Tag Archives: skepticism

Leo Igwe talks witchcraft, Christianity & superstition in Nigeria

Posted in General, Human Rights, Religion by

Interviewed on ABC Melbourne by Lindy Burns, Leo Igwe, West and Southern African Director for the International Humanist and Ethical Union, discusses the struggle faced by skeptics and humanists on the African continent.

A regular contributor to The Skeptic magazine and The Humanist in Australia, Leo’s work is well known amongst humanists and skeptics. Facing superstitious beliefs, clever scams, exploitation and violent retribution for exercising free thought – including attacks on his family – Leo has a difficult role. Having recently spoken to Victorian Skeptics and Victorian Humanists Leo also spoke at Trades Hall in Melbourne.

One issue that stuck in my mind after hearing Leo speak is that whilst one child dies from malaria every 30 seconds in Africa frequently the cause is assumed to be witchcraft. In view of this, parents do not take the ill children to hospital but to evangelical churches where exorcisms and prayers are offered as a “cure” instead. These children die long painful deaths, although some do make it to hospital… eventually.

Yes, What’s The Harm? indeed.

[audio http://traffic.libsyn.com/firesnake/leo-igwe-interview-for-web.mp3|righticon=0xff0000|righticonhover=0xFFFFFF|loader=0xff0000]

Or download audio

Paul Offit discusses Oscillococcinum

Posted in Big Placebo, Health, Scam by

Oscillococcinum is a homeopathic scam sold as a cold and flu “remedy”. Supposedly made from burberry duck heart and liver because (according to homeopaths), these are “reservoirs” for influenza virus it is in fact, sugar.

It’s an ideal example of the problems Aussies face with homeopathy regulated under our TGA. As we know homeopathic “medicines” are “often so diluted they don’t contain any of the active ingredient”. Australia’s TGA regulations on homeopathic and anthroposophic “medicines” are quite plain in that this fact ultimately dictates that homeopathic products must comply with The Australian Code of Good Manufacturing Practice –  cGMP standards. Overseas sponsors must provide evidence that this standard is met. Whether or not this is actually occurring has no bearing on the rationale.

The rationale for this is that although most homoeopathic (and some anthroposophic) medicines are diluted to the point where it is no longer possible to detect any of the original mother substance, a major factor in ensuring the low risk nature of these medicines is making sure that the mother substances are properly identified, and the dilution and succussion processes are appropriately monitored.

Translation? Some homeopathic products claim to be made from nasty and potentially high risk “mother” substances. The final product from homeo-hokery pokery actually contains no active ingredient, and the TGA is all about preventing risk. So to be certain you’re selling nothing nasty – or rather, nothing at all – your hokery pokery will be subject to cGMP. Efficacy is neither here not there when it comes to alternative “medicines”.

This is rather strange because in 2003 The Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health System [ECCMHS] recommended that;

Homoeopathic medicines and related medicines making therapeutic claims be regulated to ensure they meet appropriate standards of safety, quality and efficacy.

Efficacy? Quality? Therapeutic claims? Regulation? This is simply not not what we see today, despite the fact 1600 complementary “medications” were recalled in 2003. Recently efficacy was raised again in the transparency review of the TGA. Plainly this is just not good enough.

Remember that a dilution of 1 in 100 is designated by “C” – a centesimal. Oscillococcinum is 200C. In Australia 200C is also known as “bugger all”. Yet, Aussies pay good money for this apparent remedy. This scam.

Paul Offit sums this up nicely in about 2 minutes, and I added some slides for sex appeal.

Paul Offit discusses Oscillococcinum

David Mabus

Posted in General, Health by

Many of you will have heard of David Mabus. Especially if you use Twitter. You’ve may even been “Mabused” as we came to call it.

A tweet sent to many depending on hastags used, an insult or threat and a link to incomprehensible forum rants and/or videos was his modua operandi. Dawkins, Shermer and Randi we’re cited often – and in his forum rants. Apparently he reckoned he’d earned Randi’s $1 million prize – cause for a little lie down in itself. So ridiculous were these tweets and posts many thought they were mere Poe’s. But the lad isn’t well, and the fact that Mabus is the name for Nostradamus’ anti-Christ which has now been shown to be central to his ranting confirms this.

