CNN is reporting that the cyber-bullying conviction of 49-year-old Missouri resident Lori Drew has been overturned by a U.S. District Judge in California today. Drew, as many of you probably know, was convicted under a federal statute normally used to target hackers as a result of posing as a teenage boy on MySpace to harass 13-year-old Meagan Meier. All of this came to light after Meier committed suicide after recieving a message from Drew that the world would be better off without her in it.
This case sparked a lot of controversy back when it was big news for several reasons (certainly one of the reasons being the tragic nature of the circumstances). There was a lot of anger in the media and in the blogosphere over Drew’s actions, and understandably so. What she did was, at very best, completely irresponsible and malicious and, at very worst, completely morally reprehensible. Apparently, Drew had nothing better to do with her time than make up fictiously personalities with which to bully a 13-year-old girl whom had a spat with her own daughter.

I’m going to go out on a limb, though, and say that I’m glad her conviction got tossed. I disagreed with charging Drew criminally, and I disagreed with her indictment and conviction. That’s not to say that I don’t think what Drew did merited criminal sanctions – I do think what she did merits criminal sanctions. The problem, though, is that there wasn’t really a law prohibiting what she did. There was no state law under which prosecutors could charge her, and so the feds charged her under this federal statute and alleged in the indictment that she violated the terms of service of MySpace (which resulted in a misdemeanor conviction for Drew).

There’s the old saying that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwhich. That’s especially true when you have tragic circumstances and concomittant public outrage since prosecutors are, more often than not, political figures themselves who are accountable to the electorate. The term “outrage indictment” has been thrown around regarding this case, and I think that’s pretty accurate.

Some prosecutors that I know have said that, even if someone isn’t guilty of the crime with which they’re charged, they’re guilty of something. All well and dandy (and probably true), except I don’t think that’s really how law operates in this country (not that I’m an expert or anything). Taking a ride on that logic train would allow a prosecutor to charge anyone with any crime and have no trouble achieving a guilty verdict simply on the basis of “well, they’re guilty of something.”

Drew is no doubt guilty of something. She’s probably guilty of lots of things. Unfortuantely, with respect to the Drew saga, she’s not guilty of breaking any law that was in effect at the time.

That all says nothing about the possibility of a civil suit, and one can only hope that Drew gets hit hard with a wrongful death judgment.

It is something that has not really occurred to me until recently, but there is much to be skeptical about in the realm of law. I have always, or at least nearly as long as I can remember, been a skeptic (and, depending on who you talk to) a contrarian at heart.

It is not as though law exists in a vacuum, though. It is something fluid and it changes society just as society changes it. Often times, our laws are propped by up by claims of necessity and social good, and it is just these types of claims that can be put under a ‘microscope’, as it were. Further complicating matters is the inherently political nature of law and, by extension, the nature of politics itself. Things that aren’t actually true are true nevertheless, at least as far as public perception is concerned. Throw a little fear and religion into the mix, sprinkle with mass media, and a generous helping of corruption and you end up with an area that is just ripe for skeptical analysis.

And few areas of the law have received as much political grandstanding as criminal law has. Ever since Reagan, the stance has been one of being “tough on crime” and, as a politician, to be anything else is to commit political hari-kari. As near as I can tell, the though on crime movement grew out of public frustation with the ineffectiveness of the rehabilitatitive focus of the ’60s and ’70s, and so the pendulum swung to the other side: punishment was the new order of the idea. The concept is pretty easy for most people to swallow – tougher punishment should act as a deterrent, both to the offender and to the society generally, and so crime rates should decrease. Politicians were eager to capitalize on (and in some cases, stoke) public fears concerning crime and criminals, and it wasn’t too long before each politician wanted to punish criminals just a little bit more than the last person who spoke. It was out of this that the United States as seen an unprecedent growth in its population of incarcerated individuals, fueled by things like mandatory minimum sentencing.

But then, of course, the question becomes this: has it worked? Well, that’s probably not exactly fair. It really depends on whom you’re asking, and how you define “worked.”

