The Arrogance of Ignorance: Anti-Vaccine Website Blunders Again
Misnamed anti-vaccine website Child Health Safety posted a blog recently in which a number of surprising claims were made with great certainty. I thought these claims sounded very dubious and it turned out that they were. It’s taken me a few days to get round to posting this debunking partly because, unlike Child Health Safety, I like to check my facts before I publish.
Arrogant Ignorance
Here, Child Health Safety looks at the recent outbreak in Wales and makes a number of confident assertions that turn out to be untrue. It is claimed that measles has been “18,200% over-diagnosed” and “0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles” in March. There are similar claims made for other time periods, including the claim of 26 confirmed cases out of 446 in the first quarter of 2013. CHS boldly proclaims that “Now you can see the extent of the scam being run by public health officials in Wales, UK.” (There is another claim shortly after this: “You can rely on good old CHS because we let you check out the figures here all by yourself.”) Following this, links to NHS documents are posted by CHS. That’s right – the proof of the scam apparently comes from documents made available to the public by the alleged scammers themselves! I’m a little surprised that even CHS didn’t pause for thought at that point.
The two documents show notifications and confirmed cases of measles. In the comments, CHS makes it clear that they believe that all notifications have been tested and that a tiny percentage were actually measles, with all others testing negative for the disease: “All notified cases are laboratory tested. So basically Public Health Wales have been telling whoppers.” This claim is based on HPA guidelines that state that “Since November 1994, enhanced surveillance including oral fluid testing of all notified and suspected cases has been provided through the Centre for Infections.” While the guidance does suggest that testing should be undertaken for all notified and suspected cases, this doesn’t mean that it was being undertaken for all cases in the Welsh outbreak of measles.
Correcting Misconceptions
I emailed Public Health Wales to ask them whether lab testing had been carried out for all notifications in this outbreak. They helpfully emailed me back with clarification:
It is certainly not the case that we have laboratory tested all measles cases in the current outbreak. Although some cases have been laboratory confirmed (370 at present), the majority of our cases are notified cases, meaning that we are satisfied they are measles based on clinical diagnosis by a GP or other health professional, without requiring testing to be undertaken.
There’s more. CHS had claimed (in bold, underlined text) that there were just 26 lab-confirmed cases of measles in the first quarter of 2013, out of 446 notifications. The 26 laboratory confirmed cases referred to are those confirmed in laboratories in Wales in the first three months of 2013.
The majority of laboratory tests conducted for measles during that period were actually undertaken by our colleagues in Public Health England, and therefore those confirmed in England do not show up on our own laboratory reports and are not included in the figure of 26.
Child Health Safety had the data on lab-confirmed cases, the data on notifications and the guidelines on testing. What they did was to assume that (a) they had all the relevant information and (b) they had correctly interpreted it. What they didn’t do was take the time to ask for clarification. If they had, they would have discovered that they had misconstrued the figures relating to measles notifications and confirmations. They would also have discovered that their assumptions regarding testing, while based on the guidelines issued, were unwarranted. They screeched about a “scam” and “whoppers” but these were of CHS’s making – they have no basis in reality and CHS could have discovered this relatively easily by simply contacting Public Health Wales and asking for some clarification.
Now that I have done what CHS should have done in the first place, I hope that a prominent correction will be issued by Child Health Safety on their blog. I also think that an apology to Public Health Wales for the false allegations made in that misconceived blog post would be appropriate.
I won’t hold my breath.
More
13th May, 2013: there’s a remarkable performance in the comments section below from Child Health Safety. I’ve never seen such a potent mixture of weaselly obfuscation and stubborn denialism. The attempts to argue that black is white and up is down really are something to behold. I said I hoped for a prominent correction on CHS’s part and an apology to Public Health Wales for the false smears. It is quite clear that CHS will never admit to having erred. If you know CHS, do please encourage him to read this book.
9th June, 2013: more on this from Just The Vax.
Stuff And Nonsense 
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 10, 2013 at 11:47 am
Misleading everyone again James.
Over the past 18 year 87% of notifications are tested.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811358
It is all there on the CHS site:
Be a good fellow and do make sure you post this comment won’t you.
And
“Additionally, notifiable diseases rates for Wales are also compiled by our database, CoSurv and this is the data reported in the notifications monthly report listed above. In most instances, the NOIDS data for Wales from both the HPA and CoSurv will be the same but there will be occasion when slight differences may occur.”
http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920
So no one is being misled by CHS. Can’t say the same for the rest of you though.
jdc325 said,
May 10, 2013 at 11:59 am
Nice try CHS, but you didn’t claim in your blog that 87% of notifications had been tested over an 18 year period – you claimed that all notifications in the Welsh outbreak were tested and the figures you give in your blog for the proportion of notifications that are actually measles are all based on that false claim.
Rob said,
May 10, 2013 at 11:59 am
ChildHealthSafety said: “Over the past 18 year 87% of notifications are tested.”
But we aren’t talking about the past 18 years – we’re talking about this year.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 10, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Nice try JDC but it says in big red capitals at the beginning
“[ED: CHECK OUT COMMENTS AT END FOR LATEST FIGURES FOR APRIL AND DISCUSSION – ADDED 4 May 2013 @ 10:30 UTC/05:30 EST/11:30 GMT]”
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 10, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Nice try Rob but HP Wales confirms CHS has the correct data from the monthly reports:
“Additionally, notifiable diseases rates for Wales are also compiled by our database, CoSurv and this is the data reported in the notifications monthly report listed above. In most instances, the NOIDS data for Wales from both the HPA and CoSurv will be the same but there will be occasion when slight differences may occur.”
http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920
Rob said,
May 10, 2013 at 12:28 pm
ChildHealthSafety said “Nice try Rob but HP Wales confirms CHS has the correct data from the monthly reports […] http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920”
But as it says on that page, in clear bold letters above the paragraph you quoted:
“Please note that samples taken from patients in Wales are not always submitted to laboratories in Wales for confirmation of the organism causing illness. This is particularly true for suspected cases of measles and mumps where the majority of samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation. Confirmations made by labs from outside of Wales will not appear on the CoSurv All Wales Surveillance of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections reports as these only include data submitted by or via Welsh laboratories. As a consequence, totals of laboratory-confirmed cases of some diseases in Wales (such as measles and mumps) maybe higher than those published in these monthly reports.”
So the page you cite says laboratory confirmed cases – particularly for measles and mumps – can be higher than the numbers given by HP Wales in its CoSurv, because the majority of suspected measles cases are tested in English labs. JDC325 checked with them about this, which is what this blogpost is about.
jdc325 said,
May 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm
CHS, I looked at the latest figures for April. I’m not sure why you think those figures vindicate your misconstrual of the figures for the first quarter of 2013 or how you can possibly think that they prove that all notifications are being lab-confirmed.
You misunderstood the data, you failed to ask for clarification and the claims you made in your blog post were demonstrably wrong.
I think you owe Public Health Wales an apology.
josephinejones said,
May 10, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Thanks to “Joris”, commenting on Lynne McTaggart’s highly dubious blog, I see Gaia Health are using those CHS claims in order to claim that the Welsh epidemic is fake. Just when you think you’ve seen it all, someone stoops that bit lower.
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-05-04/welsh-measles-epidemic-was-faked/
And should you wish to punish yourself further, here is Lynne’s post:
http://lynnemctaggart.com/blog/222-vaccine-fever
I get the strong impression she is cynically using the measles epidemic to promote her scaremongering antivax magazine and the WDDTY “Vaccination Bible”.
Helen said,
May 10, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Does anyone actually have the figures for the ratio of cases actually tested that are measles? i.e., being really simple here (but I don’t mean to patronise – apologies if it comes over that way) for March 2013, if the numerator of the fraction is 8, what is, in fact, the denominator?
Slipp Digby said,
May 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Just posted this on CHS which probably won’t get past moderation:
“My point has nothing to do with notifiable diseases reporting so reference to this and suggestions of ‘slight differences’ can only be taken as a deflection tactic, or lack of understanding on your part CHS.
The paragraph I quoted is relevant to the All-Wales Surveillance Laboratory-Confirmed Infections, which is a central part of your conspiracy.
I’ll spell it out for you.
You’re original claim was that there were just 26 lab confirmed cases between Jan and Mar 13 using the Monthly All-Wales Laboratory-Confirmed Infections
Click to access monthly%20lab%20201303.pdf
and that this showed doctors were massively over-reporting and incompetent.
We now know that
“the majority of [lab confirmation] samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation. Confirmations made by labs from outside of Wales will not appear on the CoSurv All Wales Surveillance of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections reports”
Conclusion: The figures you used for laboratory confirmed cases excludes the majority of cases and are demonstrably wrong.”
Alan Henness said,
May 10, 2013 at 1:16 pm
ChildHealthSafety said:
What do you think this is? Some quack website with an anti-science agenda who wants to stifle debate?
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 10, 2013 at 4:20 pm
Rob’s points all dealt with on CHS and so too James Cole’s [jdc]:
Rob said,
May 10, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Now it’s all gone a bit Dadaist.
Slipp Digby, here http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/2013-uk-fake-measles-epidemic/#comment-122031, correctly points out that ChildHealthSafety is accusing Welsh public health officials of engaging in a conspiracy by acting to “scam the public”.
ED/ChildHealthSafety replies to Slipp Digby and (after again completely missing the point about numbers of lab-confirmed measles cases) sternly announces that:
“we completely disassociate this site with your baseless allegation against public health officials in Wales and we suggest strongly that you retract it immediately.”
But, ED, *you* are one making the allegation against public health officials in Wales.
jdc325 said,
May 10, 2013 at 4:33 pm
CHS, I see you’ve used my full name in your comment of 4:20pm despite the fact that I post here as jdc325. Perhaps you think real names are important? If that’s the case, perhaps you would like to tell us who you are.
jdc325 said,
May 10, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Rob,
That is remarkable. I particularly liked this from CHS:
Rob said,
May 10, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Haha, that is a very special comment.
dingo said,
May 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm
like Clifford Miller’s idea that there is zero chance of dying from measles…. because there happen to have been no deaths from acute measles in the last 30 years in the UK (Oh, except for the 2 that did die, possibly 3 now with the Wales one, but let’s forget those).
I can imagine him in court, pontificating to the judge in defense of his client.
