Anti-Science, Anti-Vaccine Movement Enters 2016 Race

ulture: An unlikely issue has entered the infant 2016 presidential campaign: Vaccines and required vaccinations. Let's hope the fact there's no scientific link to autism or anything else isn't lost in the political fray.

Candidates will often look for an edge over their opponents. Thus, both New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky recently suggested that, while vaccinations are good, forcing parents to vaccinate their children might be too much.

We believe vaccines are safe and should be routine, but concern about parents' rights is not unreasonable. What really gripes us, however, is listening to the media make this out to be an issue dreamed up by anti-science, right-wing kooks. Far from it.

The issue has been pushed in recent years almost entirely by the left. Hollywood progressives and others in the media (see editorial, below) have promoted the idea that vaccines have possible nasty effects, such as autism, and that they're reason to keep kids from being vaccinated.

"The one I linked was 1271 pgs. That wasn't a scientific study published in a scientific journal, that was a confidential bridging report send to European pharmaceutical regulatory authorities. " No that was not a scientific journal, nor did I claim it to be so. It was an internal scientific study by the vaccine manufacturer. From post 134 "One of the deciding bits of evidence in that case was a 1271-page confidential GlaxoSmithKline report. " It did show the length of a rigorous study of a specific vaccine. Whereas you linked the press release of a study that is only 21 pages that you believe conclusively proves that a 3 virus concoction is safe. Clearly, when a company is bringing a vaccine to market they do a more thorough study than the pathetic 21 page study you cited. While you may believe that only publicly published studies are of any value. Vaccine companies spend millions of dollars producing confidential internal studies. I guess they just have money to burn. I think we can see that you Google well, but did not actually read the 1271 page study. It probably is beyond your abilities since it is clear you have no background in a scientific discipline.

"Well first of all, you're jumping back and forth between the 2012 and 2014 cases. In the matter of the 2012 case, it wasn't clear at all. In fact, other than one physician witness, the court jumps to a conclusion through non sequitur: ""
No, I am not and you know it. I initially posted a link to the 2012 case. I clearly introduced the 2014 case and explained the error. There is no back and forth and your lame attempt to paint it as otherwise shows your lack of intellectual integrity and your willingness to obfuscate(ie lie).
That wasn't a scientific study published in a scientific journal, that was a confidential bridging report send to European pharmaceutical regulatory authorities. Even the actual scientific studies that you linked to were were around a dozen pages, so for some reason you're under the false assumption that the length of peer-reviewed scientific studies rival long novels. Likewise the GSK report is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, so this is just more evidence that you don't have any experience reading scientific journals
Post 121
"Perhaps with the genius you clearly are you could put that abstract into laymans terms. Also could you post your credentials so that us layman could understand your superior medical knowledge in this matter with something we could look up and verify. And with your superior medical knowledge, do you see any failings in the methodology of this study. Also, maybe you in your infinite knowledge, could you educate us less fortunate folk, in matters regarding other adverse reactions to vaccines.
I would truly feel enlightened if you could dispel all the rumor mongering and bad science around the fact that no adverse reaction has ever been had with a “safe” vaccine.

Can't help but notice you never replied to this post. Is this as you say, "...more evidence that you don't have any experience reading scientific journals."

I clearly identified it as an internal study. From post 134 "One of the deciding bits of evidence in that case was a 1271-page confidential GlaxoSmithKline report. " Which was repeated in Post 138, so how you were confused is really beyond comprehension. Additionally, the article I linked cited it as an internal report. Once again you are showing your ignorance and/or your dishonesty.

"As far as the 2014 case, you didn't even mention that this case dealt with the hexavalent vaccine, not MMR. "
You have been in support of vaccines in general not anyone in specific. So, I do not see how this is even an argument that you would put forth. Please see above "if you could dispel all the rumor mongering and bad science around the fact that no adverse reaction has ever been had with a “safe” vaccine."