David Mabus is the name used by Dennis Markuze who has been trolling, spamming and threatening scientists, skeptics and atheists for around fifteen years. PZ Myers is (or rather was) a regular target and in 2009 squeezed all the emailed threats in small font onto 61 pages.

Certain issues recently led to the patently unwell Markuze to become the subject of an organised campaign to have him dealt with. Rants went from barely coherent to incoherent. He personally fronted up at an atheist convention in October last year at which PZ was speaking (pictured left).

Finally he discovered Twitter in January this year using it to exhaustive effect. Easy to track, he was often reported. Montreal police originally did nothing.

Promises of torture, doom and death for those who didn’t agree with Markuze’s creationist world view were common. The more one tweeted the more likely he was to serve up a personal threat. Tim Farley of Skeptical Software Tools does an awesome job of breaking down the entire saga and the crucial role Twitter played. Also he calculates the devotion to obsession Markuze had doing this by hand;

Near as I can tell, all this posting was done by hand. The posts would be marked as having come from the Twitter web site, and there is no evidence that he was using a script or a robot to do the work for him. He would just sit there and cut and paste.

He would spend hours at it. For example, on February 25th I found 25 separate accounts he used. Based on the timestamps of the posts, he started around 7:30am, and posted more or less continuously until about 10am. He continued somewhat more slowly until noon, when I presume he took a break for lunch. He resumed at 3pm, and posted until 9pm that night. I counted almost 700 tweets. And because of the way Twitter was deleting each account (and all its output) when they noticed the spamming, all of that output from that day was gone within minutes. Disappeared.

He also notes the obsession with the initials “DM”, which also signify a date in a Nostradamus quatrain. Quatrain 8-66 begins: “When the inscription 500 A.D. is revealed”. In old French it was written: Quand l’enscriture D.M. trouvee.

In the “oh but of course” reasoning of Nostradamus fans, many have claimed old Nostra’ predicted 9/11 as the beginning of the age of the anti-Christ. Others go as far as now arguing he predicted three. Napoleon, Hitler and Mabus – whom we still don’t know. David Markuze had his own delusions. He himself may well be the anti-Christ and possibly thinks he predicted 9/11. His obsession with the [D.M.] Depeche Mode video atop a World Trade Tower fits in nicely. Discussed here on the JREF forum.

Despite complaints being filed, it wasn’t until journalist William Raillant-Clark became involved that things escalated. He tweeted about to get a handle on things and decided “this is unacceptable to me”. Phil Plait confirmed his complaints had gone nowhere. Unhappy with police apathy Raillant wrote a piece on Tumblr about police doing nothing as Montrealer threatens to murder science journalists. Skeptic, Kyle VanderBeek works at change.org, and spotted an opportunity on his work desk. He got a petition going which was retweeted over 500 times. The petition was set up so each signature meant Montreal police received an email. Eventually they could bear no more.

Interestingly enough they did have their suspect under investigation. No better proof that they’d had a little chat than these different toned tweets, on August 11. The registering and deleting of accounts is reflected in the random numbers on his Twitter handles;

A week later came an arrest.

Still later, he was charged. Dennis Markuze now faces two charges of making death threats. I recommend reading Tim Farley’s breakdown for more information on the role Twitter played. Or Robert Mackey’s piece on The New York Times blog, The Lede. Reading Twitter recently it’s clear some want him punished, whilst many want him helped.

Either way the era of Mabus appears to be over.

Montreal police investigate the infamous Mabus

Mabus arrested

Child Health Safety: The Wakettes arise

Posted in Denialism, Scam by

I mentioned the blog Child Health Safety last post, alluding to Wakettism of the first order.