CHS: “This is preposterous! You accuse my client of being a rapist, when he hasn’t raped a woman in the last 30 years!”
Judge: “Mr Miller, aren’t you forgetting he has been convicted of 2 rapes, and charged with a third in that time?”
CHS: “But Milud, all 3 of those women were just begging for it. You can’t blame my client for succumbing to temptation. It’s clearly not his fault, but entirely those wicked slatterns who led him on who are to blame. Serves them right. Proper women would have been able to resist him better.”
Judge: “And can you explain why your client hasn’t been afforded the opportunity to rape anyone else in the last 30 years Mr Miller?”
CHS: “Well, I keep telling you. Obviously he is not a rapist if no-one else was raped in 30 years. Apart from those three sluts, I mean.”
Judge: “And do you think the fact that your client has been kept incarcerated in solitary confinement for 29 of the last 30 years without any contact with women might have anything to do with his lack of opportunity to rape?”
CHS: “Not at all. Nothing to do with it. Rape doesn’t exist! You are just a conspiracist scam-monger, your honour. Boo to you too! See if I care, la la la la la laaaa! Watch! If I put my fingers in my ears I can’t hear you!!!”
Rob said,
May 10, 2013 at 6:29 pm
That strikes me as a pretty crude and inappropriate dig at him, dingo.
ChrisP said,
May 11, 2013 at 9:06 am
This is surreal. Whoever is currently masquerading as Child Health Safety has a massive inability to read failure. When this is pointed out, they go all la la la, sticking my fingers in my ears, on everyone.
That Child Health Safety website (and that is a major misnomer as well) is a joke. If people didn’t see it as one of the silliest things on the web before, they will after this gets out.
“18,200% ober-diagnosed” (why on earth is there a hyphen in there?). What a hoot.
ChrisP said,
May 11, 2013 at 9:06 am
Bugger. After all that there is a typo.
Slipp Digby said,
May 11, 2013 at 5:15 pm
That thread is definitely a keeper.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 12, 2013 at 9:13 am
jdc are you going to correct the claims you make on this blog bearing in mind that officially published information includes statements like:
“Reported notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases. Other rashes are often mistaken for measles.” Measles – Public Health Wales Health Protection Division.
http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgId=457&pid=25444
If you do not, is there any reason for it not to be considered an intentional untruth to have posted as you have done here?
And if you do not agree, please explain clearly.
And you published this:-
“the majority of our cases are notified cases, meaning that we are satisfied they are measles based on clinical diagnosis by a GP or other health professional, without requiring testing to be undertaken”
You claim it is a quote but provide no details of who in Public Health Wales allegedly made such a claim.
If it is a real quote did you not question it? Did you not know the claim is unusual?
Please confirm.
The reason universal testing was introduced in 1994 for all notifications was because doctors are so poor at diagnosing measles.
Are you saying you did not know? Please clarify. And if you did not – you know now.
It would be helpful to name the official who made the claim and publish the email or letter saying so in full. Will you be doing that please, and if so when might that be?
Do you not now agree that as for that person’s claim the officially published unqualified reports of a total of 26 laboratory confirmed cases for all of Wales does not include all of the cases is unimpressive and appears to be dissembling?
Did you not know that the 26 will clearly not include all cases – because the vast majority will be over diagnosed and overreported – as confirmed in the officially published information we quote above?
Please confirm If you did not know then, you know now.
Thus, do you not agree it would be appropriate for you to correct what will otherwise appear misinformation – especially because you now have the information to show that? And a failure to correct will appear intentionally publishing misinformation.
Do you not now agree in hindsight that publicly attacking a professional journalist for reporting facts – because you did not agree with them looks something akin to harassment and internet bullying?
This is all the more the case bearing in mind your extensive and prominent activities in that regard illustrated by your involvement with others on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience forum.
Now that Dr Goldacre is in the Cabinet Office – can you let us all know whether he approves or disapproves of such activities which have the appearance of extensive internet bullying and harassment?
Of course the fact he lets it all go on suggests he must be taken to. And he does encourage people to engage in “activism” saying anything goes – in his own words: “I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally”.
You also say you “post here as jdc325”. You also post as 325jdc. But you omit to mention that of your own free will you also published here that your name is James D Cole and that you are a former unemployed barman and administrator. You voluntarily disclosed your identity. You did so in full knowledge of the rules of the Badscience forum of which you are a very active and prominent member and which say:
“5: Linking to or exposing the real life identity of a forum member is not allowed.
….. a lot of harm can come from having your true identity associated with your online pseudonym or handle. While a lot of people do use their real name or well known pseudonyms as forum handles, I do not recommend this.
Moreover, I do not think that purposely exposing someone’s real life identity is something that we should allow here on BS forums. The moderation team agrees, and therefore the rule change is hereby effective immediately.
Any instances of purposeful exposure of someone’s real life identity should be reported to the moderators via the ! button available on every post. We will remove these links, pictures, or any other identifying information that has been posted.”
You clearly must know this because it is a most prominent posting on the activism section of BadScience forum on which you regularly post and it is one of the rules members are to adhere to.
But if you were not aware of that please do confirm and explain why you were not. And if you were not before you are aware now.
In the light of that do you not agree that harassment is the appropriate description for breaking such a rule whether on the BadScience forum or anywhere else, especially bearing in mind the statement that “a lot of harm can come from having your true identity associated with your online pseudonym or handle”? And that it is appropriate for that to be described as harassment and bullying?
But if you do not agree, please confirm and explain.
Do you not agree that on numerous occasions for a significant number of individuals you and other of your BadScience forum associates often engage in such action?
If you do not agree, please say and explain.
And do you not agree that engaging in such action is intended to cause “a lot of harm”?
If you do not agree, please say and explain.
We ask these questions so that it is clear whether you think your activities and those of your colleagues on numerous fora amount to harassment and/or bullying and are intended to cause “a lot of harm” to the many victims of such actions when engaging in the “activism” Dr Goldacre advocates and seems to exhort you all to engage in.
Perhaps you might be so kind as to explain your position in the matter so that it is clear.
dingo199 said,
May 12, 2013 at 10:18 am
Dear CHS,
Do you not agree that forum discussions usually work well when people respond directly to appropriate queries, like the many asked of you which you have never answered?
Can you confirm that you still insist that measles in Wales is “18,200% over-diagnosed” and that “0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles”?
Can you confirm you still insist that Public Health Officials in Wales, UK are in your own words deliberately “running a scam” about the number of measles cases?
Can you confirm you will immediately retract this libellous allegation, and issue an apology?
If you do not agree to do so, please confirm and explain.
Do you not agree that encouraging parents to avoid vaccination is likely to lead to outbreaks of disease and harm children?
If you do not agree, please confirm and explain.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 12, 2013 at 10:30 am
James,
Lining up a string of others to make numerous posts instead is one approach to avoid answering.
Waiting for your reply.
jdc325 said,
May 12, 2013 at 4:13 pm
CHS,
1. I’m not going to ‘correct’ my claims, because they are not in need of correction. I claimed that your figures were incorrect. They are. I claimed that your assumption that all notifications were tested was incorrect. It is. You’ve posted a quote from Public Health Wales (presumably, you consider them to be a reliable source in this case?) that “notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases”. I’m afraid this does not support any of the claims that I criticise in my post. It does not support your erroneous figures, it does not support your erroneous assumption, and it does not support the false claims you made of a fake epidemic, a scam, or of whoppers being told.
2. I do indeed quote PHW in my post. I emailed them and quoted from their response to me. You claim that it would be helpful for me to name the official. I don’t see why. What might be helpful would be for someone to check with PHW whether the statements I have quoted are accurate. You, or anybody else reading this blog, is free to do so. Naming the person who made the claim would not be an adequate substitute for fact-checking. What you need to do is check the facts. I know this is a departure from your usual MO but it really is worth a try CHS.
3. No, I do not agree that the statement that the report of a total of 26 laboratory confirmed cases for all of Wales does not include all of the cases is “unimpressive and appears to be dissembling”. I have no reason to suspect that there is any dissembling there and neither do you.
4. Which professional journalist do you claim I have harassed and bullied? I maintain that I have done no such thing. Please be specific and, if possible, link to an example of what you perceive as harassment.
5. We are not on the Bad Science forum, we are on my blog. The forum is irrelevant to this discussion. As are my full name and occupation. It looks to me like you are bringing up irrelevancies in order to distract attention from the issues: your incorrect figures, your unwarranted assumptions, and your false claims.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 12, 2013 at 5:16 pm
“I’m not going to ‘correct’ my claims,”
Thank you for confirming what you posted was either intentionally untrue or with a reckless disregard for the truth.
You posted on 10th May.
A week earlier and within 24 hours of the original posting we put in big red capital letters at the beginning of the posting “[ED: CHECK OUT COMMENTS AT END FOR LATEST FIGURES FOR APRIL AND DISCUSSION].
And again well before you posted it was set out that 87% of notifications are tested and that the figures cited are the official figures published in official reports without qualification.
So it was all there for you to see but instead you went ahead – despite the clear statements made – and made this false posting.
Your have also been challenged to answer the other matters and failed to do so.
jdc325 said,
May 12, 2013 at 5:31 pm
1. I’ve confirmed no such thing, as anyone reading my comment can see for themselves.
2. Your reference to 87% is not for the current outbreak. You don’t have the correct figure for the current outbreak, you know you don’t have it, and you have made no attempt to obtain it.
3. I’ve addressed the other points you’ve made by pointing out that they are irrelevant to the discussion and you are bringing them up in an attempt to distract people from the fact that you have misled your readers by posting erroneous figures and making false claims.
You may have unintentionally misled your readers with your initial post, but you are now intentionally misleading anyone still following this discussion by making false claims about what I have posted here.
Please stop making false claims CHS. They are transparently false and I doubt anyone is fooled.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 12, 2013 at 6:36 pm
This was about Public Health Wales claiming there were large numbers of measles cases.to the media and the public in February and March when there were nothing like the numbers claimed. It was a fake.
You have chosen to represent that CHS got the whole thing wrong and misled people, when that is false. You were in a position to know that was false and even after we gave you the opportunity to correct here today – you refuse.
The media also found out in during April about the over reporting. Public Health Wales started to give out the laboratory confirmed and tested like the April figures in May.
