Paul G King PhD rebuttal to Dr Gregory Poland's "Answer" “Foregoing immunizations puts child and...

[Mirzam]

X-post in vaccine research forum

This is brilliant! Dr King as always has produced an excellent well research article. A must read! He has also asked that if he has any factual errors in this piece he be contacted so he can correct it. So all your pro-vaxers, have at it, tell us and him what is wrong with his rebuttal.

[s]hould anyone find any significant factual error in this review for which they have independent, scientifically sound, peer-reviewed published substantiating documents, please submit that information to this reviewer so that he can improve his under­ standing of factual reality and, where appropriate, revise his views and this analysis. 

 

http://dr-king.com/docs/130306_DrftRevu_Of_ForegoingImmunization___final_b.pdf

oops sorry about the the funky formatting, it that on the x-post too

[emmy526]

Foregoing Puts others at Risk? Mayo Clinic Answer

http://dr-king.com/docs/130306_DrftRevu_Of_ForegoingImmunization___final_b.pdf

 

whoops...cross post

Edited by emmy526 - 3/18/13 at 7:57pm

[Marnica]

I have been waiting for the usual suspects to chime in and have multiple issues with this rebuttal.  Shocked there hasn't been some posts about this.

Personally I thought it was quite thought provoking. 

[prosciencemum]

It's a really long article/rant. I started to read it and gave up in disgust if I'm honest.

Think I might have trouble finding a source he accepts as a rebuttal anyway, since he says anyone who thinks vaccines are a good idea should be discounted - and that includes basically all scientists working in the area (well actually basically all scientists).

Anyway give us time. In still waiting for many answers on this forum I didn't get too.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

It's a really long article/rant. I started to read it and gave up in disgust if I'm honest.

Think I might have trouble finding a source he accepts as a rebuttal anyway, since he says anyone who thinks vaccines are a good idea should be discounted - and that includes basically all scientists working in the area (well actually basically all scientists).

Anyway give us time. In still waiting for many answers on this forum I didn't get too.

First I would hardly call it a rant, especially in comparison of some of the pro-vaccine blogs you have posted here in the past which bordered on the offensive. But, yes it is long, because it is comprehensive and extremely well sited.

I don't think he is looking to find a source to accept it. Again, PSM, you have added nothing, all you have done is made a personal attack on the writer.

I look forward to your critique, and please be sure to send in any factual error, with substantiating evidence to Dr King, I am sure he would appreciate it.

[prosciencemum]

I'm entitled to my opinion on the article (which is not the same as a personal attack - I might think he's lovely, but the article still reads like a rant to me).

Thanks for the link to the thing he's rebutting though. Seems to me like a nice measured explanation of the reasons to choose to vaccinate.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-72580044/

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I'm entitled to my opinion on the article (which is not the same as a personal attack - I might think he's lovely, but the article still reads like a rant to me).

Thanks for the link to the thing he's rebutting though. Seems to me like a nice measured explanation of the reasons to choose to vaccinate.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-72580044/

I am entitled to be disgusted by some of the rabid pro-vax blogs you post links to here frequently.

The article he is rebutting is pure unadulterated vax-ganda of the most banal variety. 

#InMyOpinion

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I'm entitled to my opinion on the article (which is not the same as a personal attack - I might think he's lovely, but the article still reads like a rant to me).

Thanks for the link to the thing he's rebutting though. Seems to me like a nice measured explanation of the reasons to choose to vaccinate.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-72580044/

Really? Seemed like a commercial exhorting us (with loads of propaganda, much of which were lies, and they left out a lot of inconvenient truths as well) to purchase a product to me. Oh, wait, that's what it really was.

[emmy526]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Really? Seemed like a commercial exhorting us (with loads of propaganda, much of which were lies, and they left out a lot of inconvenient truths as well) to purchase a product to me. Oh, wait, that's what it really was.

yes, quite the one sided  and biased piece of literature, for sure

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by emmy526 

yes, quite the one sided  and biased piece of literature, for sure

We do see a lot of one sided biased literature quoted here I agree.

[prosciencemum]

Although "literature" might be a bit much to describe some of it.

And I agree we're all entitled to our opinions - it's even in the UA.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

It's a really long article/rant. I started to read it and gave up in disgust if I'm honest.

Think I might have trouble finding a source he accepts as a rebuttal anyway, since he says anyone who thinks vaccines are a good idea should be discounted - and that includes basically all scientists working in the area (well actually basically all scientists).

Anyway give us time. In still waiting for many answers on this forum I didn't get too.

 seriously? hmmmmm I didn't find anything remotely rant like about it. You are right in that it is very long and while I read most of it, some of that was skimming so would you be so kind as you quote the part where he says that anyone who thinks vaccines are a good idea should be discounted? Thanks

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

 seriously? hmmmmm I didn't find anything remotely rant like about it. You are right in that it is very long and while I read most of it, some of that was skimming so would you be so kind as you quote the part where he says that anyone who thinks vaccines are a good idea should be discounted? Thanks

Well, he spends almost a page critiquing the title, and the use of immunization as a synonym for vaccination, which I'm pretty sure is common useage. In fact this online dictionary defines immunize as such: 

 

Quote:

immunize

verb [T] (UK usually immunise) 

 

 

/ˈɪm.jʊ.naɪz/

    

Definition

› to protect a person or animal against a disease by putting a substance into their body, usually using a needle:Children are routinely immunized against polio.

