Huffington Post huffs and puffs

Today Orac has another piece on the Puffington Host’s anti-vaccination obsession. After several anti-vax pieces, the “Host” allowed one pro-vax rebuttal piece by Dr. Mark Strassburg, which was promptly followed by a content-free fallacy ridden “response” from Dr. Jay Gordon.

Gordon notes that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other pro-vax authors have “a very cozy relationship with the vaccine industry”, as though that is actually an argument against vaccines. Of course, this is just ad Hominen – attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. If he had any actual arguments refuting the research presented by the AAP or other organizations, he would presumably have presented them. I guess it’s easier to smear the source than provide any actual evidence.

Orac also points out the hypocrisy:

…why, then, does it not seem to bother Dr. Gordon in the least that David Geier and Dr. Mark Geier, whose research he once again singles out to cite approvingly and both of whom make a significant part of their livings providing legal counsel and consulting and expert witness services to parents pursuing legal action for alleged "injuries" due to vaccination? Doesn't that count as a financial conflict of interest? Yet Dr. Gordon thinks their research is "excellent." Or why doesn't it bother him that their work has been criticized for sloppiness and methodological flaws and they've been rebuked for risking patient confidentiality while mining the CDC's database.

Good questions I’d like to see Gordon answer.

The rest of Gordon’s post is equally bizarre. First, he dismisses Strassburg’s argument comparing birth rates and stork populations:

Dr. Strasburg’s reductio ad absurdum story about storks in Belgium is distracting and not germane to this discussion.

Huh? Reductio ad absurdum is defined as:

a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable

Strassburg’s point was that correlation is not causation and is totally germane to the discussion. Calling this reduction ad absurdum is, well, absurd. I guess Gordon has never heard that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, or he would have understood Strassburg’s point.

Even more absurd is this:

The Institute of Medicine chose to ignore excellent research supporting a link between thimerosal and autism. Look at Dr. Geier’s presentation in particular.

Okey dokey, I clicked on the Geier’s presentation link and clicked on the study abstract, which concluded:

Conclusions. With the possible exception of tics, there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via DTP/DT vaccines causes neurodevelopmental disorders.

Get that? The study concludes there is no evidence of neuro-developmental disorders from thimerosal (apart from – just possibly – tics). No evidence of a link. And this is Gordon’s “excellent research” supporting his position. It’s his best shot.

Well, I posted a comment to Gordon’s piece:

A completely worthless and content-free post from Jay Gordon. Stating that he AAP has a “cozy relationship with the vaccine industry” is nothing more than a poisoning of the well ad Hominem – insulting the messenger instead of providing any evidence of wrongdoing.

You should check out the work of some real bloggers who have commented on these ridiculous stories this site has been promoting

Orac provides sound commentary, and a rebuttal to Jay Gordon’s latest post, with evidence:

(With links to Orac, Autism Diva and Skeptico

I got the message that all comments are read before they are posted. It’ll be interesting to see if the Huffington Post is a real blog and allows my comment to be posted.

PS: I guess it is a real blog - they posted it.

Comments

[woly]

sorry if i am wrong about this but i looked at the link to geiers research (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/114/3/584) and the conclusion that you quoted seems to be from another study which is stated in a reply to his peice not his actual peice which concluded:
"In conclusion, we are, and always have been, strong supporters of the US vaccine program and of pediatricians that administer vaccines, but given the fact that many US states now have either banned (Iowa), or are in the process of banning thimerosal, (California, Missouri, Nebraska, and New York, among many others) and given that fact that there is now a bipartisan national bill introduced in the US House of Representatives (Weldon/Maloney bill) to ban it nationally, we now strongly suggest that the United States pediatricians should insist on giving only thimerosal- free vaccines, lest they become involved in the terrible morass of lawsuits that are already beginning on this issue."

[Skeptico]

Woly:

Yes, I incorrectly credited Geier with the study – thanks for spotting that. I followed Geier’s link to a study and clicked on the “Abstract” link which took me to the study abstract. This was not Geier’s study – my apologies and I will correct the post.

Having said that, Gordon did link to the study I quoted, and Geier’s criticism of it was below the fold at the bottom. Some points are worth noting though:

1. Gordon linked to a study that showed no evidence of neuro-developmental disorders from thimerosal.
2. Geier again criticized the supposed conflict of interest of the experimenters. To demonstrate a weakness in the study you have to actually demonstrate an actual weakness in the study, not just smear the experimenters.
3. Nothing on that link is evidence of a causal link between thimerosal and autism – nothing. There is some whining about the weakness of the study and its lack of applicability to the US, but nothing showing a link. So when Gordon wrote “The Institute of Medicine chose to ignore excellent research supporting a link between thimerosal and autism. Look at Dr. Geier’s presentation in particular” (with the link I quoted), he was blowing smoke. He needs to cite a study or several that do show causal links.

[John]

What vaccination obsession? We haven't mentioned the subject at all on The Puffington Host. ;)

[Skeptico]

LOL - I had no idea. My sincerest apologies. ;-)

[Jay Gordon, MD, FAAP]

Dammit, Skeptico, I hate it when someone makes me think harder.

Yes, I love reading and quoting research which agrees with me. Now I have to look harder at Geier and Geier and others because people like you are out there ready to shoot down my posts when my reasoning's too facile. And yes, you did mix up two studies. Correction accepted without prejudice, sir.

I still believe that the current vaccine schedule is not the best for babies and that the manufacturers are less than candid about side effects and problems. I also believe that some of the vaccines are no longer relevant to American children and musttherefore be subject to a new risk/benefit analysis.

BUT, now I have to get better documentation.

Best,

Jay Gordon