And no one is being misled as you will know from the posting on CHS here which spells out many false claims being made to the public and which you have made no reference to either:
“UPDATE MEASLES UK 2013 – BBC News Secretly Removes Fake News Claims from Website – Health Officials in Tail-Spin Over Vastly Hyped Claims of Welsh Measles Epidemic”
You intentionally set out to mislead and you did mislead and you wil not correct when you have full knowledge of the facts.
jdc325 said,
May 12, 2013 at 7:06 pm
CHS, you made a number of confident assertions that turned out to be untrue. You wrongly claimed that measles has been “18,200% over-diagnosed” and “0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles” in March. I’ve just checked your blog post and this claim has not been corrected. You made similar erroneous claims for other time periods, including the claim of 26 confirmed cases out of 446 in the first quarter of 2013. They have not been corrected either. You boldly proclaimed that “Now you can see the extent of the scam being run by public health officials in Wales, UK.” In the comments below your post, you asserted that all notifications were tested (which is exactly what your erroneous figures implied). I see no correction of these false assertions.
I specifically addressed both your incorrect figures and your incorrect assertions that all notifications were tested and a scam had been perpetrated.
In your latest response, you have falsely asserted that I set out to mislead readers of this blog. I’ll simply add this to the long and growing list of false assertions that you have made on the internet. There are so many now that it is starting to look as if you have some kind of compulsion to tell untruths.
The reason I am not correcting my post is because my assertions, unlike yours, are true. Your figures were wrong, your claims were false. All I have done is point this out.
It is clear that despite you now knowing that your figures and claims were wrong you will not correct them. You are simply accusing me of something that you yourself are guilty of. Like telling untruths, this appears to be something else you are in the habit of doing.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 12, 2013 at 7:37 pm
Well done – failing to answer again – just more obfuscation.
jdc325 said,
May 12, 2013 at 8:04 pm
Nonsense. You’ve claimed that I’ve misled people with my post here and in reply I’ve pointed out precisely what I have done in my blog post and why your claim that I have misled is false. Anybody reading this exchange can see for themselves if they scroll up that I have indeed accurately described my blog post. The only obfuscation to be seen here comes from you and is being used to distract people from the facts: you got your figures wrong, you made incorrect assertions and I have pointed this out.
It’s quite simple. You made errors. I pointed out your errors. Rather than accept that you have made any mistakes, you’ve tried to weasel out of it by making false claims* about me, bringing up irrelevancies and using tortured logic. The 87% figure, for example, has appeared more than once and it was pointed out in posts #2 and #3 that it was irrelevant – but you bring it up again later in the thread in an attempt to distract people. There was also the matter of my identity and occupation. How are they relevant to a discussion of your errors?
*When asked to be specific about your attempted smears, you fell silent. I will ask you again: Which professional journalist do you claim I have harassed and bullied? I maintain that I have done no such thing. Please be specific and, if possible, link to an example of what you perceive as harassment.
That was just one question you have failed to answer. Ironically, you keep complaining about me not answering questions when I have – yet you yourself genuinely do fail to answers. You also failed entirely to answer any of dingo199’s questions this morning. You simply ignored them. Once again, you are accusing me of doing something that you have done. How about instead of falsely claiming that I haven’t answered your questions you actually answer the questions that people have put to you?
To sum up: you make mistakes, you deny making them, you make false claims about critics and you accuse others of doing what you yourself have done. That’s pretty much your MO. Don’t think people can’t spot what you are doing, CHS. You’re not nearly as clever as you think you are. And other people are not nearly as stupid as you seem to think they are.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 12, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Hi jdc
I thought I’d just drop by to say hello and wonder whether you’ve noted the exchange I have been having with CHS back on his own blog. There’s more sitting in moderation at the moment waiting for him to deign to publish them, presumably once he has thought of something to add in reply, which seems to be his pattern.
I have watched antivaxers and altmeddlers for years. I think CHS must win some sort of prize for trying to argue black is white and to keep on doing so even after he has been caught out. I suppose he stands as an example of the mentality that is required to sustain an anti-vax stance; an example and a warning.
Cheers
2I
dingo199 said,
May 12, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Evasive as usual, CHS?
Unable to verify your own claims?
Unable to admit you got them wrong?
Unable to apologise for libelling Public Health Wales by accusing them of “running a scam” about measles cases?
Unable to answer anything, in fact?
Why am I not surprised?
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 12, 2013 at 9:05 pm
James,
Your main claim was “surprising claims were made” which “sounded very dubious and it turned out that they were”.
False.
Public Health Wales claimed hundreds of cases of measles in February and March when the only figures they had were 8 confirmed cases for both months.
CHS published the figures.
The April figures given out to the media should also be just as incomplete as February and March – acccording to your unsubstantiated unevidenced claims James – with the majority of samples being with Public Health England and not Public Health Wales.
But instead they bear a strikingly close resemblance to the official April figures in the official April unqualified published reports.
So in April Public Health Wales gave out the figures closely matching their reports but still did not have all the figures according to you.
But in February and March they gave out grossly exaggerated figures massively above the February and March figures and bearing no relation to them.
You James you have made patently false claims.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 12, 2013 at 9:13 pm
jdc
I think CHS has just blocked me from posting there. Fortunately, my friend 3rd Invigilator is willing to be part of a tag-team.
They don’t like it up ’em Mr Mainwaring.
:-)
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 12, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Thanks 2nd Invigilator.
Only two examples demonstrate harassment.
You have 1) demonstrated several and 2) the kinds of tactics you BadScience forum folks engage in when disrupting fora around the web and 3) that you are not very bright either.
Ta.
dingo199 said,
May 12, 2013 at 10:18 pm
What is most surprising is that CHS claims to have some sort of science background. Amazing who they give degrees to these days in the UK.
Instead of answering questions or correcting his gross factual errors, he seems to spend most of his time spitting out his dummy, or spouting rubbish that would make a galah sound sensible in comparison. And he talks about others not being “very bright”. Ding!
ChrisP said,
May 13, 2013 at 5:10 am
CHS is still apparently in the la la, sticking fingers in ears stage. It is abundantly clear that CHS has knowingly or unknowingly misread the documents relating to testing for measles and then made claims of a scam and health officials telling whoppers based on that flawed reading.
It having been pointed out ad nauseum that CHS is wrong, the response of CHS has been to dig the hole deeper and wider. Even to the point of making up a new post where CHS has totally misread and misrepresented data from 2004 to claim that 673 out of every 74 cases is not measles.
CHS is either an idiot or a fraud. I am having a bit of trouble deciding which at the moment.
Mark McAndrew said,
May 13, 2013 at 6:18 am
CHS, you are truly the most deluded, evasive and downright stupid web-idiot I’ve ever seen, except maybe just one. Ever use the name Th1Th2…?
(Also – what’s a ‘former unemployed barman’? Clown.)
You’ll notice I don’t care who knows my real name. You obviously do, because you’re barking mad and a little part of you must be slightly – but not nearly enough – embarrassed about it.
Mark McAndrew said,
May 13, 2013 at 6:30 am
PS. Scorching hypocrisy to go with the burning stupid… first comment here is by CHS saying;
“Be a good fellow and do make sure you post this comment won’t you.” (you know, because ‘They’ are trying to censor ‘The Truth’…!)
Yet CHS then turns round and bans opposing viewpoints on its own blog…? Two-faced moron of biblical proportions.
Guarantee they don’t work in any field of science or medicine. That’s why they must stay anonymous, lest we all laugh at the ex-part time shelf-stacker (retired age 25 due to incompetence) who can’t do basic stats.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 6:54 am
LOL:
Public Health Wales grossly exaggerated real measles cases – high above their own officially published confirmed figures of just 8 confirmed for each of February and March for all Wales.
They omitted to tell the public when giving out only figures for notifications that:
“Reported notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases.”
tinyurl.com/cq5blbp
Public Health Wales lame excuse [claims jdc] was that they did not have all the figures – they were in a lab in Public Health England [dog ate my homework].
CHS published the figures. JDC claims we got them wrong – figures in Public Health Wales’ own officially published unqualified reports.
You lot are hilarious. Just won’t admit you got it wrong.
dingo199 said,
May 13, 2013 at 8:05 am
“We”???
You mean there is more than one brain dead idiot over at CHS?
Perhaps the underemployed antivaccine litigation lawyer over there wants people to think that he is tapping into some form of aberrant “wisdom of crowds”, since there is certainly no other evident form of wisdom on display.
Teacake said,
May 13, 2013 at 9:06 am
Seems like the only question left to answer is whether CHS was badly mistaken or has been deliberately lying. I must admit to being mildy curious on this point, but since the end result is the same…
ChrisP said,
May 13, 2013 at 9:19 am
I believe both Miller and Stone have authored peices on the ChildHealthSafety (what a misnomer) blog.
Despite who is currently the author(s), you could be forgiven for thinking there was more than one brain dead idiot over there. It is impossible to concieve that the amount useless, fabricated verbiage on ChildHealthSafety could arise from a single brain dead idiot.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 9:51 am
@jdc: “your claim that I have misled is false” – “The 87% figure, for example, has appeared more than once and it was pointed out in posts #2 and #3 that it was irrelevant”
Really? Great math.
@jdc: “The majority of laboratory tests conducted for measles ….. were actually undertaken by …. Public Health England ….. are not included”
“majority” = 51%+.
=> @jdc = 123% of notifications are tested.
73% of notifications were tested [In April – from figures given to media in May – 1,170 notified: lab confirmed 370: tested 850].
850/1170 = 73% not @jdc’s 123%.
—— AND ——
72% for one month vs average over 18 years = 87%.
But @jdc says “irrelevant”.
@jdc – Wigan lost to Man City – the Man City goals are in a lab in England and when added in 3 months time will show Man City = **** Winners ****.
Rebecca Fisher said,
May 13, 2013 at 10:47 am
Have you been drinking this morning Clifford?
Emmet said,
May 13, 2013 at 10:55 am
Nuff: http://sciencebasedpharmacy.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/vaccine-infographic.gif
Rebecca Fisher said,
May 13, 2013 at 11:15 am
@Emmet – Ah, but Clifford will claim those figures don’t count because they weren’t lab-confirmed.
Because he’s a straw-grasping moron.
