Weekend Update: A Little of the Personal, along with the Countering

Interesting morning as alway. Rick snoring away on the couch, thinking that Saturdays are for sleeping in. Don't blame him. The littlest garden girlie keeps bringing her considerable pile of stuffed care bears into the living room and dropping on the floor, looking at them for a minute before picking them up and taking them back to the playroom before starting it all over again. The bigger garden girlie just read the children's bible cover to cover the last couple days, and has been chatting nonstop about how many stories were in it, and then proceeding to go into deep detail about each one of them,. The bright boy, who will be 20 in 10 days, is in his room watching Saturday morning cartoons. Mabel sitting on the printer next to my chair, staring me down. Other cats are off doing their various staring at kids. They watch us like they are taking notes so that they can report to their superior, you know? Humans engaged in blah blah instead of petting us.

My brothers are both home from their respective surgeries and hospital stays. It looks like tumor boy will be just fine. I've got to come up with a new nickname for him, acrylic plate boy doesn't have quite the right ring to it. Fredless boy? Whatamess? Plastic head boy? You know, how do you strike just the right tone to convey your sisterly love? I am so profoundly grateful that baby brother is going to be okay, that there is no sign that it was cancer. It looks to have been a dermoid cyst (we'll have to wait for path to verify). Bagless Wonder (colostomy reversed just fine) is doing really well, handled it all pretty darn good. I was sitting with him watching a law and order episode which dealt with bipolar (not well, either), and he looked over at me and asked if he had that. Just the week before a childhood friend visited with us and he was able to say to the friend that he had bipolar but was asymptomatic, so it was interesting for him to talk about it again. Self-reflection is not something he's always great about engaging in. I confirmed that, yes, he had bipolar (whether the schizophrenia was drug-induced and has now resolved five years later, I did not go into), that was why he was on medicine for it, but on the medicine, he wasn't having any symptoms. I enjoyed my visits with him while my mom was in another town with tumor boy and his surgery. He was calm, talkative (he has not been for nearly five years, since his stroke and subsequent speech difficulties), and good company. This is a huge thing. Huge.

The semester here is winding down. This week coming up is finals, both for me to give and to take, so I will be stepping away from the blogosphere until Wednesday so that  I can grade papers, close up shop on the semester, and study far past my heart's content on A & P and chemistry. Isn't that something? Committing to just not looking at this for a few days while I let the real world take over?

In other news, Craig's decided to talk to me over here. What a pleasant surprise to see him back at Countering, even if some of the exchanges are heated. Friends, like Craig says, can disagree. Heck, it wouldn't be any fun if we were in lockstep; what would we talk about, right?  Of course, Craig is also busy over at Huff talking to me, as well.

On Huff, Craig's still taking me to task for Becky's site:

"Really? So the "C" word is not misogynistic? Really?


What about the other very rude and very personal attacks against John Stone and a few others..ca­lling them certain parts of the male anatomy. Yeah, perfectly fine with those comments, aren't ya?"

Yet, he posts this over here:

"Kenny sniveled:

""Fere If doh bontrobersy"

This is all wrong. Fricative articulations, such as the B and F sounds, are not possible under the circumstances imagined by Kim. It would sound more like "Air ik go gonkaherky.""

Ah, I see. So, Ken, you have a lot of experience with "having your mouth full" (wink wink) while talking. Well, it's pretty obvious that you don't know how to keep it shut, so I'm pretty sure that Orac can put whatever he wants in it."

So, let me just say again: Ken and Craig are grown men. I call them both friends, because that's the kind of gal I am. Heck, I'd even be Roger's friend. I am not refereeing  between them and my refusal to do so is not an indication of my preference.

I call out AoA and other like sites on their woo, not because they use foul language. I love physioprof and my crush on him because of his way with words is probably only exceeded by Thelma's crush on him, so the accusation that I have a problem with obscenities is frakking asurd. I tend not to really cuss here because I have students who do occasionally READ this. I most assuredly can cuss like a sailor, but try to keep that restricted to where it is appropriate to do so. I also try to make sure I comment and write from a rational rather than enraged disposition. Having hissy fits makes you the object of laughter, not respect. Cold, hard logic carry the day every time, and you have the added bonus of being able to say you took the high road.

Okay, Craig: I am done commenting at Huff. I don't have time, so I'm going to give you my thoughts about where we are so far:

You are locked into your position. Fine and dandy. Stay there. Be happy in your anger. I think you're spinning your wheels.

Thousands of people believe aliens abducted them Thousands believe Elvis is alive. Thousands believe the moon landing was faked. Thousands believe the earth is flat. Thousands believe the holocaust didn't happen. They believe mind control is possible.

People believe all sorts of things. Doesn't make it real. We are hardwired to come up with causes for the things that happen to us. No way around it. A happened in vicinity to B, so A causes B. Doesn't mean that isn't the case sometimes. Doesn't mean it is, either. Science helps sort out when things like vaccines cause certain side effects. It's how the first rotavirus vaccine got pulled. It caused 15 cases of intussusception. It was discovered and pulled.

I am not discounting your story. I have posted it here. I have supported you. Period.

Those thousands of parents you stand by and insist have vaccine-induced autism in their children: how many of them had the vaccines, no reaction, kid gets diagnosed a year later, they've heard Jenny, read AoA and make a connection after the fact?

Your argument that thousands of people can't be wrong is bogus. Our recollections are notoriously and scientifically shown to be horrendously inaccurate. Period. It's time for you to pick up some books dealing with memory, with cognitive heuristics, and consider that what we remember can be wrong.

Now, I have shit to do that's far more important than banging my head on the wall. And that ain't sulking; that's acknowedging that there's no point in continuing this argument with you right now when the real world demands are far more important.

Show me where Orac called you a liar, and then explain to me why that should be shocking to me. After all, if you can blow off your angry rants as venting steam, surely Orac could use that as well?

Misogyny is directed to women. Writing pot, kettle c**nt; well, that's funny. It is. Unless you're the c**t. Bad Becky. Potty-mouthed Becky. Noticed you have a potty mouth, too. Potty mouths aren't my concern.

My problem with AoA is lies. Misinformation. The damned holocaust references. The insinuation that women, whatever their position, if they disagree with the notion that vaccines must cause autism are sucking someone's d**k, intellectually raped or drinking cool-aid, well that's in poor taste at best and dismissive of the idea that women are capable of thought and making up their own minds. The promotion of the idea that autistic people are not real people; the real child was stolen and needs to be recovered. Dangerous quack treatments. Working to subvert people being protected from preventable diseases. The idea that death is preferable to autism. The lack of recognition that their words impact autistic adults and marginalize them. And more.

If you're good with all that because they support you, then by all means, you are free to remain within their loving arms. After all, you respect them.

Onto other things and closing thoughts:
Louise and Thelma took a look at ChildHealthSafety yesterday, exploring interconnections between John Stone and Clifford Miller. It's a rousing read, as usual.



Best: if you're good, your comments can stay. I'm still checking email, so if you get nasty, I'll take the time away from my other tasks to come delete you. Deal?

Bad Taste: JB Handley and symbolic cannibalism By David N. Brown

Bad Taste: JB Handley and symbolic cannibalism

By David N. Brown

This is a PUBLIC DOMAIN document (dated 12/2/09). It may be copied, forwarded, cited,
circulated or posted elsewhere. The author requests only that it not be altered from its current
form.

Late last week AoA set off an instant cloud of indignation by posting “A Thanksgiving Nightmare”,
which consisted of a “photoshopped” image in which Paul Offit and others are shone at a Thanksgiving
meal with a baby as the main course. In an unparalleled display of good judgment, they have deleted
the post. Unfortunately, they did not do so fast enough to keep critics from copying and pasting it to
their own sites, where it could have the same unintended consequences as the video of Dukakis driving
a tank. Even more unfortunately, while AoA was working their way to the only sensible decision,
Handley stepped in with this comment to Respectful Insolence:

I'm exceptionally proud of the blog AoA has become. To characterize it, however, as an
initiative of Generation Rescue is simply untrue. In point of fact, AoA is far bigger than
Generation Rescue, and has dozens of contributors who have nothing at all to do with GR. For
what it's worth, neither I nor anyone at GR plays an editorial role in AoA.

One of the many reasons AoA poses such a threat to people like you is that it represents the
views of a large and growing community, a view that challenges the status quo, and a view that
many more Americans each day are growing to share - partly due to the tireless efforts of AoA.
It's also a view that, given your past inaccurate proclamations, you certainly pray is untrue: that
the prevalence of autism is growing, that the environment is playing a heavy role, and that
vaccines appear to be the #1 culprit.

The photo in question that you feign exasperation for is a comedic style known as "satire" that
also deals in metaphors. It may have gone over your head, I found it hilarious, if only I had
been clever enough to think of it myself.

So, Handley denies responsibility for this post. Fair enough. (But, it strains credulity for him to deny a
role in AoA's choice of material: His group is an acknowledged sponsor of AoA, and he regularly
contributes articles.) He editorializes that his overall position is supported by fact and opinion. That is
altogether beside the point. Finally, he suggests to those who disapprove that the material “may have
gone over your head”, with the implication that this work is something of sophistication. I will take
him up on the final argument.

While some critics seem offended by the image alone, I have no serious problem with it. Cannibalism
is a significant theme in literature and media,which has been treated in artistically powerful and
socially meaningful ways. There is Dante's portrayal of Ugolino and Ruggieri in Hell (above). There
is Swift's “A Modest Proposal”. There are George Romero's “zombie” movies, especially Dawn of the
Dead.

So, let us discuss the AoA post as satire and metaphor, and let us compare it to similar works of
udisputed merit, like the examples I have named. Use of resources? George Romero made Night of
the Living Dead for $114,000, less than some contemporary TV commercials. AoA, armed with
technology inconceivable in the 1960s, comes up with something that a child could do with scissors
and paste in 15 minutes. Characterization and insight into human nature? The damned of Inferno are
consistently vivid and often sympathetic characters. AoA's collection of villains are nothing but faces
pasted on a collection of otherwise anonymous and interchangeable figures. Underlying messages?

Dante protested the practice of avenging one man's wrongs by killing his children. Swift protested
indifference and abuse toward the poor. Romero took on targets as diverse as heavy-handed law
enforcement officers, “consumer” culture, and self-assured science. AoA compares telling parents that
they should provide their children with protection against deadly diseases to killing children
intentionally.

Then there is the issue of social class. Cannibalism, as a literary theme, is most prominent and
poignant as a symbol of the harm done by social inequality. Swift “proposes” that the aristocrats eat
the peasants. Romero's proletarian undead rise (in every sense) against the symbols of law and order,
commerce and science. This post, and reactions to it, reveals significant tensions and contradictions in
the anti-vaccine movement's sense of identity. They condemn those who defend vaccines for allegedly
becoming wealthy from vaccines. (In this, they flatly contradict easily established economic realities;
see “Profit? What Profit??”) Yet, they themselves are consistently middle or upper class. On top of
that, their favored pejorative (as seen in an obscene comment by Stagliano) is “prostitute”, which
historically and culturally is applied far more often to the poor by the rich than vice versa. (It also
presents a very convenient symbol for “new money”.) The common argument that sanitation and
nutrition are more valuable than vaccines in preventing disease also carries the baggage of social
stratification. Then (returning to the posts at hand) there is Handley's condescending critique of critics.
He effectively proposes that those who approve of the image are socially and intellectually
sophisticated, while those who disapprove are not. Needless to say, one can hardly take this as
anything but elitism.

This is a complete reversal of the ideals which the likes of Dante and Swift stood for, and on a practical
level is a virtual abdication of social responsibility.. He tells anyone who will listen not to vaccinate
when they can buy supposedly better food and medical care. But, even if this were true in theory, it
would be of no help in practice to those who cannot afford such things. Instead, it makes those who are
already most vulnerable even more so through the deterioration of “herd immunity”. And, in the final
analysis, even the best defenses of the well-off have proven to be of little use when the rest of the
population is already engulfed by a pandemic. Ultimately, as illustrated by Romero, elitist conceit will
only bite you in the rear end.

David N. Brown is a semipro author, diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome as an adult. Previous
works include the novels The Worlds of Naughtenny Moore, Walking Dead and Aliens Vs
Exotroopers, and the nonfiction ebook The Urban Legend of Vaccine-Caused Autism. This and
other articles related to autism are available free of charge at evilpossum.weebly.com.

Updated and reformatted.

Huff: the place where comments disappear and discourse is hamstrung

The friend who no longer reads me and I have been having a series of exchanges that appear and then magically go poof over at Huff. So, for posterity sake, and because, gosh, a one-sided conversation looks frikking weird, I'm going to include the other end of the conversation. Now, because it ticks the friend who will not read me off if I just pull a sentence of his out, I will include his entire statement, that and because some of the best bits went poof before I screen captured. Not gonna happen this time, no sir. I have finals to study for and I don't wanna do that, so this is a good distraction. Damn shame my friend won't read this here. Maybe he'd be inclined to wish me luck, you know, if he did?  After all, he says in his comment that friends can disagree and still be friends.


Let me set it up for you: I say that AoA is bad for the thanskgiving fiasco and being nasty to reporters. Craig points out that Orac can be mean, too, but I don't chew him out. I respond back, bad Orac and when have I not supported Craig? Oh, and what was his point, other than that he was mad at me.

He writes:

"The point, Kim, is that the people whom you claim are "science-based" are just as guilty if not more guilty than AoA is of your accusations.


And yet, you say nothing to them. In fact, to all appearances, you both support and encourage it.

I'm someone who, when I see something that I feel is wrong, I say something. I did so at AoA. Do I have less respect for them? Absolutely not. Friends can disagree. I felt their article was inappropriate, and I let them know that. Honestly, I am glad they took it down.

But when Orac posts his drivel, to my observations, you are perfectly ok with his personal and mean spirited attacks. When he and Ken have done their personal attacks on me (like calling me a liar about my son's condition), whether warranted or not, have you supported me? No. But, you sure are quick to call me out on it when I do it, though.

Ms. Stagliano has supported me. Her and AoA were there for me when my son was at his most violent, and their advice and soft shoulders helped me out more than hundreds of doctors ever have. They have never judged me. They have never called me an idiot. They understand my anger and my contempt for these "doctors" who are morally obligated to help people, but instead high five each other over the best zings they can come up with."

My reply:

Then, from all appearances, based on your comment, you have no problem with lies. Or you'd have stood up when they printed something that was demonstrably untrue.

You have a martyr chip on your shoulder. So, Ken is Orac's dog, and I am his cheerleader? You are stuck. Stuck in the rut of going around insisting to all who will hear you that you have been mistreated. If they acknowledge that mistreatment, all's fine and dandy for a minute before you need to get your rage on. And on you are to your next person, to discuss a generic they and their sins against you.

You are being inconsistent. I cannot police everyone's comments, nor is it my job to do so.

Again, I have supported you, not called you a liar regarding your son's adverse reaction, posted your story on my blog.

You know full well I am not going to blindly endorse the falsehoods that AoA and like organizations put out. If you feel that you have no choice but to remain loyal to AoA because they were there for you, that's your choice.
About Autism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost



Real dialogue can't take place under moderation. It cannot. Now, without moderation, it certainly can get uncivil. But free exchange does not occur where third parties decide what gets on and what gets pulled. Huff and AoA stifle free exchange. Where your ideas and your evidence are strong enough, you don't need censorship. (Unless the person you are banning is a complete asshat, Lurker).

I have little respect for the ideas or the comments that Rileysmom often makes, however, she's right about this:

 "You want to talk about character assasanation. There is plenty going back and forth here. You people aren't any better so Sheldon get off your high horse...yo­u are no different, you just aren't as blunt as some of the others. You have a condescending nature to your post. How's that any different than being blatantly rude?


Everyone is guilty of this (even me), don't accuss others unless you and yours are ready to look in the mirror."

She's also unabashedly anti-vaccine. She owns her words and her positions and she doesn't waver:

"I am ANTI vaccine. I don't believe at this point in time there are TRULY safe vaccines, period. I don't recommend any vaccines.

Once again, I will state, I'm ANTI VACCINE. I make NO apologizes for that. I sure don't owe you or anyone on this board an apology for watching what happened to my child and speaking up about it."

I respect honesty. She's not changing her avowed position to suit who she's speaking to; she's not pretending in one vein that she's for safe vaccines and then going out of her way to sabotage folks from getting vaccinated. She is upfront about it. She's wrong. But, she like Kathy Blanco, let you know where they stand. And she admits when she goes overboard. She isn't too sorry about it, but she OWNS it.

And some of her stuff, when she talks about her children, well, you can see the person, the mom, and not the anti-vaxxer. You can see her humor and her humanity. And she sounds like someone I could have coffee with if we could agree to talk about our children and things in general and not talk about religion. Sort of like how atheists and believers can be good friends.

AoA  and most of its loyalists spend precious little time seeing the humanity in others who follow the science. It's anger and vitriol and ugliness. Sometimes, it's not. I work to acknowledge when their humanity shows, where they let the ugly go and share the good. They don't do that often. And most of the time their recovery stories are all about the products.

So, like Rileysmom, I'm not going to apologize for standing. Someone's got to. At least I'm not alone. Not all of the scientifically minded folks do it with sweetness and lightness. Some of them sling it back and sling hard. I've yet to see as much nastiness on their part as on the anti-vaxxers. Some have used the kool-aid gambit. I don't like that and I've often explained that and why. But NONE I have ever seen have EVER sunk to the low of Stagliano's blowjob remark or Handley's date rape drug and intellectual rape of Amy Wallace. Now, I don't read everything out there, because for goodness' sake, I have three children with autism, a husband who needs to be queued like the Sims games we both love, parents, brothers (the bagless wonder and fredless boy), students, friends who all need attention. I have courses to prep for, plagiarizers to catch. I have classes I'm taking. So, no, I don't go to forums or groups, other than the ones I belong to or run. I don't wander around to blogs not on my blog list (except for that edgy blog, AoA). I don't see a whole lot of the ugliness and the meanness that go on. Thankfully. I see AoA and I see Huff. Can you imagine if they didn't moderate. They deliberately let the one-sided ugly on. Lovely. At least if you post at Orac's it's getting on. That's a hell of a lot more than AoA. You get to speak your say, take your lumps, dish them out, all like you've got your big girl panties or big boy underoos on.

And Orac, despite his insolence, has facts behind him. Verifiable facts. Wow. Ain't that something.

Guess that makes me a cheerleader.

Barbarians at the gate, by Ken Reibel

J.B. Handley, the founder of Generation Rescue, doesn't understand why the AAP won't take him seriously.


"The AAP doesn't listen at all, Larry," Handley told talk show bore and legendary quack enabler Larry King earlier this year. "They never look at recovered children. They never look at recovered children."

It's a sure sign that Handley is on a roll when he repeats himself.

"They rubber stamp every vaccine on the schedule," he continued, as King adjusted his suspenders and tried to remember what AAP stands for. "Dr. Fisher never answered why so few countries have picked up varicella, flu or rotavirus. Meantime, AAP rubber stamps every vaccine, like Gardasil, which is damaging teenaged girls right now, which will likely be pulled from the market very soon. There is the AAP rubber stamp on that vaccine."

These days, the only people taking JB seriously are gullible talk show hosts, and the malcontents who post at AgeOfAutism.com, the on-line water cooler for the anti-vaccine movement. Handley's movement is sinking fast, and he knows it. What he has failed to grasp is the inevitability of it all.

For years, the forces of vaccine rejectionism have been fighting a rear guard action against a growing wave of published science, skeptical judges, and public opinion. First they tried to argue the science, but the universe remained stubbornly mechanistic. Failing that, a phalanx of anti-vaccine lawyers and professional witnesses took their case to the courts, hoping to fool the judges as easily as Handley fools Larry King. They lost spectacularly. Finally, the news and entertainment media herd took notice, resulting in brazen acts of journalistic accuracy from Wired, the Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, the New York Times, and others.


Today, Handley and his followers, or what Jenny McCarthy calls the "angry mob", are under siege, barricaded in Crazy Town. Starved for attention, they subsist on gluten-free wallpaper paste, pigeons, and the occasional lost reporter that wanders into the village. What to do? A meeting of lieutenants was called.



"We need reinforcements," said Kent Heckenlively, the bravest and smartest lieutenant of all. "Our numbers are small, but surely if our message is heard, and unfiltered by science, justice, and popular narrative, we can attract more followers. I've been thinking about this a lot. I've been thinking about this a lot."

He had everyone's attention.

"Take our fight to the ballot box. That way we can bypass all the people who are against us."

"If we can fool Larry King, we can fool Joe Sixpack who doesn't know a T-cell from a D-cup," said Kim Stagliano, and the other's nodded at such a wise observation.

"Ballot initiatives are expensive, time consuming propositions," continued Heckenlively. "We'll need money. Lots of it. We must get word to the other anti-vaccine groups. Lieutenant Blaxill, fetch me a carrier pigeon."



**Obviously, satire has been engaged in.**

Folks arguing at Huff that babies shouldn't get the same H1N1 vaccine dose

Ummm, they don't. It's amazing what two minutes of googling reputable sites will net you.


0.25mL prefilled syringe, 6–35 mos TIV* Fluzone Sanofi Pasteur

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/dosage.htm



For H1N1 Inactivated*

Sanofi Pasteur

0.25 mL prefilled syringe

0 Mercury

6--35 mos

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5839a3.htm



An adult gets 5.0mL. Big difference, don't you think?
About Autism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Folks, it's such fun at Huff. Don't you want in on the chuckles?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-stagliano/dr-paul-offit-pope-of-the_b_329919.html?show_comment_id=35670498#comment_35670498

ChildHealthSafety writes :

kwombles,



Thanks for linking to that abusive blog containing foul language and disparaging attacks on people who raise justified concerns for the health and safety of children.

It is a perfect example of the extreme.

Don't you just want to take a peek? Offer a comment over there. We wouldn't want John Stone/ChildHealthSafety to get lonely.

And the sanctimoniousness is getting a little deep. After all, we shouldn't leave it to Sheldon to do all the commenting and countering!

When all else fails and you don't want to deal with the argument being made....

"Oh, Kim; that is extremely disappointing. The blogsite you linked is riddled with personal attacks and insulting language in similar or worse taste as you accuse Ms. Stagliano of. But you're ok with it and think Ms. Stagliano's comments are in poor taste? Come on!" --Craig taking me to task for posting the link to Becky's blog showing that John Stone is running the ChildHealthSafety blog.


My comment:


Craig, what was interesting about that, leave aside the namecalling (after all, if you don't mind holocaust denial), was the allegation that ChildHealthSafety is John Stone's blog.

And seriously, have you read some of your comments? Have you? Have you really? Until you're the bastion of decency and sweetness and lightness, until you assert that posting on a site that believes the holocaust didn't happen and mind control is real is not okay, you really don't have the credibility to stand on.
About Autism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Gosh, Craig, if you're good with Kim Stagliano, Handley, and company, along with all that baggage: whale.to and ChildHealthSafety, who am I to judge someone who's not too fond of John Stone? Especially when there's legit info. At least there's LEGITIMATE information!

ChildHealthSafety and John Stone: Having fun tag-teaming on Huff

I posted "ChildHealthSafety: nearly as bad as whale.to," which led to several comments that have me nearly rolling.

I should:

"Engage with the content, darling."
Then John Stone: "So, what's wrong on ChildHealthSafety? Please point to any factual errors, and document. Just saying the site is no good is a pathetic cop-out"
Then ChildHealthSafety: "Wassamatta kwombles - unable to contest concerning information about the safety and health of children you attack the source.


That is the typical approach of zealous disciples of the vaccinology religion to attack and disparage."

My response:


 Interesting: http://jabsloonies.blogspot.com/2009/03/lies-misrepresentation-and-abuse.html

Hmmm.

Oh, and I have dealt with the content of ChildHealthSafety. So has my friend Thelma.
About Autism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Who knew I was one of the "zealous disciples of the vaccinology religion"? Damn, I thought  I was a crazed squirrrel!

Yup, I think we've got a group here who might just be reaching cult status.

My bad: ChildHealthSafety: as bas as whale.to and just as wrong.

Will Specter be AoA's New Offit? Plus, Stewart is the anti-Mahar.

Olmsted's got a thing for Specter like Stagliano, Conrick, Obradovic and Handley have a thing for Offit. It's almost embarassing. Oh, I know, like I've got a thing for the woo. Seriously, Kim, I know ya'll are thinking, is there something else you want to write about that doesn't involve the woo, the pseudoscience, the anti-vaccinists, autism, the need for a better world, for the disabled to have full access and respect, oh, and some of those occasional stories about the garden girlies and the bright boy? It's almost always countering the woo. I know. What's a gal to do? You don't read my shovel posts over at Detritus, so I figure you like the woo-fighting! :-)

AoA and Olmsted have had their knickers in a knot over Specter appearing on Stewart's show. Write Stewart, tell em how bad Specter is. Come on, really. OLMSTED. Done covered the sweet, sweet irony of that. Grill him on the vaccines! Hah. How'd that work for you?

How many of you watched Specter on Jon Stewart tonight and thought, I know folks who are really gonna be pissed. Stewart came solidly out as a person who vaccinates his children and Specter made clear that he wasn't intimidated by AoA. Good show overall. Left me smiling.

Schadenfreude. Cuz sometimes there's no other way to go.

