WHY Won't They Do The Research?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-17-2007
WHY Won't They Do The Research?
Tue, 11-24-2009 - 8:17am


Apart from the many thousands of allegedly hysterical, delusional parents and allegedly fraudulent, huckster professionals who have raised safety concerns, particularly autism concerns, about vaccines two high ranking members of the American public health system have stated a need for more research of possible vaccine-autism connections.

Dr. Julie Gerberding, former head of the CDC and Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the NIH and the American Red Cross have BOTH indicated that more research of vaccine-autism issues COULD and SHOULD be done.

So WHY are public health authorities like the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee REFUSING to authorize funding to research possible vaccine-autism connections?


iVillage Member
Registered: 12-14-2005
Mon, 01-04-2010 - 11:27am
Hahaha I almost spit my drink onto the keyboard :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 12-26-2009 - 7:36pm

I think Jon suffers from "optimism bias". It is an unwarranted belief in the value of interventions.


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 12-26-2009 - 3:42pm

"The answer is simple, there is nothing to study which is not well defined by present research."

I don't consider being littered with conflicts of interest "well defined". And RARELY is the study itself (well-defined).

Even the conclusions of your beloved studies offer less-than-definite *conclusions*.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 12-26-2009 - 3:30pm

"Mouden Bunk - http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Andrew_Moulden"

And it's hard to get past that first sentence:

"Andrew Moulden is a Canadian quack who pushes an extreme form of anti-vax woo..."

Damn, ain't that the kind of opening which makes one want to spend the afternoon reading?

What a waste of my time it was to read that piece!

Jon, you're smarter than this! Take ALL of his pieces, one by one, and cross-out any sentences that are not stating a scientifically proven fact. Now - what are you left with?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 12-26-2009 - 3:20pm

Why don't you ever post peer-reviewed and published pieces? I really get sick of his blog. If I wanted to waste time, I would visit his sites...

I copied that blog into my word processor and marked through any of it which was considered personal attacks and MMR/Wakefield BS. I had nothing left when I was done, nothing of substance at all.

The first four paragraphs was nothing more than a barrage of personal attacks (as usual).

The middle of the piece gives me information about the MMR, but again, kids don't just get one MMR.

The rest of it is more character assassination.

Jon, do you not get it? We don't like reading his blogs, stop already. If we wanted to waste our time on such a merry-go-round, we would go directly to his sites. We do, only we don't waste time there. Give Orac and friends a rest, okay?


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 12-26-2009 - 2:59pm

And one more thing. STOP pretending that kids in the US get ONE vaccine, they don't. We all know that the MMR is not the only vaccine on the schedule, even a pharma-scientist should be able to see the lack of logic in pretending that its the only one. If you have no studies on the cumulative effects of vaccines then you have NOTHING.

Edited 12/26/2009 4:14 pm ET by crunchymomto2
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 12-26-2009 - 2:49pm

Rational Wiki is nothing more than a blog. Since you are so over zealous about *Science* and the ever-so-respected *scientific proof* then how about you provide us with the SCIENTIFIC studies which prove that Dr. Moulden's information is being reviewed by the SCIENCE community. And we want details about the conflicts of interest before we even get started, okay?

I'm no scientist but I don't think one has to be in order to see how incredibly stupid it is to compare our environment to that of a third world country. Yet you keep doing it! So for the purpose of debate --- can you drop it? It's very time consuming, but you know that, right?

If you have nothing better than the words of this ego-maniac, Orac and his side kicks, you're wasting our time.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 12-26-2009 - 2:29pm

"What would happen if a link was found between vaxes and autism or any other child-debilitating neurological problem?"

I have given a lot of thought to this and frankly it scares me when I consider how, as a society, we might react.

Then I consider that our government is about to take over health care entirely ---

That's beyond frightening!

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-17-2007
Sat, 12-26-2009 - 9:09am

Speaking of quacks, how many of them work for the CDC? I've met a lot people in the science business, and they too have an attitude of "well the science says"...i dont care what the science of something says, it is the outcome of the scientific experiment that produces the results.. and if the outcome is not to a scientist's liking, he can skew the statistics so the findings are more persuasive.

oh gee. that vaccine your baby had has nothing to do with the seizures he is now having an hour later.. never mind the fact that the baby was perfectly fine til he got a shot...but the science says its safe and effective to give to babies... even tho we haven't studied the correlation between vaxes and the developing immune system in a way that proves otherwise. Once again, skewed statistics.
What would happen if a link was found between vaxes and autism or any other child-debilitating neurological problem?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2008
Sat, 12-26-2009 - 2:20am

Having personally met and listened to Andrew Moulden, I'd have to disagree with this. His theories are extremely interesting and groundbreaking, and I think it's fair to say that nobody else does anything like the work he does.
One of the areas he specifically studies, transcortical motor aphasia (if I remember correctly!), has hardly been explored. It's quite possible he could only have hit on part of the problem, but as groundbreaking as his work is, I don't think it's wise to ignore it. Just further study it and dig deeper. Calling him a quack just points to ones own lack of interest in genuine scientific exploration. The world definitely needs more people like him!

>And furthermore, the likes of Moulden (and Caton for that matter) are more akin to quacks who offer "simple solutions to complex problems". However, unlike say aspirin, nothing they offer works or is based in science.

Mouden Bunk - http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Andrew_Moulden

Caton Lunacy - http://www.eregimens.com/regimens/CancerSkin.htm


Please replace your tinfoil hats