Respectful Insolence

How about:
"Do you believe the dead are returning to life and attacking the living?"

Posted by: David N. Brown | March 15, 2010 12:08 AM

Some of comments are headdesk-worthy.

Posted by alaskamommy Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:52pm PST

I don't believe that vaccines alone cause autism. I believe that certain kids (my son being one of them) are born pre-disposed to getting autism and it takes a trigger such as multiple vaccines to actually bring the autism to the forefront. This is why my son has had zero vaccines and is not autistic. But I fully believe that had I vaccinated him, he would be autistic

Posted by: Scientizzle | March 15, 2010 12:16 AM

Seriously, the vote will settle this once and for all! Except it won't...because it is just public opinion...and a stupid idea...never mind.

Posted by: Kristen | March 15, 2010 12:45 AM

Of course they're linked. They're linked all over the place, even in the title to this post.

Posted by: Juice | March 15, 2010 1:27 AM

This is why my son has had zero vaccines and is not autistic.I agree I hımm.
*
Başarı Hosting

Posted by: Hosting | March 15, 2010 3:17 AM

psst, Chris, Mr "Hosting" is spam!

Posted by: Catherina | March 15, 2010 4:01 AM

If alaskamommy really believed that "off" was a TV channel, she might not have fallen victim to the antivax propaganda.

That reminds me, has anyone proposed that DEET causes autism?

In the "stupid do-you-believe tricks" category, several people have reported getting a phone poll from the National Organization for MarraigeMarriage (NOM) asking "Do you believe that marriage between only one man and one woman should be legal?" I'd answer it with "no, I believe an aardvark should be a required part of every marriage."

Posted by: ebohlman | March 15, 2010 4:10 AM

What the frak does "belief" have to do with it? Science is science, whether you believe in it or not. So annoying.

And Scientizzle, I only got three comments in before I had to stop reading for the safety of everyone around me. I honestly empathize with scared, worried parents of a sick kid, but it's heartbreaking how many of them flee scientific thought -- and have absolutely no consideration for other people's children -- as a result. These mothers claim they are more compassionate and more tuned in to children's health than doctors, and yet they're endangering everyone *including* their own precious snowflakes with their decisions. Awesome.

Posted by: ZenMonkey | March 15, 2010 4:49 AM

For fucks sakes. Pardon my french but when are people going to realize that it's not what you BELIEVE, but what you can PROVE. *sigh*.

Posted by: HappyHax0r | March 15, 2010 8:09 AM

One just has to look at the media coverage to see that vaccines and autism are clearly linked. They are not causally linked, and they are probably not even significantly correlated, but they are inextricably linked in the minds of confused and misled parents around the USA. Their coexistence in so many headlines is a similar kind of link between the two.

But... I don't think that's the kind of link that the poll was referring to.

Posted by: Michael P | March 15, 2010 8:21 AM

What's the Orac version of Pharyngulating a poll?

Posted by: Pablo | March 15, 2010 9:13 AM

Many of the comments have just made my eyes bleed, and my brain go into spasms.

If the media devoted one tenth of their efforts spent in reporting this crap, into promoting early intervention, respite and appropriate education for children on the autistic spectrum, I would be a much happier parent of an ASD kid.

Posted by: DebinOz | March 15, 2010 9:37 AM

Agree with DebinOz... Many of the comments did make my eyes bleed inside. Many of the anti-vaccine idiots are either wilfully or ignorantly bending Julie Gerberding's words (from her CNN House Call appearance) to make it seem that she admitted that vaccines cause autism! Whom does this dishonesty benefit?

For those that are interested, here is the link to the transcript of the CNN show.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | March 15, 2010 11:06 AM

I believe vaccines and autism are linked. When you look at the totality of the situation (the studies-pro and against, parent's stories, media bias, drug company histories) it is the only logical conclusion. Some day soon the Poul Thorsens',Brian Deers, and CDC, AAP will have their come to Jesus moment.

Posted by: jen | March 15, 2010 12:07 PM

I decided to vote

Do you believe autism and vaccines are linked?

YES

NO

I selected NO and I got;
Unxepected error occurred try again later or soemthing to that effect.