Vaccination: Dosage Varies. Yet Another Thing They Get Wrong

At least for the flu vaccine. 2009-10 Influenza Prevention & Control Recommendations



Dosage, Administration, and Storage
 
 Looking to see if that's true for others vaccines.

Huh! Hep A dosage varies, too.

"What is the dosage regimen?


Recommended dosages and schedules vary with the patient's age and which specific vaccine is used. Whether you are a child over 1 or an adult, more than one shot is needed for long-term protection. Check with your doctor or nurse to determine how many shots are needed and when to return for the next dose. The vaccine provides protection about four weeks after the first injection; a second injection protects you longer, possibly up to 20 years. Twinrix, a combined hepatitis A and B vaccine may be given to those over 18 years of age."

Taken to task by a friend who doesn't read me any more

Okay, by now, you've probably read Louise, Thelma and my response to Kim Stagliano's Popegate. Craig took me to task for my original comment, writing:

Seriously.­..I've read through Kim Stagliano's post 4 times now, and I don't see anywhere in there that she says that vaccines are akin to pedophilia. kwombles (I'm using your screen name to avoid confusion since you and Kim Stagliano share the same first name), could it be that you are letting your dislike for Ms. Stagliano color your perception of her article and that you are reading more into than you should?

All I see is that she is comparing the reaction of the Medical community towards parents of vaccine injured children to how the Catholic Church treated those who came forward and said that they were being molested. The Catholic Church essentially called them crazy and ignored them. The medical community calls us crazy and ignores us. See the comparison now?


Yes, I think you are definitely reading too much into her post. This is the main reason why I quit reading your site; you too often let your dislike of someone color your perceptions of what they are writing. You think that because someone posts an article on Whale.to, it automatically makes them a Holocaust denier.


And kwombles; friends stand up and speak out to defend their friends. Orac's characterization of me on his latest hit piece should have warnered a response from you in my defense.

It's not like this will actually get on over at Huff (and it frakking didn't), but here's my response to Craig chewing me out:

Oh, you're right, Craig, it doesn't make her a holocaust denier, just someone who is in collusion with them. No difference at all; she just supports and participates in a site that engages in holocaust denialism and mind control and the idea that vaccines are a governmental conspiracy to eradicate a generation of people. Gosh, my mistake.

I don't dislike Stagliano. I don't know her. I do know when analogies go too far, though, and much like the Nancy under the table bit, this goes too far.

This is what Orac wrote: "When even Craig Willoughby, who went from seemingly at least semi-rational to full-out hate-filled ranting (particularly about me), doesn't think this is appropriate, AoA has a real problem, and trying to claim that this disgusting picture was "inspired" by Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" looks desperate at best and pathetic at worst." He said you went from semi-rational to hate filled ranting towards him. You have, and your reactions to Ken have been even more vitriolic, whether you think they were warranted or not. What, exactly, was I supposed to defend? Where have you been charitable to Orac or his Oraccalytes?



.....

So, to my friend who may not talk to me any more (except at Huff where I apparently don't get to respond)and said he doesn't read me: I was impressed with you when you stood up over at AoA and said the baby-meal was over the top. I was. And I get that this is a group of people who were there for you when you felt no one else was and so you have considerable loyalty towards them. But they're wrong. They're factually inaccurate. And they profit off of desperate parents. You don't think they're collecting money from those ads? You don't think there's some kind of monetary or product pay off when they write a testimonial for a product of one of their advertisers?

And to berate me because I didn't leap to your defense at Orac's especially after you said you weren't talking to me anymore? Friends keep talking, Craig. And have you read what you write about Orac?

It seems to me you can't quite decide whether to let go of the anger or not. Where you fit. I get that. AoA will certainly stoke that anger. As to dislike coloring perceptions, mirror. You hate Orac. You hate  Ken. Deny that. I don't hate these people, and my writing demonstrates that repeatedly. I feel for these parents, their desperation. But I don't tolerate fools. And desperation is no excuse for going down the woo-hole.

I haven't gotten mad at any of this over the last nine months, except once. One time and that mom knows who she is and why. She and my readers also know that I don't hold it against her and offered her friendship and support.

You may be factually correct in that Stagliano is not literally saying vaccines are sexual abuse; she's just implying that vaccine damages are tantamount to it and that Offit is complicit in the cover up like the Popes have been. It's offensive to autistic individuals and to those who have been sexually abused. It isn't right. And to Offit. I don't know about the popes. She went too far. Period. And that's twice in a week where she's done so.

But, hey, you'll never see this since you don't read me anymore. Seems if we were really friends, you'd still be talking to me, don't you think? Damn shame, as I like you and think you could use a soft place and support that will help you release the anger.

Won't even let this on: sorry, vaccine damage akin to sexual abuse. Seriously, not even that. (Oh, wait, they actually did!)

So, Craig, I'm not ignoring you over there, I just can't get a post on. Huh. Wow. Go figure.

Oh, and what's up with hanging up on that sentence in my response and ignoring the comment in its entirety: You know, Offit doesn't state that vaccines are infallible. Just that they are far better than the diseases they prevent. Oh, and that they don't cause autism. It's disingenuous of you to suggest that he does. It's also offensive to suggest that Offit is akin to the pope and that vaccines are akin to pedophilia, which is what you are doing.


The bolded text you just ignore. Stagliano's been at best disingenuous. At best. At worst, I've inferred that she's suggesting vaccines/vaccine damage/autism is tantamout to sexual abuse. I haven't been disingenuous, though. I didn't say she said that. I said she was suggesting it.

Not even going to bother trying to get this response on over at Huff. My response to Craig's staunch defense of Stagliano's comparison of Offit to the Pope and parents of children with alleged vaccine induced autism to the parents and victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy (there, better, Craig?):

By invoking this analogy, whether intentionally or not, she is implying that what Offit is doing is comparable to the blind eye the Catholic church turned towards sexual abuse. She is implying that autism is akin to, similar to suffering sexual abuse. No you're right, it's not even about autistic individuals. It's about the parents who continue to make claims that science has continually found no connection with. She's placed the decades upon decades of sexual abuse of vulnerable minors in connection with the whole vaccine/autism issue. She's compared Offit to a bureaucracy that condoned and hid sexual abuse.


Never mind that Offit has never declared vaccines infallible. Never mind any facts, either.

I saw the comparison quite well, Craig, and she's wrong. She's wrong to link Offit in any way, especially after Handley's intellectual rape bit and her own Nancy bit to pedophilia in any way. Period. She's wrong.

And I have to wonder why you're defending her so hard.

(I did try to get this on: You're right. It is a simple analogy. And wrong. As wrong as another recent post of hers.) --it did post.

Thelma and Louise Take a Good Look at Stagliano's Huff Piece on Offit

*edited for clarity*
It's a busy and honestly, scary, time for my family and me, with one brother's surgery down and tumor boy currently (and I mean currently) under the knife to remove his brain tumor (tumor boy is out of surgery and doing well). Thelma and Louise were chomping at the bit and offered to look at Stagliano's piece more closely for me. It'll have to do, Craig, for now, their dissection of it. Let's see if anyone else sees the comparison you offered (feel free to comment, deconstruct her piece, heck deconstruct Louise and Thelma, as well). I read her (Stagliano's) piece word for word but don't see what you did. However, it's far more likely that you cut her slack that I will not and that's probably because you share her viewpoint regarding vaccines and autism, whether or not you agree on everything. That and she's been there when you needed an ear. (You should know that I cut you slack I would not for her and that you also have my ear if you ever need it).

 It's a bad comparison she's made. Bad. And factually inaccurate yet again. However, I'll admit that right now everything tastes like ashes (bad week, although it's looking up). And autism and being abused by pedophiles are not at all comparable. At all. It's a huge disservice to both autistic people and to victims of sexual abuse. And to pin that to Offit is despicable. Just as bad as the Snyderman blowjob stunt. 

Heck, in for a penny. I will finish the deconstruction of the Stagliano piece below Louise and Thelma's take on it.

Louise:

Well..dang it all, Miss Kim Stagliano keeps openin her mouth ...and she don't know what all she's doin! Iffen any of y'all are familiar with yesterdays photo on Aoa and her comment(she has since removed) Y'all will know what I'm sayin! Boy Howdy! Miss louise could teach her a thang or two. Thats for damn true!



Well Miss Stagliano-future author of"All I can handle-I'm no Mother Theresa"( a SELF PUBLISHED more than likely whine fest due out next fall) Has done written herself a piece on the Huffington Post. "DR. Paul Offit: Pope of the church of the immaculate vaccination" Why aint she clever? No wonder she's self published an all!


This dumbass has tha fool notion a comparin what happened to children in the Catholic Church ta vaccination! Well bounce my bosoms from here ta next Tuesday! I'm sayin how dare she! How dare she take the experiences a these young children an cheapen them. Just ta push her agenda..y'all know...smearin Dr. Paul Offit. She goes on ta say that a recent article in "wired" magazine by Amy Wallace (""Magazine of the digital future" writing about vaccination?"-pot kettle black Stagmom) was just a big press release ta make Dr. Offit"look like a heroic martyr". She also claims it makes anti-vaxxers look insane. Let me tell ya true Miss stagliano..y'all don't need an article in "Wired" magazine ta convince people! Y'all got AoA for that! Damn this gal is nuttier than a Snickers bar but a hell of a lot less tasty! Thats for damn true.I'll tell y'all something..this gal needs ta get one a them B12 pops she's always pushin..and shove it in her mouth..she needs ta practice...keepin her mouth shut!


Now I'm gonna let my Gal Thelma take on over fom here..She got lots ta say about Stagmom and David Kirby..and she can say it better than I can. Thats for true!

Thelma:


Lordy, Louise, I sure don't know that I can say it better, but I do know my poor old bosoms sure don't bounce as well. Now, that ain't ta say I cain't have a fair amount of fun decidin how ta wear em an all, both up, both down, one up, one down, or pointin ta opposite sides. Mamma H can make a pretzel with hers. Uh huh. One night she as a layin down and swore somethin was beneath her back. Ya'll know damn true what it was. She's misplaced a bosom behind her back on one side and her teeth on the other.

I was warmin ya'll up for the comin storm. Lissen here. This woman who thinks it's good fun ta put the nastiness of this image in front of readers:


From this piece of junk that she is no doubt proud of: "Dr. Nancy is under the table servicing Dr. Offit's RotaDick. Wait, can you hear her? "Fere If doh bontrobersy!!" Someone should tell her it's not polite to talk with your mouth full.Posted by: Stagmom November 29, 2009 at 10:10 PM" Well, not so proud of it that is still there. But she don't regret her words, so we ain't cuttin her no slack, short of the removal of that picture an an apology ta Dr Nancy.

Onto the piece of junk comparin, well hell, Kim at Counterin said it well: "You know, Offit doesn't state that vaccines are infallible. Just that they are far better than the diseases they prevent. Oh, and that they don't cause autism. It's disingenuous of you to suggest that he does. It's also offensive to suggest that Offit is akin to the pope and that vaccines are akin to pedophilia, which is what you are doing."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-stagliano/dr-paul-offit-pope-of-the_b_329919.html?show_comment_id=35555624#comment_35555624

Now onto the Kim we ain't too thrilled with:

"The only digit here is Dr. Offit waving his middle finger at the vaccine safety community."

Ain't it somethin; she goes spewin her venom about all vaccines an she's gonna try ta recast AoA as the vaccine safety community. My fat ass she will. Ain't Kim an I done a fair amount a work connectin this Age of Fools to whale.to. They ain't about safe vaccines. They about wipin out the vaccines. They is connected with ChildHealthSafety, no doubt bout it. They connected to that Loe Fisher broad, as well. They is far from vaccines and promotin they be safe. They is all about scarin the shit out of people and eliminatin vaccines.

"No. Because Dr. Offit, as the Pope of the Church of the Immaculate Vaccination is going to continue to evangelize that vaccines are infallible. His skillful use of the media has made them the clergy who will protect his Church, even at the cost of children's health and future. Dr. Nancy Snyderman has been on TV daily berating Americans to get their H1N1 vaccine. She ended one interview by saying, "Forget the hysteria. Just get the damn vaccine!" When questioned by Matt Lauer about the vaccine/autism controversy, she replied, "There is no controversy Matt." Really? Check out Bill Maher's post Vaccines: A Conversation Worth Having with over 3000 comments."

Kim at Counterin got it straight. That man ain't arguin vaccines is infallible. What he is arguin is the science shows damn clear that there ain't no link between vaccines an autism. He ain't said, an he shoulda like Orac an Novella taken on that damn tomfoolery with the dystonia cheerleader, as well.


The media ain't his damn clergy, but ya sure suck with your analogies. I ain't seen a one yet made a bit of sense.


Ya really don't like a smart woman of science, do ya?


