Jul 282011
 
The Greater Good - fair and balanced documentary or deadly propaganda?

There’s a new documentary coming soon. It’s called The Greater Good, and it purports to take an objective, rational perspective on the issue of vaccine safety. According to the description provided below its trailer on YouTube, the film looks… …behind the fear, hype and politics that have polarized the vaccine debate in America today. The film re-frames the emotionally charged issue and offers, for the first time, the opportunity for a rational and scientific discussion on how to create a safer and more effective vaccine program. Although we cannot review the movie itself since we have only the trailer to ———->FULL ARTICLE

Jun 012011
 

The latest blog by Generation Rescue’s J.B. Handley posted over at Age of Autism has inspired me to create a drinking game. The piece is a long rant against David Gorski titled, Dr. David Gorski’s Unique Brand of Moronism. Here are the rules of the drinking game, which while designed for this particular article, should probably fit any Handley article: 1. Drink every time Handley uses an ad hominem argument 2. Drink every time Handley acknowledges he’s using an ad hominem but then still treats it as if it’s a legitimate argument anyway. 3. Drink every time Handley suggests the ———->FULL ARTICLE

Apr 082011
 

Given that April is Autism Awareness Month, it seemed appropriate to briefly discuss the early history of the autism-vaccine hypothesis. Though this alleged link is often stated as having begun with Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper, Trine Tsouderos, a science journalist at the Chicago Tribune, reminded the audience at a recent panel discussion on vaccines in New York City, it really began in 1982 with a television documentary by Lea Thompson called DPT: Vaccine Roulette. The film, which earned Thompson an Emmy Award, caused hysteria by suggesting the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine was dangerous and propelled Thompson into the ———->FULL ARTICLE

Mar 262011
 

This is the final part of my report on the book launch for Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, held at New York University (part 1, part 2 and part 3). After two previous panels, we were promised that the last panel would finally address the science motivating the book’s participating authors’ and editors’ concerns over vaccination. The themes this panel would be discussing would include herd immunity, epidemiology and questions about causation, trust between physician and patient, and the suppression of science, though I must have ———->FULL ARTICLE

Mar 122011
 

This is part 3 of my report on the book launch for Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, held at New York University (part 1 and part 2). In this installment, I’ll cover the second panel discussion on the topic of personal injury stories moderated by Kim Mack Rosenberg. Yes,it’s a panel discussion on anecdotal evidence. This is also the subject of the whole second section of the book. To get a better understanding of why anecdotes are viewed by science as notoriously weak forms of evidence, ———->FULL ARTICLE

Mar 032011
 

Last week, I began my 4-part report on the book launch for Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, held at New York University. In part 1, I covered the ten-minute introduction by the book’s co-authors, Louise Habakus and Mary Holland. In this second installment,  I’ll look at the first of the three panel discussions. I apologize if I seem to editorialize a little more  or become snarkier in part 2, but some of the statements made by the panel were quite audacious and difficult to treat as ———->FULL ARTICLE

Feb 182011
 
Formaldehyde fears without merit

Vaccine critics often cite specific ingredients in the vaccines as their chief concern. As Leart pointed out in an article here several days ago, sometimes these alleged dangerous ingredients aren’t even really in the vaccines. Of course, more often than not, vaccine critics manage to at least point to ingredients that actually are in the vaccines. One such “toxic” ingredient popularly cited as a reason vaccines aren’t safe is formaldehyde. According to one anti-vaccine website: In the body, formaldehyde can cause proteins to irreversibly bind to DNA. Laboratory animals exposed to large doses of inhaled formaldehyde over their lifetimes have ———->FULL ARTICLE

There is no antifreeze in vaccines

 Posted by on February 12, 2011  12 Responses »
Feb 122011
 

How many times have you heard Jenny McCarthy demand that antifreeze be removed from vaccines?  J.B. Handley boldly claims that the flu shot contains antifreeze. I mean who can disagree with that: antifreeze is something you pour inside your car, in a special container under the hood, you don’t inject that into babies. What monster ever decided that it was a good idea to add it to vaccines? Turns out, the monster does not exists, because there is no antifreeze in vaccines. How do we know that there is no antifreeze in vaccines? Well, let’s see, first, there is no ———->FULL ARTICLE