Another priceless opportunity to expose Dr David Gorski and his band of these self styled “skeptics” and others going out of their way to actively sabotage genuine independent attempts to carry out such studies, to compile data on healthier unvaccinated children.
This shows the anti-vaccine safety lobby are people who are not “skeptics” but internet thugs and bullies out for sport at the expense of vaccine injured children. And they really don’t like it when they get a taste of their own medicine.
The following also shows why they just don’t want the studies done. [Which should be a strange thing because they all insist the vaccines are safe and effective. But we show below they are not.]
Gorski himself claims others engage routinely in sabotage:
this is nothing more than an Internet poll of the sort that PZ Myers over at Pharyngula routinely sends his minions over to crash.”
[Of course that may not be true. PZ Myers is welcome to comment here about that].
The following also shows the lack of analytical, technical and scientific credibility of these people and the criticisms they throw up [with information posted elsewhere on CHS the position is damning].
Gorski’s main blog and the comments on it are found here for those interested
A survey administered by a German anti-vaccine homeopath backfires spectacularly – Posted on: August 31, 2011 3:00 AM, by Orac
The survey is certainly currently being sabotaged by the direct involvement of people like Dr David Gorski and what he describes as his “minions”. Others are involved too [full quotes from Gorski et al with links appear below].
Gorski on his own blog draws his self-admitted “minions'” attention to the fact the survey is ongoing and open to continuous addition. Then one of his minions admits on his blog she posted false data on the survey and later confirms “other skeptics” are doing the same. Others join in the “fun”. After yet again being caught out for what he is Gorski then disingenously claims his “postscript” was not intended to have that effect.
That is really low and base conduct but what is to be expected of those who claim to be “skeptics” and scientific but are in fact internet trolls and bullies, who don’t have two cents worth of science to rub together and even if they did clearly do not give the appearance of having the ability to do anything with it if they had.
One participant in this deception claims other “skeptics” are involved in this kind of foul and base behaviour. These are not “skeptics” at all but internet frauds, trolls and bullies who cannot allow any point of view to be known other than their own.
We have already demonstrated that Dr Gorski is a “brick short of a load” when it comes to analytical skills and that he appears to be mathematically challenged. This is aside from his unreasonable approach, abuse, bullying and emotional and often apoplectic tirades and rants. The fact he has “minions” and other followers does suggest something about the kinds of people who lap up his internet scribble-drivel as if it had some kind of validity. We have shown it does not.
And then we come to the sabotage.
13 The survey does indeed appear to still be ongoing at http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-healthier-far-lower-rates-of-chronic-conditions-and-autism/
Kind of tempting to mess with their results…
Posted by: Ash | August 31, 2011 11:15 AM“
37 Well the “open” survey now has 7,799 participants…I think the 7,799th “child” might be “mine”. I filled out the survey on behalf of my six year old…who is unvaccinated and has 10 siblings. I entered “yes” to every question about disturbed sleep, fussiness, medical issues and developmental diagnoses.
I haven’t had so much fun messing up a “survey” since I responded to a robocall from the Tea Party Voter Choice Telephone Survey.
Posted by: lilady | August 31, 2011 4:04 PM
42 I just entered data on “another child” of mine on the open survey. This child is 10 years old, has four siblings and is vaccinated. My “10 year old child” has none of the problems listed on the survey and I ticked off “NO” on all the questions about behaviors, physical diagnoses and developmental diagnoses on the “survey”.
Posted by: lilady | August 31, 2011 5:12 PM
43 Should we inlcude a couple of children who died from complications to measles or whooping cough?
Posted by: KeithB | August 31, 2011 5:33 PM
88 I think the survey “researchers” have a lot more than me to worry about. The internet survey has been visited by other skeptics who have also entered false data. That’s what happens when you “attempt” a “scientific” survey on the internet and notorious anti-vax bloggers provide links to the “open internet survey”.A vaccinated versus non-vaccinated survey is unethical and this internet survey is unethical as well.
Posted by: lilady | September 1, 2011 1:14 PM
76 Yes, I entered data on the open survey from my one computer site and it is probably just a valid as the data from the other “participants”… and might even be “more valid”.
When you have an open internet survey with ambiguous wording anyone can “wander” over and enter data to skew the results. Now I am not accusing anyone at ChildHealthSafety for deliberately putting a bogus survey up on the internet to encourage multiple false entries and I’m not stating that the design deliberately did not meet any of the criteria for a survey…but it is less valid than the Tea Party Telephone Survey that I participated in several weeks ago…which really was a robo call randomized survey.
The folks at ChildHealthSafety have no way of knowing what percentage of the participants really have a child…no less a vaccinated or unvaccinated child and no way of knowing if any, some…or most of the participants are childless paranoid cranks who are against big government and/ or Big Pharma. Indeed, perhaps some of the participants are manipulating the publicly held stock of vaccine manufacturers.
Now I’m no computer techie, but I know enough about entering data on a public site requires you to provide a valid email address…which I did not…and surprise, surprise!!!…the data was accepted.
Yes indeed, the data I entered was probably just as valid as the data entered by the other “participants”.
So here’s the deal, unlike other participants I publicly stated that I entered data which was false and easily “verifiable” as false by the “researchers” by simply contacting the invalid email addresses.
Posted by: lilady | September 1, 2011 9:42 AM
And of course not forgetting firstly Gorski drawing attention to the survey being open:
The enjoyment I get watching that assuages my guilt for picking on homeopaths so.
NOTE: I notice that the total number of children is increasing. It’s now up to 7,799 at this moment, suggesting that 30 people have filled it out since last night. Given that Child Health Safety lists it as 7,724 five days ago that suggests that the surveys still open and is automatically updating totals.
