Response: Antivaccinationists promote a bogus internet “survey.”

Where to start? If you read my recent article about the study showing that kids who receive vaccines are more likely to suffer from allergies, ADHD, autism, and other chronic conditions than their unvaccinated counterparts, you know why the vax pushers have their feathers ruffled.

And now we have this piece of scientific evidence that proves the study was wrong, because science blogs science better. Because science.

The article begins by highlighting the flaws in these types of studies: they are done via surveys. I understand the problem with surveys. They’re not definitive. There’s room for error.

However, this particular study offers a glimpse into something many ex-pro-vax parents (that’s right- we were also once pro-vax, til we and/or our kids paid the price) already know or suspect: vaccinated kids suffer from more chronic conditions than unvaccinated kids.

That’s just what it is: a glimpse. And a clear cry for more research to be done.

But here’s the thing, science blogs. That research won’t be done by the researchers you trust and respect because they don’t want this information to see the light of day.

Further, the article goes on to link the study’s author to Dr. Andrew Wakefield. That conversation does not belong here or in any article discussing the study in reference. The two have nothing to do with one another, and bringing up Andrew Wakefield every time you want to silence an antivaccinationist (come on, you just made that word up.) doesn’t further your cause.

Whether or not Wakefield’s study was good science, you cannot continue using his doctorly (I can make words up too.) demise to prove your points. It’s just bad form. Much research has been done since that study; he was exonerated; move on.

Next, we see one of the peer reviewer’s credentials analyzed. Dr. Linda Mullin Elkins, a chiropractor, and clearly a practitioner of the worst type of woo to be found. Nevermind that she had a practice for 23 years, and, mind you, chiropractors are doctors subject to schooling and licensing.

But science blogs is determined to tear apart any bit of science that doesn’t fit into their worldview.

Finally, we see the claim that Dr. Mawson’s study was retracted. This is simply not true. It was not retracted, rather, unpublished, due to “a handful of negative tweets about the abstract.” (This from Boyle Public Affairs, who represents Dr. Mawson.) The response goes on to say:

It should be noted that these attacks on the abstract were made by sources who had not read the actual study upon which it was based. Also, these tweets were exponentially outnumbered by those in support of the publication of the peer-reviewed study. The organizations that funded this study remain hopeful that Frontiers’ publishers will maintain their high ethical standards and publish the paper based on its merit and the rigorous reviews it has endured.

In other words, as usual, the vaccine pushers are so loud, and so onerous, that the truth is forced to fold. This is how they further their cause: they shout and they lie. (See above point: headline claims study was “retracted,” pro-vax pushers pick up the headline and run with it. Being repeated by the masses doesn’t make it true.)

When every bit of information that paints vaccines in a negative light is squashed, one is forced to wonder: what are we so afraid of? And furthermore, who is responsible for the squashing?

The only hilarity ensuing here is that of informed parents realizing you just don’t get it.

We don’t care to go round and round about Andy Wakefield. We don’t care that you don’t buy what we’re selling. And we no longer trust doctors or other authority figures just because of your credentials. And we’re okay with that. The fact that these types of blogs continue to bully us in hopes of silencing or, I don’t know converting?, us? That’s hilarious.