7.1 Percent Of Marin Parents Refuse To Inoculate Their Children

This will not turn out well for these residents in the long run.  Purell^(R) has no effect on measles and pretty much all the rest of the diseases that vaccines actually provide real protection against.

LARKSPUR, Calif. -- When a Larkspur woman’s healthy two-year-old heads off to pre-school she’ll do so without any vaccinations, a decision that has been viewed as controversial by many parents and health officials.

“I decided that I did not want to vaccinate her,” Sondra Kleghorn said. “I believe that vaccinations can cause more harm than good.”

Kleghorn said she doesn't talk about her decision with many people because like religion and politics, it's personal and controversial.

Kleghorn is just one of many Marin residents who have said no to vaccines for their children.

According to the Marin County Health Department, two percent of parents in California opted out of having their children vaccinated.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE!

It's sad to see this sort of ignorance endanger someone who is too young to defend themselves from the bad decisions of an adult that is frankly just plain wrong.  And because so many adults use Purell^(R) incorrectly, in the end it will probably do more harm than good for their families...  The misguided in-expert opinions of the masses are not a rational approach to issues like these...

They are at it again!

Ah the usual quacks at Natural News are upto their old denials again.

See the problem is Natural News is a relatively large site so it gets hits quite easily from scared parents who want to find out more about this whole "vaccine bruhaha" so they find the site and quickly are scared into not vaccinating their child.

Viera Scheibner's Quick Points - A Rebuttal

Viera Schiebner at her non-muggle job.

I find this woman odious, a genuine harpy. Twisting the misery and suffering of countless children across the world to fit her world view of anti-vaccination and anti-medicine. Her work has recently begun to resurface courtesy of outbreaks of measles across Europe. It's not sufficient that she misrepresents her "speciality" as a micro-paleontologist and uses her doctrate to make people assume that she is a medical doctor. Her work has routinely been called to question and is responsible for the idea that the whooping cough vaccine is responsible for SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). She has also linked Shaken Baby Syndrome to vaccination and claimed that childhood diseases such as mumps, measles, whooping cough and german measles are vital for development and only cause fatalities under medical mismanagement. Her work forms the foundation of all sorts of moronic anti-vaccine ideology based out of Australia. In response to the previous Measles outbreak in the UK immediately post Andrew Wakefield's shoddy research she produced her own Quick Points about the Measles Outbreak.

Anti-Vax Nutters Show the Weakness of their Position

The anti-vax crowd likes to get together and mentally masturbate over their position.  One such venue is the Autism One convention.  By now, I'm sure you've heard about Jamie Bernstein, and her treatment at that convention.  Especially considering that she registered for it, and was adhering to all the rules.  I think it highlights the weakness of the anti-vax crowd when they go to such lengths to silence any dissent to their position.  And in such an over the top way!

The Bad Astronomer has a good take on the article, with plenty of links to follow up with on the whole story.  I will add in my own musing on this whole issue.  What I find particularly ironic about these alt-med woo peddlers is that they are up in arms about some faceless “Big Pharma” selling medicine (THAT ACTUALLY WORKS), but when some unqualified quack tries to sell them twigs and berries that do nothing, they gladly fork over their money…

There’s a grand irony about skepticism and alt-med groups that I suspect most people don’t know. Skeptics are commonly seen as curmudgeonly cynics, poopooing new ideas and excluding anyone not in their club. Alt-med people are seen as warm, open, willing to try new things, and welcoming anyone to their group.

But that’s not the way it really works. In fact, skeptical groups welcome people who believe in various things we don’t (we’ve had them come to various TAMs; the effort we make in outreach could be improved, of course, but we certainly don’t turn them away — an important point, as you’ll see in a moment), and alt-med groups… well, they talk a good game, but when it comes down to a skeptic actually showing up at their meetings, their actions speak much louder than words.


But don’t take my word for it. You can read all about what happened to my pal and active supporter of real medicine Jamie Bernstein when she attended the antivax Autism One convention. She wrote up her experience in two parts: the first on Skepchick, and the second on Friendly Atheist.

The upshot? Despite behaving herself, obeying the rules, and being very polite, she was escorted out of the meeting by three security guards and four armed police officers, ejected on clearly trumped-up charges.

As Orac points out, does this sound like an open and honest movement? Or does it sound like people who are terrified of different opinions and quash dissent, even before it happens?

Yep, she looks downright criminally dangerous, doesn't she!

Just the Vax: Infant Mortality and Vaccines

Sadly, most people can't tell the difference between good science, and bad science.  So when a study shows up that seems to support an idea that has been debunked already, alarm bells should go off.  Catherina at Just the Vax has found one such article and tears it apart.

Sadly, the debunking of this study will not travel anywhere near as fast as the lies this article spreads.  This sort of irresponsible reporting will further lead to many preventable deaths by people who are not armed with a good background in science.  After all, this paper could be used to support the Stork Theory of human reproduction after all!

