Anti-Vaccination Article

[Wildy]

(Sorry if I'm using statistical terms wrong. It's the lectures, they are so boring...)

I've been arguing with an anti-vac guy, who is using this article (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.html) as evidence of his claims.

(This is a link to the first part of the article on UPI (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2005/04/19/The_Age_of_Autism_The_Amish_anomaly/UPI-95661113911795/), the first link has both parts.)

I want to know, am I right in assuming that applying the 1:166 ratio for the entire population of the US to a subset of that population that is not representative of the population in general is wrong?

Or am I (and I think this is quite possible) looking at the article through biased eyes?

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

First thing you need to know is Scopie's Law:
In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed out of (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Scopie's_Law)
the room (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Scopie's_Law).

More about the whale.to guy, with an illustration of his bum being burned by a satanic black ley line here:
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=998 ... enjoy

Also remember that the Age of Autism articles were written by a guy with an agenda who claimed to research the Amish, but seemed to miss this very important clinic that specialized in treating the Amish and does provide vaccines:
http://clinicforspecialchildren.org/CSC/Home.html

The Amish have limited genetic variation, which makes them good for genetic studies especially since they carry some very nasty genetic conditions (check on the research link there). So yes, you are correct that the Amish are not representative of the whole population (and the 1:166 includes all forms of autism, from severely disabled to mildly Asperger's).

The author of those articles no longer works for UPI. Read more about him here:
http://autism-news-beat.com/?p=29

[JJM]

Hydrogen Cyanide is spot-on about Scopie's Law.

There are many articles on the topic here http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ and here http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ You can search the former for the term(s), the latter has a label for "vaccines."

[Professor Yaffle]

This article might be of interest:

http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23/do-the-amish-vaccinate-indeed-they-do-and-their-autism-rates-may-be-lower.htm

[Wildy]

First thing you need to know is Scopie's Law:
In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed out of the room (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Scopie's_Law).

Ok, to be fair I wasn't citing whale.to as a credible source. The person that I was arguing with just copied and pasted the article with a dead link as a source. Without breaching rule 4 (it is rule 4 isn't it?) that was the best that I could do. I think that the anti-vac guy I'm dealing with got it from somewhere else, but I don't know where.

Also remember that the Age of Autism articles were written by a guy with an agenda who claimed to research the Amish, but seemed to miss this very important clinic that specialized in treating the Amish and does provide vaccines:
http://clinicforspecialchildren.org/CSC/Home.html

I'd figured that out quite quickly.

The Amish have limited genetic variation, which makes them good for genetic studies especially since they carry some very nasty genetic conditions (check on the research link there). So yes, you are correct that the Amish are not representative of the whole population (and the 1:166 includes all forms of autism, from severely disabled to mildly Asperger's).

I thought so.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Ok, to be fair I wasn't citing whale.to as a credible source. The person that I was arguing with just copied and pasted the article with a dead link as a source. ....

I know. I guess I didn't make it clear: You were supposed to use Scopie's Law on him! Those were links for you to send to him. I really am trying to spread the use of Scopie's Law around.

All is good.

[Wildy]

I know. I guess I didn't make it clear: You were supposed to use Scopie's Law on him! Those were links for you to send to him. I really am trying to spread the use of Scopie's Law around.

All is good.

The problem is that he technically didn't violate Scopie's Law.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

The problem is that he technically didn't violate Scopie's Law.

Huh? You mean he did not actually use a whale.to link?

But you said...

(Sorry if I'm using statistical terms wrong. It's the lectures, they are so boring...)

I've been arguing with an anti-vac guy, who is using this article (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.html) as evidence of his claims.
..

Okay... hyperlink went to http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.html ... which is a "whale.to" link. That by definition evokes Scopie's Law. It doesn't matter if the link is just a reprint of another article, it was a whale.to link! The basic fact that if John Scudamore put it on his website means that it has to be worthless.