"Well, here we go. You see that you're arguments have been thoroughly debunked and defeated, so you're changing the goalposts and your arguments. Maybe you shouldn't have wasted all of your time trying to futilely prove an autism link, only to admit that an autism/vaccine link wasn't what you were arguing. "
Only you are arguing autism exclusively. Please see Post 121 again where it clearly states " Also, maybe you in your infinite knowledge, could you educate us less fortunate folk, in matters regarding other adverse reactions to vaccines. I would truly feel enlightened if you could dispel all the rumor mongering and bad science around the fact that no adverse reaction has ever been had with a “safe” vaccine.." Further, I cited a study from way back that identified Rubella as a cause of Autism. You never "debunked nor defeated" that study. Though you still claim that a MMR vaccine cannot cause autism even though one of the component viruses was determined to cause autism back in the 60's and 70's(way before Autism made the news).

I highly doubt you truly understand science at anymore than a high school level. Your goal of causality is rarely attained in any scientific research. Causal models are typically evaluated, at least initially, with data that describe an association or correlation between variables. If smoking causes lung cancer, then cancer rates should be higher (associated) with smokers. However, as most people know, there are smokers who never develop lung cancer and there are those who never smoke who do in fact get lung cancer. So, what you have proposed as proof is an almost impossible hurdle to overcome. You either did this through ignorance of science(most likely) or you are truly dishonest.

Either way, you are not really convincing anyone online that you are right. You are quite the arrogant douche and your lack of logic is telling. I have more than one PM about what a wanker you are, many of them citing the logical and factual flaws in your argument. I don't even need to list my degrees and work experience for anyone but the most pro-vaccine anti-liberty people to see you as the a science poser who Googles articles and parrots what he finds.

No that was not a scientific journal, nor did I claim it to be so.

Yes you did. And you even quoted your own words where you claimed it was. When I said, "How many scientific studies have you read? How long do you think they are?", you said, "The one I linked was 1271 pgs."

That is very clearly claiming the GSK report was a scientific study, when it was not. It was a report to a regulatory agency. That's like claiming a tax return is an economic report. It was done for regulatory purposes, which is why it is so long. It's less research on the vaccine and largely made up of the reporting of adverse reactions.

Clearly, when a company is bringing a vaccine to market they do a more thorough study than the pathetic 21 page study you cited.

You haven't pointed out why it is "pathetic", nor addressed the fact that it was of comparable length to most published scientific studies on the subject, even Wakefield's fraudulent one and your rubella studies. You also didn't address the fact that your entire reason for citing the GSK report was that it was used as evidence in court for "proving" an MMR link to autism, and I easily pointed out that not only did the GSK not even deal with the MMR vaccine, but there were no causal links in the report, and that it also listed spider bites and broken bones as reported side effects also.

It probably is beyond your abilities since it is clear you have no background in a scientific discipline.

No, I actually reviewed the report to see if it claimed what you said it did, and provided evidence that disproved you and the court's claims along with page numbers so folks can see themselves.

So your claim is erroneous.

I clearly introduced the 2014 case and explained the error.

Yes, and you kept repeating the error. It doesn't really matter as I've provided clear evidence of the court's malfeasance.

You still didn't provide an alternative to Wakefield's study as the main driver of the 2012 case and I've already debunked the GSK report as showing a casual link in the 2014 case.

Just to let you know, the scientists who were convicted of "not predicting an earthquake" in Italy had their convictions overturned, thankfully. But it still doesn't speak to Italy's court system being scientifically literate in the least. You can take their findings as "proven science" if you want to, but most normal folks can see there's a problem with relying on Italian courts as arbiters of scientific findings.

Updated: Appeals court overturns manslaughter convictions of six earthquake scientists

Perhaps with the genius you clearly are you could put that abstract into laymans terms. Also could you post your credentials so that us layman could understand your superior medical knowledge in this matter with something we could look up and verify. And with your superior medical knowledge, do you see any failings in the methodology of this study. Also, maybe you in your infinite knowledge, could you educate us less fortunate folk, in matters regarding other adverse reactions to vaccines.

Simple; I guess I'll have to repeat myself.

