Measles in Pakistan: Anti-Vaccine Websites Go Cherry-picking

June 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm (Anti-Vaccination) (, , , , , , , , , , , , , )

In this post, Child Health Safety uncritically repeats a report from NSNBC based on a comment made by Dr. Tabish Hazir in the Tribune.

Dr Hazir stated that more than 50% of the 550 patients with measles seen at a children’s hospital in Islamabad had previously been vaccinated (though he did not state whether they had received the recommended two doses or just one). NSNBC, quite unjustifiably, turned this into the headline “More than 50 % of those Diagnosed with Measles in Pakistan had been Vaccinated”.

One children’s hospital in one part of Pakistan is not necessarily representative of Pakistan as a whole (and, it is worth noting, one MMR or single measles vaccination is not always sufficient to protect against measles – this is why vaccine schedules tend to include two doses). I had a quick look to see what the situation was in Pakistan as a whole.

Contrary to the headline on NSNBC, it seems likely that a minority of patients with measles in Pakistan have been vaccinated – according to this report in the Tribune (the Tribune, you will note, was also the source for the NSNBC article that has been uncritically promoted by Child Health Safety). Here’s what this Tribune article (published two days before the article that NSNBC and Child Health Safety are so keen on) said:

Out of thousands of cases, 60 per cent of children — most of them below five years of age — were not administered even a single dose, though proper immunisation requires two doses of the vaccine. Approximately 20 per cent of children were vaccinated incompletely with only one dose.

60% of the children were unvaccinated, 20% were partially vaccinated and 20% were fully vaccinated according to this account.

Child Health Safety didn’t report on this piece in the Tribune. Nor did NSNBC.

It looks to me like NSNBC have cherry-picked a single quote from a Doctor at one children’s hospital in Islamabad and extrapolated from that one hospital to the entire country. I’m not sure why anyone would feel the need to make claims about the situation in Pakistan based on a Tribune report about hundreds of patients with measles attending a single hospital in one part of Pakistan when it appears that information was already available, from the same source, about the vaccine status of thousands of measles patients countrywide. The situation at that one hospital could never have told us about the situation nationwide, it could only have given us an indication (in the absence of nationwide information) as to what we might expect to find if we actually looked at that situation – which NSNBC’s source had already done. It’s almost as if information is being chosen on the basis of its usefulness in furthering an anti-vaccine agenda rather than its validity or relevance.

It may be that the figures being quoted about the situations in Islamabad’s children’s hospital and in Pakistan will be revised when further, more reliable, information is available (I’d be wary of relying on vague, provisional figures being quoted in news reports myself – we simply do not know how trustworthy those figures are at present). At the moment, we have these two Tribune reports and rather than telling us the provisional figures for Pakistan, NSNBC and Child Health Safety are telling us the provisional figures for a hospital in Islamabad and reporting on them – in headlines, as prominently as they possibly can – as if they are the figures for Pakistan as a whole.

It’s pretty clear to me that NSNBC and Child Health Safety don’t want to inform and educate their readers. Rather, they want to give the misleading impression that the measles vaccine is ineffective. In order to do this, they report on the hundreds of cases that suit them and ignore the thousands that do not.

They also neglect to tell readers what vaccine coverage is (a piece of information that is necessary for anybody wishing to make a comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated children for rates of infection). It was 80% for one-year olds in Pakistan in 2011: WHO (one dose of measles-containing vaccine). If we lump together the partially vaccinated and the fully vaccinated, we have 40% of measles cases who have received at least one dose of measles vaccine and 60% who are completely unvaccinated against measles. With 80% vaccine coverage, this means you are six times more likely to catch measles if you are completely unvaccinated than if you have had at least one dose of measles-containing vaccine. Uptake of the second dose of MCV was 53% in 2011: WHO. Children who are unvaccinated are four times more likely to catch measles than children who are partially vaccinated. Those who are partially vaccinated are twice as likely to catch measles as those who are fully vaccinated. The unvaccinated are eight times more likely to catch measles than the fully vaccinated.

Uptake of the two doses of measles vaccine is inadequate and the unvaccinated are most at risk from measles. At present, it looks like this outbreak of measles has more to do with a failure to vaccinate than it does vaccine failure. Not that you’d know that from the reporting of NSNBC or CHS.

One more thing (though it’s not strictly relevant here, as I am focusing on vaccine uptake and incidence of measles) that is ignored by NSNBC and CHS is the consequence of the outbreak of measles in Pakistan. In the Tribune article that they have not reported on, it is stated that of 25,401 reported cases there have been 146 deaths. That is a mortality rate of 1 in 175. It is perhaps worth pointing out at this point that measles is milder in those previously vaccinated. Now, a case fatality rate that high is likely to be due to various factors – perhaps including things like crowding, vitamin A deficiency and lack of access to medical care. It strikes me, though, that now might not be a particularly good time to publish reports that misleadingly suggest that measles vaccination is ineffective – particularly when you choose to use the outbreak in Pakistan to support your argument.

92 Comments

  1. dingo199 said,

    It seems apparent since its inception that “Child Health Safety” does not have the interests of children at heart, and is bothered with neither their ongoing good health nor their overall safety.
    Instead it acts as an antivaccine oped, promulgating made up or massaged stats/data on vaccines in order to dissuade people from vaccinating, and to act as some form of online repository of deliberately distorted information, so that other antivaccine propaganda outlets can reference to it.

  2. ChildHealthSafety said,

    You are yet again just plain wrong. Time for an apology and for you to take down this blog post – you accuse others of never admitting being wrong – so what will you do?

    So you know more than the head of pediatrics at the Childrens Hospital of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences in Islamabad, the capital city of Pakistan and in a leadership position for the whole of Pakistan.

    Ha!

    50% of children in Pakistan have been vaccinated against measles by age 12 months and 60% at any time: page 125 Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2006-07.

    That covers the whole of Pakistan.

    And another source: “Among children aged 12-23 months, slightly more than half (51%, 477/904) had received measles vaccine. Similarly, 51% (2103/3964) of the children aged 10-59 months had received the measles vaccine. “: Equity and vaccine uptake: a cross-sectional study of measles vaccination in Lasbela District, Pakistan. Steven Mitchell, Neil Andersson, Noor M Ansari, Khalid Omer, José L Soberanis and Anne Cockcroft.

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-698X/9/S1/S7

    Lasbela district is at the other end of Pakistan from Islamabad with nearly 1 million population.

  3. Chris Preston said,

    Oh Dear, CHS. Your data are a little out of date.

    http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/data/pak.pdf‎
    Immunisation for 1 shot of measles is between 80 and 88%, depending on whether Government estimates or WHO estimates are used.

    And here is a map version so you can compare with other countries: http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/measles_map_coverage.JPG

    But the real issue CHS and the one you have totally missed is that this story is not about vaccination rates, but about those catching measles. 60% of children catching measles had not been vaccinated, 20% were incompletely vaccinated and only 20% had both doses.

    Looking at it this way: 20% of cases were in the 53% of the population that had received 2 shots, 20% of cases were in the 30-35% of the population that had received 1 shot and 60% of cases were in the 12-20% of the population that had no vaccination at all.

    Even those figures over-estimate the the number of vaccinated children with measles, because in Pakistan it is difficult to make sure the vaccine is still in an appropriate form when given to the children.

    Always happy to help you with the numbers.

  4. ChildHealthSafety said,

    What? James not able to answer for himself?

    Preston has been dealt with in spades here:
    http://tinyurl.com/pgn9ygm

    James has got it wrong from figures he has cobbled together from cherry-picked unsubstantiated figures in a newspaper editorial [not even a news article at that and miles from being peer reviewed] and WHO estimates stated to be “…. of varying, and, in some instances, unknown quality. ….. we are unable to present classical measures of uncertainty, e.g., confidence intervals. …… There are no directly supporting data; or data from at least one source …. challenge the estimate. In all cases these estimates should be used with caution and should be assessed in light of the objective for which they are being used.”

    Not for him a peer reviewed publication or formal official Pakistan census survey.

    Ha!

    Not surprising that James is keeping his head down.

  5. jdc325 said,

    So you know more than the head of pediatrics at the Childrens Hospital of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences in Islamabad, the capital city of Pakistan and in a leadership position for the whole of Pakistan.

    Ha!

    If you’d bothered to read the post you’re commenting on CHS, you would have noticed that I criticised NSNBC’s misinterpretation of the newspaper report of Dr Hazir’s comments. I didn’t state that Dr Hazir was wrong, I didn’t argue that I knew better than him – in fact, I didn’t criticise him at all (or the Tribune). What I did was to criticise the misreporting from you and from NSNBC – in particular the headline claim regarding the situation in Pakistan (a situation Dr Hazir did not refer to – he was talking about what he had seen in his hospital in Islamabad).

    If you are too lazy to read the entire post perhaps you would be good enough to read just the second paragraph, where I make it quite clear who it is I am criticising. When you’ve done so, perhaps you’d like to apologise for misrepresenting me and getting it wrong – yet again.

    50% of children in Pakistan have been vaccinated against measles by age 12 months and 60% at any time: page 125 Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2006-07.

    That covers the whole of Pakistan.

    Yes, it does. However – and leaving aside for now the issue of the figures being six years out of date – it refers to vaccine uptake rather than the proportion of children hospitalised with measles who have been vaccinated with MCV (as does your second source, from 2009). Please tell me you aren’t trying to use these references to support NSNBC’s claim (which you repeated) that 50% of those hospitalised with measles in the current outbreak had been vaccinated. You would have to be either incredibly stupid or shamelessly dishonest to do such a thing, so I do hope I have misunderstood your intent here. Perhaps you would like to clarify that point?