Infant mortality and vaccines

Oh goodness, here I wanted to go to bed early and then I stumbled over this latest "peer reviewed" paper in a journal "indexed by the National Library of Medicine" (see the anti-vaccine faction gloating at those fantastic quality indicators) and "proving" with an correlation co-efficient of 0.992 and a p of 0.0009 (so "sciencey") that:

Nations requiring the most vaccines tend to have the worst infant mortality rates

Authors of this little gem, in the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology, with the impressive impact factor of 1.307 and a proud ranking of 58th of 77 in the area of Toxicology (yes, that would put them into the bottom quarter) are Think Twice's own Neil Z. Miller and Medical Veritas' Gary S. Goldman. I wonder why Miller and Goldman didn't publish their paper in Medical Veritas (here is the link to the journal, please don't go blind), seeing that item 7 in their mission is: "Create a movement to address the adverse vaccine reactions and vaccine-related injuries afflicting children and adults". I guess that is because parents have clued in that "peer review" and being indexed on PubMed is a quality measure (although very obviously no guarantee for quality).

In any case - Miller and Goldman took a list of countries and looked at the number of vaccines they schedule for infants and they also looked at infant mortality. And then they correlated one with the other, a fail safe way to find causal relationships: Storks deliver babies p=0.008.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.

Despicalbe Human Being gets Just Rewards (Oh, and FISH)

Today a despicable human being who claimed the title of "Doctor" lost his privileges to that because of his abuses and rejection of reality.  Yet this is the sort of person that so many people end up going to because the aren't satisfied with the current state of knowledge (or lack thereof) when dealing with autism.  Sadly, I am afraid this will not serve as a lesson to the quacks that behave like this excuse for a medical practitioner, nor will it warn off frustrated and tired parents from similar pro-disease wackjobs.  I think Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy summed it up quite well:

I do so love to report these wins for reality, as rare as they are: the very vocal antivax advocate Mark Geier has had his medical license revoked in Maryland. Why?

The Maryland State Board of Physicians reviewed nine cases of autistic children seen by Geier, of which he treated seven. Of those nine, the Board found he misdiagnosed six of them. He (mis)diagnosed them with "precocious puberty", a medical condition where kids have extremely early onset of puberty. Why would he do such a thing? Well, this condition can be treated with Lupron, a drug which lowers testosterone (it’s used to chemically castrate adult men). Geier happens to think Lupron can also help autism — despite there being no evidence at all that’s the case — which makes his diagnosis very suspect. It implies strongly that he used the precocious puberty diagnosis as an excuse to prescribe the drug.

By the way, Lupron costs $5000 – $6000 a month to administer. The side effects can be severe as well, including seizures, and it’s known that autistic children are prone to seizures. That’s why the Board wrote that Geier’s treatment "exposed the children to needless risk of harm, " (pp 12 – 13). As far as his medical expertise, the Board also wrote that Geier’s "assessment and treatment of autistic children as described herein, however, far exceeds his qualifications and expertise" (p. 13). That dry assessment does nothing to convey the horror I felt reading the Board’s document, though. In several cases, he didn’t even diagnose the children in person. 

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE POST.

For more information, feel free to go to sites like Harpocrates Speaks, Seth Mnookin, and Orac.  These folks really get into the details.

Oh, did I mention FISH in the title?  My good friend IVAN3MAN sent me a link from the BBC that caught my interest, and I figured that I would share this one as well. It's an interesting article about how we betray our fishy origins every time one of us is conceived and gestates.  And we still bear the marks after we are born, yet never think about it.  Here is a quick excerpt from the article:

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

By Dr Michael Mosley

It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish, but the evidence can be found not just in fossils but also within our own bodies.

Your face is your most expressive feature; it tells the world what you are feeling, who you are and where you come from. Although no two faces are exactly the same, they share a number of common characteristics; a couple of eyes, a nose, a mouth and a philtrum.

The philtrum is the groove on your top lip that lies just beneath your nose. You see it every day in the mirror so you probably never think about it.

It has no obvious function. Instead it is an accident of our origins, a clue to our fishy past and how our faces first formed.

Your face is formed in the womb in the first couple of months of life, from when you were the size of a grain of rice to when you were the size of a kidney bean.
The video (above) of a growing human face shows how this process happens. It has been created from high quality scans of human embryos at early stages of development, provided by universities and hospitals.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Just the Vax: Dr. Bob Sears' Alternate Reality or Everyone is a Pharma Shill

Today I read another article that I think all should read.  This is the oft touted, but 100% wrong, idea that there is a "Big Pharma" covering up the autism/vaccines link...  Normally I w9ould do a teaser, and then have you "CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY" bit, but this is important.  Over and over again there are studies that totally debunk (dare I say destroy) the lie spread by these irresponsible shysters, yet they keep trotting out the same old tired lies.  They are exhibiting the classic hallmarks of denialism.  Sadly, those sort of minds are very hard to reach.  However, anyone that actually values evidence needs to read this entire article.

