Inconvenient results from a high-impact study are now shown to have been rigorous. The bloodsport of anonymous targeted retraction efforts has left a stain - and a bias on peer reviewed publishing.
We have already explained to you that when you show up in public and accuse people for fraud and THEN expect clarification of the details that you should well know, that you (individually) will get Zilch. I can't respect you, Chris. You've made an ass out of yourself here. If I find any problems with the paper or its methods I will issue a Corrigendum or an Erratum per the standards of rational discourse. That clearly is beyond your ken. So stop demanding, and start acting like a professional. You might get some answers from someone else someday, but you blew your shot with me. Good luck.
Pure fantasy. The data I analyzed were, indeed, retrospective, that's an established fact. Patients were not randomized into arms and their vaccination status was determined 100% by their patient. If physician bias applies, "Skeptical Raptor" learned this from US; we made it clear in the first paper that our results may not generalize to other practices due to the relative uniqueness of Paul's practice - they followed the rules of informed consent for medical practices as required by Oregon State Law and federal laws and policies governing informed consent. Hickie can't live in a world where data exist that shows that unvaccinated kids have less health problems. That's his problem. Talk about bia$.
The real grifters are pediatricians who perpetuate the myth that vaccines reduced childhood illnesses; even CDC has admitted that vaccines are late-comers and get too much credit. You KNOWINGLY inject pertussis vaccines into children for compensation, knowing they do not prevent transmission. No protection for the immunocompromised. You KNOWINGLY inject aluminum, in spite of the massive amount of evidence on the immuno- and neurotoxicity of aluminum (including aluminum hydroxide). You KNOWINGLY push vaccines like HPV knowing about the INCREASE is cervical cancer from non-vaccine targeted types of HPV. Pediatricians who vaccinate wantonly with no regard for the facts fit your term perfectly: Grifter. The jig is up, and you're afraid of what's to come. I suppose you should be. Me? I just to unbiased science and let the chips fall where they may. Good luck, Hickie.
Since 2010, 20 babies have died from pertussis in the US. I sincerely doubt you've seen any. But that's not new - you've given us all every reason to doubt the veracity of everything you say. It's YOU who vaccinate with no regard for the law (45 CFR 46 and elsewhere), and you don't give a shit because you mistakenly think you don't have to. Millions of American citizens will see this through. Better lawyer up, dude.
I understand why pretend to be an ethical pediatrician: grift.
I guess this is what we'll be doing for some time, at least until a sufficient number of American wake up to the massive fraud your kind has perpetuated on the American public.
No, see, here's the problem. You THINK you've "shredded" the paper but you've done nothing of the sort. It fits with your delusions. Still waiting for your critique of Destefano et al., (2004) (also AAP, btw). Their reputation is what's been shredded. Period. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14754936/
You are wrong, I have addressed them, and I have referred you back to the paper for details. I have not "demanded" rational discourse, I have reported its absence and called for its return. If you're changing your tune today and being less obnoxious, then the exercise may have served its purpose. The blood sport culture of targeted retractions over disagreement over interpretation of results must end; it biases the literature. Naturally, your concerns are being looked at but I reserve the right to not reply here, especially to bombast coated with ad hominem and personal attacks on myself, my co-authors, and the journal or its editors. It serves no purpose other than to show your bias and your character. The number of unvaccinated patients in the IJERPH paper is identical to that in the IJVTRP (561). IJERPH: "Remarkably, zero of the 561 unvaccinated patients in the study had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to 0.063% of the (partially and fully) vaccinated." IJVTRP, 469+10+82 = 561. The inclusion criterion, which was agreed upon by myself and Dr. Thomas for Phase I, was all children born into the practice, was made perfectly clear in IJERPH and explains any difference between the first oral description of the data you have cited, which you will recall was caveated by Dr. Thomas as preliminary and was made prior to any data analysis. Patterns in the data alone, literally looking at the numbers in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, were impressive to all who saw them, including the de-identification team, the data quality assurance person and Dr. Thomas. When the final data came to me, the excess office visits in the vaccinated was obvious. For the record, Dr. Thomas was not involved in any way in Phase 2 - at all, but the same data were used under the same IRB. Any mistakes or gaffes on the data analysis are mine and mine alone. I will take the rest of your feedback under advisement and if there are any issues, they will be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the practice of rational discourse, which may or may include, publication of a corrigendum or erratum, or, for minor errors, per the journal's policies, updates to figure labels and references, or, if need be, authors withdrawing the paper and resubmitting a corrected paper for further blinded review.
