Updated: See end of posting
Updated Again
After the GMC decision was made public, Wakefield's name was dropped from the Editorial Board of Autism Insights.
Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in children with Autistic spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal symptoms (Krigsman)
Sent a letter to Copernicus regarding the use of their non-institutional commercial ethics review board approval for the Krigsman study. Here are parts of it.
Sirs:
I believe that your organization may have been taken advantage of by allowing your good name to be associated with research that was specifically refused IRB approval.
Today Dr. Andrew Wakefield and others was found by the UK Medical Licensing Board (GMC) to have been part of a scheme for research on children, including colonoscopies, that was not clinically indicated WITHOUT the necessary IRB approval.
Today, as part of countering this fact finding, groups supporting Dr. Wakefield, such as Age of Autism have made a splash about the research done by Dr. Krigsman, formerly of Lenox Hill Hospital, now part of Thoughtful House where Wakefield is executive director.
The PDF link is here. Autism Insights has an editorial board on which both Wakefield and Krigsman are members.
The Krigsman paper states
"Data review was conducted in accordance with Copernicus Group Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight and protocol approval. All endoscopic examinations were clinically indicated and IRB approval was limited to retrospective review and compilation of fndings using these procedures.Medical records were reviewed for 143 consecutive patients, with ASD or related diagnosis, referred for evaluation of chronic GI complaints, who underwent subsequent diagnostic ileocolonoscopy and biopsy for suspected bowel infammatory disorders. Age, sex, developmental diagnosis, presenting gastrointestinal symptoms, and histopathologic fndings were tabulated. Patients were referred either by primary care physicians or parents. Informed consent was obtained for each child included in the study."
and
"All colonoscopies were performed in the endoscopy unit of Lenox Hill Hospital, New York."
This research should not have received your approval as it was the subject of IRB approval at the Lenox Hill hospital where it was refused permission, both as to the research nature of the colonoscopies and as to the informed consent when he changed the proposal to one that only looked at past cases. The hospital was very concerned that procedures that weren't clinically indicated were being carried out. This was the subject of a court order dismissing a lawsuit brought by Dr. Krigsman Further documentation on Dr. Krigsman and Dr. Wakefield can be found here.
The issue at Lenox Hill was the issue at the Royal Free Hospital for which Dr. Wakefield and others may lose their medical license. That there were highly invasive research procedures carried out on children for research purposes without having the necessary IRB approval. Procedures on children for which approval was needed. One of the charges against Dr. Wakefield was related to the IRB statement in the infamous 1998 Lancet study.
Dr. Krigsman has been tidier when he stated
"All endoscopic examinations were clinically indicated and IRB approval was limited to retrospective review and compilation of fndings using these procedures."
The colonoscopies were done years ago, but Autism Insights only published the study in their 2:2010 issue. Seems pretty deliberate to drag you into the Wakefield mess. Even for their own in-house peer reviewed journal they probably needed some IRB approval. And they found you.
I doubt that you had the above publicly available informaton when you approved Dr.Krigsman's study. You should act very quickly to remove your IRB approval before you damage your reputation.
Updated February 18. 2010
On page 3, under the heading Statistical Analysis (spss 16.1) is the following:
The study protocol conforms to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki (6th revision, 2008) as reflected in a priori approval by the institution's human research committee.
The only institution involved was the Lenox Hill Hospital and they turned down his research requests.
Friday, January 29, 2010
162/95 or 162-95 The Two Studies Defense of Dr. Wakefield is Nonsense
This blog entry is useful because it gathers together information on 162-95 in a neat package. But it is wrong because 162-95, clinically indicated procedures and to some extent the discussion of 172-96 doesn't matter in determining what was and what was not medical research.
This blog entry is incorrect because it doesn't recognize that the only issue that counts in determining what was and was not medical research was the intent of the three doctors. 162-95 and the concept of 'clinically indicated' have nothing to do with the determination of what was and what was not research.