And vaccinate: 

Quote:

 

vaccinate

verb [T] 

 

 

/ˈvæk.sɪ.neɪt/

    

Definition

C2 to give someone a vaccine, usually by injection, to prevent them from getting a disease:The children were vaccinated against the major childhood diseases.→ See also inoculate, immunize

So that's sort of where I get the idea it's a bit rant like. I think he could have let that go...

And the bit about sources is a footnote on the first page which says: 

 

Quote:

To qualify as an independent document, the study should be published by researchers who have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest from their ties to either those commercial entities who profit from the sale of vaccines or those entities, academic, commercial or governmental, who directly or indirectly, actively promote vaccines, the development of vaccines, and/or inoculation programs using vaccines. 

So I read that as he won't accept as a source anything from any researcher tied to any academic, commercial or government agency who thinks vaccines are a good idea (which is basically all of them). So you can't be a professional researcher and rebut him basically..... 

In fact he should ignore me, because I work for a university which thinks vaccines are a good idea and therefore indirectly promotes them..... 

 

[serenbat]

So I read that as he won't accept as a source anything from any researcher tied to any academic, commercial or government agency who thinks vaccines are a good idea (which is basically all of them). So you can't be a professional researcher and rebut him basically..... 

In fact he should ignore me, because I work for a university which thinks vaccines are a good idea and therefore indirectly promotes them..... 

 

So you are a paid professional researcher with ties to the Pharma?  

[Mirzam]

PSM, your clearly have no rebuttal for Dr King, as you are obviously coming up with excuses. Not surprised.

[prosciencemum]

Marnica asked me to post that so I did.

Serenbat - no as I think was clear from what I posted. I work for a university. I've never hidden that I'm a professional scientist (in physical sciences). It's in my signature if I recall.

[serenbat]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Serenbat - no as I think was clear from what I posted. I work for a university. I've never hidden that I'm a professional scientist (in physical sciences). It's in my signature if I recall.

Doctor, it must be an easy job! It allows you lots of time to post for us.

Edited by serenbat - 3/22/13 at 11:18am

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Well, he spends almost a page critiquing the title, and the use of immunization as a synonym for vaccination, which I'm pretty sure is common useage. In fact this online dictionary defines immunize as such: 

 

And vaccinate: 

So that's sort of where I get the idea it's a bit rant like. I think he could have let that go...

And the bit about sources is a footnote on the first page which says: 

 

So I read that as he won't accept as a source anything from any researcher tied to any academic, commercial or government agency who thinks vaccines are a good idea (which is basically all of them). So you can't be a professional researcher and rebut him basically..... 

In fact he should ignore me, because I work for a university which thinks vaccines are a good idea and therefore indirectly promotes them..... 

 

 So he's saying research should be free from conflict of interest and you have interpreted that to mean that information from any living soul who thinks vaccination may be of use or a good idea should be discounted. So there really is no quote to post. That was just your personal interpretation. Fair enough.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

Doctor, it must be an easy job! It allows you lots of time to post for us.

This has come up before. I'm not sure what it adds to the conversation, but I'll bite this time I guess.... 

I think it's just a lot quicker for me to write these posts than some of you think. 

Part of my job means I have to get good at reading research, digesting facts and understanding interpretations. I'm also very good at maths (and statistics). And I'm used to thinking about how to write this all down for people to try to explain what I mean (scientists have to write a lot).

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

 So he's saying research should be free from conflict of interest and you have interpreted that to mean that information from any living soul who thinks vaccination may be of use or a good idea should be discounted. So there really is no quote to post. That was just your personal interpretation. Fair enough.

Yeah you're right. I misread 

"the study should be published by researchers who have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest from their ties to [] entities, academic, commercial or governmental, who directly or indirectly, actively promote vaccines, the development of vaccines, and/or inoculation programs using vaccines. "

to mean: 

"the study should be published by researchers who [do not] directly or indirectly, actively promote vaccines, the development of vaccines, and/or inoculation programs using vaccines. "

My mistake. 

Still think it exclude any studies by any professional scientists though. If you want you can try to prove me wrong and find me an "academic or governmental entity" which employs scientists researching vaccines and their safety which does not at least indirectly promote vaccines in some way. 

That will be your homework - mine will be to read more of the article. I have some comments on the length at which immunity lasts (from vaccines cf infection) which I just need to search out the references for. But it's Friday night here and I'm going to eat Chinese takeaway and watch TV. Interpret that as a diversion technique if you like. :)