I recently read an article from the Kentucky Law Journal by Robert Lawson concerning the issue of Persistent Felony Offender statutes (think three strikes and you’re out). It is an excellent article, which can be read in its entirety here. Of course, PFO laws are one of the mechanisms that have been put into place as a result of a get tough on crime mentality. The reason why I wanted to mention the article, though, is because I wanted to show two of the figures that are contained in it:

These graphs are, as you can see, illustrations of the per capita rate of crime in the United States from 1970 until 2001 as well as the per capita rate of incarceration in the United States from 1970 until 2004. Robert G. Lawson, PFO Law Reform, A Crucial First Step Toward Sentencing Sanity in Kentucky, 97 Ky. L. J. 1, 5 (2008). As is shown, the crime rate in 2001 is approximately the same as the crime rate from 1970 whereas the rate of incarceration in 2000 is nearly five times what it was in 1970. You can also see that while the rate of incarceration has risen steadily ever since 1970 (having the sharpest increase during the late 80’s – possibly as a result of our nation’s war on drugs), the rate of crime has waxed and waned throughout the last thirty some-odd years. (And a note: my theme is cutting off the edge of the image, so if you really really want to see the whole thing – just click on it).

Now, I am loathe to draw causal conclusions from correlation – but it doesn’t even seem to me that these two aspects of our society – crime and incarceration – are particularly correlated with one another. Aside from the apparent lack of correlation, perhaps the most striking thing that can be said of this image is that while we had roughly 478 out of every 100,000 people incarcerated in 2000, we had roughly the same rate of crime as we did in 1970 (when we had just 96 out of 100,000 people incarcerated).

All of that is not to say that punishment has no purpose, and that we should open all the cell doors. There are many purposes of punishment – and deterrence is but one of them. It does seem to say, though, that a get tough on crime rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. It may win politicians votes, but it doesn’t seem to be benefiting society in a meaningful fashion insofar as crime prevention is concerned. The idea that longer sentences and tougher laws mean less crime is so well ingrained in the head of your average American voter, though, that any attempt to alter that is seen as coddling criminals (hence the third rail mentioned earlier), and no politician wants to get hit with a Willie Horton.

And so now the question becomes this: what can be done differently? I never said I had all the answers, or even some of them. It does seem to me, though, that our society’s approach to crime and crime prevention is inefficient at best, and positively harmful at worst. There are some very interesting ideas about how things can be done differently, such as the notion of restorative justice, but it seems unlikely that things are going to change anytime soon. If things do change, though, my prediction that it will be less because the data just hasn’t borne out the tough-on-crime hypothesis, and more because of simple economics: we cannot afford to lock up the number of people that we do and for the amount of time that we do – but that’s a whole ‘nother story.

I’m a terrible blogger. I used to update pretty frequently and, well, then school started and it’s pretty much sucked all the creativity and life right out of me (not that I had a whole lot of either to begin with). I have still been getting into the odd flame war here and there, though. Lately, it’s been my favorite group: anti-vaccinationists (oh, excuse me, they’re “pro-vaccine safety” now). 
 I’ve been called closed-minded a lot over the years debating all sorts of woos for my refusal to buy whatever it is that they’re selling, be it faked moon landings, magical magnetic water, 9/11 conspiarcies, ghosts, et cetera. It finally dawned on me how deliciously ironic a true believer calling a skeptic closed-minded is.

Look at it this way: on one side, you have the proposition that one – and only one – interpretation of events is the correct one – that vaccines are teh (sic) evil, that George Bush personally detonated the World Trade Center towers, that the orb of light in the photograph is actually a spirit from the beyond, so on and so forth.

But, to me, being a skeptic is all about considering alternative explanations and ruling them out when they are no longer tenable based on the record. That orb in the photo probably isn’t a ghost, but rather it could be any number of different things (each of which wouldn’t require that we make some pretty big assumptions).

So, it’s not that I’m closed minded – I think that there might be any number of different explanations for the phenomena we see going on in our world. Just because I’m not believing your theory that a sentient race of lizard people actually hijacked our world-leaders ala pod people and are secretly controlling our minds via the mass media, doesn’t mean that I’m closed-minded.

It just means that I don’t believe your narrow (and sometimes hilarious) interpretation of events.

So I know it’s been a gazillion years (well, maybe not that long) since I last updated. I just came out of my post-law-finals coma and I figured I would throw something up. 
 I podcast. Well, I don’t podcast myself, but I thoroughly enjoy them. For those of you who don’t know, podcasts are like radio programs but instead of having to crowd around the radio when they are broadcast, you get to download them to your MP3 player and listen to them at your leisure. I can’t believe I just typed that out – I feel like I was just explaining the television or the internet or something. Then again, you never know: a few days ago I had to explain to someone what text messages were. 