I recently commented under the post Wakefield and MMR – Brian Deer fails to answer. Apparently my observations deserved an entire blog post, headed Autism Figures – Existing Studies Show Shocking Real Increase Since 1988. This was copied and pasted back as a reply ignoring the content of my comment. The thrust was to debunk my claim of no real autism epidemic. I’d used Brugha et al. “Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Adults in the Community in England.” Archives of General Psychiatry  –  doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38. This paper uses today’s diagnostic criteria and shows adults have autism at a rate of 9.8/1000 in adults.

Today’s rate is difficult to ascertain, but can be 10/1600 to 10/1000 in children. The latter is the more common – 1%, although this is probably high given other estimates. Brugha concludes no epidemic exists, but that diagnostic criteria has changed, suggesting he alludes to the 10/1000 figure. Many who point to large scale increases also support the reality of changing diagnostic criteria. Brugha’s paper is discussed here on Ars Technica, Autism Epidemic? More likely we’re just better at diagnosis which also uses the 10/1000 – or 1% figure today. Other publications discuss the findings: “Most adults with autism go undiagnosed” AlphaGalileo. “University of Leicester researchers present further evidence from first ever general population survey of autism in adulthood.” Disabled World

Our Wakette at Child Health Safety is claiming a 1200% increase in autism frequency in eight years. He chose an Israeli study – as is plain if you read his post above, with 0.84 cases per 1000 – Advancing Paternal Age and Autism by Reichenberg et al. Then he uses Baird’s well known figure of 11.6/1000 to get his 1200% increase. Just one lone paper no doubt chosen to sustain this 1200% increase claim. The three variables impacting on frequency are criteria, age of cohort and geographical location. Age and location impact on our friends mythical 1200%.

So, over to this new post I went. Now, you may wonder what the relevance of a comment stream is. However, I found this typical of antivaccination lobbyists particularly those who seek to maintain the autism myth. I’ve always wondered what made the crackpots behind this site tick. They have “secrets” on Wakefield. Brian Deer and the BMJ are the real fraudsters. “Governments” have been exposed. Typical conspiracy central meanderings.

Rather than address the clear challenges we find a challenging tone and combative presentation. Combined with false dichotomies by association, censoring of comments by deletion then eventual banning. I actually began by apologising below for sending them off in a huff. One comment (under a piece defending Wakefield) that nailed them left them pleading inability to understand. Anyway, I commented;

I’m sorry but you’re markedly in error.

You quote Reichenberg et al’s Israeli study from the Archives of General Psychiatry to “set a benchmark”, which you then compare to Baird’s UK figures. Yes both use DSM IV. But the genetic and environmental differences in two races/nations present challenges to your theory. No offence but you can’t just make up relationships between unrelated data sets without correcting for other variables. You need to show statistically why the individual sets relate to your argument. This is a common flaw. Genetics, environment, parental education and rearing techniques… etc.

Still, let’s go with it. 8.4:10,000 or 0.84 per 1000. Then Baird’s UK figures of 116.1:10,000 or 11.6 per 1000. From this you argue a 1200% increase insinuating vaccination. Yet Baird had written.

“Whether the increase is due to better ascertainment, broadening diagnostic criteria, or increased incidence is unclear.”

Thus, you make conclusions from Baird’s work that even he did not. I shall argue you selected the lone Israeli paper for it’s dramatic impact. Now onto research that seeks to determine if any increase at all has occurred. We can stay in the UK eliminating the genetic and environmental confounding variables of Israel data. Let’s examine adults using the same diagnostic criteria.

Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Adults in the Community in England – Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(5):459-465. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38

We find 9.8 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 3.0-16.5). The author’s write:

“The prevalence of ASD in this population is similar to that found in children. The lack of an association with age is consistent with there having been no increase in prevalence and with its causes being temporally constant.”