I got it wrong. I'm certainly not the only one.
Abstract: Key to the defense of Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch was their nonsensical argument that any research component of their clinically indicated investigations had been approved under a different study, not 172-96. Specific details on this other study have been missing from the internet. Now you can read the application and the approval letter for 162/95. It is laughable. It lets Professor Walker-Smith take two additional biopsies for research purposes during colonoscopies he performs. That's it.
The GMC specifically rejected this argument.
The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162-95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.
Compare two extra Biopsies to 172-96
As opposed to taking two additional biopsies during routine colonoscopies, here is the proposal submitted to the Ethics Committee in August 1996 for 172-96. and here is the proposed timetable.
Before 172-96 was approved
- The Schilling test was removed,
- A letter from Dr. Walker-Smith specifying that all tests would be done even without this trial
- and the consent form modified
For most children used in The Lancet Study, this intensive regime, to use Walker-Smith's own words, the protocol was carried out.
Perhaps out of embarrassment, specific details of 162-95 haven't been put on the internet. Thanks to a fanciful complaint to the GMC by Vaccines cause Autism groups against 5 doctors, including Dr. Michael Pegg, head of the ethics committee starting in 1996, we now have the details.
162-95 162/95 Vaccines Cause Autism Groups Complaint to The GMC
The following is all of the statements, testimony and exhibits in the complaint related to 162-95 or Dr. Pegg. Editorial comments on the meaning of the statements, testimony and exhibits has been removed.
-------------------- start exhibits, testimony and statements on 162-95 or Dr.Pegg--------------
Walker-Smith gets permission to take 2 additional biopsies for research purposes for colonoscopies he performs
On August 24, 1995, Professor Walker-Smith wrote to the Royal Free ethics committee:
For some years at Barts during the course of colonoscopy in children we have had ethical permission to take two extra mucosal biopsies for research purposes. During colonoscopy children routinely have multiple biopsies taken for diagnostic purpose (4-6). The parents have signed a form as attached granting permission. These biopsies are used for a variety of research investigations such as cytokine production where on occasion information of direct and immediate importance to the child’s illness has been obtained as well as of research importance.
I would be very grateful if you would grant permission for this to continue after our move to the Royal Free.
Pegg Tr. 8-54E; Ex. 37.
The September 5, 1995 response from the Secretary of the Ethics committee was:
Re The taking of two extra mucosal biopsies for research purposes during the course of colonoscopy in children. I am pleased to be able to inform you that your recent submission to the Ethical Practices Sub-Committee has now received approval by Chairman’s Action.
This approval will be formally documented at the next meeting of the full committee and meanwhile you are free to carry out the above procedure at the Royal Free.
Please note the code number 162-95 that the submission has been given and quote this in all correspondence.
Ex. 38.
Dr.Pegg in his statement said:
[Walker-Smith's July 15, 1996 letter to the committee] also mentioned that the team “already have research permission for taking extra biopsies in children that we colonoscope.” The reference to “research permission” is when samples are taken from waste tissue in the course of normal surgery, and is necessary to obtain patient consent for the tissue to be retained and used for research purposes. The type of consent form is standard and is often produced to all patients as a matter of course. It is my understanding that Professor Walker-Smith wanted to retain tissue samples from all of his child patients at that time, and this is very common practice. This is so that samples can be retained for research purposes. This requires patient consent but not LREC approval. In fact, prior to 1999, the retention of tissue in this was often done without patient consent and many practitioners would consider this to be acceptable practice at that time.
Pegg Stmt. ¶ 55 (Ex. 104).
Testimony of Pegg replying to questions from GMC 'prosecutor' Sally Smitg, QC
Smith (on direct): Can you explain to us, remembering again we are all starting from scratch, so in simple terms, the reference to Professor Walker-Smith saying: “We already have research permission for taking extra biopsies in children who we olonoscope”, is that - --?