    On the other hand… the only other explanation that I can think of is that you are trying to rebut my claim that 80% of children in Pakistan had received at least one dose of measles vaccine in 2011. Given that your figures are for 2006-07 and 2009, they cannot possibly support a counter-argument of that nature. Again, you would have to be very stupid or shamelessly dishonest to make such an argument.

    Oh dear. I do hope there is a third interpretation that hasn’t occurred to me yet. Because the two that have occurred to me each show you in a very poor light CHS.

  6. jdc325 said,

    What? James not able to answer for himself?

    Preston has been dealt with in spades here:
    http://tinyurl.com/pgn9ygm

    James has got it wrong from figures he has cobbled together from cherry-picked unsubstantiated figures in a newspaper editorial [not even a news article at that and miles from being peer reviewed] and WHO estimates stated to be “…. of varying, and, in some instances, unknown quality. ….. we are unable to present classical measures of uncertainty, e.g., confidence intervals. …… There are no directly supporting data; or data from at least one source …. challenge the estimate. In all cases these estimates should be used with caution and should be assessed in light of the objective for which they are being used.”

    Not for him a peer reviewed publication or formal official Pakistan census survey.

    Ha!

    Not surprising that James is keeping his head down.

    Not only was I not keeping my head down, but I am perfectly able to answer for myself as you will see from my above comment. The reason I hadn’t responded to your comment earlier is that I have been busy – some of us work for a living and/or have a life.

    Now, onto the content of your post. You contrast my reporting on two Tribune articles (one of which you and NSNBC relied upon yourselves for that erroneous headline claim, I might add) with your use of survey data and a peer-reviewed publication. As I cautioned readers in my post (which you would have noticed if you had bothered to read it), the figures in the two Tribune articles are provisional and may not be reliable. The figures in the survey and the paper you cite may well be more reliable. Sadly, however, they are not relevant to my criticism of NSNBC’s misreporting of a Tribune article – they relate to (historic) vaccine uptake rather than the vaccine status of measles patients in the current outbreak.

  7. ChildHealthSafety said,

    On the contrary you are being pedantic making up a blog post out of nothing. And pedantic is mild. “I am complaining about the headline and not the story“. You have also based this blog post on junk figures.

    It is pathetic that you have based an entire blog post on claiming a headline is misleading when it is not and when you have no criticism whatsoever of the main point of the story – that vaccinated children in Pakistan are getting measles and a leading pediatrician in a leading hospital is speaking out because it is a problem. And you made up the figures to make claims like “it seems likely that a minority of patients with measles in Pakistan have been vaccinated” when it is plainly not true and based on an editorial with no substantiation.

    When you don’t have science supporting your position, you make it up.

    What is worse is you say “I criticised NSNBC’s misinterpretation of the newspaper report of Dr Hazir’s comments”. When that is precisely not what you complain about. You complain about the headline.

    And you are now further dissembling by trying to turn your false claim the headline is misleading into a false claim of misreporting “they are not relevant to my criticism of NSNBC’s misreporting of a Tribune article”. But misreporting is precisely not what you are complaining about and you are clearly trying to back off from the claim the headline is misleading to turn it into “misreporting” precisely because the headline is not misleading.

    May we quote you? “You would have to be either incredibly stupid or shamelessly dishonest to do such a thing, so I do hope I have misunderstood your intent here.”

    No one is misled by the headline or the story. Your entire blog proves that. Headlines are short summary descriptions of what a story is about. Nor is it misleading.

    But of course if you only read headlines and not the story you will not get all the information will you. So again – reading comprehension seems to be a bit off there.

    Your main point is easily answered – you are pedantic.

    If the headline said 50% of “all” children in Pakistan getting measles then only might you have a point but even if it did the facts would not support you making such a claim. It would be misleading. But you chose not to check properly. You cherry-picked. You are the one doing precisely what you wrongfully accuse CHS of doing but will never admit that or apologise.

    Like Preston you seem to have trouble with comprehension and geography. So let us help you.

    Your entire beef is the headline not the report. The report is clearly about Islamabad throughout.

    Geography and comprehension: Islamabad is in Pakistan. The headline stated the children hospitalised with measles were in Pakistan and 50% were vaccinated. Which is all true.

    So you are in the brown stuff straight away because the story is clearly about Islamabad as you point out. And you clearly were not misled by the story.

    And of course what you cherry-pickingly avoid is the fact that the story sets out where the children come from – which was not just Islamabad but other named regions and “other parts of the country”. You missed that bit out entirely in your efforts to claim the headline is misleading and that this leading hospital at this leading scientific institute for the whole of Pakistan “is not necessarily representative of Pakistan as a whole” when the point it – it is.

    The whole point of the story was that the head of pediatrics at a leading hospital in Pakistan said “there was an urgent need to study the epidemiology of the disease” because 50% of those coming down with measles in a large area of Pakistan had been vaccinated. These are vaccinated children being hospitalised with measles and not just catching it.

    You further set out to mislead by referring to “One children’s hospital in one part of Pakistan is not necessarily representative of Pakistan as a whole“.

    But this was the head of pediatrics at the Childrens Hospital in Islamabad, so is in a leadership role for other pediatricians in that hospital in Islamabad.

    But that is not all. The single hospital is the Childrens Hospital of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences in the capital city of Islamabad. So in a leadership position for the whole of Pakistan.

    And he is speaking out against health officials denying there is a problem.

    How misleading of you BadScience Forum people.

    And here is another example of your misleading reporting “One children’s hospital in one part of Pakistan is not necessarily representative of Pakistan as a whole”. Who says so? Oh, a one-sided blog without a shred of evidence either way – so that’s all right then. No it is not.

    And it is of course interesting comparing South Wales UK with what health officials in Pakistan claim “CDA Director Health Dr Urooj Hassan claimed that there has been no outbreak of measles in Islamabad, despite the high number of cases.

    In Pakistan a much larger number of cases that the small number in South Wales cases is not an outbreak whereas in the UK it is a dramatic serious matter of a national emergency.

    You have also based this article on junk figures. We have cited formal figures from peer reviewed literature and official census data not junk editorials and figures WHO admit must be used with caution because they could be wildly inaccurate.

    Preston came over to CHS to claim that “80% of those catching measles in Pakistan are not fully vaccinated”. But now claims “Immunisation for 1 shot of measles is between 80 and 88%, depending on whether Government estimates or WHO estimates are used. ”

    The figures you cited are not even real figures but ones cobbled together from different sources and a number of assertions of facts for which there is no substantiation provided – just your personal biases and prejudice.

    Great source too – an editorial in a newspaper – not even a proper news report – pure opinion and not subject to the normal fact-checking that western newspapers apply to news reports.

    Even what Preston now claims shows that is not just wildly misleading it is wrong [but he does not admit that or apologise either just like you]. He was claiming 80% are not fully vaccinated. But now claims 80 to 88% had at least one dose.

    You have cherry-picked figures to make wild and vicious allegations without checking the facts nor relying on peer reviewed literature. And it is completely false.

    You got it wrong and used that to make vicious false allegations which do not stand up. You won’t admit you are wrong and you won’t apologise [yet again].

  8. jdc325 said,

    Here’s what I wrote in my earlier comment, which you are now replying to CHS: “What I did was to criticise the misreporting from you and from NSNBC – in particular the headline claim regarding the situation in Pakistan (a situation Dr Hazir did not refer to – he was talking about what he had seen in his hospital in Islamabad)”

    In your reply, you rephrase what I have written in a manner that is convenient for you to attack: “On the contrary you are being pedantic making up a blog post out of nothing. And pedantic is mild. “I am complaining about the headline and not the story“. You have also based this blog post on junk figures.”

    I didn’t say I wasn’t complaining about the article you reposted, I stated that I had criticised the misreporting generally and the headline in particular. Twisting people’s words in order to create a straw man that you feel comfortable attacking is dishonest CHS. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    The rest of your comment continues in a similar vein, with you either misunderstanding what I have written or deliberately misrepresenting me. What you do not do, I notice, is to properly address the points I made in the comment you are ostensibly replying to. In particular, you have passed up on the opportunity to clarify why you posted references regarding vaccine uptake rather than vaccine status of hospitalised individuals. Was that an honest mistake or a dishonest attempt to mislead people CHS? Either way, I suspect that your long, evasive, weaselly post above is nothing more than an attempt to distract readers from what was either a gross error or a blatantly dishonest attempt to mislead.

    Happily, people are able to read what I actually wrote as well as your misinterpretation of it and see for themselves what you are doing. I doubt you will fool many of the people who will read your posts.

  9. jdc325 said,

    Geography and comprehension: Islamabad is in Pakistan. The headline stated the children hospitalised with measles were in Pakistan and 50% were vaccinated. Which is all true.
    So you are in the brown stuff straight away because the story is clearly about Islamabad as you point out. And you clearly were not misled by the story.
    And of course what you cherry-pickingly avoid is the fact that the story sets out where the children come from – which was not just Islamabad but other named regions and “other parts of the country”. You missed that bit out entirely in your efforts to claim the headline is misleading and that this leading hospital at this leading scientific institute for the whole of Pakistan “is not necessarily representative of Pakistan as a whole” when the point it – it is.
    The whole point of the story was that the head of pediatrics at a leading hospital in Pakistan said “there was an urgent need to study the epidemiology of the disease” because 50% of those coming down with measles in a large area of Pakistan had been vaccinated. These are vaccinated children being hospitalised with measles and not just catching it.
    You further set out to mislead by referring to “One children’s hospital in one part of Pakistan is not necessarily representative of Pakistan as a whole“.
    But this was the head of pediatrics at the Childrens Hospital in Islamabad, so is in a leadership role for other pediatricians in that hospital in Islamabad.
    But that is not all. The single hospital is the Childrens Hospital of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences in the capital city of Islamabad. So in a leadership position for the whole of Pakistan.

