This is quite, quite bizarre. There are more interesting things to blog about that the MMR vaccine, but I feel this little gem deserves a wider audience (scroll down to comment 68):
"There’s plenty more that needs to come out before I move on to this". I can practically hear the sinister music inside my head. What is it that needs to "come out"? Is it a secret?
Dr John Briffa writes:Time is a factor, but the other thing that will hold this up is the belief I have that the arguments put forward by people who assert MMR is vindicated with regard to autism need further unpicking. It’s partly the unscientific intransigence of individuals just like you that makes this necessary, I think.
I suppose I should thank you for your persistence: it has certainly helped highlight for me just how spurious the ‘MMR is safe with respect to autism’ arguments are.
So, with regard to the question of the sort of evidence that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that MMR does not cause autism, I say all in good time. There’s plenty more that needs to come out before I move on to this.
June 12, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
7 comments:
I love the way at the bottom of his latest post he writes:
"This blog post is about the use of low-carbohydrate diets in the long-term management of type 2 diabetes, and some of the evidence that supports this approach. If you have a comment to make, please make sure it’s about this subject specifically."
Which just seems funny when compared with his 'gotcha' on the beta-carotene post:
"Anthony
“You are seriously asking me to believe that your views on the beta-carotene paper were carefully written in order to sucker me into making criticisms of your lightweight reporting of the paper concerned?”
I don’t care what you believe: in this instance it’s what other people believe that counts. Don’t you get it?
You call my reporting ‘lightweight’. On what basis? Because you went to the article and pulled from it things that I hadn’t quoted? Forgive me, but this does seem a most desperate attempt to score some sort of hit. And you know I’m right, don’t you?
You promised to never post on this site before, but it seems you just can’t stay away. More than once you’ve ended up having to drag yourself off the canvas. I think we know who the real ‘lightweight’ is here."
I have not read all of the commentary at pj's post (I got bored after comment 25 or so), so I may be missing the context here, but can you translate what he actually means to say? The only thing I understand is that he seems (seems!) to say that if one person says there is a causal relationship between X and Y and another person says there is none, the burden of proof is on the second person. Which is not what I learned.
PJ - oh dear, I think Dr. B. is trying to play dead. I don't think it's going to work. On the other hand, he is supported by "john", the noted intellectual colossus.
LemmusLemmus - Hello, thought we'd lost you to the Football Monster for this week - glad you're about.
It's incredibly difficult to know what anonymous is on about, but I think that may be one of his "points". He - or his chum John Smith - are currently claiming that all vaccines are causing a "pandemic" childhood neurological problems, and randomly claiming the WHO is a "private company". I'm really not sure what is to be done about this.
And now for the correct version...
PS,
the Football Monster lets me out of its fangs between matches - and during such mouthwatering clashes as Greece v Sweden. (He, two oral metaphors in one sentence; I'm proud of myself!)
The commenters you mention may be confusing the WHO with The Who. Just a guess.
Talking 'bout my geeeneration...
"the Football Monster lets me out of its fangs between matches "
Glad to hear it :)
"The commenters you mention may be confusing the WHO with The Who. Just a guess."
Quite possibly - "woo who!"
Post a Comment