Oh, well... nevermind, as you can see... even if your friend linked to the original articles, or even to Olmsted's more recent writings on the AgeofAutism blog --- the stuff about the Amish is still garbage.

[Wildy]

He copied and pasted the exact same words as that article.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Scudamore has always done that. Of course, half the time he does not understand it. Many many m..a..n..y years ago when I first encountered him on Usenet I actually looked at some of his articles. It was something from some doctor, and I was amazed at his very racist attitudes towards the Indians he treated. Then I found out it was from the late 19th century.

Scudamore is also a major loon on the JABS forum, as you can see from the LeftBrainRightBrain link. So it was from the BadScience discussion about JABS that Scopie's Law was inspired. In general, anything that Scudamore decides to post on his whale.to is considered to be immediately suspect. Oh, and I've annoyed him so much I have my own tribute page.

Olmsted is just an idiot. If you look on Orac's blog, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/, and a few others you can get a good sense that he has no sense. He claimed to have researched the Amish, but never went to the clinic that studies the Amish. He only found out about after his first article came out. When he called them up for an interview they refused to talk to him since they figured out (accurately) that he was a muckraker.

Some examples of an Orac postings on Olmsted,
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/05/some_monkey_business_in_autism_research.php ... Also, the article linked to was written by Dan Olmsted (http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/05/sick-monkeys-st.html), that credulous reporter who claims that the Amish don't vaccinate and don't get autism when they do both (http://autism-news-beat.com/?p=29) and who conveniently couldn't find (http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=69) the special needs clinic in the heart of Amish country that treats Amish with some forms of autism (not to mention who takes the word of an antivaccination-leaning crunchy physician in Chicago as apparently scientific evidence that the unvaccinated don't get autism (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/autism_and_vaccines_the_story_morphs.php)), among other developmental conditions. So credulously eager to believe any bit of trash that supports his need to blame vaccines for autism, Olmsted's articles are almost always good for a chuckle, if not an outright belly laugh.
and...
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/autism_and_vaccines_the_story_morphs.php ... I have to hand it to Dan Olmsted (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=Dan+Olmsted&sa.x=5&sa.y=5&sa=search). As Dr. Michael Egnor (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=egnor&sa.x=6&sa.y=2&sa=search) is for "intelligent design" creationism, ol' Danny Boy is the Energizer Bunny of antivaccinationism. Tag-teaming with fellow "journalist" David Kirby (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=david+kirby&sa.x=5&sa.y=10&sa=search), who seems able to live rather well without actually, you know, having a regular job, ex-UPI correspondent Olmsted form the not-so-dynamic duo of vaccine and autism pseudoscience, the unrelenting propagandists who, despite all evidence to the contrary, keep insisting that it really, truly is the mercury in the vaccines and then, when science shows that it really isn't the mercury in vaccines, insist that it really, truly is the vaccines themselves. Diligently seeking across the country any shred of evidence that he can twist into blaming vaccines for autism, Olmsted is, if nothing else, persistent. There's no claim that's too woo-ful, antivaccination statement so unsourced and unverifiable that he won't report it as though it's the Gospel Truth about autism.

[Eos of the Eons]

I stil don't get why antivaccine nuts aren't blaming schizophrenia on vaccines. 1/100 people has schizophrenia. I mean, if vaccines could cause autism, then they really MUST cause schizophrenia, as it is easier to upset the balance of brain chemicals and cause the changes that lead to schizophrenia than to cause the changes required for autism. Heck, just take enough LSD and you will experience very similar symptoms. There is no recreational drug that causes a person to mimic autism as closely. More people have schizophrenia than autism, so it is easier to get, so to speak.

Why does the blame not get laid, even though schizophrenia happens at a crucial developemental period of the brain? I guess nobody cares about people at that age the way they do for 2 year olds. It's rather a harsh reality. Oh yeah, and most teenagers only get a shot here or there for HiB or tetanus. So, I guess it's easier to blame vaccines for something that usually happens to toddlers. Still doesn't make it true though.