Pegg: That is another study.
Smith: Can you just explain that? How does that come about? Was that a general research application?
Pegg: They had made a previous application to take extra biopsies for children who were colonoscoped, and there is an information sheet and everything for that.
Smith: Was that children who were being colonoscoped in the course of normal clinical practice?
Pegg: It was for every colonoscopy they do they to ok an extra sample, I think, but they had a permission for it and an information sheet for it.
Smith: Was that normal practice within the hospital at that time for doctors to have a general research permission in respect of their patients?
Pegg: I think it is ahead of practice at that time. I think if you go into the College of Physicians’ guidance there was a view at that time that it was not even necessary to get consent.
Smith: If you were just taking an extra sample?
Pegg: Taking extra. There was a body of opinion at that time who did not even think that approval was necessary to take extra … If you were actually doing the investigation, i.e. the patient was not having any more risk, then taking extra samples you do not even need permission for, so this was almost ahead of feelings at that time, and of course we know now things have changed.
Smith: Yes, and that is as a result of all the --- ?
Pegg: Yes, but remember this is pre the new Tissue Acts and all that sort of thing where practices were very different.
Smith: When you say it involved no extra risk for the patient, do you mean they were going to undergo ---
Pegg: You are going to have a colonoscope anyway, we are going to take one, can we take another one?
Smith: So you were taking one for clinical diagnostic purposes?
Pegg: Yes,.
Smith: And in addition to that you take an extra one for research purposes?
Pegg: Yes, with the risk being putting the colonoscope in, which you are already doing.
Pegg. Tr. 8-45E.
Testimony of Dr. Pegg on Cross-Examination by Coonan
Coonan: This grant of ethical committee approval, which is numbered 162-95, was an approval which was capable of running continuously throughout the period with which we are concerned, was it not?
Pegg: Yes.
Coonan: We see that it relates to the taking of two extra mucosal biopsies, and we see that in the main heading, two extra ones, during the course of colonoscopy in children, and the taking of those two extra for research would therefore permit histology to be taken, is that right?
Pegg: It did not state what they were going to be used for, so by inference they could be used for anything.
Coonan: Well, in the light of that answer it therefore follows logically, it is a matter of common sense, that it at least extended to histology, yes?
Pegg: Well, as I say, the ethics committee is concerned with the risk to the child, therefore it has approved the biopsies. Whatever you use them for is not going to increase the risk to the patient.
You can list a hundred things they can do with those and I will answer “Yes” to every single one of your questions, so if you give the list I will answer “Yes” to your questions.
Coonan: I will give you enormous reassurance because there are only two particular matters on my list that I want to put in front of you. The first, as I said a minute ago, is histology.
Pegg: As I said, I would say yes to that.
Coonan: The second one is immunohistochemistry.
Pegg: I will say yes to that. It does not matter what you say.
Coonan: It is just that I am using your evidence to assist the Panel.
Pegg: There is no relevance to an ethics committee as to what you do with them, because except for genetic research which was not even here in that era, we are not worried, it is no risk to the child whatever you do with those things. So that is not really our concern. It is just the taking of them that we are concerned with, so you can do what you like with them.
Coonan: Just to complete the picture on the biopsy front – just go back to volume 1 in the pro forma application at page 209, right at the bottom of the page, Dr Pegg, if you have got it, in terms of biopsies the difference between 162/95 and 172/96 is the fact that the people concerned with this study wanted to take an additional biopsy. Do you see that at the bottom of the page 209?
Pegg: Yes.
Pegg Tr. 9-24G.
-------------------end exhibits, testimony and statements on 162-95 or Dr.Pegg--------------
Testimony of Pegg replying to questions from GMC 'prosecutor' Sally Smitg, QC
Smith (on direct): Can you explain to us, remembering again we are all starting from scratch, so in simple terms, the reference to Professor Walker-Smith saying: “We already have research permission for taking extra biopsies in children who we olonoscope”, is that - --?