Dr. Bob Sears' Alternate Reality or Everyone is a Pharma Shill

On 17 February, 2010 Dr. Bob Sears appeared on The Dr. Oz Show; the topic was "What Causes Autism". Dr. Oz packed the audience with mainly those who believe autism is caused by vaccines thus setting up all of the legitimate panel members (paediatricians) to be on the defensive. It was a live viewing, however, of how "alternative" practitioners get to play by their own rules enticing the audience, leaving those who remain true to the facts appearing unsympathetic and cold. One particular statement that Dr. Bob made was rather sensational and undoubtedly meant to be:

"Most of the vaccine studies that show no link between vaccines and autism are funded by the pharmaceutical companies."

Audience applause then:

"In fact, if you look at the 23 major studies that have shown no link, 18 of them are funded by big pharma."

Yes, he really did say "big pharma". Needless to say, I found this claim rather intriguing so I asked Dr. Bob which studies was he referring to:

On the Dr. Oz Show about autism a couple of weeks ago, you stated that most studies exonerating vaccines as the culprit for autism were pharma-funded, 18/23 to be exact. I'm very curious as to which 23 studies you were referring to.

 He kindly replied:

Not counting studies labeled as “commentary,” since that isn’t original research, I count 18 out of 23. There may be some studies I didn’t include here, but these are most of them:

Studies that compared children who received vaccines with mercury with children who did not and found no association between vaccine mercury and autism:

1.) Association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, Hviid A, et al., JAMA 2003;290(13):1763-66. Pharma-funded. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/290/13/1763.long

2.) Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thimerosal: a descriptive study, Pichichero M, et al., Lancet 2002;360(9347):1737-41. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480426

3.) Thimerosal and autism? Nelson K and Bauman M., Pediatrics 2003;111:674-79. Commentary. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/3/674

4.) On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes, Smith M. and Woods C. Pediatrics 2010;125(6):1134-41. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20498176

Studies that show autism continued to increase even after mercury was removed from vaccines:

5.) Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from danish population-based data, Madsen K, et al., Pediatrics 2003;112:604-606. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=madsen&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=112&issue=3&resourcetype=HWCIT

6.) Continuing increases in autism reported to california’s developmental services system, Schechter R, Grether, J., Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008;65(1):19-24.http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19

7.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al., Pediatrics 2006;118:e139-e150. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139

Studies that examined the rates of autism compared to the cumulative levels of mercury in vaccines and found no association:

8.) Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism, Price C. et al., Pediatrics 2010;126:656-64. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20837594

9.) Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization database, Verstraeten T. et al., Pediatrics 2003;112:1039-48. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/5/1039

10.) Neuropsychological performance 10 years after immunization in infancy with thimerosal-containing vaccines, Tozzi A, et al., Pediatrics 2009;123:475-82. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/123/2/475

11.) Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association, Stehr-Green P., Am J Prev Med 2003;25(2):101-106. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12880876

12.) Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the united kingdom does not support a causal association, Heron J, et al., Pediatrics 2004;114:577-83. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/577

13.) Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes, Thompson W, et al., N Engl J Med 2007;357:1281-92. Pharma-funded. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa071434#t=articleTop

14.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al., Pediatrics 2006;118:e139-e150. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139

Research comparing autism rates in children who did and did not receive the MMR vaccine and found no increased risk of autism:

15.) A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism, Madsen KM, et al. N Engl J Med 2002;347(19):1477-82. Pharma-funded. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134#t=articleTop

16.) No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study, Honda H, et al., J Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:6 (2005); 572-79. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877763

Research that duplicated Wakefield’s study and found no association between MMR and autism:

17.) Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study, Hornig M, et al., PLoS ONE 2008;3(9):e3140. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2526159/?tool=pubmed

Studies showing no evidence of a temporal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism:

18.) MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study, Smeeth L, et al., Lancet 2004; 364:963-69. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15364187

19.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al., Pediatrics 2006;118:e139-e150. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139

20.) No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism, Fombonne E and Chakrabarti S, Pediatrics 2001;108:e58. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11581466

21.) No evidence for links between autism, MMR, and measles virus, Chen W. et al., Psychological Medicine 2004;34(3):543-53. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15259839

22.) Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, Mäkelä A, et al., Pediatrics 2002;110:957-63. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/110/5/957

23.) Association of autistic spectrum disorder and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, Wilson K. et al., Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157:628-34. Commentary. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/157/7/628

24.) Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005; issue 4. Commentary. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16235361

Studies that show no link between MMR and autism or gastrointestinal disease:

25.) MMR vaccine and autism: an update of the scientific evidence, DeStefano F., Thompson W., Centers for Disease Control, Expert Review of Vaccines 2004;3(1):19-22. Commentary. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761240

26.) Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders, Baird G, et al., Arch Dis Child 2008;93:832-37. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18252754

27.) Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review, Jefferson T. et al., Vaccine 2003;21(25-26):3954-60. Commentary. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12922131

28.) A case-control study of measles vaccination and inflammatory bowel disease, The East Dorset Gastroenterology Group, Feeney M. et al., Lancet 1997;350(9080):764-66. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9297995

Miscellaneous

29.) Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism, Immunization Safety Review Committee, Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2004. Commentary. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25344/