An Bill Maher an 3000 comments don't make a controversy. Godamighty. Scientists arguin over the issue would make a controversy, but a bunch of damn fools readin the wackaloons ya people read are exactly that: damn fools. No controversy there, for sure, is what I am sayin.


"The vitriol toward people who question vaccines or who report vaccine injury is startling. I had a commenter come into Age of Autism and tell us, "I hope you and all of your progeny die from otherwise easily preventable viral diseases.""


Are ya shittin me? Vitriol? Lordamighty, this woman takes the cake an then some. Let's just repeat her words again for vitriol: "Dr. Nancy is under the table servicing Dr. Offit's RotaDick. Wait, can you hear her? "Fere If doh bontrobersy!!" Someone should tell her it's not polite to talk with your mouth full.Posted by: Stagmom November 29, 2009 at 10:10 PM"

Nah, Thelma's gonna tell ya straight an true. Damn ship done sailed an the Age of Fools is off with it. Into the wild blue yonder as far as Thelma an Louise is concerned.

Age of Fools, its editors, its contributors, an many of its commentors ain't got no credibility left.

Whale.to

ChildHealthSafety


An all them other damn idiots I done found.

I'll be findin more, too, no doubt about it. We gonna take Age of Fools apart piece by piece, bit by bit, make em accountable for their words an their deeds. Good folks ain't gonna be able to stand by an dismiss their antics. Nope. Reckon Kim's got the right of it. Decent people wouldn't stand by them holocaust deniers and mind control believers. That'd make them dumbasses.

Ain't no vitriol to that, neither. Jus the plain hard facts. It's time these folks looked at some. Damn past time.

Reckon I skipped over that fool Kirby. We'll be back by ta take a pass at him in a later post.


Reckon Kim will be cross-postin this at Counterin. She said she would an appreciated us atakin this on since she's a bit busy, what with her two brothers' surgeries an tests an finals an all.

Having read the girls' take on it, I notice that they missed the closing gambit, so I will bring it home.

Stagliano writes:

It makes me wonder if Dr. Offit doesn't have biology on his side, the way the Catholic Church had two thousand years of respect and fear on its own.

Okay, I love to sit around and bs; that's no surprise, and I love to chat at length with friends, and argue over things (argue, not fight). Here Stagliano finishes her piece with a piece of speculation that is boggling.

Offit does not hold a position in medicine tantamount to the Pope's position. And Offit is certainly not the only doctor saying there is no link between vaccines and autism. The IOM is as well. They, being faceless, don't make quite as easy a target. Let's go a little further here, AoA's incessant need to harp on Offit has already crossed the line over to ridiculous. I mean, really, if all you're going to do is focus on Offit, change your name to Countering Offit. See, see what I did there? :-) Biology and the Catholic church: fear and respect, and apparently pedophilia.

"For as long as homo sapiens have walked the earth, until just about sixty years ago when vaccinations came into wide use, mothers and fathers buried as many or more children than they raised to young adulthood. Perhaps we're biologically programmed to want to protect our children to such a degree that unless we've been badly burned, we simply can not wrap our heads around the concept that the very medicine designed to save our children, so that we can raise them past infancy, could be causing harm."

Well, thank the Gods and the accidental cosmos that Stagliano acknowledges that vaccines have kept parents from burying most of their children. The rest of it is bunk. Sorry. We're "biologically programmed" to believe medicine can't cause harm? Twaddle. That's what this is. You know, if the medical establishment were denying that adverse reactions happened, maybe you'd have something, maybe (not with this particular flight of fancy, though), but they're not. What pisses you off is they're looking at the body of science that says there is no link between autism and vaccines.  And you know what you know and no one can tell you differently. Well, tough. Vaccine reactions do happen, and sometimes it's horrendous. I've covered this in detail as well. (On AoA, Stagliano comments and essentially reduces it to the 1900s when sanitation improved, thereby withdrawing her assertion that vaccines were beneficial).

"As long as magazines like Wired are willing to give Dr. Offit an open pulpit from which to preach, the gospel according to Paul will remain intact, and we members of the vaccine safety advocacy community will remain the heretics seated in the pews of the Church of the Poisoned Mind."

Seriously, you've set yourself up that this is you against Offit? Poisoned Mind is right, though.

Whale.to
ChildHealthSafety
Tenpenny
Amy Yasko
Mercola
Blaylock
Deth
Haley
Geiers
Wakefield
Barbara Loe Fisher
http://this-present-crisis.blogspot.com/2008/12/death-by-vaccine-population-reduction.html
http://www.alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/scheibner.htm
http://www.vierascheibner.org/
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Health_Concerns/Vaccines/five_baffling_vaccination_facts.htm
http://www.daghettotymz.com/rkyvz/articles/vaccines/vaccines.html
http://atomicnewsreview.org/2009/08/29/cdc-states-h1n1-vaccine-may-maim-and-kill-30000-americans-fda-requires-minimal-efficacy/

We haven't even touched the surface of the anti-vaccination movement, and the truth is that the level of sheer lunacy out there makes AoA look like a poster child for the almost reasonable.

Corina commented on another post that while this blog is about countering AoA, we (essentially) have bigger fish to fry. We do. And we will. Age of Autism is the tip of the iceberg.


***Stagliano is being published by Skyhorse Publishing, which is a small publishing house that requires prospective authors to provide "Market analysis, including competitive research" in the query letter.*** So, perhaps not self-published.

Dr. Paul Offit: Pope Of The Church Of The Immaculate Vaccination

You know, Offit doesn't state that vaccines are infallible. Just that they are far better than the diseases they prevent. Oh, and that they don't cause autism. It's disingenuous of you to suggest that he does. It's also offensive to suggest that Offit is akin to the pope and that vaccines are akin to pedophilia, which is what you are doing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Throwing the Baby out with the Dishwater: Not Even Looking at it from a Disability Perspective.

Kowalski offers a thought-provoking blogpost on the whole AoA-baby fiasco that is well worth your time in reading.

I've posted my response to it (left at T & K as well) below:


It’s no surprise that there are those on the vaccines-don’t-cause-autism camp who can be insensitive to those with disabilities. Nor is it surprising that many read that picture as calling those individuals photoshopped in baby-killers, without seeing a subtext that suggested that the baby represents autistics (and for that matter, other disabled).




I don’t think the subtext you’ve read into it is an intended subtext on AoA’s part; their readership makes pretty clear that they consider these people to be the mass murderers of innocent children. They believe they had the perfect babies and autism stole them away and that this horrible entity autism is a poison propagated by people like Offit. I don’t think AoA considered autistic individuals at all. I think that in the justifiable outrage at the picture and the comments by the worst of the AoAers, any message about autistic people was passed over.



Those who believe vaccines made their children autistic want that autism eradicated; this is, yes, much like the abhorrent, overwhelming abortion of Down Syndrome babies. Many parents who don’t think the autism was caused by vaccines also want their children cured of the autism; they see it as a scourge standing between them and their real child. If that child is severely disabled, not potty trained, non-verbal and non-communicative and self-injurious, in addition, you can certainly understand the parents’ desire for an improvement in their child’s condition. Using untested, dangerous treatments to “help,” though, is harder to empathize with.



Then there are other parents, who see autism as a spectrum of personality traits and behaviors, who do not believe that autism is standing in between them and their real child. We want our children to be happy, to be healthy, and to achieve their potential, whatever that potential might be. We wish to help our childre cope adaptively and to change society so that it will be more accepting of differences. We seek appropriate, safe therapies that will help our children learn to communicate, to be able to function as well as they can. We don’t do this to make them fit in a prescribed mold of neurotypicality (and it may be because we don’t fit terribly well in that mold itself). We aren’t perfect, but we are trying hard, hard to see things from others’ perspectives, trying to understand where our children our coming from, trying to fight negative stereotypes of autistic individuals, of disability in general. We are working hard to counter, to stand against bullying, against discrimination.



To thank you for offering a counterpoint to the outrage already covered without sounding patronizing, I’m not sure can be done, and I hope you know that I would not engage in that kind of behavior. I will say that I always enjoy reading your blog posts and that you almost always provide me a point of view I hadn’t considered before.



You provide here a subtext not offered by other bloggers, me included. It’s a valuable contribution and it’s a shame that is was met by language that devalued the parents at AoA by besmirching intellect. The bright boy has a cognitive impairment. He is not less because of this and he is in no way comparable to the dumbasses and wackaloons at AoA (some of whom are educated quite well). Nor are others who have an intellectual impairment. I don’t know how you address these dumbasses except to keept it to that: dumbasses and wackaloons. There is no implied disability, no use of previously used language regarding the intellectually disabled. No comparison because there is none and should be none.



KWombles

Countering Age of Autism

How the Anti-Vax and Woo Sites Hoodwink those Seeking Vaccine Information

The CDC is not to be trusted, don't ya know? That FDA is in cahoots with the big pharma, for sure. And they want to kill an entire generation and more to fulfill the Illuminati's plans for world domination. 80% of the population needs to die off for this to happen, and one of the ways they are going to do it is through VACCINES!

Listen, I'm good, really, I am, at dreaming up stories, but not even Dan Brown would go this deep into the bowels of the woo. Thelma took a gander, though, after reading a quote Blanco provided nonsourced, of course, at AoA. From here on out, we can completely dismiss anything Blanco has to say, as this site makes whale.to look like preschool crazy.

Almost as bad is another site that Thelma found: a doctor who says vaccines cause SIDS, shaken baby syndrome and a whole host of bunk.

Now, right up there in levels of bad is this site: ChildHealthSafety, who I'll be honest, I'm pretty sure that John Stone of AoA and perhaps others are connected to. This page at whale.to links right over to this uber-woo site. Incidentally, as I recall reading on Thelma's blog, she got banned from this blog her first venture out commenting. She was mighty proud of it.

I'm going to shift focus slightly, to discuss how someone might potentially misinterpret or misremember something relating to vaccine risks, say, like varicella. Say someone thought that the deaths related to the varicella vaccine were 100 a year, the same as the deaths from varicella, and say even more, that they were certain that they had seen this ON the CDC website around four years ago.

How do we begin to figure out where the truth lies? Did the CDC actually have that information on their website? They don't now. What about VAERS? How many entries for deaths, for all ages, across all time periods, regardless of time since vaccination occured? How many did that search result in? 16. What about this 2006 article on the varicella vaccine (Wise RP, Salive ME, Braun MM, et al. (2000). "Postlicensure safety surveillance for varicella vaccine". JAMA 284 (10): 1271–9. doi:10.1001/jama.284.10.1271. PMID 10979114), there were no reported deaths related to the varicella vaccine.

Then, there's this on the adverse reactions from, of course, a reputable site: "Varicella vaccine is safe; reactions are generally mild and occur with an overall frequency of approximately 5% to 35%. Approximately 20% of immunized persons will experience minor injection site reactions (eg, pain, redness, swelling). Approximately 3% to 5% of immunized children will develop a localized rash, and an additional 3% to 5% will develop a generalized varicella-like rash. These rashes typically consist of 2 to 5 lesions and may be maculopapular rather than vesicular; lesions usually appear 5 to 26 days after immunization. However, most varicella-form rashes that occur within the first 2 weeks after varicella immunization are due to wild-type VZV.31 Although a temperature higher than 38.9°C (102°F) has been observed from 1 to 42 days after immunization in 15% of healthy immunized children, fever also occurs in a similar percentage of children receiving placebo and is not considered to be a significant adverse event of immunization.32 A temperature higher than 37.8°C (100°F) has been reported in 10% of adolescents and adults who are immunized with the vaccine. Serious adverse events, such as encephalitis, ataxia, erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, pneumonia, thrombocytopenia, seizures, neuropathy, and death, have been reported rarely in temporal association with varicella vaccine. In some cases, wild-type VZV or another causal agent has been identified. In most cases, data are insufficient to determine a causal association."



Now, I know it can be really hard, really boring to pore through medical literature. It's a whole lot easier to go to these sites that offer information in easy to read chunks like this one: "Internet medical celebrity Dr. Joseph Mercola theorizes that since varicella virus is a member of the Human Herpes virus family (herpesvirus 3 or HHV3), naturally acquired chickenpox may provide protection against other herpesviruses that have been implicated in causing cancer, Bell's Palsy, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and chronic fatigue syndrome." Note that this whale.to referring to Mercola. Oh, and Barbara Loe Fisher's there, too. Don't worry about chicken pox; it's a couple days for lifelong immunity; besides those 100 people dying each year are dying from complications, not the chicken pox itself. Oh, for pity's sake. You know what getting the chicken pox gives you? A dormant virus in your spinal cord that can later cause painful shingles. No conclusive evidence that the varicella vaccine does that. No reason to believe it will, or that adults need to be at risk of getting chicken pox as their immunity wanes. Boosters will prevent a loss of immunity. And you'll avoid the risk of those pesky complications that can kill you.

Since AoA admits it's just a blog, it doesn't need to be on the Google News feed, does it?

