A new website has just been created to counter to the anti-vaccine nonsense perpetrated by Jenny McCarthy - Stop Jenny McCarthy. As they say on their website:
Jenny has no educational background and no license to give any type of medical advice on any medically related topic. Becoming a parent of an autistic child is a huge job, but that does not make Jenny's google research and interpretation of the experiences more valid than others who have had the same experiences and come to different conclusions.
We ask that Jenny re-evaluate her assertions, and ask all parents to learn about the issue in depth.
A nice idea but somehow I don't think she will "re-evaluate her assertions," because they are just that - assertions. Jenny's views on vaccines were not arrived at following a rational review of the evidence. And that which is not arrived at through reason is unlikely to be reasoned away. Still, I think the idea of the Stop Jenny McCarthy site is a good one - not to "stop" her per se, but at least to provide a site that will counter Jenny's ridiculous claims for anyone who is actually researching the topic. (You know Oprah won't do it.) In future, anyone Googling Jenny McCarthy will now find at least one site presenting facts and rationality.
Was about time, someone did that!
I think the whole vaccine hysteria's only made possible, because the media presents Autism as a huge tragedy.
Most Autistics don't see it that way, but our voices are drowning in the noise, the Jennies of the world make.
Posted by: The Gonzo Girl | October 18, 2008 at 07:46 PM
Hmmm. Here we have a woman who is obviously well used to having people fawn around her and getting her own way (nothing inherently wrong with that of course). She is one of the 'beautiful people'.
She is quoted as saying: "I always wondered why I was a ball-buster and rule breaker on TV, and at that moment I knew exactly why".
I think that explains a lot. She prides herself on being someone on control, and has certainly used her formidable sexual identity to play that role, and fair play to her - we all work with what we're given.
But then something happens which fundamentally changes the shape of her world - she has an autistic child. To someone so used to being in control, having a reasonable degree of success and who perceives themself as a powerful person this must be quite a psychological challenge.
This 'ball breaking' individual is shown to be vulnerable to the laws of nature just like everyone else. Isn't one of the basic responses to this to try and find someone or something to blame rather than acknowledge weakness or vulnerability? I'm sure a vaccine makes a good a scapegoat as anything else to someone who isn't thinking it through.
The strange thing is, even if it *had* been a bad response to a vaccine, and even if there was an occasional side effect from a vaccine (not that I think for a moment autism falls into this category) then that surely is one of the risks associated with life in general. Vaccines do a lot more good than harm, so even in this scenario it wouldn't make sense to adopt the attitude she has.
As for claiming she 'cured' her son of the condition, well that's something that as he grows up will speak for itself. I'm not aware of any autistic individual who can effectively mask their condition by pretending not to be autistic. He is the innocent party in all this and I wish him well.
Seems to me to be one of those sad cases where a misguided individual is risking causing greater harm than they realise by selling their self denial on the gullible and/or the desperate. At that point 'misguided' morphs into 'dangerous'.
(On another note altogether though, I rather liked the film 'Dirty Love'.)
Posted by: Eddy | October 18, 2008 at 09:05 PM
Thanks for the plug. I'm one of the people responsible for the site. Yeah, I don't expect Jenny to discover reality any time soon but we can hope. Anyway, unfortunately, we're not yet visible when Googling "Jenny McCarthy" but thanks to plugs on this site, PZ Myers' blog, and Orac's blog, we hopefully will be among the top listings when people look her up.
Posted by: Stop Jenny | October 18, 2008 at 09:36 PM
Small nit to pick, Skeptico: the image above should link to their page itself, or exist without linkage - rather than simply displaying the image by its lonesome when clicked, as it currently does.
Thanks for doing your part to marshal a countervailing force to McCarthy's post-Indigo celebridiocy!
Posted by: Arren | October 19, 2008 at 03:47 PM
You people suck!!!!
Posted by: Mom of 2 autistic sons | October 19, 2008 at 08:34 PM
Care to explain why?
Posted by: Q | October 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM
"Care to explain why?"
Well you can't blame her that much. Presuming she does have 2 autistic kids, she is probably willing to do anything, believe anything if it could make them better. I mentioned that if something like this happened to my daughter, i myself may not be immune to whatever dope people are peddling.
Thats a sad fact of desperation. Think of this further, she feels that something she willingly exposed her kids to (vaccines) are the cause of the autism.
She is dead wrong, tons of evidence points to genetic factors, her age, and so forth, every well done study finds no correlation. But none of that matters, for her, any possibility is a possiblity to pursue.