I cracking up!!!
Clearly some sort of conspiracy!!!!

Posted by: Uncle Dave | March 15, 2010 12:23 PM

jen:

I believe vaccines and autism are link.

It is not a matter of belief, but evidence.

If you have real "the studies-pro and against" that support your belief, feel free to share. Just remember that to be taken seriously here they must meet a minimum set of criteria. For one thing, not published in non-peered reviewed journals like JPANDS or Medical Hypotheses.

Also, "parent's stories" are anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

I should also remind you (again) that Paul Thorsen was not a main contributor to the two Danish papers, and was not involved in anyway with the following papers:
Taylor et al., 1999 [5] Ecological United Kingdom
Farrington et al., 2001 [6] Ecological United Kingdom
Kaye et al., 2001 [7] Ecological United Kingdom
Dales et al., 2001 [8] Ecological United States
Fombonne et al., 2006 [9] Ecological Canada
Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001 [10] Ecological United Kingdom
Taylor et al., 2002 [11] Ecological United Kingdom
DeWilde et al., 2001 [12] Case-control United Kingdom
Makela et al., 2002 [13] Retrospective cohort Finland
DeStefano et al., 2004 [15] Case-control United States
Peltola et al., 1998 [16] Prospective cohort Finland
Patja et al., 2000 [17] Prospective cohort Finland

and
Stehr-Green et al., 2003 [22] Ecological Sweden and Denmark
Fombonne et al., 2006 [9] Ecological Canada
Hviid et al., 2003 [24] Retrospective cohort Denmark
Verstraeten et al., 2003 [25] Retrospective cohort United States
Heron and Golding, 2004 [26] Prospective cohort United Kingdom
Andrews et al., 2004 [27] Retrospective cohort United Kingdom

Posted by: Chris | March 15, 2010 12:41 PM

It's established by the authors of the poll that 1/4 believe that vaccines cause autism. So they put up a poll to establish... what exactly?

"Approximately 1/2 of the world's population is female. Our poll question today: Are you female? YES/NO"

Helpful! This poll will finally debunk the veil of secrecy and lies perpetrated by Big Ovary.

Posted by: Ian | March 15, 2010 1:33 PM

LOL, Raka, you made my day... which started off head-bleedingly bad after I read the comments on that article.

Posted by: Perky Skeptic | March 15, 2010 2:05 PM

The poll results at the moment are 80% sane and rational v. 20% hysterical and reactive. Doesn't say how many respondents there were, but there are 83 comments so far.

Posted by: Robyn | March 15, 2010 2:45 PM

That still leaves the several other studies. You should really not parrot the horrible "14 Studies" website. As noted several times, including here and here, that it is an uneducated piece of opinion that has nothing to do with science. The latter article says this:

Their insightful analysis of the article starts “What is it with Eric Fombonne and Pediatrics? ” I do not think they approve of Fombonne. Next they will accuse him for something he didn’t do (11). Not a sign of compelling science analysis and they do not give a reason for the 1 rating, the link takes one to another site for analysis. Suggesting again a mini-industry of bogus scientific ratings trying to refute the idea that MMR and autism are not related.

And further down he notes that they go:

This is really odd. Their ‘headline’ is “Fombonne again.” But the authors of this reference are Kumanan Wilson, MD, MSc, FRCP(C); Ed Mills, DPH; Cory Ross, MSc, DPH, CHE; Jessie McGowan BMus, MLIS; Alex Jadad MD, DPhil, FRCP(C). I cut and pasted it from the reference.

jen, have you ever tried thinking for yourself? Do try it sometime, and come up with some actual real scientific evidence that proves your point. Something that is real.

(Oh, and if you don't like Fombonne, did you get a peek of who wrote the paper I got the list of studies from? It is in the URL link just before the list. Hint: the word is in blue letters.)

Posted by: Chris | March 15, 2010 2:57 PM

I believe his studies show more than a few little "imperfections", Scott.

Then you should have no trouble explaining precisely how those imperfections are large enough to invalidate the conclusions, particularly when those conclusions come from the entire body of research. Everything you've mentioned thus far is strictly minor.