At this point, all the podcasts that I regularly listen to are broke. Broke, broke, broke. The hosts are constantly yelling at me to give them money and, truth be told, I would like to. There’s one big problem with that, though – I don’t have money. I’m a student, and as such my diet consists mainly of Ramen and Funions (please, don’t ask for a picture). But I figured I would do the next best thing and plug them on my blog. That way, all two of you reading this can go and check them out if you’re interested in listening to some good stuff. 

The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe  - The Flying Novella Brothers and Crew tackle all sorts of skeptical issues ranging from medicine to physics to astronomy.

WNYC’s Radio Lab - Hosts Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich talk about all sorts of things, usually relating to science and society. Always an entertaining listen.

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History and Common Sense with Dan Carlin - Dan Carlin has a couple of podcasts that I always enjoy – Hardcore History and Common Sense. HH is, as the name would suggest, a history show. Dan is a self-described “fan” of history and not a historian himself, but he always puts together an informative and entertaining show. Common Sense is a political show that’s fairly moderate and sometimes just insane, but nevertheless always a fun listen.

This American Life – TAL is a weekly radio program put together by Chicago Public Radio and is awesome. I mean, it’s not often that I’ll use a word like awesome to describe a radio show. Maybe I’m a bit of a loser for doing it – but I’m willing to risk what little coolness I have to plug it. TAL covers a wide, wide range of topics but is always a very entertaining, engrossing, and sometimes informative show. Give it a listen.

That’s all I got for you. I listen to other podcasts, too, but to be honest they’re kind of lame. If you have any good podcasts, feel free to comment and I’ll give them a listen, too!

Okay, I know that I haven’t written here in ages. I’m surprised that it’s even still here. It’s not that I forgot about it, just that they really don’t make law school easy (not to mention the fact that I never learned how to read). Finals are coming right up, and so I’m currently drowning in words like tortfeasor (which is my new favorite word, by the way).

On that note, I went by The Onion today and saw this little gem. Oh, the things that school has done to my sense of humor:

Least Cited Supreme Court Cases

What brought me to make a post tonight is…you guessed it…The Kirby. Go over to Respectful Insolence and see why.

Welcome to the 73rd edition of Carnival of the Liberals! As I’m sure you know, the Republicans had their convention in St. Paul this past week, and boy was it a…well….something. Between Gramps McMaverick and Sarah “Liar, Liar, Lipstick Pitbull on Fire” Palin, I feel pretty good about November. Am I the only one who found it amusing (at least in a sense) that there was a hurricane afoot during the RNC? You’re doing a heckuva job, whitey.

Without any further ado, let’s get this party started! As you might imagine, most of the pieces this week have to do with the RNC and Palin in particlar. Lori at Between Us Girls gives us her take on Palin’s VP bid in Sarah Palin for President? I Think I Need a Reality Check.

Of course, Palin played the elitism card at the RNC (a card which, frankly, I’m sick-and-freaking tired of seeing trotted out). Submitted to a Candid World has a great piece up calling her (and anyone that plays those games) out on it with Just a Small Town Girl… .

I was somewhat concerned, like some others, that some disillusioned Hillary supporters might jump ship and get behind the McCain/Palin ticket…that is, until Palin opened her mouth. Holly at Menstrual Poetry gives us a succinct breakdown of why we shouldn’t worry in Sarah Palin is Not a Feminist. On a slightly comic bent, Madeline at Mad Kane’s Political Madness gives us a nice little ditty in Sarah Who???.

Meg at Simpson’s Paradox also fills us in a bit on Palin as well as the election in a more general sense with respect to Obama’s appeal to a younger audience in Obligatory Election Comments.

Ed, who is apparently rub-a-dub-dubbing in Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, takes a look at the positions that McCain takes on education – and the consequences of those positions – in McCain Offers to Sacrifice American Education.

Barry at Staring at Empty Pages provides us with a good read on Palin’s religious tendencies as well as reasons why religion should stay the hell out of politics in general in “God is my dictator”. Related, The Ridger at The Greenbelt discusses the discussion/debate that Obama and McCain had with Rick Warren in Beyond Good and Evil.