Here's what I'm hoping for, folks: a letter-writing campaign of the internet variety. Age of Autism comes up in the google news feed whenever someone enters autism as a search term. Since they've admitted they are an edgy blog, they don't really need to come up as NEWS, do they?

So, let's tell Google News all about it!

Just click here: http://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/request.py?contact_type=report_an_issue and fill out a quick form.

Don't forget to place this url for the one we're concerned about: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/11/pass-the-maalox-an-aoa-thanksgiving-nightmare.html

In the comment section I placed: "For our friends who object, I'm not sure I would have chosen the image of the baby myself, but chill out a bit folks: we're a blog, for chrissakes; it's our job to be edgy." by Mark Blaxill, editor at large, in the comments section.


Offer your protest of AoA's latest shenanigans by filling out the google news form (problem with content).

:-)

Which is it? "Daily Web Newspaper of the Autism Epidemic" or "a blog"?

**Updated at the bottom of the post (6:00 pm)**


Busy day over at AoA as even some of its loyal readers take it to task, so I figure this warrants its own post as Blaxill works to defend AoA's actions.

Here's his comment and my rebuttal/commentary on it:

"The response this has gotten is certainly interesting."

Ya think? Whether you thought ya'll were being swiftian or not, your implication is that these people are babykillers. Here's the problem, though. You're arguing that vaccines cause autism, not that it kills babies.

"And while I have a certain sympathy for those who argue against ad hominem attacks (we need less name-calling and a more civil discourse on all the issues surrounding autism), I think we all need to recognize this is a CARTOON."

Sort of like how folks say something outrageous and then go "just kidding"? No dice. You actually have the temerity to say that "we need less name-calling and a more civil discourse on all the issues surrounding autism" but calling or inferring that public officials, private citizens, doctors and reporters are baby-killers is civil discourse? Just kidding. No harm no foul. Not.

 "And the apt metaphor on the table (pun intended), is that while the medical industry feasts off its excesses, pays off scientists for exercises in misdirection and pays toadies in the media for hit jobs on those who dissent, real children's lives are consumed."

Okay, so anyone who doesn't agree with your vaccine-induced hypothesis of autism is being bought off or is a toady? And children with autism have lives that "are consumed"? Are you kidding me? Yup, that's civil and based on reality.

"For our friends who object, I'm not sure I would have chosen the image of the baby myself, but chill out a bit folks: we're a blog, for chrissakes; it's our job to be edgy."

Which is it? Are you the "Daily Web Newspaper of the Autism Epidemic" or "a blog"? Huh? Your job to be edgy? I thought your professed goal was to follow the truth wherever it led, not to be edgy. Better rewrite Olmsted's piece on what AoA was about. I think it's time for an update. For sure.

 "At the same time, all the faux outrage is more than a bit hypocritical; frankly, anything that makes the wackosphere vibrate with new forms of silliness is fine by me."

Are your friends faux-outraged? Or just the wackosphere? The picture is bad enough. Really. But Stagliano's little piece about Snyderman giving Offit a blowjob is every bit as bad as Handley suggesting that Wallace had to be slipped a date rape drug by Offit to write her piece. Wackosphere? Seriously? http://www.whale.to/. http://this-present-crisis.blogspot.com/2008/12/death-by-vaccine-population-reduction.html. http://www.alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/scheibner.htm.  That's the wackosphere. Not folks following the scientific evidence. Not folks busting their asses to make the world a better place for their autistic children and others with disabilities. Not folks seeking out evidence-based treatments and therapies to help our children reach their potential.

"Seriously, though, something horrible is happening to a generation of children and Michael Specter gets a free pass to call us nut jobs and denialists?"

Yes, he does. He absolutely does. Because you are. See the above sites where your talking points are coming from. Nice attempt to deflect from the nastiness that you, your "blog," decided to put out there. Nice job at distorting the facts. Nice job at lying about the science, about the scientists, about the role of vaccines.  Nice job at turning reasonable people into people who would laugh at, celebrate and lampoon this cartoon and Stagliano's wittiness.

"This is Orwell reincarnate, you can't make this stuff up."

What precisely is Orwell reincarnate? Hmm? I'll grant you that you can't make up your going over the line. Over the line.

What exactly are AoA's goals now? Because I don't see any truth searching. I don't see helping families. I do lies. Distortions. And selling products. I see ugliness. I see a serious lack of civility. I see a shitload of woo, and some outright crazy. Go look at those sites listed above. Then go read folks like Moffie over at Huff and it will make a great deal of sense as to where she was getting her nonsense.

There is no faux outrage. There is a fulmination of outrage at your organization.


And now Anne Daschel is trying to deflect responsibility for their actions. Nice. No dice. No pass.

At some point, it's all going to come home to roost. And I guarantee you, our outrage, my outrage as a parent to three beautiful and autistic children, is that you have done tremendous harm to the autistic population, to seeing that disabled individuals receive equal treatment and protection, that they are welcome into the main culture with open arms. For heaven's sake, you've got most mainstream folks and certainly a fair amount of the medical and scientific community thinking that parents of autistic children are completely off their rockers. Thanks a lot, AoA, for all the "great" things you've done for autistic people and their families.

You know, you could try an "oops, my bad."

Or not.

"Tom, we appreciate your loyal readership. This is a cartoon/spoof of the team of people who have either made it their life's work to make sure our kids go untreated or who have advanced that agenda unabashedly in the mainstream media. I feel no remorse in running it. I think Mark Blaxill's comment explained our position very well.


I do respect and appreciate your comment. Hope to see you tomorrow. Teresa Conrick has a great post on autism and co-morbidity.

Thanks. Kim"

Now, that's such complete and utter bunk that it makes your head spin. Equating Offit's work in debunking the autism-vaccine myth, or the reporters' work as promoting non-treatment is full of bull. No, what you've got here are decent, hard-working people trying to prevent dangerous, untested experimentation on the most vulnerable in our society. It's really good to know that you have no remorse at AoA. You also have no connection with decency. How about the blowjob comment, huh? Got any remorse for that? I like how you alternate between Stagmom and Managing Editor. Of course, now we know you think you're just a blog that's meant to be edgy, not actually a journalistic site that provides NEWS.

Olmsted and Irony

"Specter didn’t mention the factual errors, which, when piled on top of the plagiarism, make his work look much worse. They suggest a habit of carelessness that he would prefer not to call attention to – as does the fact Specter has been down this road before, in an article he wrote in 2007 on spam." http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/11/olmsted-on-autism-tell-jon-stewart-the-truth-about-denialist-michael-specter.html#more

I know, I pick. I do. But seriously, this dude manufactured the entire Amish/autism bullshit that all of the anti-vaccine folks LOVE to pull out as proof.

For a thorough debunking of Olmsted:

http://evilpossum.weebly.com/olmsted.html:

The "Amish" Anomaly hoax

American Balkans: Dan Olmsted Trips Over Amish Country

Profile of Fraud: Olmsted's history

http://autism-news-beat.com/archives/29

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/08/kennedy_wrong_a.html

http://combatingautismfromwithin.blogspot.com/2008/01/guess-what-amish-vaccinate.html

http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23/do-the-amish-vaccinate-indeed-they-do-and-their-autism-rates-may-be-lower.htm

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=535


I'm sure if I worked at it a little longer, I could find more. :-) Something to consider if you're an AoAer and read me. If they won't admit when they're factually incorrect, if they buy into and participate in the whale.to, well, seriously?

Standing Up From the Table and Saying Enough

"Dr. Nancy is under the table servicing Dr. Offit's RotaDick. Wait, can you hear her? "Fere If doh bontrobersy!!" Someone should tell her it's not polite to talk with your mouth full.


Posted by: Stagmom
November 29, 2009 at 10:10 PM"


Go ahead, click the link, see the photoshopped picture. Read the civil and decent comments by parents who just want to do right by their kids. Mh-hmmm.

I've said it before:

As to Olmted's last bit of that line: "grasp of the truth is much stronger and harder-won than yours." No. Olmsted wrote that AoA was going to follow the truth wherever it led. I believe I have demonstrated quite well over the last several months that this is not at all true.


And having autistic children doesn't make your truth harder-won. For frak sake, that's like saying your child is your science. It demonstrates your ignorance of the truth, of scientific evidence, of psychological fallacies. You keep making the same errors over and over. You spiral into a cesspool of nastiness and hold yourselves up as morally superior and smarter because you see the truth. You are becoming a cult.

No, I quibble completely with the idea that you are "smart, well-informed and decent people whose grasp of the truth is much stronger and harder-won than yours." You are angry, hostile parents who are hurting. You believe with a fervor bordering on fanatical that you have the answers of autism. You are so close to being just like John Best Jr, on the whole, that soon no one other than your most zealous followers will afford you any weight.

Again, whale.to and holocaust denial. That's who you people are. You aren't in it for the truth. You aren't in it to make the world a better place for your children. You aren't in it for your children, despite what you think, or you'd treat autistic adults a damn sight better and you wouldn't engage in bullying.

And I grow weary that the smart, decent people amongst you do not stand against the lies and abuse. Ideology drives this, not the pursuit for truth.

You cannot be a person of good conscience and stand for this. You cannot be a person of decency and think this acceptable behavior. If you align yourself with AoA after all that they have put out there, and at this point I am not talking about their more extreme commenters, I'm talking about their leadership (that's the managing editor up there, on par with Handley's intellectual rape gambit), then you get stuck with all that being associated and supporting that agenda brings. You do not get to say you're after civility in disagreement over the vaccine controversy. You do not get to wrap yourself in the mantra of being a parent of a vaccine-damaged kid who just wants to recover the child (bad as that is). The truth is far different than AoA presents. And it is they who will have deaths on their hands. And misery and suffering.

So, stand with them if that is what you are after, but don't pretend to be after the truth after this little bit. This wasn't humor on their part. It was vitriol.

(Civil) Conversations With Those Who Think Vaccines Cause Autism

I wrote recently about an AoA post by a mother who wanted to know why there was so much hostility and name-calling going on between those who believe vaccines caused their child's autism and those who follow the science which says it doesn't. To be fair, that's not how she couched it because she's not buying the science. She's buying Handley's fourteen studies.

I'd agree with her on the lack of civility, although to be honest, I really don't get out that much onto the vaccines-are-responsible-for-all-that's-gone-wrong sites, so I don't know where this blogger is getting all the hostility. Yes, the folks at Orac and at LBRB can be a wee bit harsh on folks who come draped in AoA and the anti-vaxxer's anti-science. The trick is distinguishing which parents are well-meaning and simply latched onto the wrong information at the wrong time and those who are dipped, battered, and deep-fried in the woo. Not all parents who are certain the vaccines did it are the above, and I'm more than honest enough to admit that I have indeed called a dumbass a dumbass. And for that matter, a chickenshit a chickenshit. It's just the way I'm drawn, folks, and I think you appreciate the honesty you get from me. You know where you stand with me. I don't believe in being uncivil, but I can be quite tart.

There's a reason for that, and one I believe is a darn good one. Some of these people at AoA and like-minded organizations and groups are militantly anti-vaccine. Why, I have no clue. But they are and when they have decent, intelligent and nice people thinking maybe we don't need the vaccines here because we've got better conditions overall, better medical responses, so that suffering is no big deal, well, you know we're in trouble. The truth is people die from diseases when they shouldn't have to. And to wish the pain and misery that some of these infectious diseases are, even when no long term damage is done, all because of the misguided belief that vaccines caused your children's (yes, plural) autism, well, again, I repeat, we are in for a world of hurt. Literally.

So, I've gone out and about and talked to some folks who are quite insistent that the vaccines did it. I ran Craig's very harrowing story of a vaccine adverse event (which us science-loving folks have never denied happen). We (at Raising Autism/Countering's Facebook group) are supportive of all families dealing with autism, regardless of what the belief structure is. And I've come away with some thoughts on the whole shebang.

Certainty and the need for answers and a clear course of action. That has to be part of it, surely. Guilt, as well, not just over the thought that one way or another (through genetics or something you did environmentally) that you are to blame over the child(ren)'s autism must be playing some role. Perhaps even a tinge of guilt over not wanting to be a parent to a disabled child, or God forbid, children (a friend put that idea out there). Maybe. And then to have no cures, no quick and easy paths to take to help your child be normal, it can be easy to turn to woo. Sure, it can.

And it can be even easier to make attributions about causes that just aren't there. Of course, the problem with this is that no one can make someone else see something he or she doesn't want to see. You can lead them to the IOM, lead them to study after study that hasn't been interpreted by a Spanish teacher or a bully, and still not make them see, especially when those study-bashers are offering some products that promise your child a cure. Uh-huh,  I can certainly see how folks could go, how can I not?

Emotion, especially in connection with your children, can be all but impossible to put aside. Especially regarding medical decisions. However, it is precisely then that we must put aside our emotions and let reason and rationality prevail.