    The story was all about Islamabad, not Pakistan – therefore it wasn’t misleading to have a headline about Pakistan? Except Islamabad is representative of Pakistan as a whole a couple of sentences later?
    And apparently what makes this hospital “representative” is not that it’s typical of Pakistan as a whole, it’s the status it has. It’s important therefore it’s “representative”. Did you innocently misunderstand what I meant by “representative” or are you just dishonestly attempting to evade my arguments and mislead people?

    You have also based this article on junk figures. We have cited formal figures from peer reviewed literature and official census data not junk editorials and figures WHO admit must be used with caution because they could be wildly inaccurate.
    Preston came over to CHS to claim that “80% of those catching measles in Pakistan are not fully vaccinated”. But now claims “Immunisation for 1 shot of measles is between 80 and 88%, depending on whether Government estimates or WHO estimates are used. ”
    The figures you cited are not even real figures but ones cobbled together from different sources and a number of assertions of facts for which there is no substantiation provided – just your personal biases and prejudice.
    Great source too – an editorial in a newspaper – not even a proper news report – pure opinion and not subject to the normal fact-checking that western newspapers apply to news reports.
    Even what Preston now claims shows that is not just wildly misleading it is wrong [but he does not admit that or apologise either just like you]. He was claiming 80% are not fully vaccinated. But now claims 80 to 88% had at least one dose.
    You have cherry-picked figures to make wild and vicious allegations without checking the facts nor relying on peer reviewed literature. And it is completely false.
    You got it wrong and used that to make vicious false allegations which do not stand up. You won’t admit you are wrong and you won’t apologise [yet again].

    You’re being misleading again. You claim that while I use “junk” figures, you use figures from formal surveys and peer-reviewed publications. The original article from NSNBC (which you reposted) that I criticised used figures for vaccine status among measles patients in Islamabad, taken from a single Tribune article, to make a claim about how many children with measles in Pakistan had been vaccinated. I referred to this Tribune article, and another that gave figures for Pakistan as a whole. Both the original post and mine used figures from Tribune articles. I also referred to measles vaccine uptake for 2011 (in the context of whether unvaccinated children are more or less likely to be measles patients than vaccinated children, you need to know how many children have been vaccinated). You have then cited figures from a survey and a journal article that relate not to vaccine status of measles patients but to vaccine coverage – and not even current vaccine coverage, but vaccine coverage from 2006-07 and 2009. Being out-of-date, these figures are less useful than the WHO figures I cited for vaccination uptake. The other point is that they are only relevant to discussion of the differences between the two populations (vaccinated and unvaccinated) and they do not answer the question of how many children hospitalised with measles had been vaccinated. You seem to be attempting to use the figures for vaccine uptake for both vaccine uptake and vaccine status of measles patients.
    Now, this use of figures for vaccine uptake to represent vaccine status of measles patients is so obviously wrong, I would have thought that you would have grasped that by now. As Chris Preston pointed out, in comment #3, in response to your first comment here: “But the real issue CHS and the one you have totally missed is that this story is not about vaccination rates, but about those catching measles. 60% of children catching measles had not been vaccinated, 20% were incompletely vaccinated and only 20% had both doses.”
    In comment #5, I then pointed out that your figure “refers to vaccine uptake rather than the proportion of children hospitalised with measles who have been vaccinated with MCV”.
    Despite it being obvious that a figure for vaccine uptake in the population as a whole is not the same as a figure for vaccine status of measles patients, and despite both Chris Preston and me pointing this out, you still don’t seem to have got it. In the part of your comment that I quote above you refer to Chris using figures for vaccine uptake and vaccine status of measles patients and seem confused that while 80% of children in Pakistan were vaccinated in 2011, 80% of children in the current outbreak have not been fully vaccinated. You seem to mistakenly think that these figures are incompatible. I’ll try to explain what you have missed.
    You have a country. In this country, you have a population. This population (i.e. all the people living in this country) will have a certain level of vaccine uptake. Now, within this population you happen to have a sub-group. This section of the population have measles. This sub-group, this section of the population, is not the whole population. It is part of it. The figure for vaccine uptake refers to the whole population. The figure for vaccine status of measles patients refers only to the sub-group, the section of the population who have measles.
    Now, let’s say that the population figures for vaccination are 80% for one dose, 50% for two doses and 20% for no doses. These figures will not necessarily match the figures for vaccine status in measles patients. Let’s say the figures for vaccine status in measles patients are 20% for two doses, 20% for one dose and 60% for no doses. These figures are not incompatible, for the simple reason that they are figures for two groups. The smaller group (measles patients) is part of the larger group (population of the country) but it is not the larger group. It is a section of that group. The larger group also includes people who do not have measles. The smaller group does not include people who do not have measles.

  10. ChildHealthSafety said,

    It seems we have touched a raw nerve and rightly so. So let us touch it more.

    You had to invent a NEW news story – not the one reported – cobbled together using your junk science figures to attempt to justify your false allegations.

    In your first line you say “Child Health Safety uncritically repeats a report”. In other words you claim we are obliged to go and dig out junk figures just like you did and make a shambolic amateur analysis of those junk figures just like you did.

    No we are not. You first went off the rails with your attack in the first line and that is because you set out to attack and criticise without justification.

    In the Tribune report Dr. Tabish Hazir is quoted saying 50% of cases were vaccinated. It does not say “partially vaccinated” – he says “vaccinated”.

    Nor does the Tribune news report make reference to the figures in the Tribune editorial you cite [an editorial!!]. If those figures were relevant or even correct then it is reasonable to expect them to appear in the Tribune news report but they did not. So one must assume they were wrong and that the later Tribune story was reported to correct that.

    So again, you made all of this up out of nothing.

    And again – we repeat – no one was misled by the article or the headline.

    And particularly, everyone could see the article was about Islamabad.

    They could also see what Dr Hazir was saying was referable to large geographical regions of Pakistan. And they could also see that Dr Hazir is the head of pediatrics of the Childrens Hospital of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences in Islamabad and is therefore in a leadership position for the whole of Pakistan.

    You seem to have difficulty with those facts as if they are mutually incompatible. They are not – they are the facts.

    May we quote you again? “Did you innocently misunderstand or are you just dishonestly attempting to evade and mislead people?”

    This is just like you did with a professional journalist on this blog – you did not like the straight factual news report that the Italian Court found a child’s autism was caused by the MMR vaccine so you attacked her reporting because you “did not agree” with the facts reported. You wanted other facts reported – your facts – no doubt just like your junk “facts” here. You wanted to control what that journalist writes by attacking, bullying and harassing her with your blog.

    The truth is there is nothing wrong with the CHS article. But there is something very wrong with you psychologically. You are incapable of allowing other people to express their views or give accounts of facts which go against your deeply held views. You appear to want to control and the tools you use include to bully, berate and mislead because your viewpoint must prevail over all others no matter how flawed yours is.

    You say “some of us work for a living and/or have a life”. Do you have a girlfriend?

  11. DLJ said,

    CHS, are you some kind of gestalt entity? Or are you employing the Royal ‘we’?

  12. jdc325 said,

    Oh dear. Another long comment from Child Health Safety that dodges the points I’ve made, erects straw man arguments, makes slurs about my psychological health, asks personal questions, and – above all – attempts to distract readers from the issues (such as his confusion over vaccine coverage and vaccine status of infected individuals) by introducing a raft of new canards at great length.

    CHS, have you figured out the difference between vaccine uptake among the population of a country and vaccine status of infected individuals yet? You’ve had long enough to think about it, and it’s been patiently, explicitly explained to you in a fairly long comment where I tried very hard to make it as clear as I possibly could. Have you got it yet? Or perhaps I need to draw you a diagram?

  13. ChildHealthSafety said,

    @jdc “have you figured out the difference between vaccine uptake among the population of a country and vaccine status of infected individuals yet?”

    That is not mentioned in the Tribune story.

    The Tribune story was about “despite mass anti-measles vaccinations and all-out efforts to contain the disease” half the hospitalised measles cases coming from wide areas of Pakistan were vaccinated.

    You introduce your point to claim a failure to discuss it is misleading reporting of the Tribune story when clearly that cannot be true. And you use cherry-picked data from junk science sources and misquote that data also.

    Hmmm – your data over 80% are vaccinated. Hmmm – 50% of hospitalised cases have been vaccinated.

    Hmmm – you claim figures in a previous editorial – not a news report and unsubstantiated and not repeated in the Tribune news story [because no doubt wrong] – justify you making the new claim – not in the Tribune news story – that the Tribune story was misreported.

    That is completely barking. Reading comprehension problem jdc.

    And where in the junk WHO figures of 80%+ vaccinated does it say only 20% have been “fully vaccinated”? Nowhere.

    And where in the Tribune story are the WHO figures cited? Nowhere.

    So everything you rely on to claim misreporting by NSNBC of the Tribune news story is not stated in it.

    Staggering that you still try to defend your position.

    Still no apology from you or acknowledgement you are wrong.

    Let us see – where else is jdc misreporting?

    You wrote “Child Health Safety uncritically repeats a report from NSNBC based on a comment made by Dr. Tabish Hazir in the Tribune.” … “a single quote from a Doctor at one children’s hospital in Islamabad”

    Not true. The entire Tribune news story was based on detailed quotes and information from Dr Hazir – not a “comment”.

    So your blog is misleading reporting by you jdc.

    You wrote “Dr Hazir stated that more than 50% of the 550 patients with measles seen at a children’s hospital in Islamabad had previously been vaccinated” as if that was all he said.