I read through the GlaxoSmithKline report (it's largely made up of tables and descriptions of adverse events having nothing to do with autism) and found that the mentions of autism are in sections detailing reported adverse events. I also found adverse events that are clearly not linked to the vaccine were listed all over the report, such as broken bones and insect bites. The company itself even notes one case:

Conversely, a medical history of Herpes type II and recent mosquito multiple bites was noted. Causal relationship with the vaccination was unlikely.

It seems clear that I spent more time looking at this thing that you did, so you've clearly been disproved here unless you want to actually read through the report and point to something that links autism to the vaccine in a more relevant manner than other erroneous adverse events like "Forearm fracture", "Joint dislocation", "Carbon monoxide poisoning", "Groin abscess", "Sense of oppression", and "Phimosis".

If this report were evidence in the way you and the court are trying to use it, you could literally use it as proof that the hexavalent vaccine causes all known health problems.

Read your damn sources next time instead of cutting and pasting from anti-vax blogs. I've asked you to do this several times and you never seem to learn.

You have been in support of vaccines in general not anyone in specific. So, I do not see how this is even an argument that you would put forth.

Our conversation was clearly talking about the MMR vaccine and its supposed autism link. Any digression would have reasonably been noted by someone wanting to talk about different vaccines.

The more likely explanation is that you didn't even know that the 2014 case and GSK study dealth with hexavalent and not MMR, since you likely just cut and pasted a link, and were in the fact the one who "googled well" without actually reading your source.

Further, I cited a study from way back that identified Rubella as a cause of Autism. You never "debunked nor defeated" that study.

All three studies you linked to on this subject dealt with congenital rubella, which by its very nature can't be caused by a vaccine. Congential rubella occurs when the mother gets sick with it while she's pregnant, and it only usually affects infants if the mother gets it in the first trimester.

Autism can be a byproduct of fetal development being affected by the virus while the baby is in utero. There's no indication whatsoever in any of those studies that you can contract a "congenital" disease after you're out of the womb by getting a vaccine. It's a nonsensical assertion.

Quite interestingly, all three of those studies are under 15 pages long, yet earlier you said that a study I linked to was "pathetic" because it was only 21 pages.

Once again, we see complete incoherence in your arguments.

I highly doubt you truly understand science at anymore than a high school level.

Silly insults seem to be your last gasp at regaining some foothold here, as it has not been difficult to find the inherent and obvious flaws in all of your arguments. Not only do you seem to be relying on anti-vax crackpot websites, you don't even seem to read the few pieces scientific evidence that you've linked to.

So, what you have proposed as proof is an almost impossible hurdle to overcome.

It's not impossible at all. All you need to do is provide one piece of scientific evidence that shows a causal relationship with autism. There are all sorts of known causal side effects for just about every vaccine, and there always has been going back to Jenner. That simple fact proves wrong the idea that proving causality is "impossible."

I have more than one PM about what a wanker you are, many of them citing the logical and factual flaws in your argument.

That's probably the only true thing you've said; I have no doubt that your little anti-vax cargo cult consults each other and forms sewing circles in order to disseminate the latest anti-tax talking points. What's interesting is that if you are receiving all of these messages about flaws in my arguments, why can't you use them and point them out yourself? I've successfully shot down every argument you've made by using scientific evidence as well as your own evidence (which is usually misinterpreted and taken out of context).

I don't even need to list my degrees and work experience for anyone but the most pro-vaccine anti-liberty people to see you as the a science poser who Googles articles and parrots what he finds.

First of all, I doubt you have degrees from anywhere other than diploma mills. You've shown no grasp of any of the subjects we've been discussing, and your evidence comes from dubious blogs. In the rare case where you cite a scientific study or report, a quick review shows that you don't quote from those sources and likely don't read them.

You can keep coming back and embarrassing yourself if you like, but I think it best if you don't continue.

Nothing you've posted stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

"No that was not a scientific journal, nor did I claim it to be so. Yes you did. And you even quoted your own words where you claimed it was. When I said, "How many scientific studies have you read? How long do you think they are?", you said, "The one I linked was 1271 pgs."

Good Grief! You cannot discern the difference between a scientific journal article and a scientific study. Are you really that stupid? I am sorry I am not published enough on the Internet that you could Google an argument to copy and paste against me.

