Did Age of Autism 'jump the shark'?

I'm sorry for using this television industry term for such a serious scientific matter but I’m mainly using it to mock anti-vaccine propagandist J.B. Handley, who recently used it in his immature attack on Dr. David Gorski. But the phrase isn’t completely out of place here as Age of Autism stepped into a bit of controversy yesterday with an incredibly juvenile attack on their most outspoken critics, [- LINK UPDATED 12.3.09 WITH GOOGLE'S CACHE BECAUSE AOA REMOVED THE ENTRY FROM THEIR SITE] you know, actual medical, vaccine, and autism experts.

This entry of theirs is among the more overt examples of their bias, the cult-like influence they have over their readers, and their commitment to focusing on despicable ad hominem attacks over actual scientific arguments and academic rigor.

Now as always, the comment section is full of irrational, nonsensical, vitriolic, fundamentalist tirades (and yes, I’m aware that this sentence includes character attacks but I will attempt to rise above ad hominem by backing my statements up with rational argument). But just don’t trust me; by all means go to Age of Autism and judge for yourself. What is unusual for Age of Autism though is that they’re suddenly accepting negative comments, even less than civil ones, whereas  I don’t recall a single comment I’ve ever made on their site ever getting published no matter how civil I made it. This could mean that they’re deliberately trying to collect some of the harsher comments as something to point to in order to make their critics look nuts. But whatever the case, several comments come from alleged fans of the site who expressed their disgust over this latest stunt along with a statement that they would not return to Age of Autism. Of course, there’s no way of knowing whether these were the true feelings of actual former fans of the site but they may very well be.

What’s also strange is that such outrage came about as a result of a stunt that’s really no lower than anything else Age of Autism has done by this point. All they do on Age of Autism is ad hominem attacks against their critics and praising media exposure of their ideology. I sure as hell can’t find anything on the site that makes a coherent scientific argument. And here are just a few examples of me giving point-by-point criticisms of Age of Autism articles that seem particularly light on science and substance but far heavier than this particular instance on ad hominem attack and dishonest reporting here, here, here, here (also from Adriana Gamondes who’s responsible for the latest offending article), here, here (the second item in the list), here, and here. Again, that’s just to name a few examples. For the truly masochistic, use them to play the Age of Autism Drinking Game where you drink every time an article hurls baseless insults at those that don’t agree with them. Drink twice if they compare their critics to Nazis.

Though there may be an explanation for some of the particular outrage over this particular "article" beyond just its overall offensiveness, a new site called Countering Age of Autism. That site’s latest entry encourages readers to go after Age of Autism’s inclusion in the Google News Feed given that Age of Autism is not a news source but, by their own admission, just an “edgy” blog. Of course, this is just editor Mark Blaxill’s attempt to disown any responsibility for the harm he causes with his propaganda. It’s like Oprah claiming that she’s just putting out information to her audience and expects them to do all the research to determine the validity of any scientific claims presented on her show themselves. But as Uncle Ben taught us, with great power comes great responsibity. And if you have an audience that listens to you and trusts you, you are accountable for what you say, regardless of how you might try to spin your more repulsive tactics as light-hearted satire.

To be honest, I’m not really offended by Age of Autism’s latest stunt. I’ve seen far worse from them and had no expectations that they were better than this. And I’m surely guilty of using similarly offensive images to accompany my own articles from time to time. Though of course I tend to back up my position with substantive facts. Sure, I’m guilty of Godwin’s Law from time to time. I’ve likened certain groups to Nazis occasionally. But when I do, I try to illustrate my point with lots and lots of legitimate examples. Bottom line is that I too am not above controversy and offending people. I actually tend to enjoy offending certain types of people (Go screw yourself, Handley). But what’s important to me is that this particular Age of Autism blog seemed to penetrate that veneer of righteousness that Age of Autism’s PR people have been so successful building and caused some to question that facade. Of course only time will tell if this marks the decline of the anti-vaccine propagandists the way we’ve seen a sharp decline in 9/11 denialism.

Of course, with all the controversy over this one particular Age of Autism entry, people seem to have ignored another hit piece the site put up on the same day. Having learned that Denial author Michael Specter would be featured on the Daily Show this week, Age of Autism urged its readers to express their outrage to Comedy Central. I on the other hand intend to write the network to express the opposite view and I encourage my few readers to do the same.

And after lots of public criticism, they've still not changed their ways as evidenced from the Age of Autism contributor Kim Stagliano's hit piece in the Huffington Post, where she throws even more feces at her favorite targets, Dr. Paul Offit and Wired Magazine Journalist Amy Wallace (who she's already described as "servicing Dr. Offit's RotaDick.") Oops. My mistake. The "RotaDick" line was directed at NBC's chief medical editor, Dr. Nancy Snyderman. It's just so hard to keep track of all the female critics that Stagliano has flung misogynist rhetoric at in lieu of legitimate scientific facts and arguments. 