You are ignoring the clearly stated inclusion criteria. Asked and answered. If you continue to ignore the clear fact, I won't be responding to this type or irrationality. I can't explain your irrationality, that's on you.
Lol, it's akin to putting a bet on black or red as to who holds validity, who can show reliability and is it generalisable. Interpretation of these results can be skewed in any direction they mean zero, quants and the forms of data analysis are open to manipulation, that is ethically supported but morally unsound and critics can easily deconstruct any quants by changing the criteria or questions. Never mind confounders they can easily be interpreted to credit or discredit; ratios are subjective in large or small populations and fall into the category. It's all bullshit baffles brains and is unreliable, are the measures and indicators valid, how many different ways can they be skewed. I think as many ways as a Mexican hoorhouse.
I have checked this and the flaw is in your capacity to read the methodology used to make the curve a fair comparison. Now go away and read more closely.
You seem to think that you're entitled to some kind of response from me at all. You started with personal attacks as you always do and now you're just wasting your own time. You deserve nothing of the sort.
If the paper is updated due to your efforts, I'll be sure to credit you in the acknowledgements and updated my subscribers when we have answers - if any of your questions merit them.
I spent seven years earning my doctorate. So it's "Dr " to you. Nevertheless, Mr Hickie, you should mind the details of the analyses. I doubt you're capable of that much.
Thanks, James. The article confirms my suspicion (along with his lack of denial to my suspicion), that Hickie is the type of "A hole" who discharges patients whose parents elect not to give informed consent for all vaccines. "The father of four won’t treat patients whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate their children because of a personal belief."
Hickie needs a refresher course on ethics and Arizona Law. Under Arizona'a Administrative Code, patients or their representatives have a right to refuse or withdraw consent for treatment and be free from coercion. I wonder how many patients he has discharged for exercising their legal rights?
Wow it's amazing you're just waking up to that fact - after I told you I'm not answering any of your questions. Today we have learned how much of a sleuth you really are.
You have disqualified yourself as worthy of my consideration as a rational thinker. The fact that you cannot see why my responses are appropriate and even generous is a truly fantastic example of where the problem lives.
You've proven yourself to be so unprofessional I see no reason why I should engage with you. In fact, the fact that you think that you were entitled to any responses at all reveals a lot about your psychology.
No, the journal is making corrections. Deal with it, Hickie. You'll be ok, eventually.
"sneak" them in? I TOLD you I was going to forward the Figure label error you sent, and now you've "discovered" it. Again, you sleuth you.
We have already explained to you that when you show up in public and accuse people for fraud and THEN expect clarification of the details that you should well know, that you (individually) will get Zilch. I can't respect you, Chris. You've made an ass out of yourself here. If I find any problems with the paper or its methods I will issue a Corrigendum or an Erratum per the standards of rational discourse. That clearly is beyond your ken. So stop demanding, and start acting like a professional. You might get some answers from someone else someday, but you blew your shot with me. Good luck.
Go home, Hickie. You're drunk.
It's tiny in both groups. Happy to do the calculations for this when you sober up.
Check yourself in somewhere before you hurt anyone else.
You're fishing. Go elsewhere.
You do live in fantasyland, don't you.