It’s documented by Baird that younger children – indeed younger subjects often have a higher score in diagnosis. Using this reality we expect to see significant decreases in adults. But we have Baird’s 11.6 and Brugha’s 9.8 per 1000. Given the approximation of these figures using today’s diagnostic criteria and the huge age difference one may assume autism is falling as we’d expect to see a much lower rate in adults. More so, in 2003 Baird himself writes in Diagnosis of autism – BMJ;

“… several factors account for the increase–for example, changing conceptualisation to a spectrum rather than a core categorical condition; changes in diagnostic methods; …”

That’s probably enough. Although consider:

1 in 150 (1988-1995; Bertrand et al., 2001)
1 in 175 (1990-1991; Baird et al., 2000)
1 in 85 (1990-1991; Baird et al., 2006)
1 in 150 (1992; ADDMN, 2007)
1 in 160 (1992-1995; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001)
1 in 150 (1994; ADDMN, 2007)
1 in 58 (1993-1997; not published)
1 in 170 (1996-1998; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2005)

– which is markedly inconsistent with the myth of an epidemic. it is consistent with methodology. Selecting data to suit your argument will not change reality.

I apologise for having such fun with your bag of errors. It was an appalling reply and a ridiculous blog post however. The above post is very plain in showing that you’re inventing a phenomena not supported by research nor even by Baird himself. Autism rates have not changed. Diagnosis has. A decrease is most likely.

Thank you.

And;

Your comment in blue above:

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

… is meaningless. I stressed this in another comment but you couldn’t answer. Let me be quite plain. Compensation for encephalopathy or general brain disease is due to vaccination. It may be accompanied by…. autism. It may also be accompanied by blue eyes, blonde hair or bad breath. None of these are due to vaccination. This comment is one of many that stress compensation for vaccine induced autism has never occurred. Even Poling had a predetermining mitochondrial disorder.

As I stressed elsewhere. Only reading something like; “This child was compensated due to autism developing directly as a result of vaccination”, will sustain the allusion above. As I said elsewhere, defeating your ability to reply – Even the recent Pace Law school student foray into 21 VCIP cases and over 60 biased phone call interviews offered “it strongly suggests” a link. (Quoting Danielle Orsino media rep).

That paper is “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of compensated cases of vaccine induced brain injury”. But as Orsino says, there’s a “suggestion”. Period.

You contention is demonstrably flawed on many levels.

Thank you.

Apparently no point to answer exists;

Paul @ 2011/08/20 at 2:01 am

I’m sorry but you’re markedly in error.

Really? In an earlier comment elsewhere you drew our attention to the letter in the peer reviewed Journal of the Israeli Medical Association which draws attention to the figures from the Paternal Age paper. Thanks for that. We did not know and have added a reference to this article so it now can draw on authority of a peer reviewed journal.

You seem not to be able to agree with any medical experts. That’s fine. We are letting you let off steam here.

And;

Paul @ 2011/08/20 at 3:02 am

“Your comment in blue above:

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

… is meaningless.”

Oh dear. You just cannot trust governments can you? The US Health Resources Services Administration give a quote to a journalist of a national TV news broadcast network confirming the US government has compensated cases of children who developed autistic conditions from vaccines and paid out lots and lots of dollars to them and it turns out to be meaningless.

LOL. Back to the drawing board for everyone.

I replied;

I think you have seen the flaw. That comment is all over the place here. Yep – meaningless.

“Autistic conditions” are not vaccine induced autism. You’re at least changing language – the first step in accepting facts. Sadly, there’s no LOL. I’m glad you think it’s funny. One in 1 million children suffer encephalitis from vaccine reactions. They are compensated as is just. Many have autism. The comment is debunking the very untruth you seek to make.

“…. may be accompanied by an array of symptoms”.

Until you can produce “compensated because of their autism”, you have no case. The facts and government positions are against you. Global research is against you. From ethyl mercury to vaccines to numbers of vaccines no link can be shown.

Accept it.

Thanks again.

Then horror upon horror, they clicked on my URL and delivered;

LOL, Rant on Paul.

We are content to rely on a peer reviewed journal. Thanks for drawing our attention to it – so we could add the link to the article.

You might as well let everyone know you are a friend of Peter Bowditch and the “skeptics” crowd who are happy to victimise and attack people personally on the web, spread misinformation lose legal actions and then claim they have not. Similarly Terry Polevoy – Terry Polevoy vs Ilena Rosenthal.

Birds of a feather flock together. What a lot of flockers.

Those nasty skeptics all linked up like a hive… I tried again;

I thought this was about debating and/or defending the premise of your post?