    It was not. Dr Hazir is quoted saying much more and the entire Tribune news story is based on that. As noted above the thrust of it was “despite mass anti-measles vaccinations and all-out efforts to contain the disease” half the hospitalised measles cases coming from wide areas of Pakistan were vaccinated.

    So your blog is misleading reporting by you jdc.

    You wrote “One children’s hospital in one part of Pakistan is not necessarily representative of Pakistan as a whole” – but is it not just one children’s hospital and it is not dealing with children from just one part of Pakistan.

    So your blog is misleading reporting by you jdc.

    You wrote “it is worth noting, one MMR or single measles vaccination is not always sufficient to protect against measles – this is why vaccine schedules tend to include two doses”.

    This was not mentioned in the Tribune news story. It was also not mentioned in the WHO vaccine uptake figures you rely on.

    So your blog is misleading reporting by you jdc.

    You wrote “it seems likely that a minority of patients with measles in Pakistan have been vaccinated – according to this report in the Tribune “.

    It was not a report. It was an unsubstantiated editorial whose figures were not cited in the Tribune news story – no doubt because they are wrong.

    So your blog is misleading reporting by you jdc.

    Nowhere in the Tribune news story does it say a minority of patients had been vaccinated.

    So your blog is grossly misleading reporting by you jdc.

    And that is just a few points from the first third of your blog post.

    May we quote you again? “Did you innocently misunderstand or are you just dishonestly attempting to evade and mislead people?”

    And it was you who first introduced personal issues – not us – remember you wrote “some of us work for a living and/or have a life”. So you then complain when we comment on the personal issues you chose to raise.

  14. Chris Preston said,

    ChildHealthSafety you are getting less and less coherent.

    You are also still confusing the statistics over vaccination status for the country (53% fully vaccinated, 35% partially vaccinated and 12% unvaccinated – according to Pakistan Government estimates) with the vaccination status of the children hospitalised (20% fully vaccinated, 20% partially vaccinated and 60% unvaccinated).

    You are compounding the error by trying to obfuscate that report including the comments by Tabish Hazir – including extending his comment about the Children Hospital in Islamabad to “wide areas of Pakistan”.

    Then follows a bit of frothing at the mouth including the spurious claim that if something is not in the Tribune story it cannot be true.

  15. ChildHealthSafety said,

    @preston “ChildHealthSafety you are getting less and less coherent.”

    No. We are just showing how jdc cobbled together a load of junk information which does not stand up to claim 1) a headline was misleading and 2) there was misreporting of the Tribune news story when neither was applicable.

    But what is applicable is jdc and the rest of you folks were the ones doing the cherrypicking, cobbling something out of nothing with bits and pieces of junk evidence and misleading.

    Notice again how others jump in to answer for jdc. Nice. Thought he said he could answer for himself.

    And when you have all been trounced you go for making personal attacks. And before you claim we were first – it was jdc who first started out with his “some of us work for a living and/or have a life”.

    Thanks.

    No doubt there will be the usual flurry of personal attacks which normally follow from you people when a point like this has been reached.

    This is also normally the spot where someone like Dingo jumps in with some personal comment or other.

  16. Chris Preston said,

    ChildHealthSafety, the author of this blog is perfectly well able to write for themselves and doesn’t need me to fill that gap. However, just because jdc325 is able to respond to your inane arguments doesn’t preclude others from challenging the errors you are promulgating. As far as I know there is no rule on this blog restricting who can comment. After all, you are permitted to dispense your anti-vaccination nonsense here.

    Perhaps you should consider that if several people are disagreeing with your interpretation of the Tribune stories on vaccination in Pakistan it mostly likely means you have misinterpreted the story. Certainly the headline was misleading as is the claim you posted on your blog that vaccines don’t work and instead cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent.

  17. ChildHealthSafety said,

    “if several people are disagreeing with your interpretation of the Tribune stories on vaccination in Pakistan it mostly likely means you have misinterpreted the story”.

    Wot – you lot on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum. That is probably the funniest thing you have ever written [and most pompous – which takes some beating].

  18. jdc325 said,

    Oh dear. Another long comment from Child Health Safety, followed (mercifully) by two shorter ones that dodge the points I’ve made, erect straw man arguments, and – having earlier made slurs about my psychological health – complain about others being insulting. Oh, and – above all – are intended to distract readers from the issues (such as his confusion over vaccine coverage and vaccine status of infected individuals).

    CHS, have you figured out the difference between vaccine uptake among the population of a country and vaccine status of infected individuals yet? You’ve had long enough to think about it, and it’s been patiently, explicitly explained to you in a fairly long comment where I tried very hard to make it as clear as I possibly could. Have you got it yet? I rather think you have. Which is why you are now pretending it’s irrelevant to the discussion.

    It doesn’t matter whether the difference between the two statistics was mentioned in a Tribune article, you introduced it to this discussion by way of your mistaken conflation of the two. It was an important part of your response to my post and now you’ve twigged that you’ve made a mistake you’re desperately trying to distract people from it. Pretending now that it is irrelevant to the discussion won’t wash.

    The silly thing is that if you’d simply owned up to your misunderstanding you wouldn’t have lost as much credibility as you have by trying to pretend it never happened.

  19. dingo199 said,

    Always glad to oblige, I’d hate to disappoint anyone.

    Here is the headline of a new blogpost I am considering writing:

    More than 50% of antivaccine activists in the UK are liars.

    The evidence?
    Well, according to that well trodden and highly respected “ChildHealthSafety” protocol, I don’t actually need to count the number of Brit antivaccine activists who are liars in the whole of the UK as implied in the heading, I just have to count up the number of lying antivaccine activists in one small sampled section of the UK and extrapolate.
    Maybe just counting them on one antivaccine blog, perhaps? (not looking at any one in particular)

    And my proof of lying? Well, again according to the CHS playbook, I just need to find someone commenting somewhere else on the web who makes that accusation.
    Job done, nuff said.

    There….. pretty cast iron proof that antivaccine activists are liars, and what’s more, backed with the assurance that my methodology is wholly supported by that esteemed paragon of vaccine virtue and vision, CHS. Enough to satisfy any solicitor, I’d have thought.

  20. ChildHealthSafety said,

    We see you are still trying to weasle your way out of the fact that your blog post criticising CHS is completely wrong and you still won’t admit it.

    You still have not answered. Love your obfuscation with “dodge the points made”, “straw man arguments” and points which are not relevant whatsoever to the fact the headline and article are fine.

    If you feel the Tribune news report did not have information or a discussion you would have liked to have seen or what the doctor quoted said did not cover what you wanted to hear then you should have done a straight blog post saying what else you think they should have said – but you could not help yourself and your desire to control what everyone else says when it does not fit your world view – tremendous control freakery – fabulous example.

    Oh dear – long blog comments too much for you? Well if you get so much wrong then it takes time dealing with the errors and we only bothered with the first 1/3rd of your article.

    Ha.

    But your two in a row of 1700 words [1300+ and 300+] beats ours hands down. We have to admit it your comments are pretty long but short on fact.

  21. dingo199 said,

    It seems clear why measles is spreading in Pakistan – undervaccination of the population.

    Lack of vaccinations
    The epidemic has spread rapidly with thousands of cases nationwide and 239 deaths between January and April 2013, according to Pakistan’s national measles co-ordinator.
    “One reason is the low vaccination coverage of the population,” says Dr Tanvir Ahmed, the director-general of heath services for Punjab province.
    “In the districts there are even pockets where there is no vaccination coverage. The average [coverage] for Punjab is 58%.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22724080

    And here is described how the EPI has failed to deliver its vaccination targets.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/07/06/pakistans-measles-problem/

    Quite a coincidence isn’t it that wherever measles vaccination drops, there follow measles epidemics?

  22. Slipp Digby said,

    The NSNBC report reproduced without verification or thought by CHS is rather predictably awful. No need to make the same points as above, but a couple of observations.

    The NSNBC report says

    “Significantly, Dr. Tabish Hazir implicitly states the fact which critics of the vaccination program have stated all-along, which is, that the vaccinations are ineffective and that the considerable health risks involved in the vaccination program does not justify the mass immunization.”

    But in the original Tribune article it says:

    “Dr Hazir said that all components of mass vaccination including correct case identification, recognition of the high-risk population group, quality control checks on vaccines, maintenance of cold chain, evaluation and estimation of seroconversion must be diligently implemented across the country.”

    So Dr Tabish in fact made no comment about the “considerable health risks” and doesn’t state that “vaccinations are ineffective”, but quite reasonably calls for improvements to the implementation of the vaccination programme.

    Also I note the following in the original Tribune article:

    “It is important that the characteristic of the virus be closely monitored and studied. Blood samples should be sent to The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, for laboratory test and verification,” he said.

    So it seems these figures may be reported cases and not laboratory confirmed. I wonder what CHS has to say about that?

    Will CHS be criticising the Dr Tabish for overdiagnosis and wheeling out like clockwork the “73/74 reports are not actually measles” figures?

    Will CHS be contacting and taking to task the Tribune and NSNBC for their sloppy language regarding ‘cases’ and ‘lab confirmed cases’?

    Will CHS accuse Dr Tabish and the PIMS Childrens Hospital of ‘perpetrating a scam’?

    Stay tuned folks.

  23. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Yawn.

    Glad to see you have all accepted that the original criticisms in this blog are wrong and misconceived and are now moving on to other “stuff”.

    Carry on guys. Have fun.

  24. Slipp Digby said,

    Nice try CHS but my comments about Dr Tavish are highly relevant to the blog post because it is another example of how the NSNBC report takes the Tribune article, twists it, omits parts and entirely misrepresents other parts of it to support a predetermined anti-vaccine agenda.

    Like the above criticisms, you have again in this case failed to provide any evidence to contradict the glaring errors and misrepresentations in the NSNBC report which are obvious to anyone. You simply expect your assertion to be sufficient.