If you want to read something that doesn’t have to do with the RNC, then I suggest you read these pieces on economics which I found to be quite good. Top-Down v. Bottom-Up – Economics 101 by Tracee at BlogFabulous gives us the choice between working at Walmart or Google; personally, I think working for Google would be hawt. In addition, Jeffrey Stingerstein at Disillusioned Words does a nice job shredding a WSJ editorial on how Bush has been really super-duper for the economy in Holding the Wall Street Journal’s Feet to the Fire on the Economy.

That’s it! I hope you enjoyed this edition of Carnival of the Liberals as much as I enjoyed hosting and reading all of the submissions. The next edition will be September 24th at XXBN Radio Blog.

Oh my burning Jesus, I completely forgot that I was hosting the September 10th edition of the Carnival of the Liberals. So, if you happen to be a liberal, and you happen to write, and if you happen to use the internet, you might want to considering going over to the submission forum and sending me something that you think is worthy. There’s no theme or anything like that: just send me anything relating to liberal thought, politics, activism, et cetera. Please try to get your submissions to me by Tuesday the 9th (and the earlier the better, as law school is currently eating my soul).

In an earlier post, I noted that one common criticsm of allopathic medicine is that there is too much money involved in the system. I think that’s a criticsm that is largely justified, but then proponents of alt-med use that to springboard into singing the praises of all sorts of quackery from therapeutic touch to reflexology to homeopathy, and so on and so forth.

I have contended in discussions that I have had in the past that there’s a good deal of money in alt-med, as well. I mean, I know that alt-med practitioners really care about their patients and would do it out of the goodness of their hearts if they could (unlike those evil western doctors) but they’ve got to eat, too.

That in mind, I went looking for the data. Honestly, I was pretty surprised by what I found.

One of the first studies on the topic that I found was from way back in 1993 that noted about 1/3rd of the US population used CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and spend approximately 10.3 billion dollars out of pocket on CAM (1). That’s a lot of lettuce.

That same group performed a follow-up study in 1997, which found that use of CAM continued to grow to roughly half of the population using at least one alt-med treatment at a cost of 27 billion out-of-pocket expense (which the study noted exceeded the “projected out-of-pocket expenditures for all US physician services”) (2).

Fast-forward to 2000, when an Australian group took up the topic of CAM. They found roughly the same results as the 1997 Eisenberg study in that roughly half of the population engaged in some use of CAM, but put the cost much higher – 34 billion dollars (which the study noted was “nearly four times the public contribution to all pharmaceuticals) (3). It wasn’t clear to me, however, whether or not that figure included treatments covered by managed care or purely out-of-pocket expenses. Given the increases noted by the Eisenberg studies, it would not surprise me if that was all out of pocket.

While one the subject, a common meme among alt-med proponents is that many of their treatment modalities are being adopted at hospitals and clinics across the United States such as Reiki (faith…I mean energy healing) with the implication being that hospitals would not engage in such activities if they did not help people.

With the amount of money floating around out there in alt-med, the reasons should be fairly self-evident. Marketing wonks at clinics and hospitals see that people will pay for alt-med, and so they start offering it if only to recoup the cash – not that there’s any sound science behind it that justifies it’s use – but in a state of affairs where hospitals are forced to try and make as much money as possible, that is plenty justification.

It should go without saying that the idea of alt-med being so innocuous on the financial front is pure BS. It’s about the guap, so run them pockets, fool!

1. Eisenberg, D.M. et. al. (1993). Unconventional Medicine in the United States — Prevalence, Costs, and Patterns of Use. Journal of the American Medical Association, 328, 246-252.

2. Eisenberg, D.M. et. al. (1998). Trends in Alternative Medicine Use in the United States, 1990-1997: Results of a Follow-up National Survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1569-1575.

3. MacLennan, A.H., Wilson, D.H., & Taylor, A.W. (2002). The Escalating Cost and Prevalance of Alternative Medicine. Preventative Medicine, 35, 166-173.

So I admit that I have been in a bit of a slump lately. I’ve been working on a couple of other things, and have had a massive case of skeptical writer’s block. Every time I sat down to write something, it just didn’t seem worth writing. I almost wrote a post about 9/11 “Truthers”. Then I almost wrote something about UFOs. It seemed as if my writer’s block would never end.

And then, there was David Kirby.