I think given the tone and lack of substance of your replies, it’s clear I’ve upset your apple cart here. Again I ask that you refute my sources. Eg; Baird 11.6/1000 in 2006 followed by Brugha 10/1000 in 2007 shows a 13.7% decrease in just one year. Why can’t you address this simple reality? The above reply is most unbecomming.

Yes I know of Peter and enjoy the skeptic community. So, you clicked a link to my site. Welcome. I’m ignorant as to the case you refer to or Polevoy. I do know Peter posts everything on his site so is unlikely to spread misinformation. Either way I could be head of GSK yet I still have a valid argument you avoid. No laughing matter. Autism is decreasing if we involve your figure from Baird.

Also, go back to my original comment. You have much work to do. Don’t feel embarrassed – science is all about being proven wrong. No need to turn aggressively defensive. I’m not judgmental.

I await your reply with eagerness.

All the best now.

Next, missing the point of Brugha’s comparison to contemporary childhood figures;

Paul @ August 21, 2011 at 2:04 am

Again I ask that you refute my sources. Eg; Baird 11.6/1000 in 2006 followed by Brugha 10/1000 in 2007 shows a 13.7% decrease in just one year.

Shame you have not read either paper or maybe you have and you know you are talking rubbish. Comparing chalk and cheese just like your mates Bowditch and Polevoy to lie about the facts. Baird was dealing with children. Brugha was dealing with adults. So you are saying the same children Baird covered became adults in one year and 13.7% of them simultaneously were cured.

LOL. Nice one.

Pretty good refutation we think. But then that is just the style of Bowditch, Polevoy and friends.

The old, “tar ’em with the same brush trick”, eh? I continued self flagellating;

I may have been generous with my stats. It’s a 13.79% decrease. My bad… apologies.

Pretty much a 14% decrease in autism in the same nation in one year. Geographic location is a plus. Age is a plus. Criteria is a plus. The 3 variables effecting frequency of autism. You still need to address your “theory” using Israeli data to compare to a different location & age group.

All the best.

Things deteriorated along those lines. More allusion to “Bowditch and Polevoy” and whatever case of which I had no knowledge. Sadly, my dear comment protagonist first began censoring comments that refuted his ongoing claims, then banned me altogether. Perhaps referring to “the awesome Ben Goldacre” was pushing my luck. Back in 2007 he’d written an excellent article. Clearly whomever it is holding the reins at Child Health Safety has a thing about Polevoy and dear Peter Bowditch. He/she/they did have one point. I mentioned Brugha as “citing” the 10/1000 figure of todays frequency vs his adult findings of 9.8/1000. I was in error. Brugha studiously avoids picking any of the many autism frequencies out there today.

Yet Brugha’s 9.8/1000 in adults advanced as showing no change to todays child frequencies of 10/1000 (the widely used 1%) leads me conclude it’s safe to argue with the 10/1000 figure. That’s rather clear in the post deleted but found here. Also Brugha et al. wrote;

The prevalence of ASD in this population is similar to that found in children. The lack of an association with age is consistent with there having been no increase in prevalence and with its causes being temporally constant.

From Alpha Galileo we have;

Dr Brugha said the new scientific article confirms the already published report from the survey (2009) that 9.8 per thousand adults in England meet official diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder. There was no evidence of an ‘autism epidemic’ of marked increase in people with the condition.

He said: “Overall our findings suggest that prevalence is neither rising nor falling significantly over time. This favours the interpretation that methods of ascertainment (case finding) have changed in more recent surveys of children compared to the earliest surveys in which the rates reported were considerably lower”.

I could have chosen the 10/1600 figure, rendering Brugha’s finding more compelling. It’s fascinating to consider that adults today may present at 9.8/1000 vs children at as little as 10/1600. Knowing that increases in cohort age correlate to a reduction in frequency diagnoses, and adults have learned many skills that also lower overall score, we’re left to consider an actual drop in autism over the last generation. How wonderful if that were true and perhaps due to the protection from measles induced encephalitis due to MMR vaccination.

