J.B. Handley of the anti-vaccine group Generation Rescue: Misogynistic attacks on journalists who ch

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2415

"...

My reluctance may also be, sadly, because I’ve become a bit jaded at the nastiness that anti-vaccine groups such as Generation Rescue (i.e., “Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey’s Autism Organization”–at least these days) and its erstwile founder J.B. Handley routinely lay down when someone points out that the emperor has no clothes, that vaccines do not cause autism. I’m referring, of course, to Amy Wallace, who wrote what is the best example of an article in the mainstream media about the anti-vaccine movement that “gets it.” The article was called An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All and appeared in WIRED Magazine.

It was a thing of beauty. There was no false “balance” that puts cranks pushing dangerous pseudoscience on the same plane as real scientists like Paul Offit. There was even a section calling out purveyors of vaccine misinformation. Several luminaries of the the anti-vaccine movement were there, including ones discussed frequently on this blog, like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. But that wasn’t all! There was even a section on how to debunk anti-vaccine canards. What more could an advocate of science-based medicine ask for?

When I first read Wallace’s article, I knew she was going to be in for a rough time. The anti-vaccine movement doesn’t take kindly to criticism. Indeed, I even warned the publicist who had e-mailed a bunch of bloggers, including me, about the article that I hoped she was ready for a “shitstorm” (the exact word I used). After all, I’ve been the target of J.B. Handley’s wrath on more than one occasion. He’s particularly fond of trying to poison my Google reputation when I annoy him sufficiently, and one time either he or someone inspired by one of his attacks on me actually e-mailed my cancer center director a link to his screed. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if J.B. posts another similar smear after this post.

..."


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alas, it's beginning to be much the same at DU. The lack of intellectual honesty by some of the anti-vaccine posters is stunning.

[trotsky]

1. Great post, and needs to be known.

Because the anti-vaxers don't have truth on their side, they have to resort to attacks like this. They also love to censor, as witnessed by the Unrecs on this thread.

[Angry Dragon]

2. Correct me if I am wrong

It is my belief in what I have read and heard that it is not the vaccines that are in debate but the time line, age of the child, and the mercury laden agent used in multiple vaccine shots.

[trotsky]

3. Depends on the day of the week. Anti-vaxers flip-flop.

First, you are wrong, thimerosal is no longer in any of the routine childhood immunizations. Hasn't been for almost 10 years, yet autism rates continue unabated. Faced with this indisputable fact, the clever anti-vaxers have shifted their tactics. Now it's unspecified "toxins" in vaccines (which they lie about, citing things like "ether" or "antifreeze" or "aborted fetal tissue" contaminating vaccines, all of which are untrue). Some blame the inactivated pathogens in the vaccines. Discredited UK researcher Andrew Wakefield faked his data about that particular angle.

[Angry Dragon]

4. Then if it unabated then a very serious investigation needs to be done

No one can prove either side as far as I can see. So you might want to work with the other side and work together in finding the problem. Unabated this will be a huge drain on the health-care system, let alone the stress of care givers.

[rd_kent]

5. "No one can prove either side"...that is a false argument.

There is NO evidence of the accusations that vaccines cause autism. Anti-vaccine folks claim there is a link between vaccines and autism yet there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER. Saying that there is no proof on either side is like me telling you that I think your breathing is what causes pinto gas tanks to explode, yet have no evidence. Is it a rational argument that either side can prove it? Nope, just like this claim with vaccines.

[Angry Dragon]

7. Then you have a problem

You want the children to be safe from diseases with the use of vaccines and the other side wants the children to be safe from un-safe vaccines. Can you prove the vaccines are safe?? Can you prove that the vaccines are not interacting with something other than what is being shot into the child?? There is a problem someplace. Both sides want the same results. Safe children. Yet both sides only see theirs and the problem still exists.

Are they saying that they want to see the children unsafe?? Neither side is really hearing the other. Start there and perhaps a common ground can be reached.

[rd_kent]

8. The fact that vaccines get used BILLIONS of times per year without issue is proof.

Any risk of vaccines is GREATLY outweighed by the good they do.