I decided to pay his blog a visit, and lo-and-behold, he’s mouthing such stupid bullshit (as he usually does) that I just found myself chomping at the bit to post about it. Thank you, David Kirby!

In his latest missive Amanda Peet vs. the Medical Establishment, Kirby sets out to yell at Amanda Peet for being scientifically literate…and does a pretty terrible job at it (again, as he usually does).By the way, you can read about what Kirby is referring to here.

Kirby gets off on the wrong foot immediately with the title: Amanda Peet vs. the Medical Establishment? Seeing as how Peet is actually in agreement with the “medical establishment” with regards to vaccines and autism, it seems a strange way to frame the piece, but then again, David Kirby is a strange, strange man.

Anyway, let the fun begin!

This week, actress Amanda Peet called parents who don’t vaccinate their kids “parasites,” and then essentially went on to lie when she announced that scientists have concluded there is “no association between autism and vaccines.”

Well, they are parasites. They get to benefit from the herd immunity (thanks to the multitude of other parents who decide, wisely, to vaccinate their children) without contributing anything useful themselves. In fact, one definition of parasite is “one who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.” Seems pretty accurate to me.

Oh, and Peet was not lying when scientists concluded that there is no association. That is the conclusion. Vaccines don’t cause autism. I mean, not that I think Kirby would know the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, but it seems to me that accusing someone of lying when they’re actually not is a pretty big gaffe (well, maybe not for Kirby).

I thought that Ms. Peet (and her ill-advised advisors such as Dr. Paul Offit) might want to see from whence these parasitic, fringey parents and doctors have been getting their cues of late.

Here are just a few recent examples:

July 15, 2008 – A workgroup report of the IACC (the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, which includes HHS, CDC, NIH and others) says that some members want “specific objectives on vaccine research” included in the new, multimillion-dollar national autism research program, as mandated by Congress in the Combatting Autism Act.

Notes from the meeting indicate that workgroup members want federal researchers to consider “shortfalls” in epidemiological studies cited as proof against a vaccine-autism association (by Offit, Peet, et al); as well as a specific plan “for researching vaccines as a potential cause of autism.” The workgroup also says that the final research agenda should “state that the issue is open.”

Specific objectives? Shortfalls? Sounds pretty spooky. Given Kirby’s last treatise, though, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if these “notes” were taken completely out of context and twisted to sound more sinister than they actually are. Even if you take away the epidemological studies that have failed to show any connection, you still have zero credible studies that do show any connection. Moving along…

July 14, 2008 – Rep. Brad Miller (R-NC), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, (Committe on Science and Technology) writes to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt to complain that current federal autism research “shows a strong preference to fund genetic-based studies,” even though there is, “growing evidence that suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may play a role” in autism. He cites a recent study on vaccines and monkeys, presented as a poster (unreviewed) at the International Society for Autism Research, which, “suggests that research on primates is about to emerge that will provide additional evidence of environmental contributions to ASD.”

Rep. Miller specifically cites the case of Hannah Poling as “just one example that is suggestive of very important lines of inquiry,” and he recommends some “very suggestive writings along these lines,” such as the April 5, 2008 letter from Terry Poling, (Hannah’s mother, an attorney and former nurse) to The New York Times titled, “Vaccines, Autism and Our Daughter, Hannah.”

Finally, Rep Miller writes that HHS “has lost much of the public’s trust,” and urges Mr. Leavitt to form a Secretarial-level Autism Advisory Board to provide public feedback, liaise with parents groups, and “assist in reestablishing the public trust” that Ms. Peet herself said was lagging. Miller recommends tapping groups such as Safe Minds, Generation Rescue, Autism Speaks and the Autism Research Institute for their, “experience evaluating research’ and an “in-depth knowledge of the current body of ASD research.” All four groups support vaccine-autism research, and thus presumably fall within the rubric of what Ms. Peet terms as “fringe.”

Rep Miller, well-intentioned as he may be, is not a scientist. He’s a politician. Given the popularity of vaccine-hysteria these days, it wouldn’t surprise me that he would pander to his constituents that would believe in such a hypothesis.

May 12, 2008 – Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the NIH and the American Red Cross and current Health Editor of US News & World Report tells CBS News that, “Officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,” and says they “don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.”

But, unlike Amanda Peet, Dr. Healy believes that, “the public’s smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.”