    I’ll ask again – If Dr Tavish supports the view in the NSNBC report that “vaccines are ineffective” and there are considerable health risks involved in the vaccination program which don’t justify mass immunization, then why does the Dr call for diligent implementation of all components of mass vaccination across the country?

    As for ‘other stuff’ I just wondered how you felt about NSNBC using these figures which are stated as ‘cases’ rather than ‘laboratory confirmed’ purely because you have made such a fuss about this issue in the past couple of months, and it seems a little hypocritical of you to ignore it when it suits.

  25. jdc325 said,

    Yawn.

    Glad to see you are still inventing positions and ascribing them to others. You are consistent at least CHS. I don’t see where anyone has accepted that the original criticisms are wrong and misconceived. As for “moving onto other stuff”, I’ve been trying to discuss an error that you yourself introduced into the conversation. You can hardly blame me for a derail that is focused on something you brought up, CHS. And if other commentators want to focus on what they personally find interesting, that’s up to them.

    Now, about those original criticisms. You think I’ve been too pedantic in complaining about the headline that stated that 50% of (tens of thousands of) measles patients in Pakistan had been vaccinated because it was actually based on 550 patients seen at one hospital in Islamabad. Personally, I don’t think that is overly pedantic but perhaps we might be able to agree to disagree on that point. I can’t understand though how you can object to a criticism of cherry-picking when the NSNBC article picked out a quote from one doctor in one of several tribune.com.pk articles regarding measles. The Tribune alone had published plenty of articles on measles this year prior to the NSNBC post (never mind any other sources that have covered the outbreak) – there’s a dozen on the first five pages of a Google site search for measles. The article selected by NSNBC wasn’t the only one to refer to vaccine status of measles patients. Picking out one bit of one article of many and selectively choosing the figure on vaccine status that most suited NSNBC isn’t cherry-picking? Do please explain why this particular example of cherry-picking isn’t cherry-picking. I’d be interested in seeing your criteria for cherry-picking.

    If you’d prefer not to explain your bizarre position that my original criticisms are wrong and misconceived, perhaps we can carry on the discussion we were having instead? You know, the one about your egregious error in conflating vaccine uptake in the general population with vaccine status of measles patients.

  26. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Yawn.

    Glad to see you have all accepted that the original criticisms in this blog are wrong and misconceived and are now moving on to other “stuff”.

    Carry on guys. Have fun.

  27. Slipp Digby said,

    No CHS actually it wasn’t all ‘other stuff’ my first point is about NSNBC clearly misrepresenting Dr. Tabish’s position on vaccination – entirely relevant to the post and further evidence that the article was made to fit a pre-determined anti-vaccine agenda without any regard for the facts.

    I see you have now moved onto simply spamming the comments here and posting your own responses from here back onto CHS without the context.

    It all makes you look rather foolish.

  28. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Heh.

    Having been resoundingly trashed in this game of wack-a-mole jdc wants to start the whole thing all over again as if nothing had been said in all the comments previously made.

    Just goes to show not only pedantic and controlling but obsessive and can never admit to being wrong.

    Looks like you want to play the same game.

    Now that is looking foolish and maybe a few other things as well.

  29. Chris Preston said,

    Slipp, you forget ChildHealthSafety always looks foolish.

    Having realised they (the both or three of them) will get trounced over the factual aspects of this, ChildHealthSafety has gone for declaring victory in the hope that no one will notice.

    The article ChildHealthSafety posted on its blog misrepresented the vaccination status of measles cases in Pakistan and misrepresented what Dr. Tabish stated in the interview.

  30. jdc325 said,

    Heh.

    Having been resoundingly trashed in this game of wack-a-mole jdc wants to start the whole thing all over again as if nothing had been said in all the comments previously made.

    No, CHS, I haven’t been resoundingly trashed. You can say that, but we both know that you cannot point to where in this thread that has happened. And the reason I went back to the original criticisms was because you complained about people moving on to “other stuff”. Other stuff which, funnily enough, you didn’t want to discuss. Because it showed you in a bad light. It seems you don’t want to discuss either my original criticisms (which still stand) or the errors that you introduced into the thread. Instead, you prefer to assert that you’ve won the argument.

    I’ll let you in on a secret, CHS. The people reading your comments can see for themselves whether they are true or not. They don’t have to scroll far up the page to see that you are simply making stuff up.

  31. Weird isn't it? said,

    “Having been resoundingly trashed in this game of wack-a-mole jdc wants to start the whole thing all over again as if nothing had been said in all the comments previously made.”

    And yet, CHS is the one who censors opposing comments on his blog and JDC is the one who doesn’t. Who it is who is pretending that criticisms don’t exist again?

  32. dingo199 said,

    Perhaps I can borrow a leaf from CHS’s book and quite validly claim that “Antivaxers in the UK are outright liars”?

    Don’t see why not, since there is prima fascie evidence that one antivaxer is an outright liar, and he is after all in the UK.

  33. ChildHealthSafety said,

    All finished or is there anyone still to comment yet?

  34. Chris Preston said,

    I see you haven’t corrected the errors on your blog post CHS. Are you going to do that, or is it like the measles example and you just don’t care about being wrong?

  35. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Is that all finished now or is there anyone still to comment yet?

  36. jdc325 said,

    They’re probably waiting for you to post some actual content CHS. You could start by explaining why cherry-picking isn’t cherry-picking when your friends do it. Or by telling us how vaccine uptake in the general population is the same as vaccine status of measles patients.

  37. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Heh. Never known Dingo to make an intelligent contribution yet. Can’t even spell prima facie let alone understand what it means. Wot, educashunally challinged eh Dingo? Musta got it off Wikipedia. You knows how to spell “lying” – wot a surpreyes Dingy. Wunder how hee nose that.

    Preston & jdc not quite finished it seems. jdc seems to want to explain how cherry-picking isn’t cherry-picking when he and his friends do it. And Preston wants to talk about non-existent errors in a blog post whilst ignoring all jdc’s real ones. Usual [yawn] modus operandi.

    So get it off your chests guys and let us know when you are done.

    No dingy it really is not spelt “prima fascie”. 0/10 for attention.

    Ta.

  38. dingo199 said,

    “Is that all finished now or is there anyone still to comment yet?”

    No, I think that’s pretty well it, CHS.
    You’re all washed up here I see.
    I suppose we should be grateful for your contribution, at least readers have had a taste of what they might find should they be unfortunate enough to be tempted to dip into your own site – evasion, obfuscation and downright lies.
    Once again, you didn’t disappoint.

  39. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Thanks Dingo. We try to please.

    And you are reliable as ever – reverting to accusations of lying etc when jdc and the rest of you guys have lost the argument.

    Nothing left to fall back on.

    We are happily leaving here squeaky clean – being all washed up ‘n all.

    TTFN

  40. Chris Preston said,

    Declaring victory again are you CHS?

    I should point out that the post on your blog that is the subject of this discussion still misrepresents the vaccination status of measles patients in Pakistan and still misrepresents the comments of Dr Tabish in the interview he gave to the Tribune.

    You obviously don’t care for the truth.

  41. jdc325 said,

    If CHS doesn’t want to explain why cherry-picking isn’t cherry-picking when his friends do it or tell us how vaccine uptake in the general population is the same as vaccine status of measles patients (preferring to pretend that others are cherry-picking and ignore his error in conflating vaccine uptake and vaccine status of patients, or simply – and laughably – declare victory), perhaps he wants to tell us what he knows about vertical transmission of hepatitis B?

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/

    And despite the serious historic problems with Hepatitis B containing vaccines the UK’s JCVI [Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation] seems to be still planning on introducing GSKs Infanrix Hexa in the UK for infants and when those at risk are intravenous drug users and practitioners of unsafe sex – NOT babies.

    Strongly asserted, with no qualifiers, and incorrect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_B#Transmission
    http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/hepatitis-b
    http://www.perinatology.com/exposures/Infection/HepatitisB.htm

  42. ChildHealthSafety said,

    “I should point out that the post on your blog that is the subject of this discussion still misrepresents the vaccination status of measles patients in Pakistan and still misrepresents the comments of Dr Tabish in the interview he gave to the Tribune.”

    No it doesn’t. You obviously don’t care for the truth.

    Playing the same old game Preston – when it is all over you just repeat the same rubbish as if nothing has been said.

    Wot’s the problem – oh yes, no one reading jdc’s blog.

  43. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Ah, jdc – the troll with a blog – now completely changing the subject.

    Where is that life you said you had? Thought you might be off enjoying it but no – chained to the keyboard and no girlfriend.

    Now let us see – you said “What I did was to criticise the misreporting from you and from NSNBC – in particular the headline claim regarding the situation in Pakistan ”

    But having been caught out using junk figures, being pedantic and misleading first you and your buddies have misleadingly changed your claims from the headline to the wrongful claim the NSNBC article itself is misleading when it is not and now you are changing the subject entirely.

    CHS – like the Guardian newspaper and many other blogs and websites – have to moderate comments because people actually read them – and they suffer from trolls.

    You boast you do not moderate – but then no one reads your blog – and as anyone can see from the above – the big difference is whilst CHS & many others sites suffer from trolls – ie. blogs with trolls – you are a troll with a blog.

    You really are desperate for readers on your troll-blog and for games of wack-a-mole.

  44. jdc325 said,

    You make it sound as if I am the one who is being evasive CHS. As anybody reading this thread can see, you are the one who doesn’t want to talk about the cherry-picking I pointed out in my original blog, you are the one who doesn’t want to talk about the error you introduced when you mistakenly conflated figures for vaccine uptake and vaccine status of patients. You don’t want to talk about the original issues raised, or the new issues you’ve introduced because you know you can’t defend them.