Pegg: That is another study.
Smith: Can you just explain that? How does that come about? Was that a general research application?
Pegg: They had made a previous application to take extra biopsies for children who were colonoscoped, and there is an information sheet and everything for that.
Smith: Was that children who were being colonoscoped in the course of normal clinical practice?
Pegg: It was for every colonoscopy they do they to ok an extra sample, I think, but they had a permission for it and an information sheet for it.
Smith: Was that normal practice within the hospital at that time for doctors to have a general research permission in respect of their patients?
Pegg: I think it is ahead of practice at that time. I think if you go into the College of Physicians’ guidance there was a view at that time that it was not even necessary to get consent.
Smith: If you were just taking an extra sample?
Pegg: Taking extra. There was a body of opinion at that time who did not even think that approval was necessary to take extra … If you were actually doing the investigation, i.e. the patient was not having any more risk, then taking extra samples you do not even need permission for, so this was almost ahead of feelings at that time, and of course we know now things have changed.
Smith: Yes, and that is as a result of all the --- ?
Pegg: Yes, but remember this is pre the new Tissue Acts and all that sort of thing where practices were very different.
Smith: When you say it involved no extra risk for the patient, do you mean they were going to undergo ---
Pegg: You are going to have a colonoscope anyway, we are going to take one, can we take another one?
Smith: So you were taking one for clinical diagnostic purposes?
Pegg: Yes,.
Smith: And in addition to that you take an extra one for research purposes?
Pegg: Yes, with the risk being putting the colonoscope in, which you are already doing.
Pegg. Tr. 8-45E.
Testimony of Dr. Pegg on Cross-Examination by Coonan
Coonan: This grant of ethical committee approval, which is numbered 162-95, was an approval which was capable of running continuously throughout the period with which we are concerned, was it not?
Pegg: Yes.
Coonan: We see that it relates to the taking of two extra mucosal biopsies, and we see that in the main heading, two extra ones, during the course of colonoscopy in children, and the taking of those two extra for research would therefore permit histology to be taken, is that right?
Pegg: It did not state what they were going to be used for, so by inference they could be used for anything.
Coonan: Well, in the light of that answer it therefore follows logically, it is a matter of common sense, that it at least extended to histology, yes?
Pegg: Well, as I say, the ethics committee is concerned with the risk to the child, therefore it has approved the biopsies. Whatever you use them for is not going to increase the risk to the patient.
You can list a hundred things they can do with those and I will answer “Yes” to every single one of your questions, so if you give the list I will answer “Yes” to your questions.
Coonan: I will give you enormous reassurance because there are only two particular matters on my list that I want to put in front of you. The first, as I said a minute ago, is histology.
Pegg: As I said, I would say yes to that.
Coonan: The second one is immunohistochemistry.
Pegg: I will say yes to that. It does not matter what you say.
Coonan: It is just that I am using your evidence to assist the Panel.
Pegg: There is no relevance to an ethics committee as to what you do with them, because except for genetic research which was not even here in that era, we are not worried, it is no risk to the child whatever you do with those things. So that is not really our concern. It is just the taking of them that we are concerned with, so you can do what you like with them.
Coonan: Just to complete the picture on the biopsy front – just go back to volume 1 in the pro forma application at page 209, right at the bottom of the page, Dr Pegg, if you have got it, in terms of biopsies the difference between 162/95 and 172/96 is the fact that the people concerned with this study wanted to take an additional biopsy. Do you see that at the bottom of the page 209?
Pegg: Yes.
Pegg Tr. 9-24G.
-------------------end exhibits, testimony and statements on 162-95 or Dr.Pegg--------------
Monday, January 18, 2010
Wakefield sunk by Walker-Smith August 2008
Corrected February 24, 2010
Out of the mouth of Professor Walker-Smith, comes proof that Andy Wakefield isn't the paragon of virtue of http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/ and that he, Walker-Smith and Murch are all guilty of professional misconduct.