The science does not support a causal link between autism and vaccines. One's certainty that the fact their child had a vaccine and then later regressed (or not) into autism doesn't make it so.

I commented on a post by a person sure that vaccines are to blame, sure that they may not be as necessary as we think, and I'm going to provide it here. I'm not linking to the person's blog or the person's actual words out of respect for the person's right to privacy (I know, I know). The person is welcome, if he/she wants, to comment and provide the link to his/her blog. I've provided, in the comment, this example from my own life on faulty attributions, so I hope you'll forgive me for sharing it again. It demonstrates so well that we are none of us exempt from it.

My comment (I know some of it will make you wonder what the comment was that triggered the specifics of this response, so I will provide clarification in parentheses):

Independent researchers do have access to the VAERS data; everyone does. :-) (asserted that independent researchers should have access to the data after I provided the link to VAERS because of the assertion that the VAERS data wasn't available)



Ah, I wouldn't make you own some of these folks over at AoA; that'd be downright tacky of me. (well, who wants to be lumped in with the crazy folks on the fringes?)

And I'm sorry if you've been accused of being anti-vaccine, but I did point out that when you provide information that is scientifically inaccurate and from the fringe elements, it's easy to get branded with the title. Still wouldn't put you in the same camp as the folks using this stuff, though: http://www.alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/index.htm. And some of the folks at AoA are. Even worse, they use whale.to. (You can not wrap yourself in their talking points and not get dinged for it)


No, I wouldn't want to be placed in the same camp with the extremists on the vaccines-are-awesome-because-they-save-lives-and-prevent-lifelong-disabilities. But, I don't use their talking points and don't (that I am aware of) frequent their sites. (see two paragraphs up)


And I would agree that the chicken pox, which does kill about 100 people in the US a year, is not the best example to use. However, if it prevents 100 deaths, if it prevents permanent disabilities and the risk of shingles occuring at a later date, and the rate of adverse reactions is far less than the rate of complications and deaths, then why exactly would you be against it? (pro-vaccine folks trotting chicken pox out as a needed vaccine)

After all, your argument that we're a first rate country and vaccines aren't as necessary because we can provide better care after the disease process is started, well, that is a little anti-vaccine sounding, isn't it? And those 100 chicken pox deaths are here, where that awesome first rate medical care is.


If you won't look at Thelma and Louise, then read http://lilwalnutbrain.blogspot.com/. Her son is day 36 after serious, life-threatening complications from H1N1. (Title of blog is offensive, although I would argue true, as I am sure even the looniest of folks at AoA has feelings)

And read the IOM's Vaccines and Autism. Spread your reading out and contrast your vaccine-linked sites with sites like science-based medicine. And reread Gladwell. (Well, you can't say you've pursued the science if you haven't read the science, and Gladwell's Blink is a nice primer on attribution errors. If you've read it and you still can't see you might be wrong, well....)


You know, for four years I would have sworn all three of my autistic children and I were gluten and casein intolerant. All because my son began to read within six months of going on the diet. Forget about the eight years of prior hard work on my part and his. It had to be the diet. After all, the reading happened after the diet started. And my issues were better. Huh. Turns out none of us were gluten or casein intolerant. Not celiac. Nope. I had, however, recently had my gall bladder out, and the reduction in fat (when you take away the gluten and casein, you take away a lot of fat, too) led to improvement in my issues. (my oft-trotted out example of how I made a four year unbelievably untasty mistake)

Long story short (I know you're thinking, not really), boy, did I have egg on my face this past March when we all went off the diet and were just fine. Just fine. And, actually, all the kids social skills saw significant improvement and the girlies did better academically. Must be the milk and wheat!


:-)
 
........
 
Now, do I think civil exchange is possible? Absolutely. Do I think it's going to move the diehard? Nope. Not much better than the name-calling. The name-calling is probably more satisfying, in some ways. Less frustrating, but it can easily get dehumanizing. And I'm not about that. Well, other than noting when someone is a dumbass. And a wackaloon. Oh, okay. But, come on, don't I always give evidence? I don't just name call and not defend it. And seriously, only another wackaloon would deny the first person's wackaloon status, right?
 
I think that labeling has a place, though. We should remember that people are complex organisms and that belief systems are just as complex. We should remember that there are an infinite number of positions available and not everyone at AoA is as off the deep-end as one of their diehard commenters who is militantly anti-vaccine and proud of it. Go see Thelma and Louise for some of the sources of the worst of the woo; don't let the dumbass in their title stand in your way.

Mercola and AoA: In Bed Together

I opened up my email inbox and saw the near-dairly Dr Mercola newsletter full of woo (I really wanted to be snarky here, but I held back, just want credit for that). Once I looked through today's choices of craziness to read, I had a general feel for what I wanted to write today. So, I headed on over to Age Of Autism to see what crazy they were up to. And there it was: a choice between Heckenlively (aww, he'll think I'm picking on him) and an article showing that AoA and Mercola have hooked up to sell products (Too far? They're going to have a contest to give away one of his products. Oooh, I hope it's one of them tanning beds!).  Wow, you know, sometimes blogposts fall right into your lap. And when two bastions of anti-vaccination and woo outwardly connect, thereby reaffirming their own positions, well, that's gravy.

Starting with AoA: they're running a link to an interview between Sharyl Atkisson and Mercola on how the H1N1 is all a government hype. Yup, doesn't sound like conspiracy theorists at all. AoA is also promising a future contest with a Mercola goody. They end with noting that Mercola is "the founder of the world’s most visited natural health web site"

Well, at least they aren't arguing his world-reknown or the other empty and absurd labels he likes to pin on the doctors he interviews like Blaylock and Kent "infectious-disease-expert-my-ass" Holderf. We already knew, unfortunately, that there were a lot of people who were into the woo. It doesn't mean he's right. Or someone to be respected.

In fact, I think he's the opposite, especiallly with this latest bit of nonsense: "If you are a pregnant mother, please do not take the H1N1 swine flu vaccine." This is in a piece filled with horror stories of mothers miscarrying some time after the H1N1 vaccine.

I grant you that recommendation is awful and will likely result in some women listening to him and getting H1N1. It's a crapshoot I wouldn't be willing to take with my life nor the life of my unborn baby. If he thinks the vaccine is causing miscarriages (and there is no evidence that it is), then what does the fool think H1N1 would do?). This "idea," though, is worse: "You also need to understand that no reproduction studies have been done to determine how these flu vaccines (whether for seasonal- or the H1N1 vaccine) affect future fertility, and whether or how they affect a developing fetus."

Okay, so he's scared pregnant "natural" women into thinking that if they get the H1N1 vaccine, they will miscarry and be infertile, on top of that. Great.

He ends it with this piece of conspiracy theory: " I urge you to continue educating yourself about vaccines before yet another generation is lost to medical arrogance and greed."

The AoA piece, to back up for a moment, is on the interview with the reporter Sharyl Atkisson, who finds a conspiracy wherever she looks. I cannot believe CBS airs her work. This latest bit of crazy will come as no surprise, I am sure, to those who have run across Atkisson before. And we have. So, she thinks H1N1 isn't that bad and the government is lying. She thinks Wakefield is dreamy. She seems to be consistently anti-vaccine: she also has a report on gardasil. Interesting that a Washington reporter whose official job description is "investigative correspondent focusing on government spending and taxpayer issues" spends so much time on vaccines, basically coming out against them.

This isn't new for her either. Orac covers her anti-vaccine tendencies and her relationship with AoA back in August 2008. He brought it up a year earlier, as well, in June 2007. In July 2008, Liz offered criticism of Atkisson's journalism.

How many times does Atkisson come up on AoA? 19 times. AoA loves her.

Changing topics, I have to leave this post with this rich offering from Mercola: "IQ Isn't Everything: Why a High IQ Doesn't Mean You're Smart." 

Mercola wants you to eat the right foods to boost your IQ and avoid the wrong ones so you can be "mot" (as my Rosie pronounced it for the longest time) and not do foolish things. My recommendation, so much easier: avoid woo.

AoA Doesn't Get why Rehashing Lies Concerning Offit is a Dumbass Move

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/11/hgfhgf.html#comments

 In AoA's article today, "Pediatric SuperSite's Paul Offit Article: High Praise and Two RotaqTeq Ads," they absolutely prove they can't stop the lies. Can't. No matter how many times they've been shown to lie, they cannot help themselves.

AoA: beats the lies into the ground. And it's not like you can directly challenge them; they moderate their content and stifle dissent, so their readers who stick to them like glue on woo won't see the truth. They'll continue to think Handley and company are just awesome, cuz they is takin on the man, dontcha know? Seriously?: "Click the photo to increase size. To learn we find this ironic, read Voting Himself Rich: CDC Vaccine Adviser Made $29 Million Or More After Using Role to Create Market."

How many times?

http://counteringageofautism.blogspot.com/2009/11/fighting-right-fight-at-right-time.html

http://counteringageofautism.blogspot.com/2009/09/paul-offit-responds-to-press-release-by.html

http://counteringageofautism.blogspot.com/2009/09/paul-offits-mythical-millions-v-2-by.html

http://counteringageofautism.blogspot.com/2009/09/censoring-truth-about-offit-at-aoa.html

http://counteringageofautism.blogspot.com/2009/09/paul-offit-explains-money-side-of.html

http://counteringageofautism.blogspot.com/2009/09/anti-vaccine-propaganda-circulated-as.html

Okay, at this point I am tired of copying and pasting, but when I type in Offit into my search bar for Countering, I get 8 pages of hits, so you know I've spent a shitload of time countering AoA's crap concerning Offit. David Brown's spent time countering it. LBRB has. I'm sure other bloggers have as well.

At this point, it's beyond ridiculous but not surprising. AoA doesn't care about factual information. Period. And I'll keep demonstrating that. And so will other good people. It's about all we can do. Stand. And hope that AoA really is the fringe group that many think it is, that most people aren't suckered into their brand of reality.

Kent Heckenlively: Doctors Lie to the Press but tell me the truth

Too strong? Maybe slightly. His words: "It's been my experience that what researchers say privately to somebody like me varies greatly from what they may say in academic papers or to members of the press." It still suggests that he believes that researchers lie to the public and to fellow academics, but tell him the truth.

Heckenlively writes: "On one point I must take issue with is my saying that the Hopkins researchers "have a protocol." If I did that was a terrible misstatement on my part. I have never believed that this was a "Hopkins protocol", simply that it was based on findings from the Hopkins laboratory."



As to the assertion concerning a Hopkins protocol, that's not what the journal article says. No mention of a Hopkins protocol exists in the article, period, let alone relating to Heckenlively:

Patricia Kane, who calls herself "the queen of fatty acid therapy," initially sounds like a skeptic of alternative autism treatments. She distances herself from the Defeat Autism Now! approach and says hyperbaric oxygen therapy, IVIG and chelation drugs all can be harmful.


"If you could see what happens to children when they're given some of these crazy interventions that ruin their life, and it's so painful," said Kane, whose office is in New Jersey. "Parents say, 'Patricia Kane will tell us the truth,' and I believe parents deserve the medical truth when it comes to their children."

One of her fans is Kent Heckenlively, a California science teacher who writes for ageofautism.com, self-described as the "daily web newspaper of the autism epidemic." After spending "a couple of hundred thousands" on treatments, from chelation to stem cell therapy, for his daughter with autism, Heckenlively said Kane appealed to him in part because her protocol includes lab tests run by the prestigious Kennedy Krieger Institute.

"I can trust them, I think," Heckenlively said.

Kane, who points to neuroinflammation as a feature of autism, discusses Pardo's study in a chapter she co-wrote on autism treatments for the book "Food and Nutrients in Disease Management."

Kane says many children with autism have a buildup in their brains of a substance called very-long-chain fatty acids. Her "PK Protocol" -- named after her initials -- is aimed at burning them off with a prescription drug, phenylbutyrate, that is normally used to treat extremely rare genetic disorders in which ammonia builds up in the body.

Side effects of phenylbutyrate include vomiting, rectal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, irregular heartbeat and depression. No clinical trials have evaluated this drug as an autism therapy, and the idea that very-long-chain fatty acids have a role in autism is not proven by science.

Kane is not a medical doctor. When treating children with autism, she says, she works in concert with the child's physician, who supervises treatment.

She said she holds a doctorate in nutrition that was issued by Columbia Pacific University, an unaccredited institution that was shut down after a lengthy court battle with the state of California. An administrative law judge in 1997 found that the school awarded excessive credit for prior experiential learning, failed to employ qualified faculty and didn't meet requirements for issuing degrees.

Kane said Columbia Pacific granted her a doctorate after the school "consolidated my work," which Kane described as "clinical work" and continuing medical education courses for doctors. Her doctorate is valid, she said, because it was issued before the university ran into problems with the state.

