslicenseapplicationsblaprocess/ucm133096.htm

    As Chris pointed out – the “surveys” you mention are self-selected & don’t show what you think they show…on the other hand, the studies that have been done on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children show nothing different except that unvaccinated children get more VPDs.

    Really, you need to try harder, because your ignorance is really showing.

  56. Lawrence says:

    @Chris – in one single regard, Timothy is right….there are numerous studies on the risks of vaccines. Luckily, all of them show that vaccines are safe, effective, and side effects are well-known and tracked, with the overwhelming majority being extremely slight (pain at the injection site being the most common).

    We also understand that there can be serious reactions to a particular vaccine – but that those reactions are extremely rare – and in some cases, so rare (1 in 10 million) so it is impossible to truly link the reaction to a vaccination.

    See, unlike the anti-vax crowd, we actually read the research and understand the process – we also understand basic biology, chemistry and physics – so we know that stuff like homeopathy is crap too, as is the “toxins” gambit they throw around so easily.

  57. Timothy says:

    I could say you are lying Lawrence, there is so much evidence out there. You guys are acting pretty ridiculous for ignoring anything and everything that makes vaccine’s look bad.
    To each his own. You vax your kids and I’ll keep mine healthy by not vaxing them and I will sleep perfectly well at night.

  58. Chris says:

    “I could say you are lying Lawrence, there is so much evidence out there. You guys are acting pretty ridiculous for ignoring anything and everything that makes vaccine’s look bad.”

    What evidence? I don’t see you posting those studies I asked you for.

    • Chris you know when our team posts anything here you & your regulars deny it. So why should we bother?

      I have seen many studies & papers & so have you. I don’t have time to do your research even if you were looking for the real science. Our people are not sheeple & are well able to do their own research to find what they need from both sides of this horrid matter.

      One can begin proper research on Twitter at #CDCwhistleblower & #hearthiswell

  59. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – except I’m SHOWN where you (and Marsha, for that matter) are lying, misrepresenting and misinterpreting the science behind vaccine safety and effectiveness.

    If you’re going to come in here with an opinion unsupported by actual research, expect that we’re going to call you on it.

    It isn’t bullying – its pointing out that you are wrong.

    And I always find it funny that the anti-vax militia talks about “evidence” yet fails to provide even a single shred of legitimate science to back up their scare-mongering claims.

    Go away Timothy – I’m sure you would be much happier over at AoA with Marsha and Ms. Parker….

  60. jgc56 says:

    Marsha, I’m unable to find anything evidence that Dawn Babcock Pappel qualifies as a measles researcher of any sort, let alone “one of many good ones”–certainly there are no publications authored by “Papple D”, “Papple DB” or “Papple” indexed in Pubmed addressing measles, vaccination, infectious diseases, or any other subject.

    So I’m curious why you describe her as such in your post. Could you explain your reasoning? I trust it’s for some reason other than the simple fact she agrees with your preferred and predetermined position re: vaccine safety.

  61. jgc56 says:

    “Any evidence”, not “anything evidence”, Sigh–darn you autocorrect.

  62. novalox says:

    @marsha

    So I guess since your posts can be considered lies, you admit that vaccines are safe and effective.

    @timothy

    [citation needed] within 3 posts, or we can assume that you are lying.

  63. Chemmomo says:

    Timothy “It’s quite evident that un-vaccinated children are much healthier.”

    I didn’t know that “healthier” described children who have suffered more vaccine-preventable diseases.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/
    (Title: Vaccination Status and Health in Children and Adolescents)

  64. Chemmomo says:

    Timothy “they are not tested in combinations, only separately.”

    How could anyone be foolish enough to believe that?

    The individuals enrolled in vaccine studies are not denied the vaccines already on the current schedule.

    Are you complaining that the studies focus on only one vaccine? Of course they do! That’s how scientific method works – change one variable at a time. New vaccine vs placebo or a different, previously studied vaccine, and find out what happens to the population that got the new one.

    Does that tell you anything about how adding that vaccine affects the individual’s response to the rest of the schedule? Of course it does! As already noted – the individuals are already getting what’s currently on the schedule anyway.

    I suggest reading a few of the studies, or if you don’t have good access to journals at least read the abstracts for yourself instead of just repeating what others want you to believe.

  65. Lawrence says:

    @Chemmomo – Timothy obviously doesn’t know anything beyond what the anti-vax crew wants him to know (as evidenced by his repeating of thoroughly debunked anti-vax lies), including things like basic biology and chemistry.

  66. Chris says:

    Ms. McClelland, we know you are not a sock puppet. We cannot say the same for Ms. Parker’s efforts.

    So instead of a series of insults, please explain clearly with verifiable references why it is cheaper to treat diseases instead of preventing them.

  67. Lawrence says:

    @marsha – the “truth” isn’t what you say it is.

    Please tell me the difference between mortality and incidence, can you?

    If not, that’s just sad.

  68. jgc56 says:

    “People paying attention know different, Lawrence.”

    Paying attention to WHAT, Marsha? I’ve asked you politely a couple of times now what facts you believe we’re ignoring, and you haven’t even attempted to communicate them to me.

    “I have seen many studies & papers & so have you.”
    I don’t know, however, if I’ve seen any of the studies and papers you’ve seen which have convinced you the risks associated with vaccination exceeds the risks associated with remaining vulnerable to infection. And I can’t know that until you tell me what studies and papers they are.