Internet users also don't know many Amish people, so it would be easy to convince them that the Amish don't get schizophrenia.


Ah well, whatever. The recent discoveries in genetics lately points to reasons why things like autism and schizophrenia run in families. I have to wonder why antivaccine nuts choose to ignore this as well though.

In the general population 1 in 1,000 people are autistic. Boys are 3 to 4 times more likely to have autism than girls.

recent study found one gene that could be involved in autism. This gene is mutated more in people with autism. The gene codes for a protein that works in the process that makes ATP.

ATP is the fuel or energy that cells need to function. Brain cells need a lot of energy to do their work. It’s easy to imagine that if this gene were not working right, the brain cells would also not function normally.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=88

This suggests that with the two x chromosomes that girls get, that will allow one x chromosome to override the flawed genetics of the other, but boys only get one x chromosome. There is an X link factor here, and this is common for many genetic diseases-including hemophelia.

One in one thousand get autism. One in one hundred get schizophrenia (boys are also more likely to get schizophrenia than girls). Yet antivaccine nuts won't go near schizophrenia with a ten foot pole. Hm.

[Wildy]

First thing you need to know is Scopie's Law:
In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed out of (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Scopie's_Law)
the room (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Scopie's_Law).

I've finally managed to mention Scopie's Law.

Some new anti-vaxer decided to say that autism wasn't genetic and he came back and posted the article...

... and a link to whale.to.

[Eos of the Eons]

Why doesn't he think autism is genetic? at www.stopjenny.com (http://www.stopjenny.com) (shameless plug) the research and reasons why autism is genetic is quite sound. Get him to debunk it.

[Wildy]

Why doesn't he think autism is genetic? at www.stopjenny.com (http://www.stopjenny.com) (shameless plug) the research and reasons why autism is genetic is quite sound. Get him to debunk it.

Actually I have to be very careful it seems when I try to debunk stuff or even post links in general.

I will post a link to that site if I get the chance (gist of expected response: Since it says "Stop Jenny McCarthy", it is biased because she is right, therefore the site, and all it's "evidence" is wrong), but right now I've provided links to six articles which found evidence of a genetic link to various loci and asked him if he thinks it's right.

In the response where I mentioned Scopie's Law, he ignored everything I had to say because I opened my post with a criticism of the article.

I don't know why he thinks autism isn't genetic, (he later on posted that) but I think it has to do with him jumping on anything anti-government.

The guy is, I believe, first and foremost a CTist, so CT rules apply to him I guess.

Unfortunately I don't seem to get that through my thick skull...

[shuttlt]

Actually I have to be very careful it seems when I try to debunk stuff or even post links in general.

I will post a link to that site if I get the chance (gist of expected response: Since it says "Stop Jenny McCarthy", it is biased because she is right, therefore the site, and all it's "evidence" is wrong), but right now I've provided links to six articles which found evidence of a genetic link to various loci and asked him if he thinks it's right.

In the response where I mentioned Scopie's Law, he ignored everything I had to say because I opened my post with a criticism of the article.

I don't know why he thinks autism isn't genetic, (he later on posted that) but I think it has to do with him jumping on anything anti-government.

The guy is, I believe, first and foremost a CTist, so CT rules apply to him I guess.

Unfortunately I don't seem to get that through my thick skull...

You're doomed. I hadn't been aware of whale.to before (is it really not a joke?), but anybody who quotes that uncritically is pretty far gone. You aren't going to get far arguing the evidence.

[Professor Yaffle]

You're doomed. I hadn't been aware of whale.to before (is it really not a joke?), but anybody who quotes that uncritically is pretty far gone. You aren't going to get far arguing the evidence.

In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately..and gets you laughed out of the room.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/the_nuttiness_that_is_whaleto.php
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5240&p=90463#p90279