Research can be funded in numerous ways, for example, government institutions such as the NIH or CDC, special interest groups such as Autism Speaks or Autism Science Foundation, charitable/philanthropic organisations such as The David & Lucile Packard Foundation or Wellcome Trust and of course, industry such as pharmaceutical or agricultural companies.  When Dr. Bob states, "funded by pharmaceutical companies", that has a very specific meaning, that the study was funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Let's look at the funding sources for those he tagged as "pharma-funded":

1.) Association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, Hviid et al.
Author Affiliations: Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, Department of Epidemiology Research (Messrs Hviid, Wohlfahrt, and Dr Melbye) and Medical Department (Dr Stellfeld), Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Funding Statement: This study was supported by grant 11 from the Danish National Research Foundation and grant 22-02-0293 from the Danish Medical Research Council.

The Danish System is unique in that they have universal healthcare; Statens Serum Institut (SSI) is a public enterprise that operates under the Danish Ministry of Health.  SSI has a division which develops vaccines and is essentially, a non-profit.  SSI also has divisions which operate much like the CDC in the U.S.  These divisions are where the authors of this study are employed.  A comprehensive explanation of SSI's structure can be read here.  This is not "big pharma" by any stretch of the imagination.

2.) Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thimerosal: a descriptive study, Pichichero M, et al.
Author Affiliations: Department of Microbiology/Immunology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, NY, USA.
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Funding Statement: The investigation was funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, under contract 1 AF-45248.

4.) On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes, Smith M. and Woods C.
Author Affiliations: University of Louisville School of Medicine, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, 571 S Floyd St, Suite 321, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.
Conflicts of Interest: Drs Smith and Woods are or have been unfunded subinvestigators for cross-coverage purposes on vaccine clinical trials for which their colleagues receive funding
from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, MedImmune, and Novartis; and Dr Woods has received honoraria for speaking engagements from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, and MedImmune and has received research funding from Wyeth and Sanofi Pasteur.
Funding Statement: This study was conducted without funding from any company (e.g., vaccine manufacturer) or agency (e.g., the CDC). We conducted this study on our own after requesting and receiving the publicly available data that were used for the analyses. Our unrelated interactions with vaccine manufacturers have been appropriately disclosed for full transparency in accordance with our own ethical standards as well as formal guidelines from the Academy of Pediatrics and the University of Louisville.

This is what Dr. Bob had to say about the study when he was asked (he also copied a communication from Dr. Rosen included in the preceding link):

Major flaws by Dr. Bob Sears - posted on 5/25/2010
Let me first say I haven't read it yet. Too busy in office last few days. But here are three observations: 1 - they excluded kids with autism from the study (DUH! - that's the type of kids you'd want to include in this!)
2. Hugely funded by pharmaceutical companies - the list of conflict of interest is quite long. Publishing a study like this with pharma funding is 100% worthless - the only people who will believe it are those who don't mind conflicts of interest.
3. Here's a comment from one of a doctor in the AAP who heads up one of the AAP divisions: this is the letter he wrote the journal:

"Dear Sirs,

I read with great interest Smith and Woods article, "On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes." This issue is of paramount importance in clinical primary care practice today. However, I was dismayed by two factors within minutes of reading the piece. One, of perhaps lesser importance, in the Results Section, the numbers, simply put, do not add up. If all of the subjects are added as listed, a total of 1037 (not 1047) is obtained. Furthermore, the percentages are incorrect as listed. The final group (311) is in fact 30% of the incorrect total, not 20% as listed. It always concerns me and forces me to question the validity of the other findings when a mistake like this is notable. In any case, the finding that approximately 50% (depending on the true numbers) received an alternative vaccine schedule, even as long ago as 1993-1997 is of interest.

Of greater concern to me, personally, is the Financial Disclosure listings. It is very difficult in this day and age to review the authors' conclusions without considering their considerable potential biases given where their funding comes from. I believe every known vaccine manufacturer is listed on the payroll. Until we have well-done, conflict- free published research on this topic, both the public and skeptical physicians must continue to look for honest answers."

Dr. Bob didn't even read the study, let alone read the response that Dr. Rosen received about funding sources (self-funded) from the authors and absolutely no pharmaceutical funding.  He doesn't even grasp that Dr.s Smith and Woods used the data set from Thompson et al. (13), which specifically excluded autism and explained why. This is just Dr. Bob being intentionally misleading so he doesn't have to confront any evidence that is antithetical to his "trademark alternative vaccine schedule".

5.) Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from danish population-based data, Madsen K, et al.
Author Affiliations:  Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Institute for Basic Psychiatric Research, Department of Psychiatric Demography, Psychiatric Hospital in Aarhus, Risskov, Denmark
National Centre for Register-Based Research, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
State Serum Institute, Department of Medicine, Copenhagen, Denmark
Funding Statement: The activities of the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre and the National Centre for Register-Based Research are funded by a grant from the Danish National Research Foundation. This study was supported by the Stanley Medical Research Institute. No funding sources were involved in the study design.