    As for your suggestion that the way to begin ‘proper research’ is to surf a twitter hashtag, you were making a joke–right?

  69. novalox says:

    @marsha

    Again, where is your evidence? You haven’t posted anything of worth, why should any sane and rational person believe you?

    Also, considering your twitter “campaign” didn’t even register at all, I’d say your nonsense is pretty much rejected by the vast majority of people.

  70. Lawrence says:

    @marsha – since you are unable to answer a simple question, it speaks volumes about your “evidence.”

  71. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – and vaccine rates continue at a very high rate, so your “campaign” has fallen on deaf ears…but luckily not deaf due to vaccine preventable diseases.

  72. Chris says:

    Ms. McClelland: “I have seen many studies & papers & so have you. I don’t have time to do your research even if you were looking for the real science.”

    Then it would be easy for you to provide actual verifiable documentation that it is cheaper to treat diseases instead of preventing them. Just provide the PubMed indexed economic studies by reputable qualified researchers that the USA would save lots of medical dollars if the entire vaccine program was scrapped.

  73. jgc56 says:

    Did you link to the wrong Amazon review page, Timothy? There’s nothing in these book reviews suggesting the author is ‘feeling down’ to any degree, much les is suffering from clinical depression.

  74. Timothy says:

    Oh, I thought all of the one star reviews were a dead give-way. I guess I could paste some specific reviews if you would like me to jgc56?

  75. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – trying out “amateur stalker?”

  76. Chemmomo says:

    Marsha McClelland “One can begin proper research on Twitter”

    No, you can’t.

    Proper research cannot be done with 140 characters.

    It just can’t.

  77. Chris says:

    I am curious why Timothy would think that the seven dollar 36 page Jesus, Why Did You Let Those Kids At Sandy Hook School Die? deserves more than one star. Most of the reviews were rather scathing. Do you approve of her cashing in on child murders? I would say that says more about Timothy and friends than the more than twenty people who gave her one star.

    So, where are those PubMed indexed economic studies by reputable qualified researchers that the USA would save lots of medical dollars if the entire vaccine program was scrapped?

  78. Chris says:

    Timothy, why do you think that book deserves more than one star? Just go link on it and read about it. Do you approve of people cashing in on child massacres?

  79. jgc56 says:

    “I guess I could paste some specific reviews if you would like me to jgc56?”

    That won’t be necessary, Timothy–if you’re willing to respond to requests I’d much rather you post whatever evidence you believe supports other claims you’ve made:

    That vaccines are not tested properly
    That vaccines are not tested for sufficiently long periods of time
    That vaccines are only tested in subjects who have not received any previous immunizations
    That there is no evidence that vaccination reduces the incidence of infectious disease
    That un-vaccinated children are uniformly ‘much healthier’ than vaccinated children

    Can I expect you a response to this request anytime soon?

  80. Lawrence says:

    Timothy can’t deal with the message, so he attacks the messenger.

  81. Chris says:

    He also is trying to psychoanalyze a random person on the internet by reading the reviews of a random Amazon customer. I can understand why he would support books on homeopathy and kids getting measles (sounds like Parker), but I fail to see why he thinks those who give one star to a book that tries to cash in on dead children would need therapy. It is completely weird.

    And I am still waiting for those verifiable economic analyses that prove treating measles, mumps, diphtheria, tetanus, Hib etc. is cheaper than preventing them.

  82. novalox says:

    @timothy

    [citation needed] for your assertions within 3 posts, or we can assume that you are lying.

  83. Timothy says:

    novalox, A citation to explain that I am not concerned with cheaper?

    You can assume I am lying novalox. It is your prerogative to assume if you want too.

  84. novalox says:

    @timothy

    Strike 1

  85. Timothy says:

    novalox, you don’t need to give me strikes. I already told you, I give you permission to assume. Assume away.

  86. novalox says:

    @timothy

    Strike 2

  87. Timothy says:

    Strike 3

  88. novalox says:

    @timothy

    Strike 3 yer out.

    We can assume that any statement that you have made is false and can consider them false unless you bring actual proof for your assertions.

    Also, thanks for admitting that vaccines are a safe and effective way to prevent VPDs, and that you admit that you are here just to troll.

  89. Timothy says:

    Your welcome novalox, glad I could make your night.

    Cheers!

  90. novalox says:

    @timothy

    Do you have anything of worth to contibute to this treat besides blase insults and off-topic stalking of posters?

    We’re waiting.

  91. Timothy says:

    I do, but I have to yet see anything of substance from you novalox. Please enlighten us more than you already have. Or you can keep up with your childish games. It’s your choice and I must admit it does entertain me. Maybe you can go with 4 or 5 strikes this time?

  92. novalox says:

    @timothy

    Again, why should anyone believe you, if you will not post anything of substance.

    But thanks for admitting that I am more intelligent than you can ever hope to be, and that you are a fine example of the lack of intelligence and morals that the typical anti-vaxxer has.

  93. jgc56 says:

    “I do, but I have to yet see anything of substance from you novalox.”

    This from the guy who refuses to support a single one of his assertions? You owe me a new irony meter, Tim.

  94. Chris says:

    Timothy, why do you think that people who gave a book one star because it was cashing in on the murder of several children need therapy? You must not think very highly of children and their health.

    Especially if you think that the study that showed children who were not vaccinated got more vaccine preventable diseases was a good reason to not vaccinate.