Dr. Healy is kind of a crank, among other things. Also, I contend that Dr. Healy is naive when it comes to the intelligence of the public. The public, quite frankly, is borderline retarded; especially when it comes to medical / science news. A lot of that has to do with the lackluster standards in scientific journalism, but that’s just my opinion.

April 21, 2008 – Presidential Candidate Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at a rally in Pennsylvania, answers a question about autism by saying: “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”

Obama gets it wrong right out of the gate. Autism rates have not been increasing, or rather they have but it is not due to more people being autistic. Rather, it has more to do with the fact that diagnostic critera have expanded and surveillance has increased. Also, the science is fairly conclusive. Study after study after study have failed to find any connection between vaccines and autism. Also, thimerosal (the boogey-man preservative in vaccines that pseudoscientific scaremongers pointed to as being the autism culprit) was removed from vaccines in 2001, but yet autism rates continued to climb without so much as a pause.

April 11, 2008 – The HHS Vaccine Safety Working Group (comprised of the nation’s leading vaccine experts) meets to review the CDC’s draft research proposal for vaccine safety issues. Among the top vaccine questions that CDC wants answered: “Are neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, clinical outcomes of vaccine injury?” And, “Is immunization associated with increased risk for neurological deterioration in children with mitochondrial dysfunction?”

Yawn.

March 29, 2008 – Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, speaking about the Hannah Poling case on CNN says: “If a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, and was pre-disposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage (including) symptoms that have characteristics of autism.” And she adds: “I think we have to have an open mind about this.” Meanwhile, the CDC website lists autism studies it currently funds on thimerosal and the MMR vaccine.

Of course, the key is the mitochondrial disorder, not the vaccine. The vaccine was just a stressor, and it could’ve likely been anything that came along later.

March 11, 2008 – The CISA Network (Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment), headed by the CDC, receives a report from top researchers at Johns Hopkins University that 30 typically developing children with mitochondrial dysfunction all regressed into autism between 12 and 24 months of life. At least two of them (6%) showed brain damage within one week of receiving simultaneous multiple vaccinations.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

February 25, 2008 – Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain says at a rally in Texas that “It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines.” McCain notes that there’s “divided scientific opinion” on the matter, with “many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that’s not the cause of it.”

Wrong. See above.

February 22, 2008 – Medical Personnel at HHS concede an autism case filed by the family of Hannah Poling in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, before the claim can go to trial as a “test case” of the theory that thimerosal causes autism. Though portrayed by some (ie, Dr. Offit) as a legal decision, it is in fact a medical decision. HHS doctors admit that the “cause” of Hannah’s “autistic encephalopathy” was “vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves,” which exacerbated her underlying mitochondrial dysfunction. At 19 months of age, Hannah was given 5 injections containing nine vaccines.

The Poling case has been blogged about a bunch by bloggers much more capable than I. If you want to read up on it, I recommend Orac’s work over at Respectful Insolence (check my blogroll).

January, 2008 – Presidential Candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, responding to a questionnaire, says that autism is “epidemic,” and that she is, “committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines.” When asked if she will support an autism study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, she replies: “Yes. We don’t know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism – but we should find out.”

Wrong. See above.

I am not a parent, and I am not anti-vaccine. But if I were going to listen to experts on this subject, I would be more likely to consult some of these people, rather than a well-meaning but grossly misinformed actress who is guided by a doctor who will likely make money from his own work helping to develop a childhood vaccine.

Yes you are anti-vaccine, Kirby. Saying you’re not does not make it so. Your book is called “Evidence of Harm”, and it is all about how vaccines are teh evul.

You also seem to think that it’s just Amanda Peet and Offit who think that the mercury / autism hypothesis is quackers, but it’s not. That is, in fact, the position of most scientists (save the few, like the Geiers, who seem to make a lot of money off of pushing their brand of nonsense).

The vaccine-autism debate may be over in the firmly closed minds of Peet and Offit, but for serious, rational thinkers such as those listed above, this debate (and the real work that lies ahead) has only just begun.

Serious, rational thinkers? Is Kirby somehow an authority on serious, rational thinkers? I didn’t think so.

So anyway, thank you David Kirby, for spewing your crappy anti-vaccination propaganda. It got me riled up enough to get to writing again.