[Angry Dragon]

9. Here is my position

Both sides can not really hear the other side. You listen to them but you do not hear them. You do not hear their fear. I have read books on this subject and have read reports stating in some cases a bright child goes in and gets the vaccine and within days that child has changed. Now that is a real fear and what you give them is facts. Facts do not calm fears.

I do not know you, but I will assume you care about children and their safety. I do not think you would want to put a child in danger, but this is what these parents see. Danger for their child. Until this fear can be addressed there is always going to be fear from the other side. Address their fears with something besides facts and figures. It was noted that in one of the posts above that it was due to the way things were reported. We all know that studies can be moved around to get the results that we desire. This does nothing to relieve fears.

I have no children of my own. I also worry about children. The only way I can see to address the fears is to really hear what their fears are and address them. Fears can not be addressed by logic, only by seeing really hearing that fear inside of that person.

[rd_kent]

10. I AM willing to listen...to reasonable claims....

I have read books on this subject and have read reports stating in some cases a bright child goes in and gets the vaccine and within days that child has changed. Please provide a link to this story. Was there evidence to support the vaccine had ANYTHING to do with it?

Address their fears with something besides facts and figures. Like what? The FACTS are just that, FACTS! And the facts are that there is NO link between vaccines and autism....None! The fear these parents feel is irrational. Presenting a rational case with facts and figures OUGHT to open their eyes, but they refuse to see. I am as big of a skeptic as they come, yet I will not cower in fear due to something that is only a "feeling" and has no evidence to back it up.

I too, care about children. I have a new baby myself. We contemplated the vaccine stuff as we too hard heard these stories, did some research and found nothing that outweighs the benefits of vaccinating. Nothing. Thats the point...there is nothing that links these two things. Nothing. How do you debate with someone when they have nothing to support their claim?

[Angry Dragon]

11. I do not know what the answer is

I do know that their fear is real to them. Fear can not be debated. Fear rarely can be defeated by facts. It can be lessened by compassion and talk, not debate. I am past the child bearing years so I do not know what I would do. I am not trying to say either side is right or wrong just trying to find and think of a way for both sides to win. Parents bringing their children for vaccinations without fear.

The facts were in a book that I am not sure where it is right now. I am not trying to debate with you because vaccinations are important, but I can not think of a really good way for them to come to your side. Just trying to let you see more of their side.

[Orrex]

15. If they are frightened beyond the ability to reason, then they are not qualified to make the choice

The decision should be delegated to a qualified and trusted expert who's able to look at the facts and decide accordingly. The fact that "their fear is real to them" is actually an argument in support of this view.

Jenny McCarthy, incidentally, is the last person to whom they should entrust their child's healthcare decisions.

[Chemisse]

12. I totally agree with you

A parent sees their child get a vaccination, then 'within days the child has changed.' All the medical community has to say to them about something they actually witnessed happen, something that has shattered their lives, is 'studies show that you are wrong.' If I were in that position, I would be enraged.

So you are right, there is tremendous fear and distrust and just spouting 'facts' is not going to address it.

Sadly, you will find that the people here who like to post in vaccine threads are not particularly tolerant of middle-of-the-road stances.

[trotsky]

14. This "debate" is eerily similar to the "debate" about climate change.

Thank Koresh for FAUX news, who provides us with "fair and balanced" coverage of the "debate" by having highly educated, trained, experienced climatologists on one side, and whacked-out libertarian industry apologists on the other, so they can create a "middle ground" via triangulation just to provide enough wiggle room to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt on the issue.

The same thing is happening with the anti-vaccine movement. All the science, all the evidence, all the education and experience is on the side of vaccine safety and effectiveness. Crackpots and lawyers looking to make some easy bucks from parents are on the other, and they have to do is create a little wiggle room in the "middle ground".

there is tremendous fear and distrust and just spouting 'facts' is not going to address it.

That statement pretty much sums up the state of scientific illiteracy and the lack of critical thinking in this country. Pride through ignorance.

[Orrex]

16. And creationism.

"What's the harm in teaching the controversy?" they ask.

[Chemisse]

17. I don't really think this is analagous

Here there is a real fear about a real phenomena (autism). Apparently some parents have seen an abrupt conversion of a normal child into an autism-spectrum child. Any normal parent is going to search around for a reason as to why that happened. What has been different? What could have caused this change? If the child had recently taken a medicine, traveled to a new place, or received a vaccine, it is only natural to suspect a connection.