    I’d be happy to talk about the cherry-picking, I’d be happy to talk about the conflation and, if you prefer to avoid those topics, I’d be happy to talk about something new – such as your ignorance of vertical transmission of HBV. You don’t want to talk about any of those topics, for obvious reasons.

    You don’t moderate your website because of trolling, you moderate it for the same reasons you are avoiding the issues here – because you cannot defend yourself against the legitimate criticism you receive. If anybody wants to see for themselves what you describe as trolling, they can see some of the comments you refused to publish cross-posted in the comment section of a previous blog post of mine: https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/anti-vaccine-blunders/#comment-16704

  45. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Ha.

    Round and round in circles. You were caught out using junk figures, being pedantic and misleading. And as for evasive – changing the subject to get around the fact you and your buddies misleadingly changed your claims from cherry-pickingly alleging the headline was misleading to the wrongful cherry-picking claims the NSNBC article itself is misleading when it is not.

    You failed to answer criticisms – obviously because you can only always right. You will not admit you are wrong.

    You then restart your arguments as if no one had made any comments in response at all.

    And now you also want to change the subject entirely.

    Let’s see – this blog article was posted 23rd June – no one commented.

    Then Dingo did on 30th June.

    Then we did on 5th July.

    Pretty impressive jdc. That was a lot of people reading and commenting on your blog.

  46. jdc325 said,

    If you look at CHS’s comments, every insult or accusation he makes is something that’s been levelled at him (and not properly addressed) simply thrown back at the critics (without bothering to establish that they have done what he’s accused them of). He’s been rightly accused on various occasions of publishing content based on cherry-picking, being misleading, failing to answer criticisms, not being able to admit he is wrong, being evasive and so on. I can’t see where he refutes the claims that are made against him (claims made with substantiation, I might add) and I can’t see where he substantiates the identical counter-claims he makes.

    It turns out his sole tactic is to use variations of ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ It’s a bit bizarre. He just keeps repeating things like “misleading” and “cherry-picking” without actually demonstrating that anybody is guilty of these things. It’s cargo cult debate.

    Having dodged the allegation of cherry-picking, evaded the issue of conflating vaccine uptake with vaccine status of patients, and failed to comment on his other errors, he’s complained about every new criticism being a distraction from all the previous criticisms he’s failed to address. His latest distraction is to talk about how few people are reading my blog, using comments as a proxy for readers (brilliantly, this comes straight after a complaint that I want to change the subject). I think that’s unwise for several reasons. The most important reason* is that it’s obviously irrelevant to the discussion. Another transparent attempt at distraction from CHS.

    *Less important reasons include the fact that his original post has fewer comments, from fewer people, than the one he is mocking for being unpopular.

  47. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Read it again jdc – “You then restart your arguments as if no one had made any comments in response at all.”

    Whack-a-mole. Constant. Really boring.

  48. jdc325 said,

    No, not as if no one had made any comments in response at all but as if you hadn’t adequately addressed the various criticisms. Which you plainly haven’t.

  49. ChildHealthSafety said,

    OK jdc we will try the two-year-old child method.

    “Yes jdc – there, there – no need to cry – it’s all fine – you are right and we agree with you. Oh, that’s better isn’t it. Feeling better now? Here have a hanky”.

  50. Chris Preston said,

    You are starting to babble now CHS.

    You might find your time better served in correcting the errors on your blog. If you need help finding them, I am happy to continue to point them out for you.

  51. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Oh you mean that was not an error by you on CHS – the claim that “mother to baby transmission type of transmission” of hepatitis B “is relatively rare in the Western world is entirely down to vaccination.”

    Completely false of course.

    So you told that falsehood intentionally eh, Preston is that what you are saying – that would make you a liar – wouldn’t it?

    Always happy to help Chris :) .

  52. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Heh.

  53. ChildHealthSafety said,

    “Less important reasons include the fact that his original post has fewer comments, from fewer people, than the one he is mocking for being unpopular.”

    Heh – thanks for another example of how misleading you are jdc. You had nil comments within 5 days – CHS had 2 comments immediately and 7 within less than 36 hours.

    Blog posts get most readers within three days of posting.

    Always happy to help correct your errors etc etc jdc.

    :)

  54. dingo199 said,

    Now CHS wants to turn this into a pissing contest?

    He mocks JDC because his “Stuff and Nonsense” blog is what he calls “unpopular” (as if that proves anything anyway- JDC always values quality over quantity).

    JDC points out that this post of his about Measles in Pakistan has more comments than CHS’s did.

    CHS, instead of admitting that is indeed the case (you will note he never admits ever being wrong, not ever, never), now suggests that it is the speed with which people initially comment on a blog post that is important, and not the number of comments.

    What next CHS? Having failed to win the scientific argument, you now wish to win the biggest dick contest? Will you keep inventing new rules of “blog significance” until you can claim some form of hollow victory? How about a rule that blog comments made on a Wednesday don’t count, and those posted after midnight count double? And how about posts from Tahiti? Do they score triple bonus “big dick” points?

    Can you help us all out here and post a link to the internationally accepted rules of blog significance please? We all like to learn new facts, unlike you), so please enlighten us. [A link to the certified statutory regulatory agency publications on blog post significance would be most appreciated].

    Or maybe you are just showing you are a big dick, rather than possessing one?

  55. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Thanks Dingo. As if on cue. Reliable as ever.

    :)

  56. jdc325 said,

    To be fair, Dingo, CHS could have had lots of spam comments for that post. Or maybe he got lots of genuine responses and just deleted all the critical ones. Who knows what he’s counting.

  57. jdc325 said,

    If CHS would like to provide evidence that he had more comments on that post, I will happily retract my previous comment (based on the number of visible comments at CHS) and apologise for my error. Of course, if he would like to provide evidence that I’ve got anything else wrong then I’ll do likewise and retract.

    So, CHS. Care to provide evidence that there was no cherry-picking? Fancy backing up the argument that 50% of measles patients in Pakistan had been vaccinated (with something other than figures for vaccine uptake in the general population)?

  58. ChildHealthSafety said,

    No. Its become really boring on this blog.

    :)

  59. ChildHealthSafety said,

    And no one reads it either.

    :)

  60. Teacake said,

    And jdc325 smells of poo.

    :)

  61. Chris Preston said,

    CHS, this blog can’t be that boring as YOU read it and then post dribble in the comments. If we were to compare posts, this one has 60 replies, GPRS that is the subject has 10 replies ( being generous here and counting your replies to others). A bit of mathematics would say this post was 6 times as popular as yours. However, I should note that half the replies on your post are written by you.

  62. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Heh. You should know Teacake.

  63. ChildHealthSafety said,

    “A bit of mathematics would say this post was 6 times as popular as yours.”

    Heh. Your maths Preston is a wonky as always – like your stats.

    The first comment was by Dingo a week after this blog was posted – you know – when next to no one is reading it.

    That makes it popular according to your maths.

    That is the same way you make Hep B vaccination the reason why 600,000 UK infants pa don’t get infected by their mothers.

    Bit of a massive fail there eh, Preston. Did not factor in that it may be the mothers have never been Hep B vaccinated and aren’t infected in the first place might have a little bit to do with it.

    But hey, if it makes you happy – what the hell ……

    …….. nice of you to offer helping us out with maths though – we’ll pass on that – its the thought that counts – [except in your case it seems it can’t].

  64. dingo199 said,

    So according to CHS, the “popularity” of a blog post is defined by the rapidity with which someone posts a comment, and not the overall number of responses.

    Oh my, what a clever boy you are!
    Some things never change, some people never learn, some lawyers never admit to their stupidity or mistakes. Plus ca change…
    Is there an Olympic gold medal for deliberate disingenuous misdirection?

  65. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Heh.

    1 person comments 60 times = 60 people commenting once.

    Very popular – but with just the one person.

    Wot an educashonal blog.

    How you Dr Ben Goldacre BadScience Forum people misquote stats and misuse English is fabulous.

    “Is there an Olympic gold medal for deliberate disingenuous misdirection?”

  66. jdc325 said,

    So… when I offer to retract my criticisms and apologise if CHS can provide evidence that I am wrong he declines because my blog is boring and nobody reads it. Yet he is perfectly happy to continue reading and (ironically, given his earlier complaints) to chat to Dingo about irrelevant trivialities.

    If my blog has suddenly become interesting to you once again CHS, perhaps you would now like to provide the evidence that there was no cherry-picking, or that 50% of measles patients in Pakistan were vaccinated, or any of the other things you’ve claimed but failed to substantiate?

  67. ChildHealthSafety said,

    How misleading of you jdc: “when I offer to retract my criticisms and apologise”.

    Here is what you said – “I will happily retract my previous comment (based on the number of visible comments at CHS) and apologise for my error”.

    That is not referring to you offering to retract the claims you have made in this blog but to something completely different.

    So caught misleading yet again jdc.

    And here you are doing again as stated previously twice – “You … restart your arguments as if no one had made any comments in response at all.”

    You also repeat one of your common errors – you make an allegation which is ignored because it is not relevant and then assume you can repeat the allegation as if it were true.

    We cited figures from reviewed references, an official survey and from the same junk data you cited and rely on for this entire blog entry to show you were citing junk figures – and we stated so repeatedly.

    Your response is to do your usual thing of completely misrepresenting.

    It is the obsessive behavior of someone who can never admit to being wrong.

    We note you are so desperate for people to read your blog you engage in this kind of fantasy behavior.

  68. jdc325 said,

    How misleading of you jdc: “when I offer to retract my criticisms and apologise”.

    Here is what you said – “I will happily retract my previous comment (based on the number of visible comments at CHS) and apologise for my error”.

    That is not referring to you offering to retract the claims you have made in this blog but to something completely different.