Pure fantasy. The data I analyzed were, indeed, retrospective, that's an established fact. Patients were not randomized into arms and their vaccination status was determined 100% by their patient. If physician bias applies, "Skeptical Raptor" learned this from US; we made it clear in the first paper that our results may not generalize to other practices due to the relative uniqueness of Paul's practice - they followed the rules of informed consent for medical practices as required by Oregon State Law and federal laws and policies governing informed consent. Hickie can't live in a world where data exist that shows that unvaccinated kids have less health problems. That's his problem. Talk about bia$.
The real grifters are pediatricians who perpetuate the myth that vaccines reduced childhood illnesses; even CDC has admitted that vaccines are late-comers and get too much credit. You KNOWINGLY inject pertussis vaccines into children for compensation, knowing they do not prevent transmission. No protection for the immunocompromised. You KNOWINGLY inject aluminum, in spite of the massive amount of evidence on the immuno- and neurotoxicity of aluminum (including aluminum hydroxide). You KNOWINGLY push vaccines like HPV knowing about the INCREASE is cervical cancer from non-vaccine targeted types of HPV. Pediatricians who vaccinate wantonly with no regard for the facts fit your term perfectly: Grifter. The jig is up, and you're afraid of what's to come. I suppose you should be. Me? I just to unbiased science and let the chips fall where they may. Good luck, Hickie.
Since 2010, 20 babies have died from pertussis in the US. I sincerely doubt you've seen any. But that's not new - you've given us all every reason to doubt the veracity of everything you say. It's YOU who vaccinate with no regard for the law (45 CFR 46 and elsewhere), and you don't give a shit because you mistakenly think you don't have to. Millions of American citizens will see this through. Better lawyer up, dude.
Pure fantasy. I understand why you feel that has to be true, though.
I understand why pretend to be an ethical pediatrician: grift.
I guess this is what we'll be doing for some time, at least until a sufficient number of American wake up to the massive fraud your kind has perpetuated on the American public.
AAP!?!?!?! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And your SERIOUS???!!!??!? Ahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
No, see, here's the problem. You THINK you've "shredded" the paper but you've done nothing of the sort. It fits with your delusions. Still waiting for your critique of Destefano et al., (2004) (also AAP, btw). Their reputation is what's been shredded. Period. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14754936/
You are wrong, I have addressed them, and I have referred you back to the paper for details. I have not "demanded" rational discourse, I have reported its absence and called for its return. If you're changing your tune today and being less obnoxious, then the exercise may have served its purpose. The blood sport culture of targeted retractions over disagreement over interpretation of results must end; it biases the literature. Naturally, your concerns are being looked at but I reserve the right to not reply here, especially to bombast coated with ad hominem and personal attacks on myself, my co-authors, and the journal or its editors. It serves no purpose other than to show your bias and your character. The number of unvaccinated patients in the IJERPH paper is identical to that in the IJVTRP (561). IJERPH: "Remarkably, zero of the 561 unvaccinated patients in the study had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to 0.063% of the (partially and fully) vaccinated." IJVTRP, 469+10+82 = 561. The inclusion criterion, which was agreed upon by myself and Dr. Thomas for Phase I, was all children born into the practice, was made perfectly clear in IJERPH and explains any difference between the first oral description of the data you have cited, which you will recall was caveated by Dr. Thomas as preliminary and was made prior to any data analysis. Patterns in the data alone, literally looking at the numbers in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, were impressive to all who saw them, including the de-identification team, the data quality assurance person and Dr. Thomas. When the final data came to me, the excess office visits in the vaccinated was obvious. For the record, Dr. Thomas was not involved in any way in Phase 2 - at all, but the same data were used under the same IRB. Any mistakes or gaffes on the data analysis are mine and mine alone. I will take the rest of your feedback under advisement and if there are any issues, they will be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the practice of rational discourse, which may or may include, publication of a corrigendum or erratum, or, for minor errors, per the journal's policies, updates to figure labels and references, or, if need be, authors withdrawing the paper and resubmitting a corrected paper for further blinded review.