Since at least August 2008, anyone closely falling the proceedings before the GMC knew that Professor Walker-Smith gave sufficient evidence that he, Wakefield and Murch were guilty of performing research procedures on children without the approval of the ethics committee of the hospital where the procedures were carrired out.
Before and after November 1996, despite a written assurance in November 1996 by Walker-Smith to the ethics committee that all procedures were clinically indicated, research procedures were carried out.
A clinically indicated procedure is one that is carried out in the course of looking after a patient and is intended for the individual benefit of the patient. For our purposes, a research procedure is one that is intended for the general benefit of patients. The distinction may not always be clear. Where there is a research protocol or other documents in writing, it is much easier to make the distinction.
Correction: A clinically indicated procedure can be medical research requiring Ethcs Committee approval. That was the case at the Royal Free. That is why at the end of Dr. Pegg's testimony to the GMC hearing, the defendants were pretty much done.
Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch have claimed that there were multiple studies, research processes or just plain data gathering and analysis of information gained through clinically indicated procedures of patients. They submitted a proposal to the ethics committee dated August 6, 1996 that matches very closely the week long timetable for procedures carried out on the children. The August 6th document specifies that the procedures are clinically indicated.
Whether there were zero studies, one study or a million studies, by September 4, 1996 when he was sent a letter by the hospital Chief Executive, Wakefield knew that he needed written ethics committee approval for any procedures on the children which were not clinically indicated.
By this time, some of the children used for the 1998 Lancet study had already had research procedures done on them. The most obvious being lumbar punctures done on children without any indication of infection.
Despite the August 6th document stating that all procedures were clinically indicated, the ethics committee was concerned that procedures were being done for research as opposed to clinically indicated reasons. So Walker-Smith sent them a letter dated November 11, 1996 which stated, "I can confirm that children would have these investigations even if there were no trial."
The three had to lie because otherwise the ethics committee would have shut them down until this was looked at in great detail. The committee might have expressly forbidden the research. They may have already told the committee what was in Walker-Smith's November 1996 letter, that they had already investigated 5 children.
The Wakefield theory was that there was a difference in the GI tracts of autistic children through which autistic causing elements escaped the GI tract and reached the brain. So the three needed to examine, invasively, by endoscopies a lumbar punctures and other procedures any differences of these children who did not have classic Crohn's.
As well as looking for physical differences through GI tract biopsies, they would look for measles virus in the intestinal biopsies and the spinal fluid.
So Walker-Smith lied. He lied again in his November 1996 letter to the ethics committee, with copies to Wakefield and Murch. He repeated the lie in 2004.
In August 2008, while denying all wrong doing to the GMC (see http://briandeer.com/solved/story-highlights.htm for this and a great explanation of the whole sorry mess) Walker-Smith tells a different story. It sinks all three of them.
I don't have a transcript. But according to this newspaper report, Walker-Smith explained the lumbar punctures as being "in the children's best interests to perform the controversial lumbar punctures - also known as spinal taps. He told the panel he thought he was doing the parents of these children (referred to by number rather than name in the proceedings) a service so they could rule out neurological disorders in the future."
Whether you think this is a good idea or not --- this concern doesn't meet the clinically indicated test. Especially when you realize that the conspirators are all gastroenterologists, not the type of doctor who would judge the clinical value of a lumbar puncture. So that's cooked their goose.
Out of the mouth of Professor Walker-Smith, comes proof that Andy Wakefield isn't the paragon of virtue of http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/ and that he, Walker-Smith and Murch are all guilty of professional misconduct.
Since at least August 2008, anyone closely falling the proceedings before the GMC knew that Professor Walker-Smith gave sufficient evidence that he, Wakefield and Murch were guilty of performing research procedures on children without the approval of the ethics committee of the hospital where the procedures were carrired out.
