6/13/2009

Moffie makes her position statement and I interpret

Having asked Mofmars333 to define her position clearly, she has offered the following as her position statement. Her statement is in quotes, and I will rebut/question/request clarification/remark on her statement between each sentence.

“There's plenty in preponderance of evidence to establish fact in this matter.”

It would be helpful for anyone not familiar with your posting if you actually defined “this matter” and then your actual position on it and then provided the evidence. You have not done this things, so someone who hasn’t waded through every single post of yours would not know that you believe vaccines to be close to the root of all evil. You have previously stated that you think vaccines do more harm than good and that you believe they are not effective against the diseases they are supposed to protect us from. You believe vaccines are the cause of autism. While I do not believe one has to have autism in a family member in order to weigh in on this matter, Marsha has never clearly stated her reason for her interest in the matter. Is she here because she is personally affected or out of concern for public health? That, while not necessary, would be interesting to know. She’s accused folks of being pharma shills in the past, so it would be nice to know her stake in the game.“Truth is coming to the surface no matter how misinformed people who've been deceived try to tell it.”

Does this mean that the people who have mistakenly believed the Wakefields, Geiers and Jennys on this matter will suddenly be coming to their collective senses and following the science wherever it leads?“Or those purposely trying to cover up fact, for whatever their reasons may be.”

Who specifically are you accusing of covering up and what are they covering up?“The truth huge but the simple fact to this matter is mathematical.”

You’ve used this sentence (most of these sentences actually) several times now. Repetition doesn’t make it any more logical, unfortunately. I assume you are trying to say that a number of parents believe their child’s autism to be caused by vaccine damage and that as these add up, their stories will take on statistical weight. Which is true; if there is a link, a connection, between autism and vaccines, then epidemiological studies will find it. You have no evidence for vast numbers of parents believing this way and using availability heuristic inflates the number dramatically. No poll I am aware of and I looked has been taken of the a representative sample of parents of children with autism and asked that question.“Witness numbers are growing & among them are many parents who know, first hand, what happened to their children directly after vaccinating, as well as what came to follow.”
This sentence goes with your previous and the apparent assertion that there are a large number of parents who believe this. What you have is a vocal group, but that does not mean its numbers are necessarily large nor representative of the population.
“Many medical professionals are stepping up, as has been evidenced in these debates, too.”
Again, you could take this sentence many ways. I assume she is referring to Wakefield, the Geiers, and Jay Gordon. I don’t know that for sure, though, because Marsha has been vague through out this position statement.
“All this added together leaves no room for doubt or denial, no matter how well one is able to spin the issue.”

If I went by your specific words here alone, I’d have absolutely no idea what you mean by this, but by this time I know you well. You feel that based on what parents say and what your gut knows that vaccines are to blame for autism, and undoubtedly more ills and ailments and that this is conclusively proved by virtue of testimonial and anecdote. You believe scientists, governmental agencies, companies, etc are complicit in their conspiracies to defraud and intentionally injure people. And you believe that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions is spinning. Of course, you yourself are never guilty of said spinning.“People on the side who believe vaccinations are not safe are scared & worried & they have real reason not to trust past scientific studies & reports. I won't go into detail because we've all heard that reasoning before.”

It would be too much work to actually offer any real evidence so I won’t even bother because you should just believe me and if you don’t, you’re spinning it anyway.“I will say & stress the need & demand for new studies with strict oversight.”

By this, Marsha means by the people (citizens at large) and by a whole new crop of “scientists.” And we both know I can and will dredge my way through the bucketloads of your posts to quote you if you deny this.“The warning bells are the many numerous voices of worried parents that have been ignored for far too long.”

They haven’t been ignored. That’s why the dozens of studies have been carried out and that’s why additional studies will be in the future.“Thank goodness, knowledgeable people in high places of influence, who care about the whole of mankind, are finally listening & paying attention.”

Again, they’ve been looking at this since the late 1980s so you are incorrect when you say that people in high places are finally listening. The scientists have been busy for nearly two decades on the vaccine question alone.

As position statements go, Marsha, it was imprecise and vague, as all of your posts have recently been. Not everyone has been hanging in there with you since February. If I hadn’t read all your posts, I wouldn’t know what you meant.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-karp/cracking-the-autism-riddl_b_213730.html?show_comment_id=25606496#comment_25606496

5 comments:

Lisa said...

Both the proposed Maloney *study* and the EARLI study are already being poo pooed by the woomeisters. You can see it AoA and at HuffPo under Kirby's posts about them.

It's interesting though, Kirby's moderation is letting up a bit at HuffPo and he's backed off from making outright false statements. Do you suppose it's to avoid being taken to the shed by Orac, et al - or that Arianna is a little troubled by all of the accusations flying around the internet about pseudoscience on HuffPo and the recent Oprah article in Newsweek?

KWombles said...

I think Arianna has probably seen there's more money in not backing as much outright woo. If she offers more balance between the woo and science, she attracts a wider audience and more ad revenue. Have you noticed the proliferation of vaccine and autism articles lately? In the spring, it was a trickle, one at a time and weeks between. Now, we have five or six open threads. Kirby's had three articles in one week, all of them much more restrained in position. He also, I think, sees where the money is going.

Wouldn't surprise me to see Kirby completely backed away from AoA within a year if he sees he'll have more money out of going mainstream. He could honestly have educated himself out of his extremist position, as well.

Connie said...

If Kirby disowns AoA, do you think ANY of the regulars there will reassess their own position?

My guess would be no, but maybe I've just become cynical.

Lisa said...

Heh, I just had to comment on moderation, didn't I? :P

Here's the thing, the EARLI study will *discover* if vaccines are related in any way directly (which I believe will NOT happen), the Maloney money seems redundant at this time and would be better channeled into the EARLI study or looking for and funding more therapy models (which I will always holler - may apply to other disorders).

It could very will be, given the way things are playing out - that Kirby sees he needs to inch back off that limb of vaccines=autism.

KWombles said...

Connie,

I'd be very impressed if the diehard anti-vaccinistas backed away from their claims. I don't think it's cynical to suspect most will not.

Lisa,

That email from the moderator cracked me up. Moffie's not making any argument, not really. And it isn't attacking to point out the posts are over the top ridiculous.

Kirby backing away, following the science where it leads, will hopefully have positive results in the end in that fewer parents will look towards vaccines to blame.

Are you the same Lisa over at AoA whose post was attacked? I still can't get a response on over there, even under a different name.