    Which is probably why you will not support your claims with real data.

  95. Timothy says:

    jgc56, I gave several opinions on vaccines, much more than say, novalox has done. I wonder why you are not all over novalox for wasting time and playing childish games? As a matter of fact, if you read the thread, you won’t find one opinion from novalox on vaccines. Not one, but many comments indeed.

  96. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – your opinions aren’t backed up by a lick of actual science or facts…so we’re going to keep calling you on it…..

  97. Chris says:

    “I think you need therapy”

    Because you looked at the stars some random person on Amazon gave books you like, like the one where kids are encouraged to get sick with measles? Really really weird.

  98. Chris says:

    Lawrence, it is obvious that Timothy has some sadistic desire to see kids get very very sick.

  99. Lawrence says:

    @Chris – you must have really gotten under Timothy’s skin to have him desperately search the Internet to attempt to find your “real identity” and end up on some random Chris’ list of reviews on Amazon.

    I would be more concerned about the mental health of individual who have beliefs unsupported by reality….the sky certainly isn’t blue in Timothy’s world.

  100. jgc56 says:

    “jgc56, I gave several opinions on vaccines, much more than say, novalox has done.”

    Actually, yrather than offer opinns you’ve made explicit claims: that vaccines are not tested properly, are not tested for sufficiently long periods of time,
    only tested in subjects who have not received any previous immunizations, that there is no evidence that vaccination reduces the incidence of infectious diseases, and that un-vaccinated children are uniformly ‘much healthier’ than vaccinated children.

    What you haven’t done is to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of these claims.

    “As a matter of fact, if you read the thread, you won’t find one opinion from novalox on vaccines”

    Which, to answer your question above, it hasn’t been necessary to ask novalox to support claims he’s made.

    I’m willing to consider the import of any claims or ‘opinions’ you offer, timothy–just as soon as you provide evidence that they are likely to be valid.

    Amy chance that will ever happen?

  101. Lawrence says:

    @JGC – biggest difference here. If we make a claim, we back it up with evidence and don’t just accept something as fact.

    Anti-vax – accepts anything, without evidence, as long it fits into their anti-vaccine worldview.

    Notice that Marsha was never able to provide one scrap of actual evidence to refute the facts that I presented to show that her link & opinion was wrong.

    Typical anti-vax behavior.

  102. Chris says:

    I, on the other hand have made a specific claim: that not preventing diseases can be very costly. But, unlike Marsha, Timothy and others, I actually posted evidence to support my claim:
    Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009

    I have also claimed that measles is a dangerous disease, which is also supported with actual evidence:
    The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review

    Now if Marsha, Timothy and the various Parker sock puppets disagree they are all invited to post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable researchers to support their claims. Insults, such as those used by Marsha, and “argument by blatant” assertion such of those used by Liz/Dina and other Parker sock puppets are not valid forms of evidence.

  103. Lawrence says:

    @marsha – why aren’t you using more recent information?

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6341a1.htm

  104. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – Marsha McClelland is very “public” in both her identity & her “viewpoints.”

    I don’t need Google to know that.

  105. novalox says:

    @timothy

    Still attempting to troll.

    And internet stalking, how quaint, smells of desperation by you since you and marsha cannot support your accusations with any real evidence.

    i await the childish insults to follow by you and marsha..

    @marsha

    Methinks you haven’t read the rest of the article. But then again, cherry picking is a common trait for you.

    And yes, making more Facebook and twitter rants isn’t going to make you look any more sane or rational.

  106. Timothy says:

    Here’s my claim.. vaccines contribute to autism.

    A new study published in the September 2014 volume of the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology reveals a significant correlation between Autism and MMR, Varicella and Hepatitis-A vaccines. They found that increases in Autism correspond with the introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines and retroviral contaminants. They also noted that not only are the human fetal contaminated vaccines associated with Autism, but also with childhood leukemia and lymphomas.

    http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JPHE/article-abstract/C98151247042

  107. Yes Lawrence, I’ll look no further. People can research to see all proving my point for themselves that less & less people are vaccinating.

    I’m sure this trend is elsewhere also. Some countries have banned vaccines & Bill Gates is being sued by at least two other countries.

    Another bogus article reporting on the decline>>>

    ‘Plunge in kindergartners vaccination rate worries healthofficials’

    http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-school-vaccines-20140903-story.html#page=1

    “California parents are deciding against vaccinating their kindergarten-age children at twice the rate they did seven years ago, a fact public health experts said is contributing to the reemergence of measles across the state and may lead to outbreaks of other serious diseases.”

    This rate drop goes especially for the toxic flu vaccine. Look it up. Mountains of proof here as well as the HPV vaccine dirt.

  108. jgc56 says:

    Uhh…Timothy? Any chance in hell you’ll ever respond with evidence suporting the claims you’ve made, which i’ve listed in my response to you @November 11, 2014 at 2:13 pm above? A yes-or-no answer would be appreciated.

  109. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – that “study?”

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/07/22/thermonuclear-stupid-about-vaccines-from/

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/09/09/religious-fundamentalists-try-to-prove-fetal-dna-in-vaccines-causes-autism-and-fail/

    You really are getting desperate now, aren’t you?

    Still have any idea of the difference between Mortality & Incidence?