7.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al.
Author Affiliations: Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Lester B. Pearson School Board, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Conflicts of Interest: In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation.
Funding Statement: None of his research has ever been funded by the industry.

8.) Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism, Price C. et al.
Author Affiliations: Abt Associates Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts;
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Immunization Safety Office, and Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia;
Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland,California;
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Kaiser Permanente ASD Center San Jose Northern California Region, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California;
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts;
Southern California Kaiser Permanente, and Center for Vaccine Research, University of California, Los Angeles, California; and
Center for Health Research Southeast, Kaiser Permanente, Atlanta, Georgia
Funding Statement: This work was supported by a contract from the CDC to America’s Health Insurance Plans and via America’s Health Insurance Plans subcontracts to Abt Associates Inc; Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School; Southern California Kaiser Permanente, and Center for Vaccine Research, University of California Los Angeles; and Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Ironically, this is the study that Dr. Bob's colleague, Sally Bernard of SafeMinds participated in.

9.) Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization database, Verstraeten T. et al.
Author Affiliations: Epidemic Intelligence Service Program, Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Vaccine Safety and Development Activity, Epidemiology and Surveillance Division, National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
University of Washington and Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Seattle, Washington
Center for Child Health Care Studies, Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School, and Division of General Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, California
Funding Statement: None declared.

Ironically, this study group invited Dr. Bob's colleague, Lyn Redwood of SafeMinds to review the findings.

11.) Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association, Stehr-Green P. et al.
Author Affiliations: Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
National Board of Health and Welfare (Tull), Stockholm, SwedenStatens Serum Institut (Stellfeld), Copenhagen, Denmark
National Centre for Register-Based Research (Mortenson), Aarhus, Denmark
National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Simpson), Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Funding Statement: Financial support for the compilation of the data used in this investigation and the preparation of this report was provided by the National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We are grateful to Victoria Romanus of the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control, Ingrid Trolin of the Swedish Medical Products Agency, Anne-Marie Plesner and Peter Andersen of the Danish Statens Serum Institut, and Roger Bernier and Susan Chu of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for their contributions in the design and conduct of this investigation, and in the preparation and review of this manuscript.

12.) Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the united kingdom does not support a causal association, Heron J, et al.
Author Affiliations: Unit of Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, Department of Community-Based Medical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
Funding Statement: Financial support for the establishment of the ALSPAC cohort was provided by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the UK Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, and DfEE, the National Institutes of Health, and a variety of medical research charities and commercial companies. Funding for this study was provided by the Department of Health (Ref VIE 134/1).

13.) Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes, Thompson W, et al.
Author Affiliations:  From the Influenza Division and Immunization Safety Office , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta;
Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA;
Group Health Center for Health Studies, Seattle;
the Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School, Boston;
Kaiser Permanente Division of Research and Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, CA;
UCLA Center for Vaccine Research, Torrance, CA;
Southern California Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles;
RTI International, Atlanta; and
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy, receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune; Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Dr. Black, receiving consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis; and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Funding Statement: Supported by the CDC.

14.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al.
Author Affiliations: Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Lester B. Pearson School Board, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Conflict of Interest: In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation.
Funding Statement: None of his research has ever been funded by the industry.

15.) A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism, Madsen KM, et al.
Author Affiliation: Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Århus, Denmark;
Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark; and
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.
Funding Statement:  Supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation; the National Vaccine Program Office and National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and the National Alliance for Autism Research.

16.) No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study, Honda H, et al.
Author Affiliations: Yokohama Rehabilitation Center, Yokohama, Japan;
Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
Funding Statement: None declared.

18.) MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study, Smeeth L, et al.
Author Affiliations: Department of Epidemiology and Population Health;
Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases ;
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK;
Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal Children’s Hospital, Canada;
and Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London, UK
Conflicts of Interest: L Smeeth, C Cook, L Heavey, L C Rodrigues, and P G Smith have no conflicts of interest. E Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers (for a fee), and to several government committees. A J Hall received a financial contribution from Merck towards research on hepatitis B vaccination in 1998. He is also a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation (2002–present).
Funding Statement: The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. L Smeeth is supported by a Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Fellowship.

19.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al.
Duplicate of (14)

20.) No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism, Fombonne E and Chakrabarti S
Author Affiliation:  Institute of Psychiatry, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom;
Child Development Center, Central Clinic, Stafford, United Kingdom.
Funding Statement: None declared.

22.) Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, Mäkelä A, et al.
Author Affiliations:  Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
Funding Statement: Dr Mäkelä was partially supported by a grant from Merck & Co.