In conclusion, this poor author has unwittingly proven my point. Had he shown the courtesy of reading my sources he’d have noted studies devoted to examining the very question, don’t support an epidemic. Had he even read Baird’s papers he’d have seen Baird herself doesn’t claim an absolute increase but stresses causes are unclear and changing diagnostic criteria are a variable. I guess what got up my nose is fishing for an obscure study, comparing it to Baird’s work and using this to conclude there’s a 1200% increase in autism due to vaccination.

Not only is this not repeated anywhere no attempt was made to eliminate confounding variables. No understanding of using unrelated data sets or attempt to justify correlation between them exists. Just a very low figure plucked out and used “as a benchmark”.

Moving away from Baird and Brugha we find a range of diagnostic papers that fail to support the contention of a steady increase. I’ll give the last word to Ben Goldacre from 2007, writing About that surge in autism, in The Autism Crisis;

Autism advocates are free to seek that recent surge in autism–that catastrophic epidemic–in anecdotes, in education numbers or the CDDS, in sensationalist headlines and so on. This is all in keeping with the rotten standards of science and ethics they’ve imposed on autistics, and with their own steadfast resistance against verifiable information. But on the off-chance anyone’s interested in the published, peer-reviewed data, I thought I’d go fetch some. If anyone finds any factual errors in the information I’ve presented, I’d greatly appreciate knowing. Accurate information is always good for autistics.

Indeed.

Chiropractors adjust vaccine truths

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Big Placebo, Chiropractic, Health, Scam by

The World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA) have a “journal”, available for free subscription. It doesn’t actually have any peer reviewed studies, but is more a collection of industry positive, competitor negative and hokery pokery articles that deny credibility. Such as Energy Medicine: Futuristic Healing with ancient roots, by Dana Ullman. We know Dana from Twitter as @homeopathicdana

Today I had an article brought to my attention by New Zealand skeptic and critic of anti-vaccination nonsense, @SkepticalSkotty. He’d had the article brought to his attention by a friend. Like many in the developed world outside Sth. Korea, where it’s illegal to practice the scam, the friend had given chiropractic credence. Quite understandable. Unless one’s in a clinical setting or prone to keep an eye on non evidence based trends, chiropractors are the other “doctors” who work on backs and necks and are subsidised by insurance companies and governments.

The September 2010 article Several nations banning flu shots for babies, provides unique insight into bias, deceptiveness and unprofessional standards. Supposedly having no position on vaccination I was intrigued at the effort to mislead readers into forming a negative view of both seasonal influenza and H1N1 vaccination. The article opens with an accurate observation of a QLD infant death following influenza vaccination, but almost immediately begins to blur the lines. Let’s do some housekeeping, remembering that fifteen children in QLD had an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

In WA where babies were given Fluvax – a combination H1N1 and seasonal ‘flu vaccine – febrile convulsions effected 60 and another 200 presented with higher than normal temperatures post vaccination. Well tolerated in teens and adults Fluvax was certainly not tolerated in babies and small children. One small child, Saba Button, fell into a coma and is now struggling with brain damage. It is the type of tragedy health authorities dread. Soon after the reactions WA suspended administering the vaccine to children under 5 and this was also taken up nationally. The TGA had made some noises toward CSL who manufactured Fluvax. However it wasn’t until FDA officials from the USA turned up investigate CSL’s standards of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) this year, that one could realistically defend Australian influenza vaccination regimes against quite justified criticism.

These two events were tragic and widespread fevers in vaccinated babies is a huge blow to public confidence. However suggesting that health authorities intend to suppress the truth at the expense of public health is a frequent unsubstantiated claim. Worse is the use of these tragedies by groups like the Australian Vaccination Network – the anti-vax darling of Australian chiropractors – to smear their critics. The day The Australian published Natasha Bita’s article on young Saba Button (May 28th), Meryl Dorey exploited this family to muster anti-vaccination support and to also make false claims about skeptics and Stop the AVN.