  110. Lawrence says:

    Oh sorry – that was supposed to be directed to Timothy….perhaps he should read those links before using that “study” to support anything other than “religious fundamentalists will use anything against Science they don’t like” category of things.

  111. Timothy says:

    Lawrence,

    “Timothy – Marsha McClelland is very “public” in both her identity & her “viewpoints.”
    I don’t need Google to know that.”

    That’s not the type of information that Chris Haynes provided. She was definitely “Google Stalking”. But it’s OK when she makes a move like that, and it’s OK that novalox only insults people and play childish games without adding anything to the discussion of vaccines.

    So if people agree with your view point there are no rules, otherwise your rules apply?

    You want me to have a sincere discussion and debate with you, but that is impossible with the likes of Chris Haynes and novalox acting the way they do. It would only be a big waste of time.

  112. jgc56 says:

    Didn’t see the link to Deisher’s article when I began replying. Thank you for trying to actually support a claim. Unfortunately, you’ve failed: All Deisher et al are claiming is an observed correlation, and as I’m sure you’ve been reminded repeatedly correlation does not demonstrate causation.

    But it gets worse: the correlation is aritfactual–Deisher et al have unknowingly or willfully created the false impression of a correlation by performing an invalid statistical analysis on their chosen data-set.

    To see the details of exactly how this paper fails to support your claim vaccines are causally asociated with autism spectrum disorders I’d suggest you start with http://rationalcatholicblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/the-problems-with-deishers-study-part-i-the-numbers/

  113. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – how about talking about the actual Science, which I have just shown, invalidates your opinion in every way possible.

  114. jgc56 says:

    BTW, see how well that works Timothy? When you actually provide evidenceyou beleive supports a claim you’ve made we can examine it, determine if it does or does not credibly support that claim (in this case, the answer is it does not) and the dialogue advances.

  115. novalox says:

    @timothy

    When you actually post something of worth, them maybe you’ll be treated as an adult here.

  116. Timothy says:

    jgc56,

    “correlation does not demonstrate causation.” I agree and also that this study is all about correlation. But when you start adding up all of the “correlation” evidence, that is evidence in itself and should cause one to further investigate and be cautious.

    Regressive Autism, Heavy Metals, and Vaccines
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/

  117. jgc56 says:

    Marsha, let’s assume–simply for the sake of argument–that you’re correct and that “There’s a decline in vaccines because people are doing their own research”.

    You do understand that a decline–even a very large decline, which we are not seeing–in the number of people choosing to comply with the recommended routine childhood vaccination schedule wouldn’t represent evidence that vaccines were either unsafe or ineffective–don’t you?

  118. Timothy says:

    Here’s another one

    Study showing much more autism in those who got mercury-containing DTaP and Heb-B than those who got mercury-free versions.

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/2047-9158-2-25.pdf

  119. Timothy says:

    jgc56, This is interesting

    Autism listed as a side-effect of the Tripedia vaccine on the FDA’s website.
    Check page 11 of the PDF, the first sentence after the bullet points.

    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm101580.pdf

  120. Timothy says:

    Here’s more

    A 2009 study published in the journal Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry found that Thimerosal induces neural damage similar to that seen in autism patients.

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772240802246458

  121. Timothy says:

    If vaccines don’t contribute to Autism than the courts should stop awarding money for it; here’s another case of a family being awarded for vaccine induced Autism. The federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded Ryan Mojabi and his family a multi-million dollar settlement for autism as the result of an injury from the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine. Ryan’s family joins Hannah Poling and at least 85 others who have received judgments for vaccine-induced autism from the VICP.

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELL-SMITH.MOJABI-PROFFER.12.13.2012.pdf

  122. Timothy says:

    I could go on all day, and because I could go on all day with hundreds of these, that is all of the evidence I need.

  123. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – you quote the Geiers…that’s all I need to know about your so-called “sources.”

    And these are the “Geiers”

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/?s=Geiers

    And this as well:

    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?s=Geiers&submit=Search

    If that’s who you are relying upon for your opinions, no wonder you haven’t had a clue.

  124. Lawrence says:

    And your court case:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/15/david-kirbys-back-and-this-time-his-anti-vaccine-fear-mongering-induces-ennui/

    For every one you’ve got, there are mountains on the other side…seriously, you need to get some new reading material.

    But thank you for the opportunity to get real Science back in the conversation as well.

  125. Timothy says:

    Lawrence, as you can see there are many, many sources. Just another reason to believe in all of the evidence.

  126. Timothy says:

    Exactly, you’ve got one and I’ve got one, so doesn’t make a lot of sense to go on all day. In my opinion, all of this evidence together has value and along with my own experience, is enough for me.

  127. jgc56 says:

    Ewing’s paper similarly provides no evidence of a causal association between vaccination and autism spectrum disorders, and in fact the correlation he believes exists is between the introduction of live virus vaccines and a rise in new diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders, not necessarily a rise in the actual number of individuals with ASD’s in the population. That’s a significant difference, given that at the same time modified live virus vaccines came into use there were significant changes to the DSM resulted in broadened diagnostic criteria, and diagostic substitution (coupled with improved surveillance) cotnributing to the perceived increased incidence of diagnoses of ASD’s.