I would encourage you (mom of 2 autistic sons)to talk with us, there are doctors who write here, there are many people who have looked into this and have absolutely no alterior financial motive for thinking what we think. We have no fame that requires constant exposure. But there are many poeple here who are well trained in looking at and understanding what evidence there is and why we think its truly criminal what Jenny, and others is doing. Do you want to know why? Do you want a more educated and tolerant society? Do you want to poison you kids?
You just have to ask.
Posted by: Techskeptic | October 20, 2008 at 05:30 AM
I recently saw a story crop up over at the JREF and I found some of Jenny's words to be the most telling of her position and support.
"I have an angry mob on my side"
Heartwarming is not, this most progressive stance of Jen & Co.
"You people suck!!!!"
Thanks, that sure is me told.
Posted by: Darthcynic | October 20, 2008 at 09:19 AM
"I have an angry mob on my side"
Is that an argumentum ad populum, an argumentum ad baculum, or both?
Posted by: Jurjen S. | November 02, 2008 at 03:43 AM
I think something is wrong with the Stop Jenny site. I don't think that what comes up is what is supposed to come up. Please check it again. http://www.site.stopjenny.com/
Posted by: Knurl | November 02, 2008 at 04:31 PM
I think something is wrong with the Stop Jenny site. I don't think that what comes up is what is supposed to come up. Please check it again. http://www.site.stopjenny.com/
Posted by: Knurl | November 02, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Looks like someone hacked the site to me. :( Other pages in my history are 404.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 02, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Fixed. Somehow I had linked http://www.site.stopjenny.com/ instead of http://www.stopjenny.com/
Don't quite understand how the first url contains what it does.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 02, 2008 at 04:50 PM
I support McCarthy and I think what she is doing is valuable. Why? I do not have an autistic child but I do have a child that was severely damaged by vaccines and this was confirmed by 3 of Arizona's top pediatric neurologists. He went into 30 minutes seizures, stopped brething, and eventually ended up with mild brain damage and epilepsy..all because I trusted in the medical community's miracle vaccines. If you just take a look you will see MUCH research out there to show how dangerous these things are. Just read the warning pamphlets that come with the shots...they are horrifying. So we are to believe by Pharma's own admission that vaccines can cause seizures, paralysis, and even death but we find it too hard to believe that they may overwhelm the body's system and cause autism in little bodies that are physically or genetically susceptible? That is is not skeptical...that is stupid.
Posted by: Tiffany | December 27, 2008 at 07:38 AM
Tiffany, like you, I have no idea whether or not vaccines cause autism. Your dislike of vaccines is understandable, but if you put emotions aside and think about it, realizing that there is no scientific evidence to back up the claim that vaccines cause autism, wouldn't you agree that you really don't have any good reasons to support McCarthy on this issue?
Posted by: Martin | December 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I don't support McCarthy and I think what she is doing is morally reprehensible, idiotic and dangerous. Why? I do not have an autistic child but I do have two children that have recieved all the required vaccines for their ages and have not suffered any problems from recieving them. They have, however, both avoided measles, mumps, rubella, Hep A and B and all the other things they are vaccinated for. All because I trusted in the medical communities vaccines (they are not miracles by the way, no-one ever claimed they were. They are merely the products of medical science).
So, my anecdotal evidence cancels your anecdotal evidence. Where does that leave you?
If you just take a look you will see MUCH research out there to show how dangerous these things are.
We have looked at the alleged evidence out there. It is nearly always either anecdotal and therefore unreliable, poorly designed studies, incorrectly interpreted studies, bad science or just plain wrong. They are trumped by the much better designed, carefully controlled and interpreted studies that show vaccines do not cause the problems people claim they do.
So we are to believe by Pharma's own admission that vaccines can cause seizures, paralysis, and even death
There can be complications but the benefits outweigh the risks. How is that astonishing? You can die in a plane crash too, are you going to stop flying places? You might be killed in a car crash tomorrow, are you going to stop driving?
but we find it too hard to believe that they may overwhelm the body's system and cause autism in little bodies that are physically or genetically susceptible?
Yes, because the science does not support it. Here's another anecdote for you. My friend has an autistic son who was recently tested for fragile X, heavy metal poisoning and a variety of other nonsense claims for the causes of autism. Care to guess what the results were?
Negative for all of them. Want me to repeat that? He was tested for nearly all of the usual anti-vax claims for the causes of autism and none of them were present. None of them. Oh dear, I guess he can't have autism then, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, people like you are wrong. You want to have something or someone to blame for the disturbing problems your children suffer. As a parent I am sorry, truly sorry, that your child has suffered so. You are still wrong. Even if your child's problems stem from vaccines, there are many millions more who have them and do not suffer side effects. Take the vaccines away and it is not an exaggeration to say that millions of children will die or suffer debilitating physical problems because of the illnesses they are no longer protected from.
That's not skeptical. That's not stupid. It's the truth.
Or would you rather people still suffered from smallpox to avoid the longshot of one child suffering a reaction to a vaccine? Because that is what people like you are arguing in favour of. The last reported case of smallpox was in 1978 and it was not because of herbal remedies, acupuncture, homeopathy, wishful thinking, prayers, chelation therapy that it was eradicated, it was because of vaccines.
So, Tiffany, who is really being stupid here?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 28, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Incidentally Tiffany, if you want a good summation of the skeptical 'battleground' that is the anti-vaccination movement try this Neurologica article.
Put your money where your mouth is and do your own research.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 28, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Jimmy YOUR anecdotal evidence proves nothing. You "think" you spared your children some horrible diseases except several of the diseases you mentioned are very mild and would have done nothing but make them ill for awhile. If you have bought into the hysteria that these diseases are just lurking around the corner trying to "get" you then what more can I say? Silly really.
These carefully controlled and interpreted studies you mention are amost always funded by the phrama groups marketing the vaccines in the next breath. Kind of like the fox guarding the hen house.
But regardless I will support people like Jenny McCarthy and others like her because they were eye witnesses to something you and I can't understand. Just as I was an eye witness to something many don't want to believe...that vaccines can be VERY dangerous. I said CAN BE. I think it very much depends on the individual getting the shot but in the brilliant logic of the scientific mind all people are the same. You want parents to discount what they saw with their own eyes and I say they cannot and should not do that...especially when most of the evidence to refute what they say is funded by the company pushing the "drugs".
For someone who thinks people should be skeptical I am surprised to see that you are basically saying parents should NOT believe their own eyes and instead believe a multi-billion dollar enterprise to have their best interests at heart. Good luck with that one...I will stick with common sense.
BTW your good summation of the skeptical 'battleground' is an opinion fluff piece. I have done my research and "lived" the horror that is vaccine injury. We are a non-vaccinating family and will always be advocates for INFORMED CONSENT.
Posted by: Tiffany | December 29, 2008 at 06:59 AM
For exactly the same reason yours proves nothing. That was his point.
Measles is mild? Children die from measles, even in developed nations. Haven't you been paying attention to the world? Britain saw a fall in vaccination rates and a resurgence of measles that has claimed lives. Measles can also cause permanent deafness and encephalitis.
Yeah, real mild illness.
So it's just absolute sheer coincidence that they reemerge when vaccination rates go down in the region of the reemergence.
First, we've got consumer protection groups like the FDA and counterparts in other nations to watch dog them. Second, we've got universities who don't have those sorts of interests.
You do realize that most people I meet from your camp end up advocating the complete destruction of consumer protection groups. They want utter deregulation of human experimentation so that they can do whatever their vague, discredited intuitions tell them to do to autistic children.
Oh, right. Because celebrities have magical powers of perception us lowly non-ivory tower living mortals can't comprehend.
You do realize that in science, eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence, right? It's based on an assumption of personal infallibility.
Of course, vaccines can provoke some nasty reactions, but even so, they're much, much safer than the often deadly and debilitating diseases they prevent.
Someone's been drinking from the altie Flavor-Aid. Scientific medicine does recognize that people are different. The problem is that your camp tends to change the made-up difference autistic children allegedly have every week. Helps the curebies by giving them something different to "treat" all the time.
Because squeezing a baby out makes your powers of perception completely immune to mortal fallacies and shortcomings.
How many elephants died to make that ivory tower of yours?
As for corporations, again: We're routinely pushing for strong regulation against those companies. What I've seen of your camp routinely pushes for deregulation for your companies and private businesses.
Someone here certainly doesn't know the first thing about skepticism. Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them. Verify, experiment, look at what other people have looked for. That's what scientific standards are all about.
And we only believe the corporations after the watch dogs have done their job of enforcing high standards on their studies. We go by the scientific community consisting of millions working at cross purposes, watching each other.
And here you are, demanding that we just give up skepticism and blindly trust internal biases like lambs to the unregulated human experimentation and corporate anarchism of Big Altie.
Because some unregulated human experimentalists who don't believe in informed consent told you so.
The altie mantra: Kill all the watch dogs.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | December 29, 2008 at 09:21 AM
Tiffany, you wrote:
Jimmy YOUR anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
Correct. Jimmy's point was exactly that: that anecdotal evidence proves nothing. I drank coffee today and got a sore throat. Therefore coffee causes sore throats. I've experienced it myself.
If you have bought into the hysteria that these diseases are just lurking around the corner trying to "get" you then what more can I say?
Our parents and grandparents seemed to have the idea that, for example, polio was lurking just around the corner. Care to explain why no kids today are suffering from it?
These carefully controlled and interpreted studies you mention are amost always funded by the phrama groups
You are making a few jumps there - saying the different testing bodies and the various procedures are a monolithic entity, and implying that they are deliberately hiding or manipulating evidence. What makes you think they are doing this?
I will support people like Jenny McCarthy and others like her because they were eye witnesses to something you and I can't understand.
What exactly was Jenny an "eye witness" to? Did she observe the event, or did she see two occurences and simply assume they were connected? That is not being an eye witness to a vaccine causing autism.
vaccines can be VERY dangerous.
You conflating the known risks with the postulated risks here. Your whole case seems to rest on linking the known risks with a postulated risk. But how are you making this link? Keep on saying parents have seen things "with their own eyes" but what do you mean by that? What have they actually seen?
They may have seen their child being vaccinated, and then their child has been diagnosed as autistic. They have not "seen" the vaccine cause the autism. All they have seen is two events and they have implied a connection between them.
I think it very much depends on the individual getting the shot but in the brilliant logic of the scientific mind all people are the same.
Here you argue that "the scientific mind" has ignored individual differences. Again, this is no argument, just a collective insult, as if there aren't a whole lot of individual medical practitioners who are undetaking different methods, rather, there is the monolithic, blind and stupid "scientific mind" which has failed to recognise biological differences between individuals.
Why do you think that? Has anyone suggested exactly what biological difference might react with exactly which ingredient to cause autism? Mercury maybe? Thimerosol? Formaldehyde?
Medical studies control for individual differences, but you are arguing that is not enough. They have ignored the differences because of the "scientific mind".
You want parents to discount what they saw with their own eyes
- Again, what did they actually see, and what are they simply postulating?
You keep repeating "parents have seen it with their own eyes" - but they haven't - and that the drug companies are faking the studies, but you are not offering any reason at all why you think this is so.
I have done my research and "lived" the horror that is vaccine injury.
-Again, you are conflating vaccine injury with the argument that vaccines cause autism, but you have failed to provide any link between the two beyond emotional appeals, unsubstantiated accusations of foul play, and the insistence that people have "seen" vaccines cause autism.
If you have really done the research, then how about summing some of it up in your own words (if it is actual research and not just repeats of anecdotes) and posting links or references?
Posted by: yakaru | December 29, 2008 at 09:52 AM
dammit.. I closed the window accidentally.
You guys pretty much summed up what I was going to say, but you left out something probably important.
tiffany, no one here thinks that what happened to your child isnt horrible. I have a daughter of my own and if she happened to be one of those one in a million (literally) children who had a severe side effect to a vaccination, I too would feel horrible. I would be devastated, knowing that something I willingly did to my child caused her to suffer in any way.
I empathize with you emphatically. I fully understand that it hurts that this has happened. I fully understand the emotional trauma you experienced due to this instance.
But it doesn't make you or Jenny right. What makes someone right is solid evidence for their claims. And this is where we part ways, anecdotes simply do not provide this. Even if this happened to my child, I would use the experience to get more data out there. Are there specifics about your child or family history that could be used to help lower the adverse reactions to an even lower level? Are there eating habits that may differ from most of the population. I would be working with my doctor to try to see if there are more observations that can be added to the pool to make what is already a life saving, harm reducing product even better.
You are on the wrong track and have been lead there by other people who are letting emotion and conspiracy theories guide their actions instead of reason.
I am deathly allergic to penicillin. Seriously, I almost died. This is a strong reaction that a small minority of people have to penicillin. Should we ban that too? Shall I go on a campaign to "green our antibiotics" (I agree it doesnt have the same ring) Or is it better to learn what may lead to this reaction and how best to counter it?
The promotion of conspiracy theories about pharma funding these studies are misguided at best, damaging at worst. Pharma funds these studies because they have to. The FDA wont allow their product on the market unless they are proven safe to tolerable limit. Who do you propose should fund those studies. Dont you wish that the FDA required that sort of rigor when it comes to vitamins and "Natural therapies" (they don't, you eat that stuff at your own risk).
I propose that Jenny McCarthy pay for all the controlled studies that are performed on medicines including vaccines. She will be broke in one week. That is why pharma must do it. But it is also why the studies go throughmultiple trials (phase I,II, and III) before getting approval, its why the trials are reviewed, its why the data is public. I encourage you to go and find the trial data and see what you find wrong with it. They are pretty standardized now, you wont find much.
That isnt to say, that some things don't get missed (recently COX-II inhibitors causing adverse reactions), but the difference between those recalled drugs and vaccines is.... evidence from controlled studies shows that in fact they were not good drugs.
Here is a sentence I wrote just for you:
All medicine has a risk of adverse reactions.
All of it, drugs, surgeries, therapies, etc and no one pretends that this is not the case. We use a medicine that has been validated by a controlling body becuase it has been shown to improve health more of the time than doing nothing or something else. But some people do get the shit end of that stick. You did.
But it is only homeopaths and acupuncturists and other non-controlled 'medicine' who claim they do no harm. Think about that while you consider who is looking out for you and who is just in it for the money.
Again, your experience with your child is heart wrenching and I totally feel for you and very little of what I or anyone says will help you. Only you can get over the damage. But clinging to conspiracy theories and poor reasoning is only going to cause continued anger. I suggest reading a few of the vaccination posts here and at Respectful Insolence, then go ahead, push your McCarthyites on those very points...move the debate further instead of falling back on the previously addressed fallacies.
Ask them why we shouldn't be banning all medicine with a small mortality rate (aspirin, penicillin, etc)
Ask them what the rate of measles mortality was in children before vaccinations and then compare that with the severe side effect rates of vaccinations.
Dont just take a side due to your personal experiences and then let every nut job with a book deal feed your anger.
Sincerely,
Tech
Posted by: TechSkeptic | December 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM
I'm at work now so can't respond, and most of you have said what I would have in response.
Gits.
But Tiffany, that response was an epic fail.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 29, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Ok then Tiffany let's see why you fail shall we?
Jimmy YOUR anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
Anecdotal evidence
As has been pointed out already, you completely missed the point. My point was that all anecdotal evidence proves nothing. On top of that, you seem to imply that my anecdotal evidence proves nothing, but yours does. What is the difference between the two that allows you to think this?
If my anecdotal evidence is not valid, then yours is not. Which leaves us where? Well, it leaves us with the scientific evidence, and that is overwhelmingly against your position. Oh dear.
If your anecdotal evidence is valid, then so is mine. In which case, my anecdotal evidence is that in at least two cases vaccines were completely safe. Yours is that in one case it wasn't. I win. To be more accurate though mine is not a win, but it does counter your anecdote effectively. Which leaves us where? The scientific evidence. Oh dear for you again.
You "think" you spared your children some horrible diseases except several of the diseases you mentioned are very mild and would have done nothing but make them ill for awhile.
Nope.
How can you be so wrong all in one sentence? Oh, and I guess "think" was supposed to be an insult. You really need to try harder.
First, how can some of these diseases be horrible and very mild all in one go? So, score one to Tiffany for self contradiction in the space of 12 words.
Second, I've had measles, mumps, and rubella (or German Measles as I knew it back then). Let me tell you, there is nothing very mild about them when you are a child. Let me guess, you think childhood illness is "character building".
Third, do you define pneumonia, encephalitis (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis) and corneal ulceration leading to corneal scarring as very mild? They are the possible complications from measles. Measles is:
But hey, measles is only very mild. It's not like it has ever killed anyone. Or maybe has a fatality rate of about 1 in 5000. It is very mild after all.How about the very mild mumps? Well lo and behold it can have the very mild complications of infection of other organ systems, sterility in men, in rare cases meningitis, profound hearing loss, Pancreatitis and Oophoritis.
Rubella? Why between 1962 and 1965:
Well, thank goodness it is so very mild.
But don't stop there, how about Hep A and B? Well, the very mild hep A has a mortality rate of 4 in 1000. Hep B? Why the very mild Hep B can in chronic form cause liver cirrhosis and liver cancer. Of the children who contract it at birth from their mothers only 5% will clear it. Those that don't clear it have a 40% lifetime risk of death from cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. Very mild
But, since you have done your research you knew all this. You did know this, right? Now go on, see if you can post a response before you figure out what the connection is between my citing rare complications from diseases and you citing the even more rare complications from vaccines.
If you have bought into the hysteria that these diseases are just lurking around the corner trying to "get" you then what more can I say?