"Conversely, a medical history of Herpes type II and recent mosquito multiple bites was noted. Causal relationship with the vaccination was unlikely."

That is word for word from page 209. Do you have any original thoughts?

You do remember that this a document from the vaccine manufacturer trying to prove their product safe?

Don't cherry pick!!!

How about this little bit from page 170 of the same report that sounds a bit more scary.

"The subject was hospitalised and the physician considered the events were disabling. The vaccination course with Infanrix hexa was discontinued. Follow- up information was received on 05 August 2011 via the German regulatory authority (PEI). The subject was born with umbilical cord around neck, but APGAR score was 10. In the evening after vaccination with Infanrix hexa and Prevenar, the subject could not keep the head straight (head posture abnormal) and had rolling eyes and restless head. The next day the subject developed sweating, tiredness and after three day s high - pitched cry ing and regression of development (loss of known skills, speech and bod y control). I n second week the subject was twitching and developed West sy ndrome. Medical stabilisation was difficult. At last (in July 2011), the subject was treated with sultiam (Ospolot). The subject had developed well until vaccination. Starting in the evening after vaccination and throughout the next three weeks, the subject developed problems holding the head with waggling the head, tiredness, pallor, diarrhea, sweating, stiff neck, was not responsive, stopped laughing, became more and more stiff, with high - pitched cry ing, twitching, headache and abdominal pain. The subject was hospitalised from 07 to 18 March 2011, 30 March to 09 April 2011, 16 to 18 May 2011 and 18 May to 10 June 2011. The hospital re ports stated the following. The subject had two health y siblings. After normal pregnancy, the subject was born spontaneously with a weight of 4040 g. Newborn screening and childhood examinations U1 to U3 were normal. On 31 December 2010 the subject had bro nchitis, phary ngitis and purulent rhinitis. High amounts of Klebsiella pneumoniae were found in nose swab. U4 showed trunk hy potonia and phy siotherapy was prescribed. On the same day vaccination was administered. After vaccination the subject's development was regressive, with less contact, tiredness, not responsive, rolling eyes, no sounding, loss of skills. When first hospitalised, the subject had h ypotonia and movement disorder, but no infection, fever or diarrhea. Diagnoses included epileptic encephalop ath y with developmental regression, West sy ndrome, d ys kinetic movement disorder and muscular hy potonia. Electroencephalogram (EEG) was pathologic with hy psarrhy thmia. Several convulsions were observed in hospital. "

Wow that is pretty causal....but you will still deny it won't you? Also pretty severe...but you have eloquently and thoroughly debunked this...atleast in your own head.

"First of all, I doubt you have degrees from anywhere other than diploma mills.
And yet you have never produced your credentials. Please enlighten us or don't try to dismiss someone else's education. You are clearly dodging this, but you can rationalize it some more for us. You are clearly an ignorant tool who uses Google, albeit well, rather than any real expertise. I first called into question your credentials back around post 121, and you still stay silent. You must be embarrassed that you went to Caltech instead of a good school.

You cannot discern the difference between a scientific journal article and a scientific study. Are you really that stupid?

Apparently it's you who can't discern the difference, which is why you were claiming that it's relevance was based simply on its length in pages.

Look, the whole point here was that you were claiming an article I posted was "pathetic" because it was 21 pages long. I've provided ample evidence that peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject are of comparable length, even those you posted, so consider the matter closed. You didn't back up your argument, and we can all agree that your page number argument is invalid.

That is word for word from page 209. Do you have any original thoughts?

Of course it's word for word, you jackass. That's why I said "The company itself even notes one case:", and then posted the quote in italics. Is your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you just drifting back into sociopathy?

Wow that is pretty causal....but you will still deny it won't you?

Of course I will. Not only does West or Lennox–Gastaut not mean that the kid has autism, but they couldn't even determine a causal relationship to the vaccine and West/Lennox–Gastaut. I'm going to put this in quotes and italicize, just so you don't get confused:

"This 4-month-old female subject was diagnosed with West Syndrome/ Lennox-Gastaut syndrome less than one month after 1st dose of Infanrix hexa and Prevenar. Causal relationship to vaccination could not be formerly assessed and other etiologies were considered (metabolic, viral encephalitis)."