    So caught misleading yet again jdc.

    Oh dear. Did you not read and understand the comment you were responding to CHS? Or did you read it, understand it, and decide to deliberately misrepresent it?

    Here is my comment. Here’s what it said, in full, with italics to emphasis the part you either missed or are pretending doesn’t exist:

    If CHS would like to provide evidence that he had more comments on that post, I will happily retract my previous comment (based on the number of visible comments at CHS) and apologise for my error. Of course, if he would like to provide evidence that I’ve got anything else wrong then I’ll do likewise and retract.

    So, CHS. Care to provide evidence that there was no cherry-picking? Fancy backing up the argument that 50% of measles patients in Pakistan had been vaccinated (with something other than figures for vaccine uptake in the general population)?

    Are you unable to read and understand short, clear comments or do you choose to deliberately misrepresent them? Once again it comes down to a question of whether you are incompetent or dishonest.

  69. jdc325 said,

    And here you are doing again as stated previously twice – “You … restart your arguments as if no one had made any comments in response at all.”

    You also repeat one of your common errors – you make an allegation which is ignored because it is not relevant and then assume you can repeat the allegation as if it were true.

    We cited figures from reviewed references, an official survey and from the same junk data you cited and rely on for this entire blog entry to show you were citing junk figures – and we stated so repeatedly.

    Your response is to do your usual thing of completely misrepresenting.

    It is the obsessive behavior of someone who can never admit to being wrong.

    We note you are so desperate for people to read your blog you engage in this kind of fantasy behavior.

    Wow. Despite it being pointed out to you, time and again, by different commentators, you still don’t seem to understand your error in conflating figures for vaccine uptake in the general population and vaccine status of infected individuals. You can cite figures from official surveys and peer-reviewed publications all you like – if they relate to vaccine uptake rather than vaccine status of infected individuals they will not support your claims regarding the vaccine status of infected individuals.

    I don’t think the obsessive behaviour, inability to admit error, or fantasy behaviour is mine CHS and I think that’s pretty clear to anybody who has read what has actually been posted in this thread.

  70. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Reporting a news story is not cherrypicking jdc. It is reporting a news story. Where is your retraction?

    This obsessive pedantic behaviour of ignoring all prior comments is truly breathtaking jdc as is the reliance on junk figures.

  71. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Oh dear jdc “Are you unable to read and understand short, clear comments or do you choose to deliberately misrepresent them? Once again it comes down to a question of whether you are incompetent or dishonest.”

    Here is classic cherrypicking by you jdc ” … your error in conflating figures for vaccine uptake in the general population and vaccine status of infected individuals”.

    We cited reviewed and official figures to show you were using junk figures – which we demonstrated in spades above and which you will not admit – because you will not admit you are wrong. [All previously dealt with and now ignored by you.]

    And had you not chosen to misread our trashing of Preston in just Comment 4 above you would have seen that. We posted:

    “What? James not able to answer for himself?

    Preston has been dealt with in spades here:
    http://tinyurl.com/pgn9ygm

    And there you will see we cited our figures for this purpose:

    “As you will see below it appears that it is correct that 50% of children in Pakistan [and not just Islamabad] have been vaccinated against measles. Bit of a fact-checking problem there Chris. Your calculation and claim that “So 80% of those catching measles in Pakistan are not fully vaccinated” appears completely misleading.

    It is of course based on your own thin but hot air and no source whatsoever.”

    So talk about misquoting jdc – you deliberately cherrypicked a claim which we were not making.

    So jdc do claim like Preston that 80% of children in Pakistan have not been vaccinated?

  72. ChildHealthSafety said,

    How is this for cherrypicking by you jdc.

    You cited an editorial in a newspaper – not even a fact-checked news report – to make this claim “it seems likely that a minority of patients with measles in Pakistan have been vaccinated” [All previously dealt with above and much more].

    You quoted this from the unsubstantiated unsourced editorial: “Out of thousands of cases, 60 per cent of children — most of them below five years of age — were not administered even a single dose.”

    Yet a couple of days later the same paper published a proper news report of the account of a leading pediatrician complaining that 50% of cases from the capital city and wide areas of Pakistan had been vaccinated – and that was from the Childrens Hospital of Pakistan´s Institute of Medical Sciences. [All previously dealt with above and much more].

    And that leading pediatrician is not quoted claiming the children were not fully vaccinated – that was cherrypicking you – you ran off like a headless chicken to detailed but self-admitted junk statistical reports to make that claim.

    So even worse than cherrypicking – you chose to rewrite what the original news report claimed – because you did not like it because it did not say what you wanted it to say – it contradicted your deeply held beliefs – and that is just like you did with a news report by a Daily Mail journalist – because you are obsessive and pedantic. [As previously dealt with above and much more].

    Reporting a news story is not cherrypicking jdc. It is reporting a news story. Where is your retraction?

  73. jdc325 said,

    CHS, you falsely accused me of being misleading. When I point this out your response is not to retract your false allegation (let alone apologise for making it) but to ignore the issue entirely. Instead of doing the right thing, you choose to make three new comments that ignore your false accusation (but contain much that is wrong – which I will get to shortly in another comment).

    It’s bad enough that you make false accusations. It’s worse that you refuse to correct the record by retracting those false accusations when it’s pointed out to you that you were unarguably wrong to make them. It might have been an honest mistake to wrongly accuse me of being misleading but failing to set the record straight is dishonest.

  74. jdc325 said,

    Reporting a news story is not cherrypicking jdc.

    Selectively reporting one figure from one article and ignoring all other reports is cherry-picking. The original post from NSNBC argued that vaccination was ineffective. To back up their argument they went looking for a figure they could use. They selectively quoted a figure that suited their purpose. They ignored material that was unfavourable to their argument. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29 and then tell me why NSNBC’s cherry-picking wasn’t cherry-picking. If you have your own special definition of cherry-picking then do please provide it.

  75. jdc325 said,

    Here is classic cherrypicking by you jdc ” … your error in conflating figures for vaccine uptake in the general population and vaccine status of infected individuals”.

    We cited reviewed and official figures to show you were using junk figures – which we demonstrated in spades above and which you will not admit – because you will not admit you are wrong. [All previously dealt with and now ignored by you.]

    And had you not chosen to misread our trashing of Preston in just Comment 4 above you would have seen that. We posted:

    “What? James not able to answer for himself?

    Preston has been dealt with in spades here:
    http://tinyurl.com/pgn9ygm

    That’s pretty impressive stuff CHS. You’ve responded to a comment I made about you conflating vaccine uptake with vaccine status of infected individuals by linking to a comment you posted on your blog… in which you cite a paper looking at vaccine uptake and argue that it shows the proportion of infected individuals who are vaccinated. Chris’s comment related to “those catching measles in Pakistan” and your figure related to those in Pakistan – i.e. both people with measles and people without measles.

    You are arguing that I am wrong to accuse you of conflating vaccine uptake with vaccine status of individuals and linking to an example of you doing just that in order to back up your argument. Good grief.

  76. jdc325 said,

    The third comment isn’t as funny as the one I’ve just dissected, but there is a spurious claim that the figure NSNBC and CHS relied upon, and only that figure, will have been fact-checked. There’s also a spurious claim that I’ve rewritten the news article and a whine that this is something I’ve done before.

    I believe this is the post about a Daily Mail journalist that CHS is whining about: https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/sue-reid-on-mmr-in-the-daily-mail/

  77. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Lots of words jdc but you have not answered.

    Reporting a news story is not cherrypicking jdc. It is reporting a news story.

    Where is your retraction?

  78. jdc325 said,

    CHS, I think you will find I have answered that point. You might like to re-read this (or, perhaps, read it for the first time – you do seem to respond to comments without reading them on occasion):

    Selectively reporting one figure from one article and ignoring all other reports is cherry-picking. The original post from NSNBC argued that vaccination was ineffective. To back up their argument they went looking for a figure they could use. They selectively quoted a figure that suited their purpose. They ignored material that was unfavourable to their argument. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29 and then tell me why NSNBC’s cherry-picking wasn’t cherry-picking. If you have your own special definition of cherry-picking then do please provide it.

    That what NSNBC cherry-picked was a figure from a news report makes no odds. Selective reporting of a single figure where other figures exist is cherry-picking wherever that figure comes from. If there were some justification for selecting a single, imprecise, unverified figure from one doctor at a single hospital in one location in Pakistan, quoted in a single article, in order to argue that measles vaccine was ineffective then I guess you would have presented it by now. Instead, you have chosen to pretend that NSNBC didn’t do what they did. Unconvincing.

    I’d like to say I find it surprising that while you refuse to retract your clearly false accusation in comment 68, which was demonstrated to be false in the very next comment, you are insisting that I retract an accusation of cherry-picking that clearly has merit. Sadly, I’m familiar enough with the way you debate to expect no better.

    NSNBC cherry-picked a figure. I don’t see why I should retract my claim that they have done so, when it is quite clear to anybody who knows what cherry-picking is that it is true. You falsely accused me of being misleading (as can be clearly seen from comment 69 in this thread) and yet will not retract.

    I find it bizarre that you refuse to retract a blatant untruth (let alone apologise for it) and insist that I retract something that is clearly true. I suspect if anybody other than the two of us is still reading this exchange they will find it equally bizarre.

  79. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Lots of words jdc but you have not answered.

    nsnbc was reporting a specific news story which dealt with a specific problem. It was not ignoring all other reports – it was dealing with that specific news story. You are not dealing with a journal paper here jdc. It is a news report.

    Reporting a news story is not cherrypicking jdc. It is reporting a news story. That specific news story in the Tribune was not cherrypicking and nor was nsnbc.

    Where is your retraction?