    Further, since Ewing published in 2009 several large meta-analyses have been completed finding no evidence of a causal association between vaccines and ASD’s (for example, 2014’s “Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies”, PMID:24814559)

    Again: thank you for trying to support your claim with evidence, but Ewing’s paper isn’t sufficient to support causality. I feel also that it’s important to remind you that one must consider the entire body of evidence regarding vacines and ASD’s when deriving conclusions, and that no single paper of itself would be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a causal association in light of the large body of evidence indicating otherwise.

  128. jgc56 says:

    “If vaccines don’t contribute to Autism than the courts should stop awarding money for it; here’s another case of a family being awarded for vaccine induced Autism.”

    The NVICP has never compensated anyone for developing an autism spectrum disorder as a consequence of being vaccinated, Timothy. Ryan Mojabi wasn’t compenated for developing autism but for suffering the table injury encephalopathy. Note also that compensation given for table injuries represents a settlement with no finding the vacines caused the injury compensated for.

  129. Timothy says:

    jgc56,

    “one must consider the entire body of evidence regarding vacines and ASD’s when deriving conclusions, and that no single paper of itself would be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a causal association”
    Agreed and the last part of the quote in my book would say, “in light of the large body of evidence supporting it.”

  130. Timothy says:

    “If vaccines don’t contribute to Autism than the courts should stop awarding money for it; here’s another case of a family being awarded for vaccine induced Autism.”

    “The NVICP has never compensated anyone for developing an autism spectrum disorder as a consequence of being vaccinated, Timothy. Ryan Mojabi wasn’t compenated for developing autism but for suffering the table injury encephalopathy. Note also that compensation given for table injuries represents a settlement with no finding the vacines caused the injury compensated for.”

    This is a big joke; we all know what is happening here. Fine lines and play on words, for legal and obvious other reasons.

  131. jgc56 says:

    Uhh–re: the Gier study? The data set the Giers and Brian Hooker analyzed was from VAERS and is unsuitable for this time of analysis.

    They had to know that, since the VAERS database features a prominent warning to researchers that the reports it contains cannot be used for this purpose.

    Re: tripedia

    Autism wasn’t listed as a side effect proven to be caused by the vaccine, but instead as one of several adverse events which were reported during post-approval use of Tripedia. If you’d bothered to keep reading the insert beyond the word ‘autism’ you ‘d have found the following text:

    “Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.”

  132. jgc56 says:

    “Agreed and the last part of the quote in my book would say, “in light of the large body of evidence supporting it.”

    I haven’t seen a large body of evidence supporting it. I haven’t seen a small body of evidence supporting it. In fact, I haven’t seen any evidence of a causal association between routine childhood vaccination and ASD’s at all.

  133. Timothy says:

    “Autism wasn’t listed as a side effect proven to be caused by the vaccine, but instead as one of several adverse events which were reported during post-approval use of Tripedia. If you’d bothered to keep reading the insert beyond the word ‘autism’ you ‘d have found the following text:
    “Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.”

    I did bother and I do understand, and yet, it is more evidence. Otherwise, they wouldn’t list it as a “reported” event if in fact, it wasn’t reported.

  134. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – you do know the difference between “reported” and proven, right?

  135. Timothy says:

    jgc56,

    “I haven’t seen a large body of evidence supporting it. I haven’t seen a small body of evidence supporting it. In fact, I haven’t seen any evidence of a causal association between routine childhood vaccination and ASD’s at all.”

    Come on, I’ve literally got over 200 studies supporting it in one way or another. You can critic and debate every single one of them and it won’t change that fact that they exist and for a reason. They all add up to a lot of evidence. Don’t forget the parents, which everybody disregards, they are the most important factor in all of this.

  136. Timothy says:

    Lawrence, I do thank you. Reported and reported and reported and reported all adds up as evidence.

    You do “understand” that – right?

  137. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – Given that you pull out papers by people such as the Geiers (who also love to chemically-castrate autistic children) shows how much “evidence” is required for you to have a particular belief.

    Enough said.

  138. jgc56 says:

    Not a joke at all: Ryan Mojabi wasn’t compensated for autism. Hannah Poling wasn’t compensated for autism. the NVICP has never compensated anyone for developing autism. In fact, neither meet the criteria for being diagnosed as having an ASD (Ryan Mojabi, for example, at his May 10, 2004sixteen month well-child visit evaluated using a Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (CHAT) screen which and didn’t exhibit any autistic behaviors: the screen indicated he was interested in other children, pretend play, peek-a-boo, points with index finger, makes eye contact, and brings object for show. he similarly passed a second CHAT screen at his twenty-four month well-baby check on January 25, 2005.)

  139. jgc56 says:

    “I did bother and I do understand, and yet, it is more evidence.”

    Yes it’s evidence, but it’s evidence that it’s been reported following vaccination but those reports cannot be considered evidence suggests it was caused by the vaccination.

  140. jgc56 says:

    “Come on, I’ve literally got over 200 studies supporting it in one way or another.”

    I hope that you didn’t lead off with what you consider the best evidence supporting your position, then. If the remaining papers are of lower quality than what you’ve offered so far there’s really no reason to go throug them.

    “You can critic and debate every single one of them and it won’t change that fact that they exist and for a reason.”

    They exist presumably because someone believed they credibly supported a causal association. As we’ve seen from the handful you’ve alreday cited, that wasn’t the case.

    And yes, I expect I will be able to critique every one of them and indicate where they fail to demonstrate the existence of a causal association. In fact, i expect that’s already been done before for all 200 papers.

    “They all add up to a lot of evidence.”
    Clearly that doesn’t follow, since the papers you’ve already cited didn’t add up to evidence.