This has no relevance to the court decision, which was the whole reason you posted this report. So nice try and dragging us into a tangent.

And yet you have never produced your credentials. Please enlighten us or don't try to dismiss someone else's education.

I'm not appealing to any credentials, and I have no published peer-reviewed work on vaccines. That's why I'm using scientific evidence of those who have the credentials and have done the research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, while you've used Age of Autism and other dubious blogs.

After all of this time you have yet to provide one peer-reviewed scientific journal entry that backs up your point, while I've given dozens.

My estimation of your education is based more on the lack of reading comprehension that you've displayed. You can't seem to discern source types, and you often get confused when I quote something, then accuse me of not having "any original thoughts".

I dare you to find one sentence I've written that is not sourced, quoted, or italicized in any of my responses and find copied from another source.

Go on, find one.

"Look, the whole point here was that you were claiming an article I posted was "pathetic" because it was 21 pages long. I've provided ample evidence that peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject are of comparable length, even those you posted, so consider the matter closed. You didn't back up your argument, and we can all agree that your page number argument is invalid."

You have proved that many peer reviewed articles are not much longer than your meager 21 page study. I will concede that point. My backgrounds tends more to the government regulatory side of life, so my experience is more with the 1271 pg "tax returns" of science. I like them better since they are more data and less analysis. Which is exactly the reason you do not like them, you are incapable of analysis outside of the tiny tidits from the GlaxoSmithKline "scientists." You are little able to comprehend what transpires in these pages. You totally missed the Sudden infant death syndrome section(of course you believe this whole argument to be based on autism, since that is what you believe your conservative power-brokers to have declared.) I have been rather open to your nonsense since the beginning. I have never declared this a MMR discussion(though you have deemed it so. Nor have I declared it an autism argument though that seems your focus.)

Please see post 133

<"http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM101580.pdf

Here is an excerpt in case you don't have time to wade through the whole pdf: Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism , convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. " Here is an excerpt in case you don't have time to wade through the whole pdf: Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism , convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. "

I see this a minor child malady, which is what you concede chickenpox is in other threads. Measles has had a similar death rate(yes the CDC obfuscates that from you, but look at the 1963 430 deaths from nearly 4 million cases, the advances in science since then that have reduced the 430 death per 4 million, to less than half that...The two shots 2000mg of vitamin A has been published in peer reviewed articles.) So even by your standard measles is a minor child malady. 215 deaths per 4 million as compared to 150 deaths in 4 million cases

From post 118: "It would also be nice if you did not cite a tainted CDC source Which source are you referring to? Do you have any evidence that the Journal of Pediatrics study I linked to is "tainted"?>
,br/>Since you are unwilling to offer a analysis of your study,

Sounds like you're going to play the 9/11 Truther angle, and claim any evidentiary source that deb8unks your assertions is part of the conspiracy."

Your source:

http://www.jpeds.com/content/JPEDSDeStefano Is dependent on reference # 3:

Institute of Medicine. Immunization safety review: vaccines and autism. National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2004

Which is turn dependent upon:

Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA. 2003;290(13):1763–6. [PubMed]

Which in turn is dependent on:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949291

Which is called into question with this freedom of information act request

http://www.bolenreport.com/mark%20geier/PLAINTIFF%20RESPONSE%20MO-SUM%20JDG%20%2011-CV-01276%20%282%29.pdf
So, before you respond, let me say...I don't care who the plaintiff is, nor the validity of his case...What I do care about is the clear obfuscation of the facts of this study. Clearly, there was a reduction of autism amongst the Danes after the removal of Thermisol from the populace. A fact that the Journal of Pediatrics ignored. In addition, to the emails involving ignoring the 2001 data, there is the email from a CDC official encouraging the Journal of Pediatrics to publish a flawed study(see the 2001 omission) and a twice rejected study(JAMA and Jancet). The emails are in the above court action.If you want any credibility of your claims you will need to explain away the CDC involvement and the neglect of the Danish 2001 records. I also remember one of the primary scientist being under investigation for embezzling funds.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.