Child Health Safety & The ‘Fake’ Measles Epidemic: A misunderstanding or wilful mis-information? | The Exit Door Leads In.... said,
May 13, 2013 at 11:19 am
[…] wrong. The assertion that all ‘notified’ cases are laboratory tested’ was shown to be false and thus no conclusions could be drawn on over reporting. It was also clarified by […]
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 11:40 am
Wot – only got the usual BadScience forum abuse and harassment and bullying left?
Yep – looks like it.
@jdc “surprising claims were made” which “sounded very dubious and it turned out that they were”.
@jdc – Public Health Wales own officially published unqualified reports are wrong – the majority of the real figures were in Public Health England’s lab [dog ate my homework].
@jdc – 123% of notifications are tested – great math jdc.
“Reported notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases. Other rashes are often mistaken for measles.”
http://tinyurl.com/cq5blbp
Another jdc blog bites the dust.
dingo199 said,
May 13, 2013 at 2:28 pm
I remain mystified by the brainless witterings of Miller&Co.
Perhaps they don’t realise that by insisting that the world suffers from less measles than it may appear from counting clinical notifications only, that the case fatality rate for measles can only rocket, confirming measles is actually a very serious disease to get.
e.g. If there were “only” 2 deaths in the UK from acute measles (now possibly 3 with the Wales death, tbc) in the last 20 years, and yet there were “only” a few hundred confirmed cases of measles in that time, that means the case fatality for measles is around one death per 100 cases.
1% mortality sounds pretty serious to me, and definitely worth preventing by vaccination if at all possible. You see, the total number of measles cases is not that crucial; since many will be mild; the idea is to act to prevent complications.
Whether GPs are good at diagnosing measles or not is irrelevant. By vaccinating, you will prevent measles, and so prevent its complications (which are quantifiable) as well as halting the spread of the disease.
I also wonder why Miller lite thinks that the GPs in 1959 could diagnose measles with perfect accuracy, every single time, yet they cannot in more recent outbreaks. The argument that today’s doctors don’t know what measles looks like won’t wash; if anything that means they would miss most cases since they don’t have a clue what they are looking at. And I see no reason to think GPs 50 years ago were better trained in recognition; since then several discrete exanthem etiologies have been elucidated, from ECHO, coxsackie and other enteroviruses to things like HHV rashes and parvovirus. Back in the day, any old rash would be likely to be called “measles” when the prevailing view was that all kids would get it sometime. In fact the literature is littered with examples of adults who insist that they caught these diseases twice or even 3 times back in the bad old 1960s. Usually they say this to remind us how innocent the infections supposedly are, but they don’t realise they are just demonstrating their doctor’s mistakes in reaching the correct diagnosis first time round.
Emmet said,
May 13, 2013 at 2:40 pm
The only statistical disparity worth considering here for me is that the figures from 1900 (Then) were considerably greater than measured at the time while the Now figures are only minimally out. When one weights up the misery of ‘Then’ against ‘Now’ there is no such disparity.
I might also suggest that if there is another Influenza epidemic as happened in 1918 (circa 25M deaths in 25 weeks), the anti-vaccine movement will soon die out.
Slipp Digby said,
May 13, 2013 at 2:48 pm
Interestingly, CHS claimed for a number of days that ALL ‘notified’ cases MUST be ‘lab confirmed’ because of the HPA National Measles Guidelines (2010).
CHS happily slapped down any suggestion to the contrary.
Now CHS is spewing out HPA figures which confirm they were wrong and that 87% (I make it 82% actually) of ‘notifications’ are subsequently sent for laboratory confirmation.
There really isn’t a facepalm big enough.
Rob said,
May 13, 2013 at 4:04 pm
I don’t understand where CHS gets the figure of 123% of notifications being tested, which he/she says someone is claiming https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/anti-vaccine-blunders/#comment-16629
Can anyone explain?
Teacake said,
May 13, 2013 at 4:11 pm
@Rob: Rectally-sourced, I believe.
Rob said,
May 13, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Ah, I see CHS has explained here: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/2013-uk-fake-measles-epidemic/#comment-122564
Unfortunately it’s wrong both in terms of data and arithmetic.
As is explained here http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920 confirmations made by labs from outside Wales (the majority, for measles) do not appear in the CoSurv All Wales Surveillance of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections.
However, the “1,170 cases [reported, and the] number of laboratory confirmed cases in the outbreak stands at 370 out of a total of 850 samples tested” figure from the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/02/measles-epidemic-swansea-teenagers-targeted-vaccinations is not using the CoSurv numbers. This means the numbers in the Guardian article might not exclude the samples tested in England. This means the “850 samples tested from 1170 cases” (73% of notifications tested) figure might well include testing which has been done in England.
To get the “123%” figure CHS adds together percentages which have little to do with one another; “850 samples tested from 1170 cases” (73%), plus “the majority” (51%) = 123% of notifications have been tested. Thus official wrongdoing!
You can’t just add together percentages which relate to different things (“notifications tested” + “samples sent to England for testing”) and expect the answer to be meaningful.
jdc325 said,
May 13, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Haha, no. My main claim is not false, as anybody who has read my post can see for themselves. I specified what those surprising claims were in my post (and again, for your benefit, in the comments section).
To pick just one example: you claimed that “0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles” in March. This claim relied on the figures from PHW showing 183 notifications and 1 lab-confirmed case. I demonstrated that this claim was false by contacting PHW and reporting on their clarification of those figures – not all notifications are being tested, not all of those being tested are being tested in Welsh labs and those tested in England do not appear in the figures for confirmations released by PHW.
It is not true that “0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles” in March. I found this claim surprising and when I checked it with PHW, it turned out to be false. Now, you could argue that it wasn’t really your fault that you published this false claim because the publications from PHW weren’t sufficiently clear as to what the figures related to. What you cannot do is argue that this claim is not false. Yet that is exactly what you are trying to do – as 2nd Invigilator has said, you are trying to argue black is white.
Who do you think you are kidding CHS?
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 5:13 pm
1173 notification less 850 tested – means 51% cannot be in England.
And you have forgotten NOIDs Rob. Which is the absolute figure for Wales.
It is the statutory absolute figure. There cannot be more than 1173 notifications – NOIDS tells us that.
1173 – 850 is far less than 51%+ so impossible for there to be a missing 51%+ of notifications languishing in England.
And NOIds 1062 – 850 cannot give you a missing 51%+ of samples in England either.
So the claim that the majority of samples were languishing in England cannot be true.
Additionally we know 87% is the average tested over the past 18 years.
So 850 has got to be pretty close if not the number tested.
The samples in England looks like a “pie in the sky” claim.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 5:14 pm
jdc see reply to Rob just posted.
jdc325 said,
May 13, 2013 at 5:34 pm
I have read your reply, CHS. You have not refuted my post of 5:06pm. I’m surprised if you think you have. Your claim that “0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles” in March is wrong. Nothing in your reply to Rob shows it to be correct. The figure of 87%, as you yourself have said earlier in this thread, relates to an 18-year period rather than the period covering the Welsh outbreak. You need to use the data for the period in question rather than the data for a completely different period.
In fact, to prove your claim correct, you need to demonstrate that all 183 notifications were tested and that 182 tested negative. You cannot demonstrate this, can you? Just in case you missed it before, this statement from PHW is rather important: “It is certainly not the case that we have laboratory tested all measles cases in the current outbreak.”
You claimed that 0.5% of measles notifications were really measles. In order to know how many notifications were really measles, you’d need to first know how many were tested in that period of time. You don’t. You initially assumed it was 100% based on the guidelines. Now, you are claiming it is 87% based on historical data. The fact is, you still don’t know. All you know is that it is definitely less than your assumed 100% which means that whatever the true figure is for the number of notifications that were really measles, the figure you provided is not it.
You can refuse to accept responsibility for the falsity of that claim, but you cannot deny its falsity.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 5:54 pm
2nd Invigilator said,
May 13, 2013 at 6:52 pm
The twerps at CHS are now Trashing any posts I put there. I suppose they fear further contamination of their echo chamber with arguments to which they cannot reply.
I see Rob is there tackling them on the data. I’m sticking to my arguments about the nature of the accusations CHS has made.
This is the post that CHS does not want to have seen on their site
CHS, you say the Public Health Wales officials were running a “scam”. For the sake of argument, even if your interpretation of the figures was correct, how can you know it is a scam not an honest mistake?
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 8:23 pm
If you want to comment do it on CHS. It is a CHS article. Rob seems OK with that.
Here when you are losing this is what you folks get up to do:
“CHS is either an idiot or a fraud.”
“CHS, you are truly the most deluded, evasive and downright stupid web-idiot I’ve ever seen”
“you’re barking mad”
“one brain dead idiot over at CHS”
“Have you been drinking this morning”
“Clifford ….. he’s a straw-grasping moron.”
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“The twerps at CHS are now Trashing any posts I put there.”
You have been answered ad finitum.
You all have the figures released in May of 370 confirmed for the whole of Wales but a month earlier that is what was going out on the news.
5:30 am, Wed 03 Apr 2013 ITV news reported: “Last week the number of confirmed cases stood 432.”
___________
12:55 pm, Fri 05 Apr 2013
The number of confirmed measles cases in the Swansea area has risen ….
It now stands at 588 – a slight increase from the 541 cases confirmed earlier this week.
___________
And that was just for the Swansea area and not the whole of Wales when the figures HPW had confirmed to the end of March was about 180 and at the beginning of May it was 370.
That is a scam. So 2nd Invigilator there is no point spamming CHS using numerous different email addresses to go over and over and over the same point.
If you don’t agree it is a scam then fine. There are plenty of people who will.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 8:37 pm
7:00 am, Thu 18 Apr 2013
“Public Health Wales will release the latest figures for the ongoing measles outbreak today. On Tuesday the number of confirmed cases had risen to 765.”
Funny how the numbers fell to 370 by the beginning of May – and that includes the figures from England which jdc claimed were not included.
Scam.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 13, 2013 at 8:38 pm
But, first my e-mail address was blocked, then posts made using alternatives have been Trashed instead of getting through Moderation.
So, with jdc’s tacit consent, I’m quite happy to talk about CHS here rather than at that wretched hive of scum and quackery [nods in acknowledgement to Dave Gorski]. That’s how the interweb works, old son.
Anyhooo…
CHS, you say the Public Health Wales officials were running a “scam”. For the sake of argument, even if your interpretation of the figures was correct, how can you know it is a scam not an honest mistake?