Of course, having gone through all the above I now have to point out that you were missing the point anyway. I did not say anywhere that I thought they were "lurking around the corner", the point of my anecdote was that I have two cases of children being completely unharmed by vaccines. Which, in case you are still having trouble getting it, means that vaccines are not commonly dangerous.
Once again for the reading impaired - my anecdote was to show not that vaccines protect from rampant disease (which they do as well) but that they are not as dangerous as your one anecdote tries to imply.
Silly really.
Well it would be if you don't get it, wouldn't it? Try actually understanding what is written before you try to reply, it works wonders.
These carefully controlled and interpreted studies you mention are amost always funded by the phrama groups marketing the vaccines in the next breath. Kind of like the fox guarding the hen house.
So, you'll have some evidence then. Right?
But there is more. How does this explain the use of vaccines in countries with socialised health care? For instance, big pharma doesn't pay for NHS studies in Britain. The NHS pays for vaccine and drug studies in Britain, which are often far stricter than similar studies in the USA. Which is why drugs approved for use in the USA often take far longer to be approved in Britain. But, since you have done your research I'm sure you knew this. You did know this, right?
Your argument falls flat on its arse once you leave the USA. You know, there are other medically advanced nations outside the USA. I know this may come as a surprise, but I hear some of them even have electricity.
And on a side note, if medicine in the US is paid off by Big Pharma, I demand to know where my wife's cheque is.
But regardless I will support people like Jenny McCarthy and others like her because they were eye witnesses to something you and I can't understand.
Speak for yourself.
In case you missed it in my last post I am very good friends with someone who has an autistic son. An autistic son who was tested for all the crackpot claims for the causes of autism. And they were all negative. None of them were present. Oh dear for you again, again.
Just as I was an eye witness to something many don't want to believe...that vaccines can be VERY dangerous.
Yes they can be, in VERY (see I can make it true by using capials too) rare circumstances. No-one here denies that.
I said CAN BE.
Yes we noticed.
I think it very much depends on the individual getting the shot but in the brilliant logic of the scientific mind all people are the same.
Really? So it wasn't medical science that noticed that vaccines and drugs can have side effects on an individual basis? Scientists and medical professionals don't require consent from each individual after warning them then?
You want parents to discount what they saw with their own eyes and I say they cannot and should not do that...
I'm a parent, remember? My eyes see something very different to you. But apparently you want this parent to discount what I saw. I believe the word for that is hypocrisy.
especially when most of the evidence to refute what they say is funded by the company pushing the "drugs".
In the USA.
For someone who thinks people should be skeptical I am surprised to see that you are basically saying parents should NOT believe their own eyes and instead believe a multi-billion dollar enterprise to have their best interests at heart.
Actually it is because I am skeptical that I think this. Why don't you spend some time over at the Skeptic's Dictionary and look up all the varied forms of logical fallacies and cognitive weaknesses to find out why. And don't forget, I grew up in Britain, where medical research is not funded by the mythical Big Pharma entity.
Good luck with that one...I will stick with common sense.
Oh I think most of us can agree that nothing you believe in this area has anything to do with common sense. You are looking to apportion blame.
BTW your good summation of the skeptical 'battleground' is an opinion fluff piece.
An opinion fluff piece that links to detailed rebuttals, which you obviously choose to ignore. An opinion fluff piece that was written by a neuro-surgeon, who maybe, just maybe, knows a thing or two more than you. And also happens to be a good summation of the arguments and players.
I have done my research and "lived" the horror that is vaccine injury.
You may have lived through the horror that is the extremely rare case of vaccine related side effects, but it appears your research is woefully inadequate.
But hey, why not put your money where your mouth is and answer these questions, well conducted research should have made this easy:
1. What mechanisms cause vaccines to produce autism in children?
2. What cost/benefit analysis did you perform to decide non-vaccination is better than vaccination? Show your working.
3. How did you discount the other potential causes of autism in favour of vaccines?
4. How do you explain the consistent autism rates even after thimerasol was removed from vaccines?
5. What other methods do you believe could have eradicated smallpox and have almost eradicated polio?
We are a non-vaccinating family and will always be advocates for INFORMED CONSENT.
Oh, I doubt anything you do in regards to this is actually informed. But then, they do say ignorance is bliss.
Now Tiffany, unlike you I don't think my opponents in this debate are stupid (well, except John Best anyway). I just think you are wrong.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 29, 2008 at 09:57 PM
tiffany,
This seems to be relevant
The idea that doctors and scientists think that all people are identical and that all treatments work for everyone equally is a strawman built by people who simply do not have any scientific training and wish to live under the auspices of conspiracy theories.
If there was a way to predict who would have the reactions to vaccines that your son did and who didn't, you bet those procedures would be in place. Until then we do with the best we have.
The best we have has doubled our lifespan over the last 100 years and reduced infant mortality tremendously and is letting us live fuller healthier lives.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | December 30, 2008 at 03:28 AM
That's an interesting article Techskeptic, and more evidence that the woos and anti-vaxxers really are just relying on nothing more than opinion, hearsay, anecdotes, bias and pseudoscience in every aspect of their arguments, especially their strawmen.
What I have noticed in all these debates with people like Tiffany and Best is that they always insist that they have done research, often claiming it is thorough and detailed and often carried out over years. Quite often they can't even explain in thier own words the research they believe supports their claim, and they even frequently seem to misinterpret studies they think prove their claims. Often they don't even seem to grasp basic scientific terms or concepts, or they believe myths that have been disproved for years.
Those of us who they argue with always find huge factual gaps in their claims as well as significant gaps in their actual knowledge and understanding of relevant information, and usually do so with the barest of brief searches on Google or PubMed.
Just exactly what do these people consider research to be? It seems to me that research to these people is simply a version of this logic path :
Very depressing given the potential consequences.
Another thing I have noticed is the strange tendency to argue something along these lines:
Does anyone see an easy way of overriding these arguments other than what we have tried in the past, since that doesn't seem to get through at all.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 02, 2009 at 10:19 AM
LOL,
I've now come to the conclusion that simply asking people if they have changed their mind about anything significant is required before actually trying to throw facts at them. If the answer is yes, then I might start a debate.
I have also decided that we need a an easy and marketable way of quickly identifying good studies and bad studies. I offered my opinion on a way to do this.
It would surely be much easier to simply say: Your C grade studies can not override a single B grade study.
those grades would be completely blind to who authored them, who funded them and so forth, they are simply about the mechanism under which the study was performed. Was it a biased, non-blinded, low population Wakefield type study? was it controlled? Was is blind? Double Blind? Did it have a lot of participants? That sort of thing.
Otherwise, both us and woos get into the battle of what is a relevant study to refer to. Its becomes a sort of a Sciency No True Scotsman type thing where studies relevance are strictly by opinion.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | January 02, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Not really. As you know, we’ve all tried over the years in the comments here and elsewhere, and you can see the success we’ve had at changing minds. These people didn’t arrive at their conclusions through reason – it’s hard to reason out something that wasn’t reasoned in in the first place. But your question is a good one. If anyone has any ideas I’d like to hear them.
All I really hope to do here is provide info and arguments to help persuade those on the fence.
Posted by: Skeptico | January 02, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Well if this appears on the Stop Jenny McCarthy thread complete with correct html tags, then the email reply system works!
I've posted mostly in the same hope as you, to persuade fence sitters or at least make sure that the alternative to the woos is out there and with the information to back it up, and the Doggerel index certainly helps with common arguments, but the common thought processes don't seem to be easily disrupted.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 02, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Sweet, the email reply system works. Although the word TypePad was somehow added to the start of my post when it was posted here, I was still able to come onto the blog and edit it away.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 02, 2009 at 11:19 AM
well, to have some fun (I just heard and NPR story on how writing can make you lose weight -what crap), i'll be Tiffany some of the things you wrote jimmy. This will save her some time if she ever returns.
She was tryiing to say that these disease that you perceive to be horrible are actually mild.
"And yet, here you are writing to me. So what was the big deal?" (in my best Tiffany voice).
"I didnt say ALL of the diseases were mild, I said many. They are vaccinating against chicken pox for gods sake! Are you going to tell me chicken poxs is a disastrous disease with a straight face?"
"those fatality rates you are putting up there of of children infected with the disease not children over all, so of the 116 cases of measles in america per year, only 1% of them are dying? so of them 4 million babies born every year..only 1-2 of them are dying? but 4-5 of them are dying or getting really hurt from vaccinations! How is that better?"
(Woo I'm good at this no? Cant you find the fault in reasoning above? Sadly I am not up on the antivax POV of rubella and mumps. also I did a boo boo, i should not have linked to something, they never do)
"perhaps I put two paragraphs together that I shoudl nt have, sorry. I was not using my anecdote to show that these diseases are mild. Regardless of my anecdote you have still bought into the idea that these diseases are lurking around the corner, when they are simply not"
(take that Jimmy!)
"fine, but who is on the committees of the approving agencies of the NHS and FDA and CDC? Former drug industry 'experts'! well guess who pays for them? It does matter if its a different organization, it matters who is doing the approving!"
(note how I was able to swiftly defeat your ridiculous assertion that I need evidence for a claim, by providing another claim with no evidence)
"yeah well there you go again with another useless anecdote. Were the test performed properly? Did the Doctor have a bias? Were they vaccianted? If so, clearly thats more evidence that vacciantions caused the autism, even if some kids are able to escape autism that may be caused by vaccianes"
"Well how did your "medical science" get those observations? By kids having side effect as reported by parents! So when parents are telling you that autism is a side effect of vaccines why don't they listen to that? Huh Mr. Smartypants?"
Oh i've seen all that fallacy stuff. you 'skeptics' like to trot that out when you want to guide a conversation in your direction. All that stuff has been debunked already!"(LOL I couldnt help that one)
"so let me answer your questions"
1. What mechanisms cause vaccines to produce autism in children?
Do I need to understand how the sun rises to know that it does? No! I see it, and so do lots of people. therefore the sun rises.
2. What cost/benefit analysis did you perform to decide non-vaccination is better than vaccination? Show your working.
What cost benefit analysis did you perform to decide to poison your kids? Sorry, just becuase you don't value the life of your child as much as I do, doesnt mean that I should go ahead and poison my kid. I tried that, it was disasterous.
3. How did you discount the other potential causes of autism in favour of vaccines?
Duh! Parents vaccinate child
Child gets autism
Itsd pretty clear isnt it?
4. How do you explain the consistent autism rates even after thimerasol was removed from vaccines?
Thimerasol may not have caused autism, but there is plenty of other crap in vaccines that could still cause it.
5. What other methods do you believe could have eradicated smallpox and have almost eradicated polio?
Quarantine infected people. We do that for Ebola, why are these diseases any different?
OK, skeptico if you want to remove this useless post, feel free. It was fun for me.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | January 02, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Wow, you're right TechTiffany-bot. I've been so blind!
Incidentally, and I am sure Tech chose chicken pox deliberately Tiffany, the possible complications are worse than I thought!
"those fatality rates you are putting up there of of children infected with the disease not children over all, so of the 116 cases of measles in america per year, only 1% of them are dying? so of them 4 million babies born every year..only 1-2 of them are dying? but 4-5 of them are dying or getting really hurt from vaccinations! How is that better?
I confess nothing struck me immediately for faulty reasoning here but I can think of at least two counters I would bring up:
If those people were vaccinated then there would be 1-2 deaths less per year. Instead of 7 from vaccinations and measles, you get 5 from just vaccines. That's the point!
Then of course (and I think this is what maybe you were thinking of Tech), those figures are taken from a largely vaccinated population. So if the level of vaccines went down, then the level of reported cases of measles would rise significantly, and therefore the numbers of serious complications from measles, and therefore the number of deaths from previously vaccinated illnesses becomes greater than the numbers of deaths or injuries related to vaccines.
Did I win?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 02, 2009 at 06:25 PM
LOL, yup, that was it! you win!
Posted by: TechSkeptic | January 03, 2009 at 04:35 AM
Tiffany (not that you are going to come back now that you'd have to actually question your cherished beliefs):
Check out this article:
'Unprecedented' rise in measles
You must be very proud of your 'informed consent'.
I take it back, people like you and Best are stupid. And speaking as a parent myself, I think you are at best dangerously ignorant and at worst criminally negligent. You don't just put your children at risk, but other people's as well.
Where did you go Tiffany, what were you afraid of?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 09, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Tiffany,
also relevant
I tend to agree with jimmy. It is no longer that I should respect your decisions. You and your ilk are simply dirty idiots. you're spreading disease that unecessarily causes suffering based on an extremely flawed and unsupported contention that the vaccines harm babies.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | January 10, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Hey Tiffany and the rest of your anti-science, anti-progress and anti-critical thinking crowd, another success story for you to be proud of:
Minn. Illnesses Worry CDC Officials
What was it you said Tiffany? Oh that's right:
I'm sure you're very proud of yourself.
My 'anecdotes', or what this parent sees with his own eyes, are beginning to make you look a little foolish don't you think?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 26, 2009 at 04:29 PM
Boy, this is just not fun anymore. It's not even a challenge. Tiffany, Bestie and all you mentally challenged like minded anti-medicine nutters:
You lose. Again.
At what point does this become embarrassing for you?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 27, 2009 at 07:58 AM