Meryl Dorey’s Yahoo! Twitter and Facebook libellous claims

Dorey published an “Action Alert” on Twitter, Facebook and Yahoo! claiming supporters of vaccination were “mobilising” and “organising their forces” to write letters of complaint to The Australian, and thus writing in support was vital. “They do NOT want newspapers or any media outlets to be covering this from a freeedom of choice point of view”, she lied on Yahoo!

Freedom of choice point of view? Since when are facts or a parent’s choice to speak to the media linked to whacky anti-vax lingo’? Dorey was seizing ownership of Saba’s tragedy and using it to engender disgust toward those who criticise her already extensive dossier of lies and deceit. Little wonder many believe she manufactures stories of personal threats.

Not only is this offensive to Saba, her parent’s and those maligned but one must surely question her grasp on reality, not to mention the ethical issues surrounding vaccination, to see a grown woman manipulate her members as pawns in her own delusional neocon’ fantasy. I wrote to Natasha Bita and her colleagues seeking confirmation and on June 21st she confirmed that whilst she had been on holidays no “complaints” had been received, or could be found.

Back to the WCA journal. They failed to stress the vaccine was “suspended” not banned or that other strains would be considered. Onto the second paragraph;

A short time later, Finland also suspended the H1N1 vaccines due to six reports of narcolepsy in children and teens immediately following vaccination. According to The Helsinki Times, “Medical reports suggest that over 750 of those who have been vaccinated have experienced harmful effects.”

Firstly, QLD ADR’s were due to seasonal influenza vaccine. WA’s ADR’s were due to a combination of seasonal and H1N1 vaccines. The vaccine used in Finland was GSK’s H1N1 vaccine Pandemrix. No Australians have been administered Pandemrix and Australia has had no reports of narcolepsy. This distinction wasn’t made by the WCA article. What about those “750 harmful effects” that they quoted. If we read the Helsinki Times piece we see that 2.5 million doses were given. That’s a 0.003% ADR rate. I do rush to add this is not to be dismissed as trivial, but does indicate the risk/benefit ratio. The WCA seems to think that’s an excessively high level for narcolepsy – falling asleep unexpectedly. More so, as we’ll see there are unique Finnish genetic components to this problem that are related to the vaccine.

Yet if we’re talking about removal of insurance coverage for cervical manipulation by chiropractors because of the risk of vertebral/carotid artery tears, stroke and traumatic death – as in the case of Jeremy Youngblood – then an incidence rate of up to 0.005% is a trivial matter. WCA were upset that this brought “…applause from critics who still maintain that chiropractic is linked to strokes”. Chiropractors maintain it’s “a myth”. I hope you got that. Vaccine induced narcolepsy due to genetic predisposition: bad. Higher risk of tearing of the vertebral artery and dying slowly, whilst well documented: is a myth. They write with mind blowing arrogance;

The World Chiropractic Alliance responded by sending the company a copy of its position paper on chiropractic and strokes, and a vast amount of scientifically documented information that dispels the notion that chiropractic is in any way linked to carotid and vertebral artery dissection. “The WCA has been distributing this information ever since the myth about chiropractic and stroke began, and we’ll continue to make sure we counter this campaign of misinformation,” stated WCA founder and CEO Terry A. Rondberg, DC.

Kaiser Permanente, whom I now admire greatly wrote;

Chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine is associated with vertebral artery dissection and stroke. The incidence is estimated at 1.3-5 events per 100,000 manipulations. Given the paucity of data related to beneficial effects of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine and the real potential for catastrophic adverse events, it was decided to exclude chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine from coverage.

“Paucity of data related to beneficial effects of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine and the real potential for catastrophic adverse events”. Damn that reads well. Are chiropractors going to suspend this potentially lethal practice? Hell no – they’ll call it a myth and back that claim with bad science. Are they worried about patient health or patient access to a manipulation that takes seconds? No, they’re upset that they can’t get the big bucks.

Think of how many people around the world would get a cervical manipulation on any one day. At a rate of up to 5 per 100,000 catastrophic injuries and stroke, for no benefit, not to mention all the minor cervical vertebral insults and/or soft tissue injuries you have my permission to feel a little ill dear reader. So, it’s compelling how selective this group of pseudoscientific profiteers can be when it comes to understanding not only risk/benefit ratios but the size of the risk vs the evidence for any benefit.