The more the medical community tries to marginalize people who have those questions, the more these folks will distrust what science is telling them. It is natural to be suspicious when someone is a little TOO emphatic and is dismissive of your ideas.

So in this case I think it is wise to encompass these people, say yes we understand why you would wonder about that, here is what the studies are showing and more are being done. We hope to someday understand why this happened to your child.

Simply refuting them only leads to more distrust. And it is spreading. Thinking vaccines are dangerous now seems to be a popular conspiracy theory among right-wing crazies. Someday it may be as divisive as the abortion debate.

Extremism - in either direction - forces people to pick a side, and opposes consensus.

[Orrex]

19. Actually, the analogy is just about perfect

On one side we have people who have chosen to believe something that is in direct conflict with all facts and observable reality, and on the other hand we have people who are attacked for trying to explain the situation rationally. I'm not saying that you're attacking them, but the attacks are commonplace and widespread.

The more the medical community tries to marginalize people who have those questions, the more these folks will distrust what science is telling them.

The more the media tries to normalize people who declare that vaccines are the cause of autism, the more people will feel justified in making decisions based wholly upon ignorance and fear. The fault here does not originate from the people attempting to combat fear with fact.

So in this case I think it is wise to encompass these people, say yes we understand why you would wonder about that, here is what the studies are showing and more are being done. We hope to someday understand why this happened to your child.

That would be true if we were working from a level playing field, but we are not. An entire industry is devoted to preemptively convincing parents that vaccines are unnecessary and dangerous, stoking their fear and rendering them incapable of discussing the matter rationally.

Therefore it is unacceptable for you to require that science abandon facts and reason when explaining the reality of the situation. Rather than acknowledging the people who actually have the answers, you're telling them to accommodate the people who propagate (and profit from) the lies.

Incidentally, I've had this conversation with many people who believe that vaccines cause autism, and I have found that it is absolutely futile to "understand" or "empathize with" them. In all cases, they walk away from the discussion even more thoroughly convinced that vaccines cause autism, in part because a person who believes in science says he understands their fear. They wholly disregard the facts that I might present, and they simply cling to their fear. But if I express my hostility to the notion of a vaccine/autism link, then at least I know that I'm not validating their irrational belief.

Simply refuting them only leads to more distrust. And it is spreading. Thinking vaccines are dangerous now seems to be a popular conspiracy theory among right-wing crazies. Someday it may be as divisive as the abortion debate.

If you think that it's a conspiracy theory among right-wing crazies, then you haven't been paying attention. It's an insane fear that has infected a large fraction of the population. And it needs to be fought at every opportunity.

Extremism - in either direction - forces people to pick a side, and opposes consensus.

It is not extremism to say "here are the facts" and then demonstrate those facts. Extremism arises from declaring something true or false in the absence of (or in spite of) the facts. It is not extremism to say "there is no rational reason to believe that vaccines cause autism."


Ultimately, you are attempting stop the conflict without resolving it, and in so doing you are fostering an atmosphere in which ignorance and fear will drive parents to make dangerous and irrational decisions regarding their children's health.

[Chemisse]

20. Your post makes a lot of sense, but a few comments, Qs

"That would be true if we were working from a level playing field, but we are not. An entire industry is devoted to preemptively convincing parents that vaccines are unnecessary and dangerous, stoking their fear and rendering them incapable of discussing the matter rationally."

What industry is this? Who is making money from this? (Other than the conspiracy-type websites and their advertisers I suppose). People know that somebody makes money from the vaccines, so that is a disadvantage to simply purporting that studies show they are safe.

Darn, I have more to talk about, but I have to leave for work asap.

[Orrex]

23. Andrew Wakefield has famously profited from it, for one

Perhaps "industry" was a poor choice of word, because it's not as though there's a unified corporate presence at work here. It's more like a bunch of different entities working in informal concert to achieve a similar end--to profit from the belief that the danger of vaccines outweighs their value.