26.) Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders, Baird G, et al.
Author Affiliation: Newcomen Centre, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK;
Biostatistics Group, Division of Epidemiology & Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK;
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, UK;
Behavioural and Brain Sciences Unit, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK;
Department of Paediatrics, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK;
Chatswood Assessment Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia;
National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, UK;
Virus Reference Department, Centre for Infections, Health Protection Agency, London, UK
Conflicts of Interest: MA and DB have given unpaid advice to lawyers in MMR and MR litigation. GB has acted as an occasional expert witness for the diagnosis of autism. AP receives royalties from SCQ and ADOS-G instruments. PBS has acted as an expert witness in the matter of MMR/MR vaccine litigation. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement: he study was funded by the Department of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR) and Remedi. The sponsors of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing
of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Of the 18 studies that Dr. Bob declared are pharma-funded, 1 (22) is partially funded by Merck, three studies (9, 16 and 20) don't have funding statements and 1 (19) is a duplicate of (14).  That leaves 13 studies with no pharmaceutical funding whatsoever, confirmed.  I already knew this so I offered Dr. Bob the chance to rectify his "mistake":

I really do wish to thank you for answering me. In doing so, I would like to extend you the courtesy of retracting your statements that, "Most of the vaccine studies that show no link between vaccines and autism are funded by the pharmaceutical companies" and, "In fact, if you look at the 23 major studies that have shown no link, 18 of them are funded by big pharma." before I write about this.

However, instead of making the honest gesture to retract his demonstrably false statements, Dr. Bob "clarifies":

Clarification by Dr. Bob - posted on 3/10/2011

A quote from the beginning of the Fombonne study:
Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation.

The qualifications I use to determine if a study is pharma-funded is 1. The research is directly funded by pharma, or 2, the researchers involved have received money from pharmaceutical companies for services rendered, or 3. The researchers in the past have had other studies funded by pharma (I'm don't think this last one applies anywhere here, but I don't remember now).

Because Dr. Fombonne has been an expert witness in defense of the pharmaceutical companies, this creates a clear financial and professional conflict of interest.

I know that none of this would matter to some of you on this board, but I think it matters to most parents in general.

And this goes both ways. Some of the doctors who HAVE found a link between autism and vaccines in their research have testified AGAINST pharma on behalf of vaccine injury claimants. I also consider that a conflict of interest in their research.

But of course!  Create an overreaching, blatantly dishonest, weasel-worded definition for what he meant; pure truthiness.  He devises an alternate rendering in order to set up the premise should "big pharma" even fart in the general direction of an investigator, he can label their study as "pharma-funded".  Even by his own tortured criteria, he can't claim that the three studies with no funding declaration are "pharma-funded" but yet he does.  He doesn't even read these studies; he doesn't know how but only knows that they don't concur with his pre-conceived notions (and his bread and butter).  How does he explain that these so-called "pharma-funded" studies' results are concordant with those that he hasn't deemed "pharma-funded"?  He can't.

As for this statement:

And this goes both ways. Some of the doctors who HAVE found a link between autism and vaccines in their research have testified AGAINST pharma on behalf of vaccine injury claimants. I also consider that a conflict of interest in their research.

It's a right load of bollocks.  His Vaccine Book is rife with "studies" by the Geiers, Wakefield, Classen, Goldman, Yazbak and Bradstreet, all with conflicts of interest, businesses that profit from "vaccine damage", and/or appearances as "expert witnesses" for petitioners in the NVICP.  Why he still considers Andy (Wakefield) a close friend and stands behind his research, not to mention Dr. Bob's own flagrant conflicts of interest.  As a DAN! doctor, he thrives on hawking "vaccines cause autism" and promoting fear about vaccines helps to keep his books, products and services selling.  He clearly has a financial and personal investment in denying the legitimacy of any studies that don't support his paradigm.

Do some authors have conflicts of interest?  Yes they do and their declarations allow the readers of their studies to properly assess their value and consider replication of other studies.  Had Dr. Bob stated that some of these authors have conflicts of interest, he would have made a factual statement, but he also wouldn't have made the same impact on the audience and I believe he knows that, which is why he defers to truthiness.  It is a predictable tactic for the deceptive "vaccine safety" party line pushers to take.  Furthermore, he only includes about half of the list of studies that cannot find a vaccine-autism association; hand-picking only those he believes he can apply his crooked standard to.

It is also worth noting Dr. Bob's dishonest/incompetent labelling of studies 3, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 29 as "commentaries".  Again, a word with a very specific meaning when referring to scientific publications.  For example, Pediatrics defines commentaries as follows:

Abstract length: no abstract
Article length: 400 to 800 words
Commentaries are opinion pieces consisting of a main point and supporting discussion. These contributions usually pertain to and are published concurrently with a specific article; the commentary serves to launch a broader discussion of a topic. Commentaries may address general issues or controversies in the field of pediatrics.

Nearly all medical/scientific journals will have a commentary or editorial section and they are rather consistent.  What Dr. Bob labelled as "commentaries" are actually reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses and only one actual commentary and it is positively cloddish that he either doesn't know this or is too morally bankrupt to care.  A review, as the name implies is an article that provides a more generalised, critical review of a specific topic.  They are almost always solicited and peer-reviewed in the same manner as original research.  They are very useful, mostly written by top experts in their respective fields (the quality, of course, depends upon the quality of the journal) that provide a good overview although can still be subject to author bias.  Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be very powerful study designs as explained in this study module by The Cochrane Collaboration.  I doubt Dr. Bob has the desire to actually learn something contrary to his witless dogma by reading this, but "systematic review" in the titles of the damn studies should have tipped him off.  For him to try and pass off an Institute of Medicine - Immunization Safety Review as a commentary just begs for a rhetorical drubbing.