    “Don’t forget the parents, which everybody disregards, they are the most important factor in all of this.”
    Most important factor in what context? I agree that it’s critical we work to provide both those with ASD’s as well as their families/caregivers all the support necessary to provide for their well-being and quality of life. Which is why I wish we’d move on so the resources we’re spending addressing the failed hypothesis that vaccines cause autism could be spent where they’re actually needed instead.

  141. Lawrence says:

    http://tinyurl.com/p3axccc

    Try these on for size….

  142. jgc56 says:

    “Lawrence, I do thank you. Reported and reported and reported and reported all adds up as evidence.”

    Direct question, timothy:

    Do you believe that intelligent, human-like extraterrestrials piloting interstellar vehicles routinely abduct random humans and subject them to medical examinations (which for some reason seem to involve an all-but-obligatory anal probing)? After all, it’s been (in your own words) “eported and reported and reported”.

    If not, will you explain to me the manner is which you distinguish between those bodies of anecdotal accounts you will accept as having ‘added up to evidence” andhose bodies of anecdotal accounts you will not accept as having “added up to evidence”?

  143. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – and all of those “papers” you claim support your opinion – yeah, not so much:

    http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2013/08/-those-lists-of-papers-that-claim-vaccines-cause-autism-part-1.html

  144. Chris says:

    Timothy: “Autism listed as a side-effect of the Tripedia vaccine on the FDA’s website.”

    Tripedia was discontinued three years ago:
    http://www.ashp.org/menu/DrugShortages/DrugsNoLongerAvailable/bulletin.aspx?id=764

  145. Chris says:

    With only a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, it looks like Graham Ewing of Montague Healthcare is not qualified.

    It looks like he churns out random papers as a business ploy. “Virtual screening”? It looks like some kind of therapy using pretty lights. So Mr. Ewing is also not reputable.

  146. Lawrence says:

    @Chris – okay….yeah, not an immunologist or vaccine researcher (or has any credentials in those related fields at all).

    Where the heck do the anti-vaccine folks find these “gems?”

  147. Timothy says:

    jgc56, I would like to continue our conversation and I do appreciate your sincere dialogue, but unfortunately, your buddies here are not going to allow it. Maybe another time, when these childish, condescending, arrogant, people are not around.

  148. Chris says:

    Lawrence: “Where the heck do the anti-vaccine folks find these “gems?””

    Apparently just clicking the link to his credentials on the paper makes me “childish, condescending, arrogant” according to Timothy. 😉

  149. Timothy says:

    You got it Chris Haynes.

  150. Lawrence says:

    @timothy – god forbid we should evaluate the credentials of the nitwits who put out this anti-vaccine nonsense…..

    I’m sure you just go out & grab random people on the street for auto or plumbing repairs too – heck, who needs experts when anyone will do, right?

    The stupid, it burns!

  151. Timothy says:

    Lawrence, so individuals with MD’s, PHD’s and alike don’t count? Interesting, since some of your rebuttal links go directly to blogs! People with no credentials, just opinions.

  152. Timothy says:

    No credentials from this institution, they are all idiots – right?

    MIT – Aluminum, Vaccines and Autism.
    “We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever.”

    http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227

  153. Timothy says:

    Pub Med Study – Elevated levels of Measles antibodies in children with autism.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12849883

  154. Timothy says:

    Aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159

  155. Lawrence says:

    Timothy wins anti-vaccine bingo!

    Quacks, cranks and charlatans, oh boy!

  156. Chris says:

    Timothy: “Lawrence, so individuals with MD’s, PHD’s and alike don’t count?”

    Depends. This is where the “reputation” bit comes in. Mark Geier has an MD, but he lost his medical license almost everywhere. VK Singh work with Hugh Fudenberg (who also lost his medical license), and he left the Univ. of Utah years ago, so the last I saw him he was shilling for transfactor. Stephanie Seneff has a PhD in Elec. Engr and computer science, so she does not have the appropriate credentials. Tomljenovic and Shaw are just incompetent. As are the all of the others above.

    You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

  157. Chris says:

    Lawrence: “Quacks, cranks and charlatans, oh boy!”

    The petri dish studies are just adorable.

  158. jgc56 says:

    Timothy. re: Singh paper concerning elevated levels of measles antibodies, I fail to see how it provides support for a causal association between vaccination and ASD’s. Singh made no attempt, after all, to demonstrate the elevated antibodies measured were due to vaccination–in fact, as far as I can tell he made no attempt to ascertain the immunization status of any of his subjects, autistic or otherwise.

    You do understand why that prevents this paper from representing support for your claim, don’t you?

  159. jgc56 says:

    Timothy, re: “Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure”, the authors again are trying to draw conclusions by analysis of reports in the VAERS database. You do understand why this is a problem, and the paper does not represent evidence in support of your position, don’t you?

  160. Chris says:

    jgc: “You do understand why this is a problem, and the paper does not represent evidence in support of your position, don’t you?”

    It is quite obvious he doesn’t.

  161. jgc56 says:

    Timothy, re: Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?

    Tomljenovic and Shaw? Really? If you’re not already familiar with these researchers and the studies they’ve authored and why they fail to be credible support for a causal association between vaccines and ASD’s I can only conclude you haven’t really studied the evidence for and against vaccine safety in any real depth and are throwing out citations in anarticle fails attempt to overwhelm by seer volume–a Gish Gallop as it were.