At the moment, I’m seeing prevarication instead of nice succinct answers from you.
P.S. With reference to the insults aimed at you, I doubt you would be so mercilessly mocked if you answered honest questions with honest and accurate answers. Also, get a sense of humour. You write some pretty funny stuff, it would be great if you could see the jokes.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 8:42 pm
If you want to comment do it on CHS.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 13, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Ah, CHS we seem to have cross-posted. But I note that you have chosen yet again to prevaricate.
Thank you, Mrs Malaprop, you have been unintentionally accurate. Stopped clock syndrome?
2nd Invigilator said,
May 13, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Tried it. Bored of you blocking posts at a whim.
Try answering the damn question and see whether you can earn a little respect for honesty if not for accuracy.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 8:53 pm
“how can you know it is a scam not an honest mistake?”
1) Ask Public Health Wales if it was an honest mistake. Be interested in what they say.
2) Not our problem Rob. As pointed out numerous times. “Ad finitum” is apropos.
Mark McAndrew (@markmcan) said,
May 13, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Thanks for the heads-up about who CHS is, folks.
A Google of ‘Clifford Miller vaccines’ is both hilarious and depressing. AVN, his own dumb site and whale.to (howls of laughter) are the first three results, but there are so many more…
Cliff has been a typical tin-foil hat anti-vaxxer for YEARS. Of course, he has zero training in medicine, epidemiology or any relevant subject (such as basic maths, as we know from his 0.0005% nonsense). Signs his pompous offerings as “Clifford G. Miller, Esq.”
“Child health safety” (whatever that convoluted and barely literate phrase is actually meant to mean) is simply his way of covering his fruitloopery. It’s never anything but vaccines. And vaccines are always evil.
Why hide your identity, CHS? Why not declare your outlandish beliefs up front? Did ‘Clifford Miller’s Vaccine Damage Website’ just get you laughed at?
Anti-vaxxers are like those creepy scientologists with their oh-so-innocent ‘personality tests’. Not fooling anyone except the gullible, ignorant and paranoid.
In other words, themselves.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 10:33 pm
@Mark McAndrew (@markmcan)
Thanks for the bullying, harassment and abuse – the usual from a particular type.
There is no published list of contributors to CHS.
Mark McAndrew (@markmcan) said,
May 13, 2013 at 11:32 pm
Why not, Cliff?
Is there, in fact, just one contributor: you?
You’re a danger to public health. People who believe scaremongering, paranoid conspiracy theorists like you end up not vaccinating their kids, causing increased incidences of entirely preventable illness, permanent disability and death.
More dead kids. That’s literally what you are fighting for. The fact that you are too spectacularly ignorant to realise it (0.0005%…!) is irrelevant.
You deserve FAR worse than a little harassment.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 13, 2013 at 11:40 pm
“You deserve FAR worse than a little harassment.”
Meaning?
Mark McAndrew (@markmcan) said,
May 14, 2013 at 12:10 am
In your case; maths lessons.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 5:18 am
No, CHS, you have asserted it’s a scam. It is for you to answer my question.
As has just been pointed out, it is scaremongering like yours that brought vaccination rates down and led to illness and probably death. If you are not able even to answer simple questions about your own position then you are even more morally bankrupt. It means you take upon yourself the right to shout, “Fire!” In a crowded theatre but accept no responsibility for the consequences.
If my asking these questions at the CHS site is now, you seem to admit, ad finitum then it is more than a little disingenuous to keep suggesting I make my comments there.
Time for an honest answer to a straight question and no more cowardly evasion from you.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 5:26 am
CHS, since you block my posts when I try to make them in yiur personal echo chamber, I’ll quote here a relevant section of one of yiur comments at CHS.
“There is a scam. It is run by public health officials in Wales.”
So I repeat, yet again, where is your evidence for conscious deceit?
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 6:47 am
CHS
A curious asymmetry has just struck me. You have been accused of interpreting the data incorrectly, but those making the accusations have left some space to allow for the possibility that you have been innocently mistaken in your interpretation. They may additionally say or imply that you are a dangerous lackwit fool, but that is not the same of accusing you of direct dishonesty.
On the other hand, you confidently and consistently accuse public health officials of “telling whoppers” and running a “scam”. You have stonewalled and failed to respond when given the opportunity to concede that there may be honest mistakes in the interpretation of the data by those officials, that in a rapidly developing public health situation there may be confusion engendered by the incompleteness of the available information. Instead, you keep repeating that it is a “scam”, which requires conscious deceit and fraudulent activity.
Rob said,
May 14, 2013 at 8:53 am
CHS is massively, persistently and dangerously wrong with a difficulty in reading comprehension but I do wish people wouldn’t fling insults at him/her/them.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 10:48 am
Rob,
Fair point, but I think the recipient might also regard “difficulty in reading comprehension” as insulting. No adult is likely to regard that as a neutral statement of fact.
It’s a tricky area. I suspect you could readily present evidence that your comment is accurate and well-founded. I suspect some of the others, me included, who have said things that could count as insults aimed at CHS could present similarly valid evidence of their accuracy. When does something become an insult instead of fair comment on a pattern of behaviour? Please, regard that as rhetorical, I’m not trying to start a whole off-topic discussion of forum etiquette.
Meanwhile, I still wait for CHS to answer one simple question:
“There is a scam. It is run by public health officials in Wales.”
Where is your evidence for conscious deceit?
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 14, 2013 at 11:17 am
jdc has gone to great lengths on his blog to make accusations that CHS has been misleading, making mistakes “blunders” and suchlike.
There instead appears a sleight of hand practised here.
PHW has never qualified its “All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections”. These have always been published unqualified.
Anyone downloading the reports would be entitled to expect them to contain exactly what they say they contain “All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections” – A point made a number of times.
It is a logical absurdity for the claim to be made now that they only contain half the data. A report not containing all the surveillance would not have that as a title.
All the reports since 2007 and prior to 9th May have been published unqualified. The qualification claimed now by jdc was not applied by PHW when the February and March reports were published. They were unqualified and official documents titled and containing “All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections”.
But more than that – the February figures were not available when PHW started the scare at the beginning of February. And at the beginning of March they only had the February figures as they stood then of a handful of confirmed cases. But they were making outlandish claims to having hundreds of confirmed cases when they did not have them – irrespective of any alleged missing figures from England.
And as the April figure of 370 confirmations shows, they were claiming large numbers of confirmed cases throughout which they did not have. Those they eventually had, they did not have when making the claims that they did have them. And there were more that they did not and never will have – because the cases do not exist.
Thus, the main point of the article was and remains valid. There were and remain vastly fewer measles cases than PHW claimed.
Anyone would be have every right to be very surprised by what jdc says he was told by Public Health Wales. It does not ring true. But he did not or chose not to question it – or perhaps he did. He can answer that.
Regrettably jdc has not published all they said – in fact he has published nothing to show that anything he claims they wrote they did write.
Nor will he give any information about who he emailed nor who replied for anyone to check. That is a surprising lack of candour. After all – it is just an email exchange which he has already cited and quoted. He would expect substantiation if it were someone else making the claims.
So what happened in May?
What was initially puzzling was that jdc’s post did not cite the paragraph Rob cited [May 10, 2013 at 12:28 pm] explaining this sentence about the HPW reports: “Confirmations made by labs from outside of Wales will not appear on the CoSurv All Wales Surveillance of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections reports.”
jdc’s failure to cite the page on which that text appears is odd. It is the page linking to the reports for downloading. It would have substantiated his claims without his needing to make enquiry of anyone.
The bold text paragraph stands out on that page – but it was not familiar – but should have been if it had appeared there. It was the PHW web page linking to the download location when we downloaded the reports on 3rd May.
That qualification paragraph has never existed on PHW’s website – not since reports were first published in 2007.
It was put up the day before jdc posted. So what seems a sleight of hand comes into view.
A Google search also confirms that paragraph appeared first to Google bots 4 days ago – the day jdc posted – 10th May – it is so newly appeared.
Had that text been on the website “a few days” earlier when jdc says he contacted PHW, jdc would not have needed to write to anyone because he could have cited the webpage as substantiation – but as at that time that qualifying text was just not there.
So jdc did not have it and made the enquiry of PHW.
But that enquiry was made days before he posted and before the new qualifying paragraph was – seemingly hurriedly – put on HPW’s web page.
jdc wrote “It’s taken .. a few days to get round to posting this … because …. I like to check my facts before I publish.”. This shows he emailed PHW several days before his 10th May blog post about CHS’s article. PHW wrote back to – no doubt eager to assist.
And PHW are suddenly and conveniently claiming their practice – which has existed since 2007 – of publishing unqualified reports of ALL the data for the whole of Wales – has changed in the twinkle of an eye.
This indicates that before jdc posted making his allegations he knew there was no such qualification on the reports or on the website before and certainly not when the CHS post was made. He posted after it appeared.
And if jdc did cite the page that could draw attention to it from the outset. Someone reading closely – as he might and seems to himself – realise that the qualification paragraph – which Rob has cited and quoted – had only just been added to PHW’s web page.
That would “blow the gaff”.
The hastily added text of the qualification is surprisingly equivocal “samples taken from patients in Wales are not always submitted to laboratories in Wales for confirmation of the organism causing illness”. So sometimes they are always submitted – like in February and March. In fact it looks very much like they always are done locally.
The only reason PHW might want to have assistance in testing is if more samples came in than their facilities would deal with. But clearly, the figures show the February and March notifications should easily be within their ability. The April ones might also have been – but might not.
And this sudden addition and change by PHW to the web page comes on April’s heels when notifications are claimed to be higher than ever before. In other words, it was only in April that a need to send samples to England for testing is likely to have arisen. The February and March notifications were much lower.
And the lack of any such a qualification on PHW’s web page since 2007 is testimony that there has been no need to make such a qualification. And there appears there was no need before April. And if there was a need and it was not made before 9th May, that is PHW’s error and problem. It is not and cannot be of anyone else’s making whether CHS’ or of anyone else who relied on official unqualified reports.
Such a qualification ought to appear prominently in all reports – not isolated on a web page where readers of the reports may never see it. That is clearly because it never had been PHW’s practice to issue qualified reports – and especially ones with only half the data. That would be a pointless exercise.