Dr. Bob is nothing more than a self-styled marketeer, a medico last.  He has managed to parlay some business acumen, M.D. credentials and family name into a business that obfuscates his mediocre medical skills and complete oblivion of science.  He is influencing public health and has absolutely no competence to do so.

Paediatricians need to be more proficient at countering his fabrications when both dealing with parents and confronting him in the media.  Parents' fears can be acknowledged without being validated and sadly, paediatricians have to make an effort to undo the damage that the likes of Dr. Bob have done on their own time while he makes a living off of generating fear with patently false information.

Two must read articles about the anti-vaccination movement

Both from City Journal (The Manhattan Institute)

The Whooping Cough’s Unnecessary Return

Vaccines, which save millions of lives every year, are one of the most successful public-health interventions in the history of modern medicine. Among the diseases that they prevent is the whooping cough. Why, then, is that sickness making a scary comeback in California, which is currently weathering its largest whooping-cough epidemic since 1947, with over 7,800 cases and 10 deaths in 2010?

The Virus of Hysteria
Review of new book Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All by Paul A. Offit

From experience I know that it is best, when reviewing a book about the vaccine question, to declare a financial interest, or in my case, a lack of one. As far as I know I own no shares in vaccine companies, except perhaps through mutual funds whose holdings I haven’t examined closely. I don’t think, therefore, that my economic future depends to any great extent on the sale of vaccines. In view of what I am about to say, conspiracy theorists will have difficulty believing this, but it’s true.

Make sure to click the links to read the rest of the articles.  Who knows, someone's life could depend on it.

Bad Astronomy: BREAKING: BMJ calls Andrew Wakefield a fraud

A note from Dr. Plait that I found to be a bit of good news for reality based people.

BREAKING: BMJ calls Andrew Wakefield a fraud

This is HUGE: The BMJ, an online medical journal, has accused Andrew Wakefield — the hero of the modern antivaccination movement — of being "a fraud".

The skeptic and medical community have been hammering Wakefield for years; his study linking vaccines and autism was shaky from the start, and he suffered a series of humiliating defeats last year: the Lancet medical journal withdrew his paper, he was struck off the UK General Medical Council’s register, and was found to have acted unethically.

Of course, the word "fraud" implies intent; when writing about Wakefield I had my suspicions, but always wrote as if he were just wrong, and not deliberately lying to vulnerable parents.

But deliberate fraud is what he’s now accused of. Brian Deer, an investigative journalist, has written a multi-part series on the BMJ site which slams Wakefield. Fiona Godlee, BMJ’s editor-in-chief, also writes about this… and just to be clear, she uses the word "fraud" nine times in her editorial. Not surprisingly, it’s been picked up by several news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC.

Deer has been on Wakefield’s case a long time, and has been critical in exposing Wakefield’s shenanigans. Wakefield and the antivaxxers have attacked Deer many times, but their accusations are as hollow as the claims of links of autism to vaccinations. And let’s be clear: vaccines don’t cause autism.

Deer has long shown that Wakefield had a lot of financial incentive to create a fear of vaccines, including lawyers paying him to find a link to autism, as well as Wakefield developing his own version of a measles vaccine. From CNN:

According to BMJ, Wakefield received more than 435,000 pounds ($674,000) from the lawyers. Godlee said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR [measles-mumps-rubella] vaccine and three never had autism.
"It’s always hard to explain fraud and where it affects people to lie in science," Godlee said. "But it does seem a financial motive was underlying this, both in terms of payments by lawyers and through legal aid grants that he received but also through financial schemes that he hoped would benefit him through diagnostic and other tests for autism and MMR-related issues."

Click Here to Read the Rest of the Post.

Religion vs. Reality in Missouri

As my colleague Larian LeQuella would say, here's another example of the typical "douchebaggery" that you encounter in the United States (re-posted here from Dr. Plait's blog at Bad Astronomy):

Via Orac comes this tale of religious kneejerking that shows just how big a problem it is in America.





I urge you to read the whole thing, but the basic story is a band made t-shirts with the theme "Brass Evolutions" using the famous cartoon sequence of a monkey changing into a man. It's a cute idea, and no big deal, right?

Right?

Not so right. Some parents complained about the shirts because they depicted — gasp!– evolution (never mind that it's a cartoony version that's really not even terribly accurate). Assistant Superintendent Brad Pollitt decided to make the students turn in their shirts so as to not offend any parents' sensibilities.

The sheer dumbosity of this already has my head reeling. You might think at first that this isn't a huge deal: it's just another example of narrow-minded thinking we've seen so much of from creationists.

But in fact it's a lot worse than that. From the original article:

Pollitt said the district is required by law to remain neutral where religion is concerned.

I'm afraid that is simply not true. Like, really really not true.

First, by taking away the shirts, he was not being religion neutral. He was kowtowing to a specific religion. That action immediately contradicted his words.