Well, I read the article-which I don't think that he even did.

You did not comprehend, apparently - the quote you mention quite firmly supports the positions that the vaccines aren't profitable for the pediatricians. (Hint - "what bring [them] in" isn't mentioned as the important bit if they're profitable in their own right.)

And even beyond that, it's quite irrelevant to the question.

Posted by: Scott | March 15, 2010 4:20 PM

Hey Jen, who was payin your buddy Wakefield ?
come on, take a guess.
until recently, it was a woman by the name of Johnson.
common enough name isn't it. Except this common-named Johnson is a daughter of the Johnsons who started the Johnson & Johnson co, which is one of the world's great pharmaceutical houses
What do Mark and David Geier do, when not doing studies with monkeys ?
Oh right, they own a multi-state "biomedical treatment" corporation which exists solely to provide their brand of quackery to autistic children.

Posted by: DLC | March 15, 2010 4:34 PM

Though it show that she does not bother to click on any provided links. If she had she would pulled out the old "let's call the mean ol' doctor names!" gambit earlier.

Her mind is welded shut.

Posted by: Chris | March 15, 2010 5:33 PM

Scott, I'm quite sure he didn't read the article, for it clearly stated a healthy margin of profit for all the Peds. The regular docs, not so much. So the vaccines are profitable And they bring the kids in. Scott, come on, looking at immunization rates in one city and then autism prevalence in another? And this is acceptable how? And negative enrollment bias doesn't sound like something that exactly makes a study reliable or valid. Chris, I have looked at the links you kindly provided.

Posted by: jen | March 15, 2010 6:35 PM

I knew that scien blogs were dishonest about evolution and American history. I even knew that PZ MYers liked to fornicate polls. I also knew that from time to to time Greg Laden would join in the poll fornication. Now the grandmaster of the medical field who can cure all diseases through those safe and highly effective vaccines, has indulged in poll fornication. You guys keep me busy. It is my job to guard the polls from the evils of poll fornication. I must now go and correct this poll.

I already correctly numerous polls for PZ including Electios Meter evolution poll.

Beware! Poll fornication can lead to mental breakdown! Wait a minute I got that backwards. Mental breakdown can lead to poll fornication.

Posted by: Guardian of the Poll | March 15, 2010 7:05 PM

This poll was originally crashed by the anti-vax side:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EOHarm/message/104868

The entire point of this exercise is to show how ridiculous these polls are. And to show that the anti-vaxers are a vocal minority.

At the moment, the vote is 82% (No) vs. 18% (Yes), showing that the science-based side is at least more computer literate ;)

Posted by: Broken Link | March 15, 2010 9:04 PM

"you'll see that 82% believe there is no connection between autism and vaccines."

----

Better recount that and make it 41% since poll fornication was used. That's like the lie that most Americans want Obama socialist single payer HELLthcare. Most Americans do NOT want it. That's why it is not so called law yet. If the majority wanted it, then it would have been passed last year. They need to scrap this labor union laden socilaist plan and adopt a brand new one in front of everyone on C-SPAN. You know. Like Obama said HE would do during his campaign. I guess leftist campaign promises don't mean anything either.

Oh, and there is another lie going around saying that 30 million Americans are without health insurance. That is a LIE! Only about 10 to 12 million are without. The other 20 million or so are illegal aliens, which are NOT AMERICANS therefore they do not get benefits unless they pay into the system like everybody else! Otherwise, I'll renounce my citizenship and become illegal in order to get "free" healthcare, "free" education, and "free" housing. Man, I should be an illegal. I woner if I go to Mexico by sneaking in illegally, would they provide me a job with benefits, free food from the government via stamps, and a free education. Why not? They do it to us? We can't do it right back? That's discrimination!