    For details of how this T&S article fails see http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2013/07/10/comment-on-do-aluminum-vaccine-adjuvants-contribute-to-the-rising-prevalence-of-autism/

  162. jgc56 says:

    BTW, Timothy–can I expect you to reply to my question regarding whether you believe aliens routinely abduct human subjects and submit them to medical exams anytime soon?

  163. Lawrence says:

    @Timothy – you do realize that we’ve seen all of these citations before, right? Not only that, but because they keep getting brought up by the anti-vaccine crowd, we’ve actually taken the time to deconstruct the science & understand the underlying failings of each and every single one of them.

    Have you? Can you actually understand the science (or lack thereof) behind the studies you cite or do you just take them at face value?

    See, that’s a key difference between those who actually read and understand science and the research and those that just regurgitate the crap that the folks at AoA spew out onto the Internet….

    @JGC – I would agree. He’s using the exact same series of tired old articles and studies – who are actually refuted in one of my links above as well. It is painfully obvious that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

  164. Timothy says:

    Chris Haynes,

    “Depends. This is where the “reputation” bit comes in.”

    If this is the case than nobody would be taking you seriously.

  165. Lawrence says:

    That’s okay Timothy, you’ve got about as much credibility as those junk citations that you don’t even understand.

  166. jgc56 says:

    Timothy, re: Thimerosal-Derived Ethylmercury Is a Mitochondrial Toxin in Human Astrocytes: Possible Role of Fenton Chemistry in the Oxidation and Breakage of mtDNA, how did you fail to notice 1) it looks at effects in isolated astrocytes grown in culture, not in whole organisms and 2) at levels of exposure far, far greater than achievable by routine vaccination?

    You do understand why this is a problem, and the paper does not represent evidence in support of your position, don’t you?

  167. jgc56 says:

    “No credentials from this institution, they are all idiots – right?”
    You’re not getting it, Timothy. Arguments stand or fall on the own merit, not on the reputations of those advancing them. Maybe they’re all brilliant, maybe they’re not–it doesn’t matter, The question is, as always, what does the available evidence support?

  168. Chris says:

    jgc56: “The question is, as always, what does the available evidence support?”

    That is very true. Some have the requisite education, like Chris Shaw and Theresa Deisher, but they muck it up by starting with the result and trying to mash the data to make it fit. This is where “reputation” comes in.

    Of course, many of the “researchers” of the papers listed did not have the actual qualifications, even if they had gone to medical school. Mark Geier had no epidemiology training (and now he has no medical license). Just like Brian Hooker is also not an epidemiologist.

  169. Timothy says:

    test test test

  170. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – how can you recognize “real” science when you can’t even tell the difference between mortality & incidence rates?

  171. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – unfortunately, you’ve shown little to no actual understanding of the Science involved, no comprehension of basic biology or chemistry & you merely parrot any and all anti-vaccine tropes you can find (anything that you think remotely supported your pre-conceived notions about vaccines) – despite even a grade-schooler being able to point out that nothing that has been posted by either yourself or Timothy holds water (or even says what you say it does).

    Doesn’t think give you even a pause? That something as simple as incidence vs. mortality escapes your understanding?

  172. jgc56 says:

    “Thank you Timothy. People looking for the real science appreciate you.”

    But as I’ve pointed out for the publications that Timothy provided citations for, they fail to be that ‘real science’: they either made fundamental errors in their analysis of their data set (as is the case with the Dreisher, Gier and Tomljenovic & Shaw publications) serious methodologic errors in the performance of their research (as in the Singh publication where no attempt was made to demonstrate that the elevated antibodies measured were due to vaccination) or simply don’t provide support for Timothy’s claim vaccines contribute to autism (as in the case with the Sharpe publication, where the authors looked at the effects of thimerosal on isolated cells in culture at concentrations far greater than achievable by routine vaccination).

  173. jgc56 says:

    BTW, Marsha: I note that although you’ve returned topost you still haven’t identified what facts you beleive we’re ignoring. Any chance you’ll ever be so kind as to do so?

    If you are in position of facts I’m unaware of which would demonstrate that my understanding of the safety and/or efficacy of routine vaccination isn’t accurate, I sincerely wish to consider them and if necessary revise ny position.

    On the other hand, if (as was the case with Tim’s citations) I’m not only aware of them but understood and can explain where they fail to demonstrate vaccines are either unsafe or ineffective, I’d hope you’d also be sincerely interested in being considering those explanations so you could do the same.

  174. Chris says:

    “Too many of us setting the record straight for that.”

    So do tell us the “real science” so we can see that straight record.

    And when you are at it, please provide the verifiable economic analysis that explains clearly why it is cheaper to treat diseases like measles, pertussis, etc instead of preventing them.

  175. Lawrence says:

    @Marsha – you claims are now bordering on the delusional…we’ve pointed out the actual, factual flaws with your “evidence,” and you continue to cling to them…..

    Still can’t answer the simple question about incidence / mortality, can you?

  176. jgc56 says:

    “You guys keep ignoring the real science, twisting & spinning while we continue to wake the masses.”

    Then please, Marsha: direct me to that real science. After all, I can’t consider it if you won’t tell me what it is and as my post’s above show I’m perfectly willing to examine the citations I’m offered.