Second, think about what that sentence means. If being religion-neutral means not offending any religion, then nothing at all could ever be taught at school. Certainly not science, which clashes in almost every conceivable way with Fundamentalist creationist doctrine. You can't teach anything past 6000 years ago under Pollitt's reasoning. No astronomy, no biology, no history (Sumerians were around long before 4000 BC). Some interpretations of Islamic law state that music is forbidden. Does traife food touch kosher food in the cafeteria (or is it served on the same plates)? Does anyone wanna go through Leviticus and see what rules from there the school breaks?

If we are to believe Pollitt, then they'll have to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because Jehovah's Witnesses don't worship idols. That'll go over well, I'm sure.

This whole idea of "religion neutrality" is a crock [of shit], and clearly is being used to the advantage of one narrowly-defined religious viewpoint. There's a difference between being neutral — which Pollitt clearly was not being — and not promoting one religion over another.

Being religion-neutral in the sense Pollitt means is conceptually impossible. You cannot appease every religion, because many common modern religions contradict each other. However, we can be religion-neutral by actually refraining from making any decisions based on religion. That's what that First Amendment is all about.

So what we have here is yet another shot in the battle over religious freedom (both of and from) in this country. I suspect the band leader could pursue a First Amendment case here.

But if he chooses to pursue it, he may have an uphill climb... it depends on how many people there hold the same view as band parent Sherry Melby, one of the people offended by the very concept of evolution, [who said]:

I was disappointed with the image on the shirt. I don’t think evolution should be associated with our school.

Yes, because teaching the very fundamentals of biology in a school?

Heaven forbid.

[Update: Steve Novella has a funny and pointed take on all this.]

Antivax People Are Antivax

This is a comment by Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astromomy blog, which I've re-posted here:

[Note: Many times, when I write about antivax stuff, I get comments that try to sidetrack the issue at hand. For the record, I am a parent myself, my heart goes out to parents of autistic kids, and I went through those very same fears and worries that every parent does. I also understand that a lot of parents listen to antivaxxers and believe in their falsehoods, but my writing is generally not aimed at the parents. It's aimed at the loudest proponents of the antivax movement, the ones instigating those falsehoods, not the ones simply repeating them. In the end this is about the fact that vaccines don't cause autism, and the big mouthpieces of the antivax movement are almost entirely fact-free in their claims. So let's stick with that, Mmmmkay?]

I talk about the antivaccination movement quite a bit here, because I happen to have a strong desire to keep babies alive. If we stop vaccinating kids, we’ll see a lot of them succumbing to preventable diseases. Preventable, that is, through vaccination.

Orac has an interesting take on all this: he points out that at its core, the antivax movement just simply hates vaccinations.





Now, that might seem like a tautology. But it's not, not really. It's actually relevant because the antivax movement must change its story (what we skeptics call "moving the goalposts") every time they are conclusively proven wrong. That happens a lot. When it's pointed out that mercury doesn't cause autism (removing it from vaccines did not lower the autism diagnosis incidence rate), they say vaccines contain squalene, or fetal tissue, or ghosts, or the Loch Ness monster.
Of course, when it's shown that autism rates have nothing to do with vaccination, they ignore it, or spin it, or lie about it.

In a sense, the loudest proponents stick to their movement the way a racist sticks with their prejudices. You can tear down their specific claims about a particular group of people point by point, but in the end the racist simply hates people in that group. It's not rational, or logical, or reasonable. It just is.

[Furthermore], what Orac is saying is that no matter what, at its core, the antivax movement really hates vaccination. No matter what proof you show them, and no matter how much they squeal that they are "pro-choice", really it's their loathing of vaccinations that drives them.

It's an interesting idea, and he may very well be right. We've seen exactly this kind of behavior from many in the antivax crowd, moving from debunked claim to debunked claim, trying to pin anything and everything they can on vaccines, long after the logic trail has petered out. In the end, all they have are empty claims and their own misguided methods.

No matter what, they are antivax.

Today in Parody (14 Jul 09)

Okay, these may not be particularly new items, but I've just been on such a serious train of thought, that today I'd like to entertain you all with some parodies that you may find amusing.

Evolution:
Intelligent falling is the latest rage! In a classic parody of the misuse of the word theory, The Onion cuts right to the jugular. Sort of along the vein of my entry to the FL Citizens for Science Stick Figure Cartoon contest. I know a lot of folks don't think that mockery is a good vehicle, but after a while you come to realize that some people are beyond reason, and instead of just killing them to remove them from the gene pool, mockery is the most gentle way of handling them.

Vaccines:
This video by Jenny McCarthy's close personal friends of Mumps, Measles, and Ruebella was also quite funny! I decided to spare my sanity, so I haven't read the comments there. Hopefully at least some of the deluded people will find their way here, and mayhap learn a thing or two.

And while not really a subject for this page in general, I got an uproarious laugh out of this Homeopathic ER skit. Is it just me, or do you have to be entirely daft not to see the sham for what it is?

Science:
If you want a dose of science news, I highly recommend this site: http://www.sciencedaily.com/