You are ignoring the clearly stated inclusion criteria. Asked and answered. If you continue to ignore the clear fact, I won't be responding to this type or irrationality. I can't explain your irrationality, that's on you.
You should have someone read the paper TO you. Clearly you can't do it yourself.
We'll spar over number theory another time..
You said you understood maths. Does zero exist?
Lol, it's akin to putting a bet on black or red as to who holds validity, who can show reliability and is it generalisable. Interpretation of these results can be skewed in any direction they mean zero, quants and the forms of data analysis are open to manipulation, that is ethically supported but morally unsound and critics can easily deconstruct any quants by changing the criteria or questions. Never mind confounders they can easily be interpreted to credit or discredit; ratios are subjective in large or small populations and fall into the category. It's all bullshit baffles brains and is unreliable, are the measures and indicators valid, how many different ways can they be skewed. I think as many ways as a Mexican hoorhouse.
I have checked this and the flaw is in your capacity to read the methodology used to make the curve a fair comparison. Now go away and read more closely.
Thank you! The editor has assured me that we can update the manuscript to correct errors that I point out to him.
You left out "go read the study, you've missed essential details"
You presume far too much. The dumpster fire is in your head. And no, unicorn, that's not a threat of violence.
You seem to think that you're entitled to some kind of response from me at all. You started with personal attacks as you always do and now you're just wasting your own time. You deserve nothing of the sort.
If the paper is updated due to your efforts, I'll be sure to credit you in the acknowledgements and updated my subscribers when we have answers - if any of your questions merit them.
That's not all I can do. It's all I will do for you. It's amazing that you can download a pdf. I didn't know you had thumbs.
Sigh. Ignoring the specifics of the analysis that we did explains why you come to these screwed up conclusions. Please pay attention to details.
Asked and answered. The problem is in your inattention to details..
See above.
I spent seven years earning my doctorate. So it's "Dr " to you. Nevertheless, Mr Hickie, you should mind the details of the analyses. I doubt you're capable of that much.
In my experience MD's do their phds in 6 weeks. Mr Hickey.
So you know next to nothing about biology for real then. Not surprising.
Where can we find this wonderful piece of work of yours your PhD research dissertation?
And how many peer-review studies have you authored or coauthored? Wait, you don't read the scientific literature - otherwise you'd know that pertussis vaccines only create asymptomatic cases and do not stop the spread of pertussis. You're a bright one. Pusher. https://tucson.com/news/local/vail-pediatrician-pushes-for-unvaccinated-children-to-be-barred-from-school/article_f81f8ded-d4d1-55f4-9863-0c682c749592.html
Thanks, James. The article confirms my suspicion (along with his lack of denial to my suspicion), that Hickie is the type of "A hole" who discharges patients whose parents elect not to give informed consent for all vaccines. "The father of four won’t treat patients whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate their children because of a personal belief."
Hickie needs a refresher course on ethics and Arizona Law. Under Arizona'a Administrative Code, patients or their representatives have a right to refuse or withdraw consent for treatment and be free from coercion. I wonder how many patients he has discharged for exercising their legal rights?
I love it. You start with ad hominem get the same back in return and then accuse me of ad hominem. You are a piece of work.
You can't even pay attention to the simplest of details. Please stop before you hurt yourself.
I can see this is you getting your jollies off. It's really quite an embarrassing spectacle.
Wow it's amazing you're just waking up to that fact - after I told you I'm not answering any of your questions. Today we have learned how much of a sleuth you really are.
You have disqualified yourself as worthy of my consideration as a rational thinker. The fact that you cannot see why my responses are appropriate and even generous is a truly fantastic example of where the problem lives.
You've proven yourself to be so unprofessional I see no reason why I should engage with you. In fact, the fact that you think that you were entitled to any responses at all reveals a lot about your psychology.
See above.
That's good one. Thanks for the chuckle.