Last year she was the subject of a television news investigation about her work with patients with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The disease, which affects motor neurons, is a death sentence.

Janine Schiller, a Pennsylvania mother, went to see Kane. "Dr. Kane flat out told her: 'You do not have ALS,' " said her husband, Tim. "She told her: 'You have a buildup of neurotoxins in your blood.' "

Kane's protocol involved taking pills, medications and herbal remedies, which Kane sold, Tim Schiller said. In all, the family spent $3,000. But nothing stopped the march of ALS, and Janine Schiller died eight months after her diagnosis.

"The money was trivial compared to the false hope she instilled in us," Tim Schiller said. "It's a terrible thing to be preying on people who are going to be dying."

In her work with children who have autism, Kane emphasizes that she doesn't rely on what she calls "Mickey Mouse" labs to test for red cell fatty acids in patients' blood. She uses the Peroxisomal Diseases Laboratory at Kennedy Krieger.

But a spokeswoman for the institute said its autism experts do not endorse the use of phenylbutyrate to treat children with autism.

"There has been no research conducted at the institute which validates the use of phenylbutyrate as an autism treatment," Elise Babbitt-Welker wrote in an e-mail. "Any suggestion otherwise is a misinterpretation of research data."

Heckenlively admits he's using the Kane protocol but feels that it is unfair for the article to make it appear that this is risky on his part. He writes: "My daughter's neurologist did not have any safety concerns for the protocol although she did not think it would work. My neurologist has actively assisted me in providing sedatives for the IV procedure."

Whether that's accurate or not, we can't know. Did the neurologist advise Heckenlively of potential risks? She'd have to. Do doctors play up the risks or play them down? Or present them neutrally and allow the patients to way the relative risks and decide. On medications, it's been my experience that doctors rarely discuss the side effects; the prescribe and move on. No informed consent is needed on medications, so it's likely to depend on the patients as to whether the medication is simply prescribed or the risk/benefits discussed before hand.

Heckenlively does at least admit that the neurologist told him it was unlikely to help. This simply reaffirms that desperate people are willing to go down a whole lot of woo no matter the risks. That may be one thing when it's your own life. It's entirely another when it's an unconsenting minor relying on his or her parents to make medically sound judgments for him/her. You cannot, do not, make sound, rational judgments when you are mired in desperation, and the potential to do tremendous harm is vast. It's your job as a parent to breathe, calm your ass down, and think rationally. Presumably Heckenlively is an intelligent man, both a lawyer and a grade school teacher. Chasing chelation, stem cell therapy, and now this incredibly foolhardy PK Protocol among the other woo, shows pretty clearly that this isn't about rational thought. His defense today of his actions also indicate an unwillingness to clearly evaluate the risks and benefits and how it impacts not only his child, but the children of desperate parents who read him.

Need I remind you of the sticky blood? Need I remind you of his contention that he may not know exactly what it was in the vaccines but it was something in them?

Need I remind you of whale.to?

Thelma and Louise invite folks to drop by EDHF on Thanksgiving

Eatin tha bird-not flippin it (by Louise)


Happy Thanksgiving to all our friends! Boy howdy me and my gal Thelma gots lots to be Thankful for an such! Tommorrow we is havin an open house with Mamma H...and we would like y'all to stop by and say hey! Folks around Stink Creek will be droppin by..We got us a couple a laptops set up around the trailer..so ya never know who might be chattin an all. So come on by for some pie and coffee when ya git a chance. We'd love ta have ya! Thats for true.

Me an Thelma is loosinin up tha rules a bit. Anyone wants ta come is welcome-ya just got ta be respectful a each other-ya ken me? So Roger darlin..iffen yer wantin ta come discuss yer latest movement an all, I'm sure there be someun interested an all..An Lurker, I'm sure ya got somethin ta be thankful for-so come on by an share it! This is a day a love an respect..an bein thankful we has got all that we does! Drop in anytime..we is sure lookin forward ta seein y'all!

Utter Lunacy

A couple days ago, Kim Stagliano decided to up the histrionics on her site, what with the burning house and the throwing of kids. You know, her usual overdose of hyperbole and her tendency to go with the martyrdom route: why, why does it bother you that we want to experiment on our children with HBOT, chelation, lupron, nicotine patches, IVIG, megadoses of vitamins and minerals, and pot? Why could you possibly care, you trolls and sheoples who are working for big pharma? Gads. I read it and couldn't deal with it at the time. That's okay, though; there are folks out there who see the same victim-woe-is-me crap and take it head on. LBRB took it on in a post called "Age of Autism to Autism Families: Make your children suffer". Orac refers to it in his "The anti-vaccine "biomed" movement: Hijacking legitimate scientific research".


Bad as Stagliano's analogy is, the comments are worse. Referring to the LBRB discussion of the martyr message Stagliano' conveying, one AoA commenter writes:

"They hate our children and they will do ANYTHING to protect the vaccine industry and try to confound our efforts to push research FORWARD into the clinics to help our kids."

What can you say to this kind of comment, to Stagliano's absurd inability to really examine the evidence and her incessant need to go past the edge of sanity, other than utter lunacy?

This is not about the vaccine industry and protecting it.
This isn't about preventing autistic children from receiving appropriate and safe interventions.
This isn't about not treating real medical conditions with science-based medicine.


Here's what this is about:

Protecting a vulnerable population from unethical and dangerous medical experimentation.
Protecting parents from being sucked into the woo vortex.
Providing evidence-based information to parents so that they can make reasonable, rational and responsible decisions regarding their children's medical care.

A Willingness to examine the evidence and live a good life

(This started out as a post about the IOM and its 2004 review of the evidence regarding vaccines and autism, but it twisted and turned on me into something more reflective, something that, to no surprise to those who read me regularly, sums up my position, well, on life and living it despite all the bad shit that comes one's way).


In 2004, the IOM released its eighth and final report regarding vaccines and autism. The members of the committee looked at all the research, including that provided by those arguing that there is a link, and concluded that there was no evidence of a link. None. At all.

I've brought up the Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism repeatedly over the last several months whenever the vaccines-stole-my-child crowd argues that it hasn't been looked at, that the government and big pharma are in collusion with each other, the 14 studies garbage that Handley put out to argue that the science had actually spoken (you know science doesn't speak, right? That might be one of the problems.). This 215 page review has been out there for FIVE frakking years. Five years. I don't get it. I really don't. You know, the no-really-I'm-for-safe-vaccines crowd can't argue that they are scientifically literate if they refuse to even read the evidence, refuse to read the best and brightest scientists who have read all the evidence and reached a conclusion that the damnit-I-don't-know-what-it-was-but-it-sure-as-hell-was-something-in-the-vaccines crowd doesn't want to hear (la-la-la-la, I can't hear you!).

If you are one of those parents who are just too darn lazy to read it, I'll provide some snippets (I assure you, friend who's no longer speaking to me, not taken out of context - you can quote a line or to without changing its meaning) for your perusal.

The abstract sums it up:

The committee reviewed the extant published and unpublished


epidemiological studies regarding causality and studies of potential biologic

mechanisms by which these immunizations might cause autism. The committee

concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal

relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. The committee also concludes

that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal

relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. The committee

further finds that potential biological mechanisms for vaccine-induced autism

that have been generated to date are theoretical only.

The committee does not recommend a policy review of the current schedule

and recommendations for the administration of either the MMR vaccine or

thimerosal-containing vaccines. The committee recommends a public health

response that fully supports an array of vaccine safety activities. In addition,

the committee recommends that available funding for autism research be channeled

to the most promising areas. The committee makes additional recommendations

regarding surveillance and epidemiological research, clinical studies,

and communication related to these vaccine safety concerns. (IOM, 1)

Nonscientists look at things from a predetermined perspective. Many of these parents appear to have reached a conclusion and examine it from that perspective. They don't go in open-minded; they don't, despite assertions to the contrary, go looking for the truth. They come up with their theories for why something happened without even considering they might not have the knowledge base to accurately assess the situation. Google is awesome, and being able to access studies is tremendous. I'm all for pursuing knowledge, but the problem with self-education is that you don't know if you don't get it; a college education at least provides some feedback for when you are off track. If you are not getting that self-acquired knowledge vetted by experts in the field you're studying, you can go so far off track so as to be helplessly mired in woo. Complete and total woo. And it can be doubly damn hard to conclude who the real experts are. I mean, if they've got an MD or a PhD, they can't be completely wrong, can they? Well, yes, they sure as hell can. Wakefield, Geier, Mercola, Blaylock, Haley, Hyman, Gordon anyone?

To explain how they began their review of the literature, the report states:

The committee begins from a position of neutrality regarding the specific

immunization safety hypothesis under review. That is, there is no presumption

that a specific vaccine (or vaccine component) does or does not cause the adverse

event in question. The weight of the available clinical and epidemiologic evidence

determines whether it is possible to shift from that neutral position to a

finding for causality (“the evidence favors acceptance of a causal relationship”)

or against causality (“the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship”). The

committee does not conclude that the vaccine does not cause the adverse event

merely because the evidence is inadequate to support causality. Instead, it maintains

a neutral position, concluding that the “evidence is inadequate to accept or

reject a causal relationship.” (IOM, 2-3)

What is a parent who just wants some answers to do? Who are you supposed to trust? It sucks to hear news you don't want to hear. It sucks to be told that the causes of autism are not all known, to hear that there are no cures for what seems like a life sentence to a parent newly going through that diagnosis. And I know from personal experience that it really bites to be told when your wee one is five years old that he isn't going to achieve independence and that the best he can hope for is a group home. It sucks even bigger to then spend 15 years working for thousands of hours with that child to try to change that prognosis and not be able to. It does.

I am so grateful that Bobby's autism was diagnosed before the internet was really out there, before all these wackaloon theories were devised, before Wakefield. Before secretin. Before all this wooquack, DAN doctors, HBOT, IVIG, chelation and Yasko or PK protocols were out there. Before there were charlatans promising me a cure if I just drained my pocketbook over to them. It meant that over the last three-four years as my daughters' autism became unavoidably apparent that I didn't go to the woo. I'd already had a decade and half with my son to know that nothing would replace hard work and that even then, no miracles, no instant cures, were out there.

The closest I came to it (woo) was to follow the GFCF diet for four years, starting when my littlest was barely more than a year old. And we followed it, oh how we followed it. And it seemed to do wonders for Bobby. Suddenly at 14, he began to read within months of starting the diet. There we were; I'd worked for 8 years to teach him to read, and suddenly it clicked and within a year of being on the diet he could read Harry Potter. Success, right? Had to be the diet, not the 8 years of work and a brain that finally made the neural connections, reached the matural level needed, right?

We went off the GFCF diet in March. Bobby had the last couple years of it slipped off of it occasionally, with no loss in functioning. The girls and I never slipped (we had started it because the girls and I had intestinal issues), but in March I decided we'd try. And what did we find? Well, that eating the gluten and casein made us not a bit sick (or in my case any more sick) and all a hell of a lot happier. No loss in skills, no loss in functioning for any of the kids. It was an expensive lesson that correlation is not causation and that psychological investment in an idea can cause a person to make decisions that are completely pointless and not at all tasty.

I understand wanting a child who is going to fulfill all of the things loving parents want for their children. I know firsthand the pain of watching your child's peers pass them by. I have felt the heartache as each milestone is missed, as the years slip by and the progress does not come. I know and fully understand the pain involved with being the parent of an adult child whose disabilities preclude him from achieving independence and all of the adult milestones we wish for our children. I know the fear a parent feels regarding their child's future. Who will be there to care for my child when I can no longer do so? And I feel that fear for all three of my children as all three are on the spectrum, and no matter how smart, how "high functioning," independence is not a guarantee, not something a parent can just assume will happen.

Now, you have a choice as a parent to a special needs child, to special needs children: you can deal with it adaptively and allow yourself and your children to make good, productive happy lives despite the limitations or you can rage, rail, and be miserable and make your child miserable. Really.

You can be a victim, make your child a victim, act like a martyr and be miserable, making those around you miserable. Or you can choose differently. You can choose to find the beauty that is there in every moment, even the literally shitty ones. You can make the best and teach your child(ren) that obstacles and hurdles are things to be overcome, that perseverance and grace are things that can be found even when you are unbearably weary of the road you are on. You can teach them that shit happens, but it doesn't have to ruin their lives. It doesn't have to stop them from reaching their potential or you your potential.

Stay in the woo or come into the light. Stay in the anger or leave it behind. I'm all for fighting the good fight, but make damn certain it's the right fight.