Before and after November 1996, despite a written assurance in November 1996 by Walker-Smith to the ethics committee that all procedures were clinically indicated, research procedures were carried out.
A clinically indicated procedure is one that is carried out in the course of looking after a patient and is intended for the individual benefit of the patient. For our purposes, a research procedure is one that is intended for the general benefit of patients. The distinction may not always be clear. Where there is a research protocol or other documents in writing, it is much easier to make the distinction.
Correction: A clinically indicated procedure can be medical research requiring Ethcs Committee approval. That was the case at the Royal Free. That is why at the end of Dr. Pegg's testimony to the GMC hearing, the defendants were pretty much done.
Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch have claimed that there were multiple studies, research processes or just plain data gathering and analysis of information gained through clinically indicated procedures of patients. They submitted a proposal to the ethics committee dated August 6, 1996 that matches very closely the week long timetable for procedures carried out on the children. The August 6th document specifies that the procedures are clinically indicated.
Whether there were zero studies, one study or a million studies, by September 4, 1996 when he was sent a letter by the hospital Chief Executive, Wakefield knew that he needed written ethics committee approval for any procedures on the children which were not clinically indicated.
By this time, some of the children used for the 1998 Lancet study had already had research procedures done on them. The most obvious being lumbar punctures done on children without any indication of infection.
Despite the August 6th document stating that all procedures were clinically indicated, the ethics committee was concerned that procedures were being done for research as opposed to clinically indicated reasons. So Walker-Smith sent them a letter dated November 11, 1996 which stated, "I can confirm that children would have these investigations even if there were no trial."
The three had to lie because otherwise the ethics committee would have shut them down until this was looked at in great detail. The committee might have expressly forbidden the research. They may have already told the committee what was in Walker-Smith's November 1996 letter, that they had already investigated 5 children.
The Wakefield theory was that there was a difference in the GI tracts of autistic children through which autistic causing elements escaped the GI tract and reached the brain. So the three needed to examine, invasively, by endoscopies a lumbar punctures and other procedures any differences of these children who did not have classic Crohn's.
As well as looking for physical differences through GI tract biopsies, they would look for measles virus in the intestinal biopsies and the spinal fluid.
So Walker-Smith lied. He lied again in his November 1996 letter to the ethics committee, with copies to Wakefield and Murch. He repeated the lie in 2004.
In August 2008, while denying all wrong doing to the GMC (see http://briandeer.com/solved/story-highlights.htm for this and a great explanation of the whole sorry mess) Walker-Smith tells a different story. It sinks all three of them.
I don't have a transcript. But according to this newspaper report, Walker-Smith explained the lumbar punctures as being "in the children's best interests to perform the controversial lumbar punctures - also known as spinal taps. He told the panel he thought he was doing the parents of these children (referred to by number rather than name in the proceedings) a service so they could rule out neurological disorders in the future."
Whether you think this is a good idea or not --- this concern doesn't meet the clinically indicated test. Especially when you realize that the conspirators are all gastroenterologists, not the type of doctor who would judge the clinical value of a lumbar puncture. So that's cooked their goose.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
NO New Jersey District Court Injunction - Vawter Never Had an Injunction Against H1N1
One of the sadder parts of the vaccine and vaccination issues is that those who are opposed to vaccination, however they got to that position, find it almost impossible to change their view on anything even peripherally related to vaccination. There is confirmation bias to an unbelievable degree.
That's been true of claims that there actually was a US Federal District Court for New Jersey injunction against mandatory vaccination or any vaccination not completely of one's free will. And that this injunction from a Federal Court would be binding on all state and local governments. I'm not an American, but I do live in a country where constitutional authority is divided between Federal and Provincial governments.
And like anyone interested in vaccines, vaccination and their legal issues, I'm aware that current US case law makes vaccination primarily an issue for states under their police power. For a recent discussion, see here.
So I've looked into the matter and I've put the court docket up in google docs. With more than a little overkill. Why? because there is something weird, funny and sad about Tim Vawter's lawsuit, even by the standard of lawsuits filed by non-lawyers that don't have a chance of succeeding.
The best way to understand this sad story is by reading this document that explains the lawsuit. It is part of this folder where you can read the court docket and the documents from the court docket. The folder also includes the retraction by Natural News.
As a kindness to Mr. Vawter, some irrelevant (to us) personal information has been redacted.
That's been true of claims that there actually was a US Federal District Court for New Jersey injunction against mandatory vaccination or any vaccination not completely of one's free will. And that this injunction from a Federal Court would be binding on all state and local governments. I'm not an American, but I do live in a country where constitutional authority is divided between Federal and Provincial governments.
And like anyone interested in vaccines, vaccination and their legal issues, I'm aware that current US case law makes vaccination primarily an issue for states under their police power. For a recent discussion, see here.
So I've looked into the matter and I've put the court docket up in google docs. With more than a little overkill. Why? because there is something weird, funny and sad about Tim Vawter's lawsuit, even by the standard of lawsuits filed by non-lawyers that don't have a chance of succeeding.
The best way to understand this sad story is by reading this document that explains the lawsuit. It is part of this folder where you can read the court docket and the documents from the court docket. The folder also includes the retraction by Natural News.
As a kindness to Mr. Vawter, some irrelevant (to us) personal information has been redacted.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
The Never Happened New Jersey Injunction Against Vaccination
Confirmation Bias
------------------------
One of the problems with responding to homeopathic believers is that they have such a fixed world view that the facts just slide right by them.
For example, I've explained to ChristyRed that no US Federal Court in New Jersy ever granted an injunction against H1N1 vaccination, backed it up with some logic and some links, including one that apparently copied an apology from naturalnews.com.
To which I get the following reply.
ChristyRed writes:
"What a ridiculous bunch of nonsense! The US District Court certainly did find that the vacs weren't thoroughly investigated for safety. As a result they are NOT mandatory in NJ and, even further, this decision affects the legality of making them mandatory across the entire US."
You would think that someone would read the linked articles before giving such a positive response -- especially to me, because I'm pretty careful about what I write.
In the absence of an active PACER account to look at the court docket http://www.rense.com/general87/mislead.htm , let's do a site search at naturalnews.com. Google naturalnews.coms.com new jersey injunction vaccine OR vaccination
Wow, there is an apology from naturalnews.com.
So that's the August story. The absence of a newer story means that either an injunction wasn't granted or it was granted and naturalnews.com someone missed the story. Guess which I'd bet my life on.
Such unbelievable confirmation bias isn't limited to ChristyRed.
------------------------
One of the problems with responding to homeopathic believers is that they have such a fixed world view that the facts just slide right by them.
For example, I've explained to ChristyRed that no US Federal Court in New Jersy ever granted an injunction against H1N1 vaccination, backed it up with some logic and some links, including one that apparently copied an apology from naturalnews.com.
To which I get the following reply.
ChristyRed writes:
"What a ridiculous bunch of nonsense! The US District Court certainly did find that the vacs weren't thoroughly investigated for safety. As a result they are NOT mandatory in NJ and, even further, this decision affects the legality of making them mandatory across the entire US."
You would think that someone would read the linked articles before giving such a positive response -- especially to me, because I'm pretty careful about what I write.
In the absence of an active PACER account to look at the court docket http://www.rense.com/general87/mislead.htm , let's do a site search at naturalnews.com. Google naturalnews.coms.com new jersey injunction vaccine OR vaccination
Wow, there is an apology from naturalnews.com.
So that's the August story. The absence of a newer story means that either an injunction wasn't granted or it was granted and naturalnews.com someone missed the story. Guess which I'd bet my life on.
Such unbelievable confirmation bias isn't limited to ChristyRed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