Of the claim in PHW’s text “This is particularly true for suspected cases of measles and mumps” there is no need to single these out. They have according to PHW not been that common before. There are many other infectious diseases – flu is just one which is likely to more common and frequent. Singling out measles and mumps in the middle of what is claimed to be an epidemic over all other diseases in text added only on 9th May suggests it has only just been added because of the need in April to call in outside help.
Readers were expressly directed to the comments and discussion placed in big red capital letters at the very beginning of the CHS article – showing expressly there were more figures to come. It was not a “done deal” and no one was given that impression.
It was stated expressly in the article itself “… the really interesting bit will be the figures for April. … if the figures for April are wildly different, you will know for sure someone is not telling it as it is. ” This was not the last word.
In the comments section many have commented providing information and clarifications.
So all the bluster on jdc’s blog is just that. Nit-picking about decimal points features widely but not so much about the main issue the article raises and makes. jdc tries hard to allege fault where none can fairly be directed – save with PHW and in circumstances in which it is an open question that he knew that when he posted. Whether or not any qualification was appropriate, PHW publish and published unqualified reports as they have done since 2007 which anyone should be entitled to rely on as official documents containing the information the reports expressly claim in their titles they do. We made the point before several times.
And the reports can be relied on by CHS and others to show PHW had far few confirmed reports and still have far fewer when they were making public claims they had hundreds.
And our later articles on the same topic show just how much of a scam this all is. That it is a scam is clear. It does not fall to CHS to ascertain how it came about or who is and is not responsible for it. That is for PHW.
But overall there is a big question mark over jdc posting this blog – he failed to do just what he claims at the outset to do – check his facts. And that is in circumstances in which he either knew or ought to know the facts or not made claims about facts he did not know.
Does he know any February or March samples were sent to England for testing – no.
Does he know if only the April samples were sent – no.
Did he know the new paragraph was only added on 9th May? It certainly looks unlikely he did not.
Did he know the reports have always been published unqualified? He could have worked that one out for himself – just from the illogical nature of what he claims PHW said to add a qualification after the event – and to unqualified published official reports.
Yet he published his blog all the same – not knowing what he should have.
And he must have known the figure of 370 confirmed cases included results from England.
And he must know from the April figures that the majority of confirmed cases were for April.
And he certainly does know that 850 samples were tested. And he certainly does know the NOIDS figures. He can calculate the proportion tested of all notifications from those figures – it is between 80 to 86% – just as the average from the last 18 years shows can be expected.
And he must know doctors substantially over diagnose measles – even HPW admit that in clear terms. The best they ever seem to have done with measles is between three to four times and at worst at least 73 out of every 74.
Does jdc deny HPW claimed substantially more confirmed cases than the figures they gave out to the media for April which include the figure of 370.
Above all else, jdc published his blog on 10th May – the day after PHW introduced for the first time ever the qualification upon which he bases his entire blog – and that it was all done several days after he had expressly emailed them about these matters and no doubt about CHS’ 3rd May article.
It appears extraordinarily manipulative and underhand. Perhaps it is not. jdc might want to answer. He should also for clarity publish the full text of his communcations with PHW – with nothing omitted.
Rob said,
May 14, 2013 at 11:33 am
CHS, you write about the clarification of the lad-tested numbers: “So jdc did not have it and made the enquiry of PHW.”
Yes, precisely. The numbers available seemed odd, so jdc wrote to Public Health Wales asking for clarification and published the clarification. That is the whole point of this blogpost.
I don’t see how anything about that is “extraordinarily manipulative and underhand”.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 14, 2013 at 12:34 pm
2nd Invigilator “Where is your evidence for conscious deceit?”
Last chance:-
Can’t understand?
jdc325 said,
May 14, 2013 at 12:36 pm
I wouldn’t say I went to great lengths. Emailing PHW to check whether they tested all notifications wasn’t that much of a chore. I’m surprised you didn’t do it yourself.
As I’ve said before, anybody reading this who doubts the veracity of the quotes I published is free to email PHW themselves and check whether it is indeed true that not all notifications in this outbreak have been tested. Have you done so CHS? If not, why not? Why would you prefer to make insinuations rather than find out the truth? Aren’t you interested in the truth CHS?
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
@Rob
“I don’t see how anything about that is “extraordinarily manipulative and underhand”.”
No problem. Thought CHS had the comprehension problem? But which one? And only one IP. Confusing – occasionally.
Rob said,
May 14, 2013 at 12:44 pm
> “No problem. Thought CHS had the comprehension problem?
> But which one? And only one IP. Confusing – occasionally.”
I can’t answer that because I have no idea what you mean.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 14, 2013 at 12:50 pm
jdc
“Have you done so CHS? ”
A question reply to questions. Not so good at answers we see.
ChrisP said,
May 14, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Rob, you will get nothing from CHS except more evasions, long screeds or irrelevant to barely relevant material and additional inaccuracies that compound the original mistakes. This seems to be all that CHS does. At present they appear to be posting pretty much the same material on three separate blogs. Eventually, it will get to the point that you will want to say something rude about CHS.
After you have been around the CHS evasion wringer a few times, there is a great temptation to cut to the chase and just write something rude to them frst up and save the aggravation.
Some here will no doubt give CHS the benefit of the doubt about these mathematical errors. However, I have seen this time and again from CHS. I don’t think I could find a single piece of data on the CHS blog that has not been distorted in an attempt to claim it says something other than what the real situation is. An idiot would only manage to distort data about half he time, CHS achieves close to 100%. The probability of that happening by chance is minuscule. Therefore, it is my conclusion this is deliberate on the part of CHS.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 1:41 pm
“stating that there is a scam over the figures does not equal an accusation of conspiracy”
CHS, you’re just being weird. It makes no sense that you are happy to accuse people of running a scam but scruple over using the word ‘conspiracy’ to describe how a scam is organised by a group of people.
Be that as it may, you still insist that data have been presented in a manner that requires fraudulent and deceitful, but refuse to accept that more innocent explanations exist.
Where is the deceit, CHS?
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Typo
…that requires fraudulent and deceitful methods
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 14, 2013 at 1:45 pm
2nd Invigilator said
All chances now used up.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 2:19 pm
CHS, yours really is a magnificent display of stonewalling. But the questions remain;
Where is the deceit, CHS?
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 2:20 pm
Where is the fraud, CHS?
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 2:21 pm
To put it in a synonymous way;
Where is the scam, CHS?
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 14, 2013 at 2:30 pm
2nd Invigilator
All chances used up. For anyone else reading – dealt with here:
Mark McAndrew (@markmcan) said,
May 14, 2013 at 4:17 pm
“All chances used up”…?
LOL!
Cliff, you’re insane and not a little evil. You are accusing the health workers dealing with the measles outbreak of DELIBERATE FRAUD.
You accuse. You must then back it up.
You then provide ZERO evidence for your accusation, except to show you cannot even do basic maths.
And then, just to be even more despicable, you refuse to even reply – never mind refute (well, not that you can) – evidence that shows, in truth, YOU ARE THE LIAR.
There is no scam. There is no conspiracy. You made it up.
There really is a measles outbreak. People have died because of it.
Go and play in the traffic. Leave the kids – and the health workers trying to help them – alone.
You’re a total psycho.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm
I haven’t noticed whether this page has been linked to, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22277186
It gives a pretty good summary for those of us not wearing tin-foil hats. It makes the perfectly sensible comment that about 30% of “suspected cases” are probably not measles, which seems fair enough given that doctors are not psychic.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 14, 2013 at 5:00 pm
“All chances used up. For anyone else reading – dealt with here:”
Except that all you do there is to continue to assert the existence of a fraudulent scheme and blankly deny that accusing public officials of fraud is not ineluctably also equivalent to accusing then of a conspiracy to perpetrate that fraud.
Meanwhile, real people get measles and become ill because a lunatic fringe seized the public’s attention in order to deny the benefits of vaccination. Those in that fringe should be ashamed of themselves. Sadly they are not.
ChrisP said,
May 14, 2013 at 10:52 pm
So CHS has stopped offering chances for him to evade correcting his errors. What else is new?
2nd Invigilator said,
May 15, 2013 at 6:01 am
CHS seems to be broken. It was spouting gibberish then seemed to lock up and now it’s stopped responding completely.
Is there a helpline? Is it under warranty?
Another parent said,
May 15, 2013 at 10:25 pm
One thing I like about these pro-healthy-children blogs is how so many of them bend over backwards in allowing their opponents a forum for discussion – it always seems to shock the opponents who write things like “I know you’ll censor this” or “Be a good fellow and do make sure you post this comment won’t you?”
I suppose they’re used to the anti-vax blog standard operating procedure, in which opposing views are censored rigorously (in a post at Orac’s blog, JB Handley describes this as providing a “safe environment” http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/03/quoth-mark-not-a-doctor-not-a-scientist/#comment-96035, presumably meaning “safe for Handley’s views”).
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Just another provax parent of an autistic child
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 16, 2013 at 6:06 am
jdc does not answer:-
And the usual abuse. If you boys cannot play nicely then you cannot play at all.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 16, 2013 at 6:06 am
2nd Invigilator
All chances used up. For anyone else reading – dealt with here:
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 6:08 am
jdc
I see little point in trying to engage with CHS at his own site. He does seem to have been rebooted and replied to you in his usual manner, i.e. editing one of your posts with his reply.
So, I’ll post a follow-up here. I am sure he’ll read it.
CHS
You seem prepared to accept that 370 cases of measles occurred in the time period under consideration. Is that something we should ignore because it doesn’t matter?
And I note that you have still failed to answer my question as to where is the evidence for active deceit in the presentation of data by PHW.
ChrisP said,
May 16, 2013 at 6:24 am
CHS has posted again to state that they will not be providing a chance for any corrections to their mistakes.
This gets odder and odder.
I would address some of the remarkable points CHS makes, but as CHS ignores everything he does not agree with, there would be no point.
ChildHealthSafety said,
May 16, 2013 at 7:35 am
The usual abuse. You boys cannot play nicely so don’t play at all.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 8:27 am
ChildHealthSafety on May 16, 2013 at 7:35 am
“The usual abuse. You boys cannot play nicely so don’t play at all.”
Oh, come off it CHS. You’re the one dealing in screaming headlines claiming that public health officials are actively set on a campaign to fraudulently mislead the public.
I ask yet again, where is the evidence for fraud?