Stagliano also wrote in the Huff Po article:

The article, written by Amy Wallace, a Yale graduate and freelance writer who is also a former entertainment reporter, begins, "To hear his enemies talk, you might think Paul Offit is the most hated man in America. A pediatrician in Philadelphia, he is the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives every year."

That sets up the article, which is a really a long press release designed to make Dr. Offit look like an heroic martyr. It's also an opportunity to attack vaccine safety advocates (many of whom are in the autism community and are parents of vaccine injured children) by making them sound like dangerous crazy people.

Notice that she didn't actually disagree with the sentence she's complaining about. She just tried to dodge the statement by feigning outrage over its use. She'd be flat-out lying if she claimed that Offit was not viewed by herself and her cohorts at Age of Autism as the most hated man in America. Hell, he's depicted right in front in their baby-eating Thanksgiving dinner image with all the evil outspoken defenders of vaccines (which some of their commenters view as right up there with the Holocaust as worst crimes in human history). So Stagliano is saying that depicting Age of Autism's actual views about Paul Offit is making them sound like dangerous crazy people. I guess she would have prefered that Amy Wallace lied to make Stagliano et al look less crazy.

Stagliano goes on:

Ms. Wallace writes about Dr. Offit, "... he boldly states - that vaccines do not cause autism or autoimmune disease or any of the other chronic conditions that have been blamed on them."

I can boldly state that I am a 5'10" blonde with a 36C chest too. (Mirror check. Not so much.)

What?! No, I didn't edit this. That's her actual line of thought. And don't think it's somehow justified by what immediately follows either: 

Author and HuffPo blogger David Kirby has written extensively on the national push among federal health officials, scientists, research organizations and doctors on the need to further examine vaccine safety. His post titled, US Health Officials Back Study Idea on Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children - Will Media Take Note? included this:

David Kirby also specifically predicted that after thimerosal was removed from the vaccines that we'd see a decline in autism. Eight years later, it hasn't happened. Kirby was wrong. But don't let all this science distract you. Briefly quoting the non-science journalist David Kirby who's already been proven wrong is the only place in the whole article where she comes anywhere near addressing any actual science. She doesn't understand it and she prays you don't bring it up.

Instead, she does what Kim Stagliano and the rest of her Age of Autism cohorts do best, nasty name-calling:

Will the media take note? No. Because Dr. Offit, as the Pope of the Church of the Immaculate Vaccination is going to continue to evangelize that vaccines are infallible.

Yeah, what does Vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit know about medicine. He's only been researching and practicing medicine for decades. It's just his religion. There's no actual science. It's just religion and every physician in the world just blindly accepts what he says because he's "the Pope of the Church of the Immaculate Vaccination." He doesn't inform the public about medical science; he just evangelizes. And those aren't medical journals with thousands of carefully peer-reviewed studies; they're just the physicians' Bible. But you're not falling for it, are you Kim. No, you follow the one true god, yourself. He's not the expert with his decades of experience. You are because you've never taken a medical class in your life.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman has been on TV daily berating Americans to get their H1N1 vaccine. She ended one interview by saying, "Forget the hysteria. Just get the damn vaccine!" When questioned by Matt Lauer about the vaccine/autism controversy, she replied, "There is no controversy Matt." Really? Check out Bill Maher's post Vaccines: A Conversation Worth Having with over 3000 comments.

Ah, of course! Dr. Bill Maher, the entertainer says there's a controversy. What more proof do you actual physicians need?! Forget all those years of saving people's lives with proven methods of science. Just listen to Bill Maher, the true vaccine expert.

The vitriol toward people who question vaccines or who report vaccine injury is startling.

Yeah, you're telling me. I heard those vitriolic critics of yours even made an image depicting the anti-vaccine crowd at a Thanksgiving dinner together while preparing to eat a baby. Oh wait. That was your website that did that to them. And you personally said in the comments section of that piece:

Dr. Nancy is under the table servicing Dr. Offit's RotaDick. Wait, can you hear her? "Fere If doh bontrobersy!!" Someone should tell her it's not polite to talk with your mouth full.

Others loyal Age of Autism worshippers compared those in the image to Nazis sending babies to death camps. And I again refer you to the articles I've written that are linked to above of numerous other occasions where Age of Autism have proven no insult is too low against its critics.

And I'd suggest you consider playing the Kim Stagliano addresses scientific arguments drinking game except that it'd be incredibly boring and the alcohol would just go to waste.