Don't Confuse Ullman with Someone Who Has a Clue

**Note, my comment did not get on.**


I thought the latest blog post by Ullman was a piece of work. Nah. He was working up to it. Here's his latest comment in the thread, in its fraktastic glory, proving once and for all that he is a dumbass, and an arrogant one at that:

"I am pleased that I've stirred up a hornet's nest of skeptics, for they expose their sheer ignorance. Predictably enough, however, these skeptics are not very good at it. They seek to "defend science" but are not good representatives of good science. They seem pleased in their ignorance and yet they are arrogant...and that is a dangerous combination.


They remind me of Fox News by the way they spin information and create misinformation. I sincerely hope that readers here see through the straw men that they create. What they say about homeopathy is simply wrong and confused.

They clearly do not understand homeopathy; they keep saying that there is no research, despite the many references that I have given to such research in highly respected medical journals. They make embarrassing statements about the smallness of the homeopathic dose and then wonder how small doses of substances in the water or air do not "heal" people (again, they have no understanding of homeopathy and homeopathic pharmacology).

The good news here is that they expose their ignorance to the world, even though they use fake names. They do not even seem to have the intellectual rigor to read and understand the articles I have written nor the research to which I commonly refer. Sad but true..."

My response, as if it will get on:


My real name, bud. The only one overly arrogant here is you. We're not saying there is no research; we're saying your research is bunk. Totally different. Orac already (two years ago) deconstructed your COPD study.

Listen, I don't care if those who think magic water is going to cure all that ails you follow you right off the figurative cliff. But you sure as heck better get used to folks arguing with you that you wouldn't know science if it gave you a lap dance.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Desperation Drives Parents into Woo

How, if you're involved in the online autism community, can you miss the Tribune's reporting on risky alternative autism treatments? Aoa is all a buzz over it. Hate it! Orac's on top of it. LBRB is on it. Ken Reibel is on top of it, both at his site and here. I said a few short things relating to AoA's coverage of it, and Liz is keeping track of it at her site. So, if you're an anti-vaxxer, you're aghast. If you're a rationalist (gonna see how many different labels I can make up), you're all over this and thrilled to see mainstream media smack down the woo and the charlatans. It's poetry. It is.

Heckenlively is not happy about this workup. At all. Ken covers it nicely. He even directed me to a passage in today's article, "Autism treatment: Science hijacked to support alternative therapies," by Trine Tsouderos and Patricia Callahan that stars Heckenlively.

I wonder if there will be backlash against Heckenlively for this (more than he already gets from the no-woo-for-me-crowd and perhaps some from his own group). Heckenlively has really had some crazy ideas in his posts at AoA, but his latest venture to recover his child may be his worst.

Relevant portions of the article and some thoughts follow:

"Patricia Kane, who calls herself "the queen of fatty acid therapy," initially sounds like a skeptic of alternative autism treatments. She distances herself from the Defeat Autism Now! approach and says hyperbaric oxygen therapy, IVIG and chelation drugs all can be harmful" (Tsouderos and  Callahan).

According to Mercury Exposure, Kane and a Dr. Kinghardt did a lecture on autism. The two of them argue that (at least according to this site) "Autism is made by damage of the immune system by vaccination and heavy metals. Damage by vaccination concerns enzymes of the fatty acid metabolism of the nerves. At those children first of all you have to excrete the heavy metals,. with 6 g Chlorella 4 x per day, and bears garlic."

Tsouderos and Callahan continue:
 

"One of her fans is Kent Heckenlively, a California science teacher who writes for ageofautism.com, self-described as the "daily web newspaper of the autism epidemic." After spending "a couple of hundred thousands" on treatments, from chelation to stem cell therapy, for his daughter with autism, Heckenlively said Kane appealed to him in part because her protocol includes lab tests run by the prestigious Kennedy Krieger Institute.

"I can trust them, I think," Heckenlively said."

Now this is the part we're really interested in. Heckenlively, as I've deconstructed before, has some pretty damn odd ideas. And now we learn he's onto another one.

Heckenlively admits to spending a shitload of money on quack treatments including chelation and stem cell therapy and now is trying this crap by Kane.
The reporters continue their article:

"Kane, who points to neuroinflammation as a feature of autism, discusses Pardo's study in a chapter she co-wrote on autism treatments for the book "Food and Nutrients in Disease Management."

Kane says many children with autism have a buildup in their brains of a substance called very-long-chain fatty acids. Her "PK Protocol" -- named after her initials -- is aimed at burning them off with a prescription drug, phenylbutyrate, that is normally used to treat extremely rare genetic disorders in which ammonia builds up in the body.

Side effects of phenylbutyrate include vomiting, rectal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, irregular heartbeat and depression. No clinical trials have evaluated this drug as an autism therapy, and the idea that very-long-chain fatty acids have a role in autism is not proven by science.

Kane is not a medical doctor. When treating children with autism, she says, she works in concert with the child's physician, who supervises treatment."

The reporters continue their scathing indictment of Kane, making it clear to anyone who can actually comprehend their words, that this is beyond the pale of woo and dangerous crap to boot. If you haven't read this article in its entirety, you really need to take the time. The series of articles, in conjuction with last year's, make it abundantly clear that desperate parents with the wherewithall to do so make medical and treatment decisions based not on sound reasoning, based not on science-based medicine, but on that desperation. AoA shows this in comment after comment. The various yahoo groups that these desperate parents post in apparently reveal the depths they are willing to go to to recover their children.

You have to wonder what these family's lives would be like if they weren't convinced that mercury, aluminum, etc. in vaccines did this to them, to their children? If there weren't conmen and charlatans promising them expensive cures that aren't cures at all? If AoA, GenRes, SafeMinds weren't feeding the frenzy?

Here we go round the mulberry bush

Ken was kind enough to start off the critical response to AoA's coverage of the Tribune's series on autism and quackery (post below this one). It should be an interesting day! Liz is keeping track of the coverage here. Orac weighed in with an excellent piece. So did LBRB. :-)  I commented at the Trib piece, which had only garnered three comments, so I hope readers will go over and tell them well done.

AoA's pissed, of course, and has a piece out on how it's "another shoddy hit piece." See, there's the problem. They don't know good science. They don't know good science coverage. Come on, your wooquack docs didn't like the interview because it made them out to be the wooquacks they are?

Of course, Arranga (AoA author) has to frame these quacks as "the courageous doctors and researchers who are willing to move forward with integrity for the children despite mainstream pharMonied prejudice." Oh for heaven's sake, and the folks over there wonder why mainstream science doesn't take them seriously?

I'll confess, I just can't wade any deeper into the morass that is AoA today. It hurts. And I've better things to do.

It's nice to see the mainstream media cover this. It'd be even nicer to see it go big, to see the Geiers, Wakefield, and others really held up to mass exposure. It's a heck of a start, though.


Ken picks up and continues the examination of the Tribune articles at Autism News Beat.

"AoA panics over Chicago Tribune investigation" by Ken Reibel

Picture taken from http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/080212.pdf (image cut off to fit)

Should be noted that in this pdf, GenRes also promotes the idea that there is antifreeze and ether in vaccines (oh, and formaldehyde, aluminum, and mercury!). --KW (oooh, maybe someday I will be managing editor?)

AoA panics over Chicago Tribune investigation


by Ken Reibel

AutismNewsBeat.com


Nothing panics the anti-vaccine movement like critical news coverage in a major media outlet. We saw it last month with Amy Wallace's excellent piece on the dangers of vaccine rejectionism in Wired Magazine. The latest example is a well-researched and damning investigation of the autism cure industry that ran in today's Chicago Tribune. Kent Heckenlively, whose day job is, incredibly, teaching science to American school children, attempts to deconstruct the Trib's coverage, with predictable results.

Heckenlively writes that he has three major criticisms of the story. First, he objects to the characterization of an "autism epidemic" as unproven. But instead of offering data to show a true increase in prevalence, he quotes a press release from the UC MIND Institute which came to a vastly different conclusion than the study itself.

"A study by researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute has found that the seven- to eight-fold increase in the number children born in California with autism since 1990 cannot be explained by either changes in how the condition is diagnosed or counted — and the trend shows no sign of abating.

Published in the January 2009 issue of the journal Epidemiology, results from the study also suggest that research should shift from genetics to the host of chemicals and infectious microbes in the environment that are likely at the root of changes in the neurodevelopment of California’s children.

It’s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California,” said UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute researcher Irva Hertz-Picciotto, a professor of environmental and occupational health and epidemiology and an internationally respected autism researcher."


FIrst of all, the California DDS databases are not reliable for determining incidence. As DDS explains on its website and in its quarterly reports:

"Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system."

Yet the MIND researchers used both client records and quarterly reports to do just that.

What's more, the actual study does not reach a conclusion that "it’s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California." That's the press release talking, and I am quite sure that Mr. Heckenlively knows the difference.

For a more detailed critique of this surprisingly poor study, see this post by Joseph at Natural Variation.

Heckenlively concludes part one of his critique with the question "What scientific research does (the Tribune) have to support a position that the autism increase may not be real?" That's a funny question coming from an organization that habitually mispresents prevalence data. In January, 2008, Generation Rescue ran a full page ad in USA Today that claimed the autism rate has mushroomed from 1:10,000 in 1983 to 1:150 today. But in 1983 researchers were looking for DSM III autistic disorder, also called Kanner's autism. The best estimate at the time was 4:10,000. There was no "autism spectrum" in 1983, no PDD-NOS, no Asperger's. So any comparison between then and now could only address autistic disorder, and the current estimate for that PDD is roughly 20:10,000 - a five-fold ncrease which can be explained by less restrictive diagnostic criteria, greater awareness, diagnostic substitution, and other factors.

To be clear, there is no evidence either way for an autism epidemic. We cannot say, with the data at hand, that true prevalence has risen, nor can we say it hasn't. What we can say is that Generation Rescue's 1:10,000 to 1:150 claim is intentionally misleading. Surely, Mr. Heckenlively knows as much.

Heckenlively then moves on to the paper's finding that “Chelation’s popularity as a treatment is driven by the unproven idea that the disorder is tied to the accumulation of heavy metals in the body.” He cites the flawed Palmer study from the University of Texas which ties an increase in autism to environmental mercury. He also cites the discredited Burbacher paper, which Kim explains nicely here, and you can also read about here. Heckenlively cluelessly cites Mady Hornig's 2004 Rain Mouse study, which concludes nothing that can be applied to autism. This, it needs to be noted, is a common ploy by Age of Autism and other vaccine rejectionists - to misrepresent a study to make it fit their own agenda. In this study, Hornig dosed specially bred mice with thimerosal to coincide with certain developmental milestones. But human infants are given shots several months apart, which is enough time to excrete the miniscule amount of thimerosal once found in scheduled pediatric vaccines. Hornig's mice received four shots over nine days. She used three strains of mice, and found no statistically different behaviors in any of them. In fact, the mice that were bred to be more susceptible to mercury, and that were dosed with thimerosal, were less likely to show measured stereotyped behavior. Hornig only dissected three mouse brains, but found nothing remotely similar to what one finds in the human autistic brain.

"I am at a loss to explain (the Tribune's) failure to even mention this research," opines the terminally clueless Heckenlively. Let me help you out - the reporters ran the studies by credible researchers, who pointed out the shortcomings. But it's so much easier to challenge reporters to another pick-up game of abstract toss than to find some credible researchers of their own.

Of course no anti-vax screed is complete without complaining about vaccine court, and Heckenlively delivers a tale of "recovery" from autism that was heartlessly dismissed by the special masters. But there is much that Heckenlively leaves out.

From the Tribune article: "Colten Snyder, another child who was evaluated in vaccine court, underwent chelation after tests on his blood and hair over six years came back normal for mercury, court records state. Given that the boy was immunized with vaccines containing thimerosal, ‘his hair mercury was exceptionally low, said his physician, Dr. Jeff Bradstreet of Florida. ‘That’s pathological.’ Bradstreet also disputes that all of his test results were normal.”

Counters Heckenlively, "Colten Snyder has essentially recovered from his autism and this fact was in the published decision rendered by the Special Master." By "recovered", Heckenlively apparently means "improved."

Here's the rest of the story.

According to court records, "Bradstreet’s treatment of Colten involved 160 office visits over an eight-year period, numerous laboratory tests (’many of which were non-standard tests not approved by the FDA’), several lumbar punctures and both gastroscopy and colonoscopy." And while the court noted the boy's improvement, it occurred despite Bradstreet's questionable treatment protocol, not because of it. "It is even less clear that the treatments were designed to remove a dangerous virus from the body and the evidence that any of the treatments were capable of doing so is non-existent," noted one special master.

And so it goes.

The two-part Chicago Tribune investigation is yet another encouraging sign that the mainstream news and entertainment media's narrative is changing from "vaccines might cause autism" to "vaccine rejectionism is bad news". Mr. Heckenlively's impassioned, albeit fact-free defense of the indefensible, is another sign of how desperate these days must be for America's anti-vaccine movement.

Part two of the Tribune's investigation is scheduled for tomorrow. Grab some popcorn.