And then his disingenous denial he had any intention this might provoke his “minions” to sabotage the survey – and please note the abuse and disparagement Gorski cannot help himself including – priceless:-
63 …… this is nothing more than an Internet poll of the sort that PZ Myers over at Pharyngula routinely sends his minions over to crash.I didn’t do that because I didn’t want to give our friendly neighborhood German homeopath an “out.” His survey was badly designed enough, and his results, for autism at least, are completely within the range of error of estimates for autism prevalence. In brief, I was too amused by the fact that this “study” actually comes far closer to refuting the vaccine/autism hypothesis than providing evidence to support it. Of course, as I said before, the survey is so bad that it really doesn’t tell us much of anything, but CHS is too scientifically ignorant to realize that.
Lack of Analytical, Technical and Scientific Credibility of these People and their Criticisms
[ED: Phil,Re: Your comment 2011/09/02 at 2:05 am
Firstly, let’s look at how you started out in your comments:-
This “study” as they call it is a joke.”
Disparagement and denigration. The usual trolling behaviour which we will come back to later. Not civilised debate. Not the approach of someone genuinely wishing to engage in debate.
Secondly, we will expect to see differences between unvaccinated children and the vaccinated. You completely fail to address the fact that government health officials refuse resolutely to carry out these kinds of studies. The reason is very simple. They know that particular ingredients of vaccines cause conditions like allergy, asthma, diabetes and suchlike. In fact you do not have to go far to find this out. It is on the information sheets for patients and for medical professionals and sets out long lists of conditions which are caused by the various vaccines – and that does not include the conditions caused by multiple vaccines in single individuals – a topic never studied.
We also know that vaccine adverse reactions are heavily under reported, so any survey like this could show that.
Thirdly, you fail to acknowledge that on the assumption all of the participants make genuine responses, ie. are parents of unvaccinated children, the data can and does tell us something about them and their children. [And we will come back to the genuine responses part later in the context of the particularly nasty kinds of internet trolls who infest these areas on the web with misinformation.]
You also fail to acknowledge that it may be possible to make comparisons to vaccinated children. For example, if the differences are so huge it is difficult to ignore them. If none of the unvaccinated children had the problems the vaccinated have that would be particularly interesting.
Instead you trot out all the usual criticisms without putting them into any context. Some of the points you make are of issues directed to excluding potentially confounding factors. You do not for example put into context the extent to which such confounding factors might alter the value of the data. If there is a minimal effect but the differences shown by the data are so large that the potentially confounding effect is small then whilst the criticism may have validity it does not prevent conclusions being drawn from the data.
So your claim this study “lacks any validity or credibility” immediately is in difficulty and your other arguments with it.
So the point that “data is data” is valid, as is the point this is the data available along with some other similar studies and some peer reviewed literature supporting the matter – the one example we gave of the latter you studiously ignore – the De Stefano paper. There are others in addition to the known conditions vaccines cause which are heavily under reported.
In other words, whilst we can see you have worked hard to look reasonable in your latest post, you came here not to make a balanced assessment but simply to attack with no objectivity and certainly with partiality and prejudice – your own and those of the others like you who troll the internet and engage in that kind of behaviour – and more comments on that will appear below.
You also fail to address that the survey is intended to be an ongoing one. It could build up a large body of data and of contacts with parents for further study, albeit currently anonymous there is potential to contact participants via email. So again, you also fail to recognise there is value in this kind of study.
Your criticism that “It is based completely on inference” demonstrates a comprehensive lack of understanding of proof of cause and effect. Cause and effect is determined by inference. We infer X is a cause of Y from the evidence presented to support that proposition.
So again, you demonstrate you come here to attack from a basis of fundamental misconceptions of the subject matter you attempt to address. Your claim to be “someone that does research” therefore has to be treated with skepticism – similar to that of a teacher who responded to such a claim of a pupil with “where, in the toilets?”.
You criticise that the survey is “biased in its sampling”. Of course it is. It is surveying parents of unvaccinated children. But that is not a valid criticism. That is the purpose of the survey. It is a known and intended bias. Hidden biases that would be a different matter. The survey tells us about the participants. It is not hidden. It does not prevent comparisons. So again, you fail to understand what is meant by bias and when bias is and is not an issue.
You complain it is “anecdotal evidence”. Really? If a parent reports on the conditions a child has or does not have, how exactly is that “anecdote”? If a scientist writes up a paper recording the results he or she claims to have recorded, would you call that anecdote too?
You complain the survey “falsely implies causation”. But we have already demonstrated above that it is to be expected that unvaccinated children will have fewer of the conditions seen in vaccinated ones. You have also not commented on the De Stefano paper [and there are more we can cite].
So there is biological plausibility underlying this survey. Another point you fail to address because you came here not to engage in balanced reasoned debate but to make unbalanced out of context attacks – and at the end of the day, because you have done that what you say lacks credibility. And that is despite the strenuous efforts you appear to have gone to to appear reasonable in your latest post [no doubt through gritted teeth].
You complain the survey “lacks any validity or credibility in the methods or results of the survey”. How can that be if at the very least the data is telling us something about the participants? The survey does tell us something. It tells us a great deal. Valid criticism tells us how it might be improved. And it is ongoing, which brings us to the final point.
Filed under: ADHD, Aspergers, autism, Child Health Safety, Disease Statistics, MMR, vaccination, vaccine, vaccine court, Vaccine Damage, Vaccines Tagged: | ADHD, Anti-vaccine Safety, Aspergers, autism, Cervarix, Corruption, fraud, Gardasil, GlaxoSmithKline, HPV vaccine, John Poling, mercury, MMR, swine flu, thimerosal, thiomersal, vaccination, vaccine, vaccine court, Vaccine Damage, Vaccines