In addition to Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy has a best-selling book about her belief in the vaccine/autism. Part of her claim is that diet and nutrition are the primary causes of autism spectrum disorder, and she's not alone in this claim. Oprah is implicated because she's given McCarthy a very public soapbox from which to broadcast her claims without having to defend them. In fact, McCarthy has signed a deal with Oprah and is joining the Harpo Family, and somehow I don't think that she'll use her airtime to recant her earlier claims. Bill Maher frequently rails against "the vaccine industry," even though he betrays his ignorance every time he brings up the subject.

Maury Povich has likewise hosted guests who propgate the vaccine/autism myth, and every fringe nutritionist and osteopath who makes the same claims is part of the industry. Rashid Buttar is another who's recently popped up in the news after proudly claiming to cure a woman who, as it turns out, wasn't really sick in the first place.

There's not really a single anti-vaccine company equivalent to Pfizer or Merck, but there's an industry all the same.

[Chemisse]

26. Wow. That is really irresponsible

To give these people an unopposed platform.

I never watch that type of show, so did not know that.

[Orrex]

27. LOL. Yeah, those shows are definitely worth avoiding.

I kind of keep my ear to the ground, though, so when one of these hot-button guests shows up, I take notice.

[trotsky]

24. VICP

Because vaccine manufacturers are largely shielded from liability (and reasonable shielding makes perfect sense - vaccines are not particularly profitable, and the risks of not having enough manufacturers of vaccines are too great), we have the VICP (Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The US Government will pay the rare victims of vaccines for damages.

Now the standards of establishing vaccine culpability in this special court are much lower than scientific standards. A "preponderance of evidence" is sufficient, which many experts have summarized as "50% plus a feather." This is also a good thing, as we all take a slight risk with vaccines in order to prevent the much, much larger risk of disease run rampant in society.

Key points to consider about the vaccine court: the US government pays the suing parents' legal fees regardless of whether they win a settlement. In other words, this is FREE MONEY for any lawyer who will represent the parents in court, regardless of whether the lawyer (or the court) thinks the case has merit. These lawyers are of course further motivated to sow and promote any confusion or doubt about vaccines, in order to reach that "50% plus a feather" level and collect bigtime.

As you can imagine, the system is ripe for abuse - BUT if the gov't were really conspiring with big pharma to poison and kill everyone, do you think A) this court would even exist, and B) that the bar for receiving compensation would be so low? We err on the side of injury, not on the side of pharma. The downside is a cottage industry for dishonest lawyers and their paid "experts" like the Geiers, etc.

[Chemisse]

21. People's distrust is a psychological dilemma

I think think that spouting facts gathered in research is inadequate because of a distrust of scientific studies, a distrust that has developed for several reasons:

1. Studies are often contradictory - people see this all the time and it is confusing, such as during the 10 years or so when hormone replacement therapy was undergoing scrutiny. Eventually there was a consensus about the dangers of it, but not until after concerned women were yanked back and forth a lot of times on the issue.

2. Studies are sometimes funded by those who stand to benefit from favorable results - the tobacco companies insistance that nicotine was not addictive comes to mind, with the 'research' they cited to back it up.

3. Studies sometimes defy what people's personal observations - a lot of people were stunned and by the studies that revealed that sugar does not make kids more active

Just telling people to trust the scientific research is not going to solve the problem, which, as you indicated here: "If you think that it's a conspiracy theory among right-wing crazies, then you haven't been paying attention. It's an insane fear that has infected a large fraction of the population. And it needs to be fought at every opportunity," is a growing problem.

Again, I think to acknowledge their fears with a moderate and sympathetic tone can help dissolve the suspicions and make a discussion of the science have more impact.

By the way, thanks for the thoughtful and polite post.

[Orrex]

25. I'll stand by my complaint that empathizing with their fear is counter-productive

Your three points are valid, though, and ultimately I think they speak to a nationwide shortage of critical thinking skills.

In the end, it may be that we either have to address the two problems simultaneously or else prioritize them and deal with them one at a time. Parents who elect not to vaccinate their kids against polio or rotovirus or measles (for instance) are placing their children at significant risk, and there needs to be some mechanism in place for weighing the parents' rights versus their children's well-being. Earlier this year we saw the case of Daniel Hauser, whose parents decided to gamble with his life rather than let him undergo chemotherapy, even though his form of cancer responds extremely well to chemo. The courts intervened on his behalf, recognizing that the parents' fear and ideology were not sufficient to trump the facts of medical science.