I ask for a second time, even if it the outbreak comprised only 370 cases of measles in total, should they be ignored?
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 8:38 am
Another gem from CHS;
5th Invigilator on May 16, 2013 at 7:02 am
[ED: This comment was “2nd Invigilator” trolling again under a yet a different email address. Failing yet again to answer what has already been put to him elsewhere and instead changing the subject.
Waiting for jdc to answer.]
CHS has blocked the email addresses I have associated with 2I. I posted as 5I basically the same questions as I have just copied here, but CHS calls sticking to the point with relevant questions “trolling”.
Mind you his prolix tl;dr posts ramble on and on.
Chris Preston said,
May 16, 2013 at 9:30 am
I posted this on CHS’s blog. But just in case it doesn’t get through moderation, I am putting it here.
ChildHealthSafety, I would like to bring this news report to your attention. This is only a single report, but it clearly demonstrates the dangers of allowing measles vaccination rates to fall.
A 10 month old girl contacts measles before she can be vaccinated against it and 12 years later after a harrowing illness, she dies. It is anti-vaccination people like yourself that are complicit in such deaths. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 9:32 am
We can be sure CHS is reading this page, so it’s worth making a couple of points explicitly.
1. It may be that the way measles cases have been reported in publicly available material has lacked clarity. It is perfectly in order that the presentation of data is tidied up if it is pointed out that an inaccurate picture may be obtained by people accessing those materials. This is not evidence of a scam and a conspiracy. Most likely it is evidence of a complex system being run by real people.
2. None of this means that the current Welsh measles outbreak is illusory. CHS seems hell-bent on a strategy of picking over the minutiae of the data based on incomplete public resources as if this equates to the outbreak being s deliberately engineered fake.
Teacake said,
May 16, 2013 at 11:35 am
@CHS Posts #102, #106.
“The usual abuse. You boys cannot play nicely so don’t play at all.”
Hello, what’s this? Trying to dictate the rules for discussion on this blog? Don’t like people being allowed to disagree with you?
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 12:04 pm
CHS is now replying in his own blog to questions that he won’t allow to appear there.
He culminates with his weird repeated assertion that a scam can be operated by a group of people without them needing to conspire together.
“The loop has been gone over and over on your conspiracy point that it is tedious with the prospect of more of the same with all the rest.”
Quite why he thinks it’s OK to accuse people of telling lies and running a scam, but beyond the pale to couple that with an accusation of engaging in a conspiracy to accomplish those end is beyond reason. Sadly, ‘beyond reason’ fully and completely defines the CHS blog and its operator.
CHS, let’s focus on the 370 cases that you accept must have occurred in South Wales. You have still not told us whether these are so unimportant that we should ignore them.
By the way, it would be handy to pose these questions on your own blog so they are in context. Will you undertake to publish them or will you continue to conduct your petty campaign of obstructing views contrary to your own and to which you do not have pat pre-prepared answers? [Question expecting the answer, no :) ]
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 12:09 pm
CHS, how big a surplus of measles cases must occur before an intensified vaccination programme should be promoted?
a. 1
b. 10
c. 370
d. 1,000
e. 1,000,000
f. I can’t tell you. It’s a secret.
Once the number of surplus cases reaches your defined threshold, how do you propose to lend the weight of your blog to the promotion of the vaccination campaign?
[I’ll also post this at CHS, just for a laugh.]
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 12:25 pm
With apologies to jdc for cross-posting this here;
CHS,
I have no interest in playing continuous whackamole with that Gish Gallop of studies you have just posted.
One mole. One whack. http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/hepatitisb/multiple_sclerosis/qa_sep04/en/
What you should do is go and reflect honestly on the rest of the evidence you present and revise your views accordingly. One place you might start with is this page on your own site http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
where you wilfully present graphs of mortality. You know why these are subject to criticism, yet the page remains. Given that you know why mortality graphs give a very skewed and incomplete picture, one might even say you are perpetrating a scam. :-)
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 1:34 pm
I was completely accurate in predicting that CHS would delete my previous posts. Psychic, me?
Here’s the one he is probably reading and tampering with at this very moment.
CHS
What is so dangerous about the questions I have asked you that you dare not let them be seen.
Now here’s the thing. You are reading these posts and taking action against them. Meanwhile the substantive questions are simply sitting at jdc’s blog for anyone to read.
I’ll post this there as well. Now, be a good chap and answer the questions that you have been asked. They strike at the heart of your antivax campaign, but that’s your problem not mine. The peculiar thing is that, despite your heated rhetoric, you clearly have so little confidence in your position that you cannot bear to have these things said in public. As an example, why would you wish to conceal the WHO commentary on one of the vaccine studies that you cited. Are you frightened of your readers accessing information that is not filtered and spun by you? What does that say about the honesty and validity of your position?
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Yes, CHS is reading comments posted here, but in his childish manner, won’t let them appear at CHS.
No, you claimed there was a “scam” and they were telling lies.
And again no, but as someone who does not work in medicine or understand medicine why should you be expected to realise how data can be complex, messy, hard to collect and delayed in its collation. Oh, I know, perhaps because you claim to be commentator in vaccines. Yes, that is why.
Meanwhile your list of unanswered questions grows.
1. Where is the evidence of active deceit?
2. how big a surplus of measles cases must occur before an intensified vaccination programme should be promoted?
3. Why do you perpetuate a scam using old mortality data for vaccine-preventable diseases?
4. Are you frightened of your readers accessing information that is not filtered and spun by you? What does that say about the honesty and validity of your position?
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 2:36 pm
P.S. in case anyone is intrigued by these comments by CHS
If is not because CHS is displaying his black-belt internet-fu, but because I explicitly use addresses like yeatanotherfakemailaddress@chs.com just to let him know its me.
Ya gotta love him.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 2:44 pm
He’s just Trashing my comments there now. Oh, well. We’ll see whether he shows up here again.
Anyone fancy some popcorn while we wait?
Vaccines - 30 year hoax exposed - Page 6 said,
May 16, 2013 at 3:08 pm
[…] They are an anti vaccine conspiracy site Worth a read too The Arrogance of Ignorance: Anti-Vaccine Website Blunders Again | Stuff And Nonsense Reply With […]
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 3:51 pm
CHS
Thinking of no one in particular, imagine this scenario, if I was wondering about the potential for a link between Hep B vaccine and MS and found a site that cherry-picked a single anomalous study seeming to show a link, but against a large body of evidence that shows it to be an outlier probably explained by uncontrolled confounders and small size. Then imagine what I would think if that site persisted in publicising that study. Might I think it was being done as an active deceit, as a “scam” if you will. Perhaps I might think the site operator was “telling whoppers”. I might wonder whether there was a conspiracy, but if that site operator is sitting alone at homewith the curtains drawn and in his underwear and tinfoil that I might suggest a conspiracy is unlikely unless he is conspiring with his imaginary friends.
If that same site showed graphs of mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases as if that addresses the issue of whether the vaccines protect against morbidity from those disease. Might I similarly conclude that a scam had been conducted would we conclude “We cannot trust their data.”?
jdc325 said,
May 16, 2013 at 5:22 pm
@CHS
Rob has provided a perfectly adequate response here: https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/anti-vaccine-blunders/#comment-16666
You see, what happened was that PHW published some figures, you then extrapolated from those figures to claim that 1 in 183 notifications were really measles and I wondered if all notifications were being tested. I then emailed PHW and asked them. They replied to tell me that (contrary to your claim) all notifications were not being tested and, further, that some were being tested in English labs and did not appear in the figures you had based your claims on. It’s not complicated. Nor is it manipulative or underhand.
If you were capable of admitting to making mistaken assumptions then we wouldn’t have had such a long and tedious discussion here.
It’s not making mistaken assumptions that undermines your credibility so much as refusing to admit to them. Misunderstanding the publicly available figures is understandable. Making wild accusations on the basis of your misunderstanding less so. Refusing to admit your a misunderstanding or withdraw your false accusations made against PHW even less so.
jdc325 said,
May 16, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Anybody who has seen CHS’s whining about not being able to see the full content of the emails may be amused by this: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/kidstodiescare/
They might also be interested in this: I have indulged CHS before when he demanded that I publish the full exchange of emails with Sue Reid. Which, funnily enough, I had already done in my original post. When I pointed this out, he then claimed (without any basis for doing so) that I hadn’t and demanded evidence that I had. I ended up posting once again the emails, this time including the headers and boilerplate disclaimers the Mail use. This wasn’t enough for him. He claimed that there were emails missing. So I posted a screenshot of my gmail inbox. That seemed to stop him from making false claims about missing emails. Funnily enough, that’s the only occasion that I can remember him apparently changing his mind when presented with evidence. He didn’t admit that he was wrong to claim that there were missing emails or apologise for falsely accusing me of misleading people though.
CHS:
You never do admit to your mistakes and you never offer apologies where they are due. You could prove me wrong by admitting that you made several claims in your post that turned out to be incorrect and apologising to PHW for your false accusations of a ‘scam’, ‘whoppers’ and a ‘fake epidemic’. I bet you won’t though.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 16, 2013 at 7:17 pm
With apologies to jdc, our friend in the tinfoil hat will probably delete my post at CHS. And also with apologies to everyone called Chris, apparently that’s my name as well according to our master of wrong;
CHS
Asking questions that deserve answers is not trolling. The list is getting longer.
1. Where is the evidence of active deceit?
2. how big a surplus of measles cases must occur before an intensified vaccination programme should be promoted?
3. Why do you perpetuate a scam using old mortality data for vaccine-preventable diseases?
4. Are you frightened of your readers accessing information that is not filtered and spun by you? What does that say about the honesty and validity of your position?
5. Why do you cherry-pick an unrepresentative study as if it shows a link between HepB vaccine and MS?
[You’ve decided I’m called Chris. That’s nice.]
dingo199 said,
May 16, 2013 at 11:55 pm
What a crying shame. The whining bully, overinflated with ideas of his own self-importance, has tried to mix it on the field with people who actually know stuff. Outmanoeuvred and outflanked, and with the score at around 48 to nil, he has issued an order for us to stop playing. Quite laughable.
