“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

Dr Offit versus Dr Poling

Hilary Butler - Saturday, August 09, 2008

In a previous blog, I mentioned the fact that in the interview with Kathryn Ryan, Dr Paul Offit dismissed Hannah Poling's autism following the administration of multiple vaccines as irrelevant. He did so, by the fallacy of authority, as in the insinuation of "I'm a vaccine expert, I've looked at the issues, and they are a load of rubbish". Yet again, he's been caught with his pants down.

Hannah Poling's father, a neurologist has replied to Paul Offit's New England Medical Journal lies, just as he replied to Paul Offits New York Times lies. Isn't the word "lie" a bit strong, I hear you say?

You be the judge.

Dr Paul Offit's first New England Journal of Medicine missive is here.

Dr John Poling's reply is here.

It would have been preferable has the NEMJ editors asked for Dr Poling's response right alongside the first misinformation, but like most people, maybe NEMJ assume that someone of Paul Offit's standing would know what they are talking about.

But look right under Dr Poling's letter and you see that Offit is, yet again, allowed instant reply.  One rule for one, and another, for another.

Having read all Dr Offit's books, and gagged at much of the contents, there are many of use who would dispute any insinuation that Dr Offit is an "expert" worthy of being allocated the status of infallible pontificate on vaccine matters.

Like many others, I'd go so far as to suggest that Dr Offit is so deep in conflict of interest, that he has difficulty identifying the meaning of the words, "conflict of interest". He certainly thinks he's above rebuke, when he comes up with a statement like this:

"Now, Poling and Healy are standard-bearers for the poorly conceived hypothesis that children receive too many vaccines too early. As a consequence, some parents are choosing to delay, withhold, or separate vaccines. The problem here is not a failure of scientists to consider hypotheses; rather, it is a failure of the media and the public to distinguish hypotheses from scientific evidence."

His arrogance is now, to me, unsurprising ... and if the comments here are correct, Dr Healy's response has the right of it.

Not that my opinion, or anyone else's comment will change anything inside Dr Offit's mind, as readers of his upcoming book will soon see. 

It promises to be one not to be missed. Though perhaps, not for the reasons Dr Offit might wish. If there is truth in the expression that often, what a man says, betrays what he really is, the review of this book would appear to be very promising in that regard.

 

Bookmark and Share