My Photo
Buy Your Copy Now!
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2003

« 12. Blood levels of mercury are related to diagnosis of autism: a reanalysis of an important data set (2007) | Main | Vaccine Exemptions: Conference Call with Richard Pan MD and Paul Offit MD --Pt 2 of 2 »

Tuesday, July 24, 2012



But this is not as simple as you portray. If it were the whole bill would not be necessary. We already know that some of the best doctors risk careers and reputation to tell the truth. You are suggestioning a silent (but loud) use of coercion against the doctors who know more than the usual chapter or two med school taught them (the recent pulling of the Merck cover up article by WSJ is disconcerting...where does one find full disclosure? Not at the government mandated clinical trial site where only 22% of trial data is uploaded....although, Cochrane Collaborative is trying). And your heralding of Mr. Offit left an important fact off his really need to let readers know about his dog in the of it. Not just on one shot...but the whole tree...he is just a branch...a highly controversial branch.

My daughter was harmed by a negligent doctor at
Cleveland Clinic, and cancer spread from the delay in treatment. He was cited...I did not sue...but what I learned about peer reviews and the so called medicinal "veil" of secrecy, ambition, and money.....left me disillusioned...but much better able to maneuver the "system". Knowing patients are using the Internet the same way doctors use their careers....sometimes it helps mankind...sometimes selfishly....and sometimes with great risk you help others.

Offit an altruistic? Okay....we'll go with that for now:)

Liz Ditz

Oh dear. Alice hits some of the anti-vaccine talking points.

Referring to Dr. Offit as "Mr."? Check. Smearing him with the pharma shill brush? Check.

And the obsession with ellipses instead of proper punctuation? Check (although I have no idea why that is so popular with anti-vaxxers, but it is).

Alice's "argument" (if you can call it that) is that (1) she feels her daughter was a victim of malpractice and (2) therefore all doctors are corrupt and malignant.

For accurate information about Dr. Offit's payment stream from the vaccine he spent decades developing, see A Statement from Paul Offit MD.

For a refutation of other common canards against Dr. Offit, see Meryl Dorey: Seven Assertions About Paul Offit: Six are False.


Well...Dear seem to have trouble deciphering the truth of my post. My point was as Dr. Jerome Groopman shares in his book, How Doctors's that oftentimes the best doctors aren't allowed to think. peer reviews are as messy as BigPharma research where the truth is not utmost...and as your post shows assumptions are utmost over the truth.

In your zeal to promote vaccines you completely missed the point...that being the tainted peer review process...not malpractice (and this is worrisome that you assumed so much without asking for clarification...that's a foundation of true research skills). I love my daughter's doctors....who are able to think...they admit the delay in treatment caused cancer to spread. Award winning researchers who do not immunize. But. Yeah...thanks for your empathy and proving...once again...that some people just believe BigPharma and doctors who make millions over the hidden data and would prefer to beat down concerned moms instead of demanding that all the truth be disclosed.

Katie Ellis

Alice, I am sorry to hear about your daughter. It seems as though you have a deep mistrust of medicine, in general, due to your personal experience. However, this does not mean that all doctors and "Big Phamra" employees are money-hungry sociopaths who attempt to hide scientific data and "beat down concerned moms."

It may be easier for you to believe that there is a massive conspiracy involving not only the FDA, AMA, AAP, WHO and CDC, but the majority of medical doctors around the world to promote vaccines and hinder human health...this doesn't make it true.


Here's a great post about Paul Offit.
While, Alice, I do sympathise with your situation your willingness to simply smear individuals is not acceptable nor is it the action of one thinks rationally or critically. Further, you rudeness to Miss Ditz, who has been nothing but respectful to you (unless you have mistaken pointing out glaring errors in your reasoning as disrespectful) is very poor form.

The comments to this entry are closed.


What I'm Tweeting

    follow me on Twitter