Hey, CHS, why not bring on a sub now that you’ve red carded yourself? How about that Cybertigger fellow who spouts inanities about turkeys and quotes extracts from the Mikado? He’ll keep us amused for ages if you have to take an early trip to the showers. And don’t forget to wash behind (and between) your ears, will you?
dingo199 said,
May 17, 2013 at 12:11 am
Ahhh, the memories. That one was a keeper.
I recall how CHS got very exercised about some possible indiscretion on your part JDC over the email exchange, and was wanting you to grovel on your knees in apology, and threatening you with the consequences of libel actions like the chiropractor/bogus/Simon Singh situation. Then he had to eat humble pie himself.
And now we see accusations of conspiracies and scams run by UK health departments. You think he’d know better, as a lawyer, not to libel people so freely. What if some of them decide to sue?
dingo199 said,
May 17, 2013 at 12:26 am
It’s also highly amusing to see CHS try and berate PHWales for provoking a “scare” about measles. We all know that the “scare” as he puts it was quite justified – there have been hundreds of confirmed cases and 1 death.
Contrast with CHS’s views on the situation dated from 1998, when someone provoked a massive “scare” about a vaccine, but on that occasion did so without a shred of proof. This resulted in significant illness and death. But that’s perfectly AOK in CHS’s book! Let kids die as a result, no problem. Truly goggle stopping stuff from the drongo in the corner.
Chris said,
May 17, 2013 at 3:02 am
2nd Invigilator:
I am flattered. Though I know I have never commented on CHS, I have challenged him once or twice on other blogs.
Like when he was posting libelous stuff about Brian Deer making stuff up, and another time when I asked about what caused the 90% drop of measles cases in the USA in one decade (he answered with stuff on England and Wales, which I, a mere American, understand that neither are part of the USA).
Though he may be mixing you up with Chris P. from the Bad Science Forum (I’d spell out his full last name, but that forum has crashed, again).
Chris Preston said,
May 17, 2013 at 5:22 am
You may be able to read this over on CHS’s blog if it survives moderation.
There is everything anti-vaccination about having a website where one claims to be “protecting children from harm”, but in reality one is dispensing ant-vaccine canards. This current thread of yours is a perfect example. Currently there is a measles epidemic occurring in Wales, but all you are focussing on is the difference between the number of notifications and the number of laboratory confirmed cases and insinuating some sort of scam is occurring. Even then you get the numbers wrong. It is sad really.
In response to my comments, ChildHealthSafety links to one of his own posts that firstly confuses Hepatitis B with Hepatitis C, and misrepresents the role of the US Vaccine Court, seemingly claiming its decisions are those of the US Government.
Next he links to another of his posts claiming that it is well know what causes autism and, you guessed it, that was vaccines. However, ChidlHealthSafety has a strange idea of what constitutes evidence. Rather than link to research on the subject such as this, this, this, or this, ChildHealthSafety prefers to rely on quotes from newspapers and from court documents. In doing so, ChildHealthSafety has cherry-picked these for claims that vaccines cause autism.
Next we get two links to newspaper reports where an Italian court awarded damages following vaccination- in this case following dubious evidence by one of the experts. But no research data.
And so it goes. Cherry picked pieces that do not in themselves demonstrate that vaccines are hazardous. Now for a very small number of children, vaccines can be hazardous, but the diseases against which vaccination is used can be much more hazardous. see here, and here for examples. It is also true that for most of those children who have a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine would have an even more serious adverse reaction to the disease. The only way to really protect these vulnerable children and stop harm coming to them is to make sure enough of the population is vaccinated to stop the diseases circulating.
One last point I want to make is that ChildHealthSafety relies heavily on successful actions in the Vaccine Court to claim vaccines are harmful. It is important for readers to understand that a successful action in the Vaccine Court only needs to show a causal connection; that is the injury occurred shortly after the vaccine was given. There is no need to provide any evidence as to whether such an injury was caused by the vaccine in question. This is a very low level of evidence and I guess that might have something to do with why it is used so often.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 17, 2013 at 5:27 am
It’s amazing. CHS looked at the evidence and drew the wrong conclusion, almost like it’s a habit of his.
Hi, CHS. We can be sure you are still reading this page. Come back and play with the big boys and answer the various questions from which you have fled.
ChrisP said,
May 17, 2013 at 5:31 am
2nd Invigilator, clearly you need to get with the strength it will make it easy for CHS.
ChrisP said,
May 17, 2013 at 11:59 am
CHS has obviously decided to talk to himself. Seven hours after I submitted the post above to his blog, it has still not been approved, despite CHS having posted 3 times in the interim.
jdc325 said,
May 17, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Having whined (apparently with no reason to complain) about being blocked from commenting here, I see CHS has failed to publish my latest comment on his post. There is a note at the bottom now that “comments are closed”: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/2013-uk-fake-measles-epidemic/
Let us all pause for a moment to consider the comment Alan Henness left here: https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/anti-vaccine-blunders/#comment-16568
dingo199 said,
May 17, 2013 at 4:26 pm
“It is important for readers to understand that a successful action in the Vaccine Court only needs to show a causal connection;”
Typo, Chris.
That should read “It is important for readers to understand that a successful action in the Vaccine Court does not need to show a causal connection;”
Alan Henness said,
May 17, 2013 at 4:27 pm
I will now use my psychic abilities to forecast tomorrow’s lottery winners…
Skepticat_UK said,
May 18, 2013 at 12:33 am
ChildHealthSafety said:
Be a good fellow and do make sure you post this comment won’t you.
To which Alan replied:
What do you think this is? Some quack website with an anti-science agenda who wants to stifle debate?
LOL! You’ve reminded me that I commented quite civilly a few times on CHS but none of those comments were published. Then, one day when I was particularly exasperated by the latest idiotic post, I simply commented:
“You’re all nuts.”
Naturally, that was the one comment of mine they published. :-)
Chris Preston said,
May 18, 2013 at 7:10 am
Yay, I got my posts evicerated over at ChildHealthSafety. For some reason CHS thought this was defamatory.
I don’t know why you bother to continue to promote the words of Andrew Wakefield. His research has been shown to be wrong. There is no connection between MMR and vaccines, see this recent research and this.
In addition, Wakefield fraudulently changed the data he collected before publishing them to make it seem as if the children had their MMR vaccine closer to the date of their diagnosis of autism. He also fraudulently claimed the patients were consecutive series, when in reality the patients were recruited by a lawyer and a patient activist group. See here And lastly when the missing pathology reports finally came to light, it seems Wakefield doctored those as well.
Wakefield’s version of events is not to be trusted.
Chris Preston said,
May 18, 2013 at 7:12 am
For some reason my links to some journals are not being placed correctly. An extra ” is being inserted on the end, even though the format for all of them is the same.
If anyone wants to read the papers, they just need to delete the ” off the end of web address.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 25, 2013 at 8:34 am
I just had a whole rush of email notifications from the CHS blog. Basically they consist of pompous little notices from CHS saying that I was, shock-horror, posting using fake email addresses. For some bizarre reason CHS thinks that doing this casts him in a good light while he rather foolishly links to http://jabsloonies.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1
as if the existence of that site was a bad thing. Let’s hope some of his readers follow the link.
I’m sure that CHS will read this, so my not-quite-rhetorical question is, why would anyone give a pillock like CHS a real and usable email address when you can just make one up on the fly. Hey, CHS, follow this and learn something useful.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 25, 2013 at 8:35 am
Sorry, CHS, I missed the link from the end of my post. Here it is;
Listen and learn.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 25, 2013 at 3:14 pm
I’ve cross-posted at CHS. Here’s a link.
It will be interesting to see what our spittle-festooned anti-vaxer friend does with it. It’s currently “Awaiting moderation”
He does seem fixated with the notion that I’m called Chris. Sorry, Chrises everywhere it is beyond my control what a loon like CHS will decide for themselves.
jdc325 said,
May 26, 2013 at 7:37 pm
The pompous notices about you using made-up email addresses are a little odd in light of his suggestion here that people use made-up names. Which is what he does himself, of course. It’s almost as if he’s a hypocrite.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 27, 2013 at 4:34 am
Almost exactly like he’s a hypocrite.
It’s like summing a convergent a series. With each post, he asymptotically approaches absolute hypocrisy.
Slipp Digby said,
May 28, 2013 at 9:07 am
As I promised on my blog I went across to CHS to discuss some of the off topic issues CHS had raised. My comment was perfectly civil and pointed out a few basic errors here
After holding my comment in moderation for a few days it was then deleted without being published.
I dropped them a twitter message asking them why, then noticed them messaging others telling them I was “one a a (sic) group of relentless trolls.”
I guess when your arguments are that weak, censorship and mud slinging are all you have.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 28, 2013 at 5:18 pm
“32nd Invigilator on May 28, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Care to comment?
https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/anti-vaccine-blunders/#comment-16799“
2nd Invigilator said,
May 28, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Let’s see whether that on just disappears or CHS delivers another of his little homilies.
Slipp, do you have a link to that Tweet?
jdc325 said,
May 28, 2013 at 8:48 pm
I think this is the tweet: https://twitter.com/ChildHlthSafety/status/338198896050331648
2nd Invigilator said,
May 28, 2013 at 8:56 pm
Oh, what a surprise! Our cowardly friend has deleted that post.
One of the more despicable features of SCAMsters and ant-vaxers is how they run from a fair fight and seek to suppress contrary opinion. It has always strongly suggested to me that at heart they know they can’t win but want to retreat to the supportive atmosphere of their echo chamber.
I think this is a hallmark of reality-based versus fantasy-based medical ideas. Real medicine may be confused and confusing but the touchstone is always the real world and that is accessible through objective testing. They’re ideas have no anchor in truth and simply evaporate under scrutiny.
2nd Invigilator said,
May 29, 2013 at 6:43 am
Thanks for the link to the Tweet.
CHS has deleted yet another of my invitations for him to return here and discuss these issues in public.
In my previous post “they’re” = ‘their’. I hate it when my fingers do that!
alcaponejunior said,
February 10, 2015 at 1:17 am
nice to see this one again pop up in a link. don’t want to forget about the chs nonsense, and the fact it’s been nonsense for all this time.
Patrick said,
October 2, 2019 at 8:41 pm
We can always believe the govt, after all they gave us weapons of mass destruction and the Spanish Inquisition.
Oh, and they gave us Trump!
Patrick said,
October 2, 2019 at 8:43 pm
And, of course, since they work, why does the govt have to have a Vaccine Court?