  177. Here’s what opened my eyes years ago.

    Vaccine Nation

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/vaccine-nation/

    There are mountains of overwhelming evidence & science fact here but the deniers will say all sorts of things as usual. Watch & learn for yourselves. Listen to no one. Investigate both sides of this issue before you give your child one more vaccine.

  178. jgc56 says:

    Marsha, why have you provided a links to documentary films rather than to whatever evidence you belevie supports the claims you’ve made?

    I mean, you do have some–don’t you?

  179. novalox says:

    @marsha

    You do know that highly biased anti-vaccine and untruthful movies that contains little to no actual scienceand that no rational person has heard of doesn’t count as evidence, right honey?

    Also, I showed some friends at the hospital your facebook page, and they had a laugh at how unhinged you are and that they stated no person in their right mind would believe a word you say.

    So keep having fun whirling at imaginary monsters, you do serve a public service after all, showing how out of touch anti-vaxxers really are.

  180. Chris says:

    Marsha: “So you missed all that evidence, huh?”

    Yes, because I have yet to see you post any PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers. And I am still waiting for that verifiable economic analysis that shows that it is cheaper to treat diseases instead of preventing them.

    Movies are not verifiable evidence.

  181. Gray Falcon says:

    Marsha, there are films out there produced by the Flat Earth Society. Should we believe them, because they have films?

  182. Lawrence says:

    @marsha – the one good thing that the inane ramblings of the anti-vax brigade has done for me personally is required me to brush up on my research and science education.

    I have taken the time to actually read and understand the Science presented, re-learned whole sections of statistics that I had forgotten from college, and gain even more insights into the latest advances in immunology, biology and epidemiology.

    I can now hold my own in in-depth conversations about disease, vaccines, and statistical analysis. I now have a much better understanding of the history of disease and disease prevention, and I can evaluate new research as it is presented through the lens of science, logic and reason.

    It seems that all you do is regurgitate the same old anti-vax talking points and studies, even after being shown, by actual facts, that they are wrong (and exactly why they are wrong).

    Your recent comments sound exactly like someone repeating, over and over again, that 2 + 2 = 5, after I’ve shown you that the real answer is 4 (and why it is 4). Keep going Marsha, because you sound more and more unhinged with each post and expose the hollowness of the anti-vax position, since you can’t defend your opinion with actual science.

  183. Chris says:

    Here are some nice stories that Marsha will love: Vaccine Preventable Disease – The Forgotten Story

  184. Liz says:

    Sure, read about the children who died of VPDs. But then don’t forget to read about the children killed or permanently disabled by vaccines, to get a complete picture you need to be aware of before vaccinating. Read The Thinking Moms’ Revolution for starters.

  185. Lawrence says:

    @ms Parker – why would anyone care what a bunch of uneducated nitwits had to say?

    Since you, among them, don’t get beer stand basic chemistry or biology, much less statistics and immunology, best to just stay away.

  186. Chris says:

    Ms. Parker (who seems to Liz today), just post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that more children were killed by vaccines than the diseases. Since influenza kills about a hundred kids per year, you have that as a data point.

    And we really don’t care what the Drinking Moms Revolt has to say.

  187. jgc56 says:

    Marsha, documentaries don’t constitute evidence.

    Unlike peer-reviewed journal publications, there’s no system in place to vet the accuracy of the statements made by the subjects of documentaries, and as a result anyone can claim anything they wish regardless of the truth or falsehood of their statements—just look at Ben Stein’s 2008 documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” if you doubt this, any of the documentaries providing ‘evidence’ that 9/11 was an inside job, or Alex Jones’ documentaries regarding the coming of the New World Order and the existence of FEMA interment camps.

    Hell, there are two documentaries out ‘proving’ that Stan Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment cures intractable cancers.

    Al Gore made a very well received documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” addressing climate change. Although it effectively calls attention to the issue, the documentary can’t be considered evidence that human activities are contributing to global warming. The actual evidence this is the case is instead the extensive body of peer-reviewed studies cited in the bibliography of the IPCC’s reports on climate change.

    Does that make the difference between documentaries and evidence clearer? What I’ve asked you for is the equivalent of the studies cited by the IPCC in their report, but addressing vaccine safety rather than climate change.

  188. jgc56 says:

    “Sure, read about the children who died of VPDs. But then don’t forget to read about the children killed or permanently disabled by vaccines, to get a complete picture you need to be aware of before vaccinating.”

    Liz, your evidence that vaccines annually kill or disable more people every year than are killed or disabled by the infectious diseases that they protect against would be what, exactly? Be specific.

    For example, in 2013, the World health organization documents 145,700 measles deaths worldside. that works out to an average of about 400 deaths every day. Can you provide documenting that the MMR vaccine caused as many or more deaths that year, or in fact in any year since routine MMR vaccination was put in place?

    “Read The Thinking Moms’ Revolution for starters.”

    How have those ‘Thinking Moms’ factually established that the injuries they beleive were caused by vaccines were in fact caused by vaccines? If I recall correctly most of the moms posting at that website are parents of children with autism spectrum disorders, which is not causally associated with vaccination.

  189. Lawrence says:

    RFK Jr. has nothing to do with the Autism movement…..

  190. Chris says:

    Latest? From a lawyer whose Rolling Stone article was full of errors, and he still thinks thimerosal is in most pediatric vaccines? Kennedy’s ignorant lamentations are over fifteen years out of date.

Leave a Reply

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