It's unfortunate that his parents put him in this position, but it's not uncommon.

My view is that similar steps may be necessary when parents refuse to vaccinate their children, out of ill-informed fears about their dangers. We can deal with the parents' fear later, after the children have been protected from harm.

[salvorhardin]

6. Serious investigations have been done

A great many of them in fact. The autism "epidemic" is due to changes in diagnostic criteria which classify many more children ASD than the older autism diagnoses. Autism diagnoses continue to rise as more and more physicians change the way they personally make diagnoses. This information has been posted here repeatedly, including links to studies affirming this.

Here's just one from 2006.

The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education
Paul T. Shattuck, PhD
Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 4 April 2006, pp. 1028-1037 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1516)

OBJECTIVE. Growing administrative prevalence of autism has stirred public controversy and concern. The extent to which increases in the administrative prevalence of autism have been associated with corresponding decreases in the use of other diagnostic categories is unknown. The main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between the rising administrative prevalence of autism in US special education and changes in the use of other classification categories.

METHODS. The main outcome measure was the administrative prevalence of autism among children ages 6 to 11 in US special education. Analysis involved estimating multilevel regression models of time-series data on the prevalence of disabilities among children in US special education from 1984 to 2003.

RESULTS. The average administrative prevalence of autism among children increased from 0.6 to 3.1 per 1000 from 1994 to 2003. By 2003, only 17 states had a special education prevalence of autism that was within the range of recent epidemiological estimates. During the same period, the prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities declined by 2.8 and 8.3 per 1000, respectively. Higher autism prevalence was significantly associated with corresponding declines in the prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities. The declining prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities from 1994 to 2003 represented a significant downward deflection in their preexisting trajectories of prevalence from 1984 to 1993. California was one of a handful of states that did not clearly follow this pattern.

CONCLUSIONS. Prevalence findings from special education data do not support the claim of an autism epidemic because the administrative prevalence figures for most states are well below epidemiological estimates. The growing administrative prevalence of autism from 1994 to 2003 was associated with corresponding declines in the usage of other diagnostic categories.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/4/1028

[Chemisse]

13. It would be cool if they could do a study from the 1960s, 70s (pre special ed)

But instead of looking at the autism definition, compare the numbers of kids who could not attend school and/or who were institutionalized because of 'mental retardation' or other disabilities that could have been autism in retrospect.

Maybe the number of children not attending school/thousand kids, compared to the number of children receiving a high level of special education services in the 90s and now.

[LeftishBrit]

18. As autism is a lifelong condition, one way of investigating this would be to study adults and see

whether autism rates are in fact similar to those now found in children, if the same diagnostic criteria are used.

Such a study was recently done in the UK. The rate of autism in adults was found to be 1 in 100 under current diagnostic criteria: i.e. at least as high as in children.

[Chemisse]

22. That is interesting - I wonder what the age range was

Were they young or old adults, or a cross-section?

I can't shake the impression that something in the environment has triggered the increased expression of this apparently congenital disease.

[LeftishBrit]

28. It was a cross-section ..

and no difference was found between age groups, which was interesting, as one might have expected a slight excess among younger adults compared with older adults simply on the grounds that people with any disorder may have a slightly lower life expectancy. But even this was not found.

There may well be environmental factors involved (some are already known to be risk factors, such as prematurity, serious birth difficulties, and certain infections and illnesses in the mother). But it's unlikely that these are factors that have changed much in the last few decades.

[HuckleB]

29. Anti-vaccinationist J.B. Handley flings more feces at Alison Singer

http://www.examiner.com/x-9090-NY-Atheism--Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m11d18-Antivaccinationist-JB-Handley-flings-more-feces-at-Alison-Singer

This guy is a real piece of work. It amazes me to see him defended by anyone at DU.

[trotsky]

30. He says what they want to hear.

Anti-vaxers here have quoted the foulest, most vile sources for the sole reason that they support anti-vax lunacy.

[xchrom]

31. kick