The WCA article also mentions narcolepsy in Sweden. That also was a rate of 0.003% – a figure they seem intent on not publishing. According to the WHO last April 21st;

The only pandemic influenza vaccine used in Finland and Sweden was Pandemrix, an adjuvanted influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.

Narcolepsy is a condition that has a strong genetic linkage, being almost uniquely seen in persons who have the (HLA) DQB1*0602 genotype. Of the cases of narcolepsy tested so far in Finland (n=29), diagnosed during 2009-2010, all have that genotype. The National Institute for Health and Welfare of Finland considers it probable that the Pandemrix vaccine was a contributing factor to this observed increase, and has called for further investigation of other co-factors that may be associated with the increased risk. They consider it most likely that the vaccine increased the risk of narcolepsy in a joint effect in those genetically disposed with some other, still unknown, genetic and/or environmental factors. The final report from the Finnish National Narcolepsy Task Force is expected by 31 August 2011.

Apparently 30% of Finnish have this gene whist 15% of Europeans have it. This wasn’t dismissed as a genetic issue either. There is a nine fold risk in those vaccinated vs unvaccinated. So, GSK aren’t getting any special treatment. Nor does hysteria get to reign. As in Australia it is mainstream medical monitoring and national health responses that ultimately serve to protect the public. But it’ll be late August this year before final European reports are released.

The article goes on to quote a now missing article from the Bharat Chronicle;

The vaccines appear to be causing a pattern of neurological disorders affecting children and teens across the planet

Most facepalmingly, if you pop that sentence into your chosen search facility dear reader, you get over 2,000 hits ranging from Bible prophecy, to natural woo, to wellness, to infant chiropractic to… well you get the idea. Our WCA “journal” is running a junk piece that they probably scavenged from the depths of conspiracy central.

The piece finishes off claiming “Australian authorities” knew of the problem for “several weeks” but withheld the information whilst continuing to encourage vaccination. One assumes they’re referring to WA where ADR’s were reported for two weeks before Saba Button was injured which was around the time the number of ADR’s demanded state wide action. Far better for WCA to publish the insinuation that authorities remained silent about a free vaccine with perhaps the only motivation being to harm the public.

Then it’s back up to QLD for accusatory lies followed by some special pleading;

Health officials at first tried to convince the public that there was no “causal” relationship between the vaccine and the side effects but even the Australian coroner had to admit he couldn’t rule out that the flu shot was responsible for the death of two-year-old Brisbane toddler Ashley Jade Epapara.

Gosh. “Even” the coroner couldn’t rule it out. Appeal to authority also. The truth is no-one can rule it out or rule it in. Period.

Then back to WA with nonsense about attempting to “blame” a bad batch. In fact the possibility of a bad batch must be investigated just as the possibility of the vaccine ingredients and combination was investigated. “This is not a long-term safety issue with vaccines,” University of Western Australia School of Paediatrics and Child Health Associate Professor Peter Richmond told WA today, they add. Quite right. This is most certainly not a problem with vaccines as a long term safety issue. The only long term issue is the capitalisation by anti-vaccination groups.

All in all this is an appalling piece of junk writing that aims only to create the illusion of widespread – or “across the planet” – trends that somehow show vaccines are a health risk. They cant even manage to keep different Australian reports on two very different scenarios straight. Already this year in QLD influenza is back at six times the annual rate. Febrile convulsions and brain damage from vaccine preventable disease are constant realities. It is for this very reason the risk/benefit of vaccination is actually incredibly safe.

No doubt Australia had some serious issues with vaccine manufacture and management of ADR reporting in 2010. This is being dealt with by the proper authorities. The very last thing the present vaccine controversy needs is this band of chiropractic cowboys defending futile and dangerous treatments, whilst attacking sound evidence backed public health measures.

Ultimately there are not any nations “banning” flu shots for babies. Chiropractors have lied again.