Posted by: Guardian of the Poll | March 15, 2010 9:37 PM

[preaching to the converted]
So Alaskamommy believes autism is a greater risk to her child than HIB meningitis, polio, measles etc. Good mommy. I wish I couldn't care

How much time and effort goes into debunking the SAME FUCKING THEORY that could otherwise be spent researching actual causes, advancing public education on the condition and developing effective therapies? It's like a teacher continually holding up the class to argue with the kid in the dunce cap that 1 + 1 does NOT actually equal "apples".
[/preaching to the converted]

Posted by: Punxatawny_Phil | March 15, 2010 10:24 PM

well I hope we all have a sense of integrity and a respect for knowledge. What scares the hell out of me is that people like Fombonne compromise the health and well being of children when his shoddy research (complete with bias from his Sanofi-Pasteur link) gets the nod by pharma-sponsored journals, falsely assuring the public that all is well when it may not be. And Thorsen (with the problematic thimerosal studies). They do not earn our respect. Children's health and well being is a far too important thing than to be played with. Thousands of families are waiting for their cases to be heard in vaccine court. Vaccines do cause damage in many cases. Yet pharma is absolved of all responsibility. It's not right.

Posted by: jen | March 15, 2010 11:15 PM

I'm going to start a viral internet meme suggesting that commercial baby food is linked to autism. Because a whopping 98% of kids with autism were given commercial baby food at some point in their young lives, after which they developed autism!

Hell, I bet I can even work in some woo about "toxins" to make it really believable.

*rubs hands in glee*

Posted by: OleanderTea | March 16, 2010 11:32 AM

Fombonne compromise the health and well being of children when his shoddy research (complete with bias from his Sanofi-Pasteur link) gets the nod by pharma-sponsored journals, falsely assuring the public that all is well when it may not be. And Thorsen (with the problematic thimerosal studies).

You keep complaining about 'shoddy research" and "problematic" studies. But you never say what you find problematic about the studies. What errors do you find in the methods, data, or analyses which lead you to believe that the studies are of unacceptable quality? If the research is really that bad it should be easy to point out specific problems as orac and others have done with the Geiers and Wakefield's research numerous times.

Posted by: Dianne | March 16, 2010 1:39 PM

Is it too soon to say that jen was clearly so sure of her position she took it to the opposition, yet when queried on it couldn't bring the facts or back up any of what she was saying and has now slunk off?

Posted by: Ender | March 17, 2010 10:16 AM

"is that Fombonne accidently referred to the incorrect city when he wrote his paper"

I was under the impression that he was given data from another education area.

However, a section of the paper was concerned with looking at vaccine uptake across the region, and found that it was fairly uniform.

In effect, people are criticising Fombonne for making a 'mistake', when their concerns were already (inadvertantly) addressed in the actual paper, in the most relevant section.

I've had discussions with critics who have claimed to have read the paper, and those critics have requested references to this section of the paper, believing it to be a seperate review.

Boggles your mind sometimes.

Posted by: Dedj | March 17, 2010 11:24 AM

OMG! Please! My poor brain! WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THINGS THAT ARE PATENTLY FLASE IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE GOING TO PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES AND WAKE UP? Do you not get it? FACTS, people, facts! I am truly sorry that someone's little Timmy has autism but as much as I, as a father, can sympathize with your pain I cannot condone choosing fantasy to make yourselves feel better! The evidence is clear in so many of these cases...vaccines do not cause autism, period. What I do know is that mumps and measles can (and used to) kill, that polio must have sucked, that the reason we did not see a humongous outbreak of swine flu was probably due to vaccine management, that herd immunity protects those people too stupid to see the overwhelming benefit of vaccinations, and that if you are so convinced that vaccines are dangerous then move to a community that does not have a vaccine program (or start one) and let's see how long you stay before running to the nearest hospital for help.

What is truly amusing is the mental gyrations that must occur for these people to keep the facts out of their worldview. That, and I will just bet that virtually ALL of the so-called "anti-vaccers" out there would also agree that the Scientology "e-meter" was nonsense, that the bomb detecting dowsing rod was crap, etc. because the facts and evidence didn't support the efficacy of either!

Continued applause to Orac and all of the rationalists out there. Show me one scintilla of evidence- real, scientific evidence- about ANYTHING and I will consider it and potentially change my mind. That's what skepticism is about. Until then...aarrgh!

Posted by: scott | March 22, 2010 12:16 PM