    You are cherrypicking specific facts and ignoring others to mislead – as you always do.

    The news story was 50% of measles cases from the capital city and wide areas of Pakistan had been vaccinated as reported by a leading pediatrician in the children’s hospital who was complaining that was the case. And that was from the Childrens Hospital of Pakistan´s Institute of Medical Sciences. It was not “just one hospital” and it is not “just one figure”.

    We are sticking to the main point and have not responded to your distractions from that. And don’t cite unreliable sources like Wikipedia – and especially not the definitions of slang words – some of which seem to change on a daily or weekly basis.

  80. jdc325 said,

    So reporting one news story and ignoring all others isn’t cherry-picking, the Children’s Hospital (i.e. one hospital, where others exist) is not just one hospital and the 50% figure (i.e. one figure, where others exist) is not just one figure. That’s your argument? Really?

    And if you dispute Wikipedia’s definition of cherry-picking, you’re free to say what definition you are using (as I have already said). What definition of cherry-picking are you using? You’re using the phrase, so do please tell me your definition of it. I’m intrigued.

  81. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Reporting a news story is not cherrypicking jdc. It is reporting a news story. You don’t deny it. Difficult to. You would have to accuse all newspapers of cherrypicking with pretty much every story they write every day of the week. [And Wikipedia is not a reliable source.]

  82. Chris Preston said,

    Wow, what a popular blog post this is. Look at all the comments!

    CHS, you are clearly not getting the hang of this. The NSNBC story you re-printed was based on a news story covering the comments of one doctor at one hospital in Pakistan. The author of the piece then tried to claim this was representative of Pakistan as a whole. Not only that, they misrepresented what the doctor had said in the interview.

    And just to prove to us you really are a chump, you are still claiming that I stated 80% of children in Pakistan had not been vaccinated. What I actually stated was that 80% of children catching measles in Pakistan had not been fully vaccinated. I suspect even the village idiot would be able to recognise the difference between the two, but clearly you cannot.

  83. jdc325 said,

    You seem to have trouble with the notions that something can have more than one property or that a person can do more than one thing with one action. You can report on measles in Pakistan by, among other things, cherry picking a single, unverified figure from one article.You can both report and cherry-pick. The two are not mutually exclusive. In the same way that (and this will blow your mind) you can make shoes that are both blue and suede. The fact that the shoes are suede does not mean they are not blue. The fact that NSNBC reported on a figure from a news story does not mean that the figure was not cherry picked.

    How about you stop complaining that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for a definition of cherry-picking and actually tell me what your definition is and where it comes from? What do you think I’ve accused NSNBC of? Because I think it’s pretty clear and I’d be very interested to see what alternative you have in mind.

  84. jdc325 said,

    @Chris

    What’s particularly impressive about CHS’s comment here is that he actually quotes himself stating that you referred to vaccine status of measles patients and and responding with a reference to vaccine uptake in the general population.

    “As you will see below it appears that it is correct that 50% of children in Pakistan [and not just Islamabad] have been vaccinated against measles. Bit of a fact-checking problem there Chris. Your calculation and claim that “So 80% of those catching measles in Pakistan are not fully vaccinated” appears completely misleading.

    It is of course based on your own thin but hot air and no source whatsoever.”

    Children in Pakistan. Those catching measles in Pakistan. Children in Pakistan. Those catching measles in Pakistan.

    How on earth can he possibly not see that the figures relate to different groups? The first group is children, with or without measles. The second group excludes those who have not caught measles.

    I genuinely can’t understand how someone could type that out and still not get it.

  85. ChildHealthSafety said,

    Changing the subject again jdc and Preston.

    You seem to have trouble with the notion that a news story is reporting a particular item of news and is not a review of all journal papers published on a subject – so cannot be cherrypicking but is reporting that particular item of news.

    To claim otherwise is to accuse all newspapers of cherrypicking with pretty much every story they write every day of the week.

    It is no basis for claiming a news report of a particular news event is cherrypicking and particularly not when the news event is a pediatrician complaining that 50% of measles cases from a wide area of Pakistan had been vaccinated.

    Time for your promised retraction of your claims in this blog jdc.

    And Preston has already demonstrated his problems with comprehension, stats and maths over his claim that vaccination is responsible for children not being infected by Hepatitis B by their mothers during birth.

    The truth is that most UK mothers are not infected and that is the reason. And well over 99% are not routinely Hep B vaccinated and clearly the newborns prior to birth have not been either so Hep B vaccination has nothing whatever to do with it.

    “I suspect even the village idiot would be able to recognise the difference”.

    But just for the record – comprehension time boys re Preston’s claim about measles vaccination – note the “and” in “Your calculation and claim”.

    Preston’s calculation was based on junk figures from an unsourced unsubstantiated newspaper editorial.

    Preston added in his own unsubstantiated claim that “proper immunisation requires two doses of the vaccine” with the WHO [self-admittedly junk] figures for vaccine uptake of 80% having at least one dose.

    But Preston was arguing 80% of children catching measles had not been immunised because “80% of those catching measles in Pakistan are not fully vaccinated.”

    But the Tribune report was quoting a leading pediatrician from the Pakistan Institute of Medical Science that 50% of those catching measles had been vaccinated in the capital and in a wide area of Pakistan.

    And peer reviewed sources and official census data from only a few years earlier recorded at least 50% of children had been vaccinated. So Preston’s 80% invented figure is just that – invented on the basis of junk data from a newspaper editorial.

    That is not just cherrypicking – that is cobbling together disparate pieces of information from different places and inventing new figures not in any news report.

  86. ChildHealthSafety said,

    jdc you have also accused nsnbc of cherrypicking because it did not reported the claims which you and Preston have made after the event. That also cannot found a valid allegation of cherrypicking.

    So we look forward to the promised retraction.

  87. ChildHealthSafety said,

    “reported” should be “report”.

  88. Rebecca Fisher said,

    I genuinely can’t understand how someone could type that out and still not get it.

    Someone who’s colossally thick maybe?

  89. Chris Preston said,

    CHS, you are obviously still struggling with this. To help out I will see if I can spell it out in words of one syllable or less.

    Data from the WHO states that 80% or more of children in Pakistan have had one measles vaccine. 53% have had a booster. To be fully vaccinated, they need to have had the booster. That is all children in Pakistan.

    Recent figures reported in the Pakistani Press state that 80% of children catching measles have not been fully vaccinated (60% not at all and 20% with only one vaccination). That is children in Pakistan catching measles.

    This of course has nothing to do with Hep B vaccination or any of the other obfuscations you have raised. Sorry there is a long word in there that you may not understand. The dictionary will be your friend.

  90. jdc325 said,

    In his first comment under this blog post (comment #2), Child Health Safety boldly proclaimed that I was wrong. In fact, he said I was “yet again just plain wrong”. He said it was time for an apology and that I should take down my blog post. This was all based on his mistaken assumption that he had found some evidence to support the claim that 50% of measles patients in Pakistan had been vaccinated. In fact, his (out-of-date) evidence showed that 50% of children with or without measles had been vaccinated. It was pointed out to him in comments #3 and #5 that he’d mixed up vaccine uptake and vaccine status of infected individuals. His entire comment, his entire original defence of the NSNBC post that he reposted, was based on the wrong figure. A figure for vaccine uptake rather than vaccine status of infected individuals.

    Having decided originally to talk about nothing but these figures for vaccine uptake, he is now complaining that other people are discussing something he brought up – he wants to talk about anything but those figures. I suspect he has finally realised what a silly mistake he made in his original attempt to defend NSNBC and himself against criticism. Hence his insistence on telling other commenters what they should and should not discuss.

    As it’s crystal clear to anybody who has read the comments under this piece what a howler CHS made in his original defence, I’m happy to leave it to one side now and discuss whatever CHS wants to talk about. Whether it’s his spurious claim that cherry-picking is only cherry-picking if it’s done in the course of a systematic review, or his spurious claim that I didn’t offer to retract my criticisms if presented with evidence they were wrong, or the relative popularity of our blogs or how boring they are.

    So, CHS, what do you want to talk about? Pick a subject and I will stick to it. (Other people, obviously, are free to comment on whatever interests them. Whether you want to engage with them or not is entirely up to you.)

  91. spiniker said,

    all of this ‘is she, isn’t she’ is a distraction. Most vaccine companies will admit that even if their vaccines worked, they only last 10 years. Most adults I know don’t go for 10 yearly top ups so we can assume that once one has escaped the mass woo of childhood vaccines the myth of herd immunity has gone anyway. The only studies done on ‘herd immunity’ were with non vaccinated conditions so borrowing data to support it in vaccinated communities is not very scientific., but that’s medical science for you.

    So when was the last diphtheria outbreak or tetanus pandemic? Oh and the last mumps epidemic occurred in almost exclusively vaccinated people according to the CDC and was at a time of the highest vaccine coverage ever recorded.

    Just leave it, vaccination is medieval woo at best, you look silly trying to debunk instead of waking up.

    Stop polishing a turd and get real.

  92. jdc325 said,

    spiniker, you’re asking about when we last had outbreaks of various vaccine-preventable diseases. You can’t have failed to note that (a) we vaccinate against them, making outbreaks less likely and (b) this post is about an outbreak of measles – one of several in the last couple of years, due to inadequate uptake of the vaccine. We’ve had a measles outbreak in Wales, there’s an ongoing outbreak in the Netherlands, and the post you are commenting on refers to an outbreak in Pakistan. As for your made-up claim about vaccines only lasting ten years if they work at all – I’d ask you to provide the evidence for each vaccine regarding waning immunity but we both know you don’t have any. Waning immunity is a known problem with the pertussis vaccine (and one that is being addressed). There are plenty of other vaccines that don’t have the same issue. You are simply pretending that they do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: