Stop the Saatchi Bill
POLITE NOTICE

People who leave comments that are abusive, who try to discredit this blogger or damage the site in any way, abdicate their right to privacy. In such cases I reserve the right to make their personal information public.

Accolades & Quackolades

"Best blog of the day IMHO."
Simon Singh


"This blogpost is simply brilliant."
Mark Burnley


"You are a rude argumentative bully. You are a typical "skeptic" - not sceptical at all."
Andrew, anti-vaxer


"Your piece about House of Commons Science and Technology sub-Committee’s ‘evidence check’ on homeopathy was one of the best I’ve seen. Strength to your elbow."
Tony


"...an individual calling themselves ‘scepticat’ or ‘sceptikat’- a highly volatile dictatorial site run by a wannabe megalomaniac. A truly disturbed person with a anger management issue venting via their little site to their own personal herd of sycophants."
Centella, one of Dr Andrew Jones personal herd of sycophants.


"Excellent report, which I can vouch for completely."
Jack of Kent


"The ludicrous nature of the complaint, and some of the responses by Dr Ranj and the BBC, has already been expertly documented on the Skepticat UK blog".
Dean Burnett


"Choke on your own vomit and die in agony..."
r wesley edwards, aka @CommonCormorant, author


"A very good rebuttal…"
Anna Watson, anti-vaxer Arnica UK


"A staggering amount of pathological disbelief allied with a staggering amount of arrogance."
AJP, homeopath


"I just love this blog, and this post is a fine example of it’s content – ‘Inside the spine wizard’s den’ – Skepticat. Why do some of us feel that we are above challenging argument and peer review? I just wish that I could write as well as some of these bloggers!"
Jonathan Hearsey, osteopath


"Skepticat is a particularly venomousness (sic) skeptic, a humanist who lives by the "golden rule", she refused to let me follow her on twitter because I am "bonkers" which may endear her to many in the chiropractic profession..."
Richard Lanigan, chiropractor


Facebook image helpfully captioned by Sandra A Hermann-Courtney (@brownbagpantry)


"Die Die die die!"
r wesley edwards, aka @CommonCormorant, author


"Loved that article. It really shows what chiropractors are really all about. What I call the "chiro show" Exposing people to totally unnecessary X-rays should be criminal. Thank you!"
mt


"I think skepticat is plain mad at not having children of her own. Hatred projected out to the world. It's sad to see someone with so much self hatred, destroying themself internally without even realising it."
Bebo, chiropractor


"Hooray for Reason! Just want to thank you for writing this. Even though the arguments presented are tired, and played out, they still must be refuted."
Elijah


"I understand that you have been traumatised by your experience and that this is your way of coming to terms with the emotional scars."
Stefaan Vossen, chiropractor


"All you really seem interested in is banging your repetitive drum and preaching to the converted."
Rick, osteopath


"All the entries I’ve read are excellent. I’ll be coming back to read more. Love the cat logo as well."
Derrik


"Research in Homeopathy Conference - Skepticat's hilarious account. She went to it."
David Colquhoun


"Her site is Skepticat UK... she wouldn’t know a punchline if it raped her. Or maybe she’d thank it."
Scott Cappurro, comedian


"I rather love the lunacy of the anti-Homeopathists, such as yourself."
James Pannozzi, homeopath


"Good blog from a skeptic which examines the "science" of Homeopathy in a very detailed way. Skeptics will love this. Proponents of homeopathy? Not so much."
SidDithers


"I really shouldn’t waste my valuable time with someone who obviously has at the very least a borderline personality disorder."
Erika Alisuag, homeopathist


"I’m finding it difficult to come up with some suitable words to say how good and interesting your stuff is. So, in the absence of suitable hyperbole can I say what a very well written and presented blog you have here. Really well thought out and researched. And passionate about it too! Complimenti!"
pv


"You’re whole life is worthless because you lack reason."
AJP, homeopath


"Great stuff Skepticat."
Lifelinking


"When you have learnt some big words and also studied your history books you’ll find that the world was once thought to be flat…by people just like you."
Sarah Hamilton, homeopath


"Thanks for keeping the banner of reason flying high."
John Willis Lloyd


"This is just a general comment. I love this well-written an unfussy little blog (I don’t mean little in a derogatory way, but in the sense it’s not bombastic, self-important and posturing). Excellent material and a worthwhile focus, keep up the good work."
xenophon19


"Her website is a temple to diatribe – I have no sympathy for the homeopaths, etc, with whom she battles, but she clearly gets off on confrontation."
JF Derry


"Skepticat is strictly logical and attacks in unparliamentary words what she deems to be “quackery” – or suggestions that she sounds a little strident."
Andy Reporter


"LOVE the badass attitude! Seriously...KEEP IT UP!"
HelpIzOnTWay


"You were a playful little diversion for a. moment, but I do have better things to do with my time than waste more than half an hour of it stooping down to play your ego supporting self delusional mind games……"
Susan Elizabeth, homeopathist


"An excellent read, thanks for taking thr time to compose it."
Alan C


"You need to do a course in anger management."
katenut, nutritionist


"FWIW I think you manage your anger rather well...mostly by focusing it into a thin, narrow beam of incisive rage which you then use to inscribe words on screen. ;)"
Despard


"Excellent description of the events."
Simon Perry


"You seem to be of probably well-meaning, but bigoted and fundamentalist disposition, just parroting slogans from others without any really knowledge or insight yourself."
Neil Menzies


"Superb, as usual"
phayes


"You seem only interested in ranting against an enemy which you are apparently still struggling to come to terms with “fifteen years” later."
Rick, osteopah


"Bravo, great post!"
RBO


"One day if you are not very careful you will be left behind in the dark ages. I’m sure this will not be printed..but hope it is read by you poor little scaredy cats."
Sarah Hamilton, homeopath


"Brilliant piece!"
crabsallover


"While you babble on like a total airhead about Myhill, you ignore the real doctors who are a danger in the UK".
struck-off doctor, Rita Pal, 'NHS whistle-blower'


"I sincerely hope I never get to your stage of wilful ignorance. You know absolutely diddly squat about the subject but you think your opinion is the only opinion."
AJP, homeopath


"Keep up the spin, you manky old chicken's foot."
JB, chiropractor


"I am forced to conclude you are blogging on behalf of a specific entity that does wish to remain anonymous."
AJP, homeopath


"The person writing all this negative press on homeopathy must be getting a big fat check from one of the pharmaceutical companies who would dearly love to push homeopathy off the map."
Erika Alisuag


"Such reporting lands you clearly in the realm of fundamentalist extremism–much noise, no substance, and money from those who have something to sell. It is so unfortunate that your listening skills are in need of repair."
Tanya Marquette, homeopath


"She seems to revel in presenting the many insults that she has attracted as a column of “Quackolades” on her site, as if war wounds on display,"
JF Derry, self-publicist


"Oh shut up SK. You write hot air and spew rubbish as usual."
Rita Pal again.

Dear Anti-vaxxer

I would like to give this letter lifted from Stop the AVN some more publicity. I don’t imagine the anti-vax loon who, until I adjusted my spam filter, used to post hundreds of abusive and anti-vax comments on this blog, will have the brains to comprehend it but you never know.

An open letter from a pro vaxxer to an antivaxxer. Please read and distribute widely. Originally penned by Megan Cran

Dear Anti-vaxxer,

You’ve asked on other threads whether or not us pro-vaxxers would be able to empathize and see things from your point of view.

I’ll ask the same of you.

Imagine that you’ve spent 6 + years of your life studying your ass off so that you can understand the mere basics of biology, chemistry, physiology, pathology, immunology, pharmacology, etc. Because you’d like to be a nurse or a physician. And these are the things you need to know to do your job.

Imagine that through your years of scientific training, frequently studying the available evidence, and relying on the educated opinions of those who are MORE educated than yourself on the matter that you have come to the conclusion that the majority of the biomed has come to: that vaccines are safe and effective.

Imagine that while in the course of doing your daily job, you see people who are immunocompromised or unvaccinated become incredibly ill or die of vaccine-preventable diseases and their resulting complications.

Imagine that you then learn that there is a group of people who INTENTIONALLY refuse to vaccinate their kids. Imagine your shock and dismay upon learning this. Imagine trying to engage these people, to find out why they refuse to use what is arguably the greatest innovation of modern medicine.

Imagine that when you engage these people, you hear some arguments that – initially – make you think about vaccination in a different light. They tell you vaccines are poison. They aren’t as effective as you are lead to believe. That the government and big pharma only push them for profits. That they aren’t actually tested for safety. That these vaccines are responsible for causing a myriad of devastating cognitive issues. They’re KILLING KIDS. And you begin to become concerned.

But, at the same time, these people are saying things that you – as a medical professional – know to be untrue. There’s people talking about injecting vaccines directly into the bloodstream when you know that they’re not given intravenous. There’s people saying that there are over 50 different vaccines – when you know that they simply give multiple doses of the same ones. There’s people saying bypass the immune system – when you know that they activate the adaptive immune system in order to confer immunity.

So, you think to yourself “if they’re wrong about these basic things, are they wrong about these other claims too?”

Imagine that you spend a great deal of your spare time looking into the original claims that first concerned you.
You learn that the “toxins” in vaccines are present in our daily environment in much larger quantities than any vaccine.
You learn that while the pertussis vaccine is waning is effectiveness (75% +), all other vaccines are extremely effective in preventing disease.
You learn that the cost to treat the disease is much much higher than it is to prevent it with a vaccine. And that if pharmaceutical companies really were keen to make as much money off of you as possible, they’d LET you get measles.

You learn that vaccines are thoroughly tested before release, each batch is tested and that their safety and effectiveness is constantly re-evaluated. You read about the switch from whole cell to acellular pertussis vaccine – which lowered the effectiveness but upped the safety.

You learn that a myriad of scientific studies from all over the world provide evidence of no correlation between vaccines and ASD. You learn how the changes to the DSM combined with increased awareness of ASD has contributed to an artificially higher rate of ASD. You read about the heritability of ASD and some of the commonly correlated environmental factors (such as maternal obesity and diabetes).

Imagine that you learn all these things. Imagine that not only can you read all these things, but that your medical training allows you to understand and evaluate claims in a way that laypeople cannot.

Imagine that you happily return to these people who had you so concerned. And you’re happy to explain to them how it’s okay, and they don’t have to be afraid of vaccines – and you can answer all of their concerns and questions.

Imagine that when you do answer them, they ignore you. Or they insist that you must be a shill for a pharmaceutical company. Or an idiot. Or a mindless automaton who is incapable of making up their own minds. Imagine that instead of these people being – as you had originally hoped – relieved and grateful that they didn’t have to worry about vaccines anymore, angry and irate that you would dare to contradict them.

Imagine you have to keep dealing with the same mistruths over and over and over. Imagine that you have to explain to people over and over that there is more formaldehyde in an apple than a vaccine. Imagine that you provide people with 20+ studies showing no correlation between ASD and vaccines – and they ignore them.

Imagine that these people start trying to find out where you work. Imagine they send you threatening emails and facebook messages. Imagine that they make up photoshopped pictures just to make fun of you. Imagine that they mass report comments you make to get you banned from facebook. Imagine.

Can you empathize with us? Can you understand why we’re sometimes quick to insult? Quick to react to insults? Can you understand why we may not always treat you with the respect you deserve?

From my point of view, you are intentionally endangering the lives of your loved ones. And my job is to take care of those loved ones

26 Responses to Dear Anti-vaxxer

  • Great letter, thanks for sharing it.

  • I’m glad that (apart from Donald Trump) the anti-vaccine movement isn’t really linked to the right. Can you imagine if vaccine skepticism were seized on by the right-wing noise machine? It would spread like wildfire. A third of Americans simply wouldn’t vaccinate their children, insisting that the health effects of vaccination are just a “theory.” Every Republican in Congress would have to sign an anti-vaccine pledge. There’d be movements to make vaccines illegal in the red states, and dispensers of vaccines would be defunded in those states, and their offices would be shut down. Right-wing billionaires would bankroll documentaries linking vaccination to Hitler and eugenicism, and the Fox/talk radio crazies would flock to those documentaries, which would break box-office records. Half the books on the bestseller list would have covers depicting Democratic politicians as Dr. Mengele.

  • A scientific question: how many apples are equivalent in formaldehyde to how much of which vaccine?

    The owner of this blog has always made a point of championing rationalism, but in Science, the qualities the letter writer refers to don’t exist. There is NO empathy or happiness, or any emotion, even when the subject is attacked using e-media (when and who did this, by the way?). In Science, there is no respect, either. These are human attributes, not subject to experiment.

    Why should we expect of others what we ourselves disown? That sounds like bullying to me – whichever “side” does it. Just plop the facts at their feet. If people break the law, get the police involved.

    If this “upsets” anyone, remember that emotions are UNscientific.

    Merry Xmas

  • I’ve removed my first dismissive response because I’ve decided to give you one more chance, Leanardo/Confusious (sic).

    First of all, if you want me to take anything you say seriously, it’s not a good idea to start a comment with a sentence of codswallop.

    The remainder of your comment demonstrates your hopelessly muddled thinking but maybe I should forgive you; we all have to start somewhere.

    I’ll try to make things as simple as possible; please read carefully and try to comprehend:

    Rationalism is a philosophical position that human beings can choose to adopt or not, while science is a system of acquiring knowledge, which human beings can choose to use or not.

    Unlike philosophical positions and systems of acquiring knowledge, emotions are not chosen by human beings. As you rightly say, they are ‘human attributes’ – we all have them. Indeed, it is because of our emotional response to the human suffering caused by false beliefs that many of us put so much effort into combatting them. When I hear of someone dying because they (or their parents) put their faith in something false, when they could have lived if they’d based their decision on reason and evidence, it makes me angry and determined that such needless tragedies be prevented in future.

    But rationalists understand – because that’s where the evidence points – that our emotions alone do not tell us what is objectively true. For example, the fact that we find something to our liking – whether it be religion, chocolate, chiropractic, masturbation, carrot juice or any sort of drug – doesn’t necessarily tell us whether it is good or bad (or both or neither) for us. The way to find out what is objectively true about any of those things, is through the scientific method and that’s why rationalists advocate it.

    I hope the above isn’t too hard for you to understand but I’m not over-confident. Frankly, your suggestion that, because we advocate the scientific method, we therefore “disown” emotion makes you look more than a bit thick.

    As for the attack on someone or something using e-media, I’ve no idea what on earth you are talking about. Care to clarify?

    Please don’t bother commenting here again unless you’re prepared to try to engage seriously and intelligently with what I’ve said in this response. My blog is not the place for you to come and spout nonsense, even if it does make you feel better.

  • “The way to find out what is objectively true about any of those things, is through the scientific method and that’s why rationalists advocate it.” SK

    You forget to point out a distinction here and that is that ‘medical science’ is not the same as the rest of science because it still has belief systems about both the cause of diseases and its understanding of why diseases occur.

    This often leads to old/modern woo like the vaccine theories we are still subjected to, based on out of date ideas. We are then forced to invent reasons why vaccines don’t work. Whooping cough is a current one, according to the HPA we have the highest whooping cough cases for decades but also the highest vaccine coverage. Any normal scientist can see that the vaccine doesn’t work. The medical scientist just calls for more vaccine boosters!

  • “I’m glad that (apart from Donald Trump) the anti-vaccine movement isn’t really linked to the right. Can you imagine if vaccine skepticism were seized on by the right-wing noise machine?” SM

    Well of course it isn’t, the right gave us credit fraud, big pharma and scams like swine flu epidemics, being anti vax would be pissing on their feet!

    The only way to keep the woo of vaccination alive is by dodgy means, there is nothing honest about it.

  • How can anyone think that the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, which was milder than first feared but which still killed 500,000 people, was a “scam”?

  • Where on earth did you dig up that indtikit vaxx stat? Some pro vaxx site no doubt with guesswork. Poland officially announced it was spending no money on the swine flu scam and its mortality stats were no different to any normal year.

    Considering Roche told the BMJ that it had lost the entire data connected to its Tamiflu scam waste of taxpayers money I wonder only a vaccine believer could possibly still believe in that woo.

    The Cochraine review on the flu vaccine found evidence for efficacy was ‘implausible at best’ so it surprises me that there is still someone who has faith in this outdated woo.

  • “milder than first feared” DT’s

    Well what a surprise Deetee, like avian flu, like SARS, like most flu woo, once the governments have been conned into signing away claim rights, millions of tax payers money and scared the hell out of morning Britain it all blows away.

    The questions you should be asking is how come they are wrong every time and still get paid!

    Why are you wasting time worrying about altmed which has no real impact on the public purse when millions are being conned over and over again by vaccination scams.

    I think you need to explain yourself because you are in a cultural trance.

  • How can anyone think that the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, which was milder than first feared but which still killed 500,000 people, was a “scam”?

    I refer you to my previous answer and suggest you start engaging in a discussion rather than doing a believer shutdown/mantra/cutpaste.

  • @Jenson

    “You forget to point out a distinction here and that is that ‘medical science’ is not the same as the rest of science because it still has belief systems about both the cause of diseases and its understanding of why diseases occur.”

    Would you care to explain what these “belief systems” you refer to are?

  • Well medical scientist believe in flu pandemics, that arthritis is caused by deficiency in analgesics and that everyone needs to be on statins when research shows otherwise.

    I could go on……………..

  • Well medical scientist believe in flu pandemics

    not an unreasonable belief, given that there have been at least 5 major flu pandemics in the last century. And nothing to do with the question I asked.

    that arthritis is caused by deficiency in analgesics and that everyone needs to be on statins when research shows otherwise.

    And those are a couple of strawmen.

    I could go on……………

    I’m sure you could. But can you cite any “belief systems” about the cause of disease that are actually held by ‘medical science’?

  • ” But can you cite any “belief systems” about the cause of disease that are actually held by ‘medical science’?”

    There are plenty, but let’s start with one so you can cope. Medical scientists believe that flu virus causes flu. 40 years of RCT’s, lab based with human volunteers, failed to show that flu virus caused flu. The maximum number of subjects who ‘caught the flu’ was 3/32.

    Tamiflu is an effective ‘treatment’ for flu. Well we will never know because Roche lost all the data for the last scamdemic when asked for it by the BMJ for a post bull audit.

    Cox 2 inhibitors are a good ‘treatment’ for arthritis if that fails TNFI’s are super. RA appears as if by magic to affect some people, we have no idea where it comes from but we still feel qualified to treat.

    If 60% of women with the gene for breast cancer don’t get breast cancer we can’t be wrong, that’s just noise in the data. We never interview the ones that don’t get cancer because it would be awkward to find out that the genomic theory of disease causation is puddly fluff.

    Some people still believe going to the doctor is the best way to stay ‘healthy’.

  • “When I hear of someone dying because they (or their parents) put their faith in something false, when they could have lived if they’d based their decision on reason and evidence, it makes me angry and determined that such needless tragedies be prevented in future. ” SK

    There are plenty of medications that do this SK but I don’t see you championing that.

  • More strawmen. Germ theory doesn’t predict that 100% of people exposed will contract a disease; “the gene for breast cancer” confers a predisposition, not a 100% certainty of developing cancer.

    Painkillers are indeed a good treatment for someone suffering from arthritis. It is not necessary to know what causes a condition to understand why relieving pain is a good thing.

  • @Jenson

    “There are plenty of medications that do this SK…”

    Evidence?

  • Vioxx killed 160,000 people worldwide until the insurance payouts overtook the profit from the drug. Doctors knew it was killing people but it was too big to fail.

  • “Painkillers are indeed a good treatment for someone suffering from arthritis. It is not necessary to know what causes a condition to understand why relieving pain is a good thing.” mojo

    Isn’t that strange, admitting that doctors have no idea what is causing the condition but moving to treatment.

    If my car was making an awful noise and I took it to your kind of garage would I get ear plugs? Idiot.

  • @ Jenson , but if you were in a horrific car accident you would refuse analgesia until there was a medical diagnosis of which bits of you were damaged? Good luck with that.

    With regards to arthritis, the potential causes of it are fairly well established. I believe Mojo is just saying “it’s not necessary to know” rather than “the causes are unknown”. Furthermore, some of the drugs used to treat arthritis (particularly rheumatoid) have potentially worse side-effects than just negating the symptoms with painkillers. E.g prednisolone, methotrexate and monoclonal antibodies are all pretty harsh drug regimes, so if a person’s arthritis can be controlled just with painkillers, good on them.

  • @Jenson

    “Vioxx killed 160,000 people worldwide until the insurance payouts overtook the profit from the drug. Doctors knew it was killing people but it was too big to fail.”

    And you expect me to “champion” that…how exactly?

    Pillock.

  • “I believe Mojo is just saying “it’s not necessary to know” rather than “the causes are unknown”.”

    If Jenson doesn’t understand what I wrote, I am forced to conclude not only that he has never suffered from any painful condition, but also that he has no capacity for empathy with anyone who has.

  • @ Jenson

    Painkillers are not meant to be a curative treatment arthritis. They are meant to treat the pain caused by the arthritis. By the way you wont meet a physician who think Tamiflu is some kind of miracle drug. It will only shorten the duration of flu symptoms by about a day and only if administered within the first 72 hours. Everything in life isn’t some giant conspiracy, get a grip.

  • I have Ankylosing Spondylitis. I am on TNF blockers. No other therapy produces results.

    Without a TNF blocker my major joints feel like they are being drilled with a power drill and I have been reduced to being unable to walk to the bathroom at night, instead having to crawl there. Untreated some of my joints will start to ankylose and eventually fuse.

    So: am I pawn in some kind of conspiracy? And if so, should I go off the meds and suffer intense pain and eventually a fused spine because otherwise I’m just a “believer”?

  • Jenson:

    “If my car was making an awful noise and I took it to your kind
    of garage would I get ear plugs? Idiot.”

    If you needed to use the car for a while, while the mechanics figured out what was wrong with it, would you refuse the earplugs? If so, then I think the signature you use above is accurate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


5 + six =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Categories
Archives