Signe Wilkinson by Signe Wilkinson

Signe Wilkinson

Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. kreole

    kreole said, about 5 years ago

    An interesting point of view……………

  2. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 5 years ago

    towerwarlock, I AM a scientist. The vaccines-to-autism link has been DECISIVELY disproven, and not by “the ones who make it,” but by multiple independent scientists. Furthermore, the “scientist” who first proposed the link, Andrew Wakefield, was not just inaccurate, he has been accused of “deliberate fraud” for financial gain. It has been proven that he falsified data AND ethics committee approvals, he tried to make a claim for himself as discoverer of a new syndrome, and he exploited this for personal gain.
    The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, examined the data and “issued a complete retraction.”
    You are promoting a false view proposed by a fraudster, which is HIGHLY dangerous to children and adults, as some diseases are starting to re-emerge because of parents choosing not to vaccinate their children. PLEASE read the article below and quit promoting this nonsense. (

  3. eepatt

    eepatt said, about 5 years ago

    @tower : Please tell us if you think Mr. Obama is a socialist or a fascist. When you do your namecalling bit, you appear to be uncertain about this important concept.

  4. pirate227

    pirate227 said, about 5 years ago

    Too late.

  5. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 5 years ago

    I think I understand your intent, but intentionally or not, you are demonstrating the dangerously antiscientific trend in our society. You are essentially claiming that science has degraded. Nothing could be farther from the truth (by the way, Boolean logic is far clearer and sensible than Aristotelian and has rightly replaced it in scientific training). Besides the improvements in methodology, the Internet has allowed rapid exchanges of data around the world, which we can crunch with greater effectiveness than ever before.
    I am well aware that it is impossible to prove a negative, which is the point I think you want to make, but it can indeed be decisively disproven that there is a general relationship between autism and vaccination, and Wakefield’s specific hypothesis can indeed be conclusively disproven, as he proposed a specific mechanism.
    There may be a single individual with a unique metabolism who reacts poorly, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the idea that vaccines cause autism on a regular basis. Were this true, we would expect to see a significant correlation between vaccination history and autism; we would also expect that as elements varied (e.g., mercury compounds used as preservatives), we should see a variation in autism manifesting. Furthermore, we should by now be able to identify a cause-and-effect chain to explain WHY vaccines cause autism.
    None of these things are true, and the only person to produce data that said it were, had to fake it.
    No one has been able to replicate Wakefield’s results in other populations (another proof that vaccines in general cannot be at fault), and his explicit fakery has been discovered. And his “findings” were the only reason to suspect a linkage in the first place!
    Occam’s Razor applies here: there’s no evidence supporting this and never was, there’s considerable evidence disproving the hypothesis, and the only people supporting it are either ignorant of science or outright fraudsters.
    Yeah, it’s decisively disproven. The kindest thing you can say about Wakefield is that he proposed a hypothesis which was tested, and failed.

  6. Patricia Lyke

    Patricia Lyke said, about 5 years ago

    My thought is that we have a debate of all candidates (including Obama) and give them all truth serum and then ask the important quesitons. That way we get real honest answers and not stories that even a kindergartener knows is a lie.

  7. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 5 years ago

    Bachmann has stated it herself: she’s “convicted”!!- of stupidity??

  8. Robert

    Robert said, about 5 years ago

    Commenting first on the ‘toon to satisfy posting requirements. Love the teabag ear ring!
    Now to feed the trolls,
    “When the politically motivated charges of socialism are directed at the Democrats and President Obama by the babbling bobble heads on FOX News, remember this from Miriam Webster, “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” That’s called a definition. Neither the Democratic Party nor President Obama has ever advocated any such thing. FOX News, and many Republicans, know what socialism is. I’d rather not jump to conclusions about their opinion of the collective intelligence of the American voting public. But when someone repeatedly makes the assertion that the President and Democrats are socialists, someone, I fear, is trusting that someone else is stupid."
    Now be good little troglodytes and report to Troll Central to collect your nickel.

  9. kreole

    kreole said, about 5 years ago


    Motivemagus…..well written. I nominate Michaelwme for membership in the “Flat Earth Society”. When I was 12 years old I remember “Iron Lung” machines lined up on a long screen porch in Jackson, Miss. with kids who got polio. Those machines are long gone thanks to the polio vaccine. Thank you, science!

  10. vhammon

    vhammon said, about 5 years ago


    When my kids were small there were a handful of vaccines. Some, like the Polio vaccine were developed by scientists and given to the world, without patent. This makes it easier to trust the science.

    Today, a child gets about 25 vaccines by 18 months, including HepB at birth.

    I’d like to believe that this schedule of vaccines was determined purely by untainted science. However, I also have to recognize that there is an enormous amount of money to be had by getting your vaccine on the required list. AND, medical science has a history of being enthralled with chemical/medical solutions, oft times to the ultimate detriment of the health of people (Vioxx, anti-depressants…long list…). So, some skepticism about vaccines is prudent. What is the level of risk that a middle class American baby faces for HepB? How does the risk/benefit balance?

    While there may be adequate testing and evidence for each individual vaccine, we have been consistently remiss in testing for combinations of both medications and chemicals in the environment. We have a growing epidemic of developmental issues in our children. We’re now up to about 20% of our children facing some kind of issues. Isn’t it prudent and time to look extra carefully at everything were putting into their bodies?

  11. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 5 years ago


    You’re certainly not going to get me to say “no” to more scientific research, you know!
    HOWEVER: while I am certainly wary of Big Pharma’s efforts to sell people new drugs (with patent protection and thus higher margins), comparing vaccines to other drugs is comparing apples to oranges. Vaccines engage the immune system to generate resistance; they’re not “dangerous chemicals” as such. A crude precursor to vaccination, inoculation has been used for centuries and apparently is thought have been used as early as 1500 BC. The additions to vaccines are designed to arouse the immune system to greater action. This is different from, say, a psychoactive chemical; it is engaging your own natural systems.
    As for the risk/benefit balance, of course one should examine it. But the people who ignorantly consider themselves “vaccine skeptics” are not using cost-benefit analysis. They are not giving ANY vaccines, meaning we are now seeing outbreaks of things like diphtheria and measles for the first time in decades, and exposing other children as well, since ordinary immunization can prevent normal infection, but may not succeed against a full-blown case of disease which provides a far more intense exposure.
    I understand you are being reasonable, but in this case I’m afraid your key assumptions are coming out of the anti-science clique, not a balanced source.

  12. vhammon

    vhammon said, about 5 years ago


    I’m coming from a background in early childhood education. My concerns come not from anti-science, but from an awareness of our cultures unwillingness to pay attention to science when it might mean taking a cut in profits. I’m cynical AND pro-real science.

    Back in 1991, now 30 years ago!, Jane Healy wrote a book, Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think And What We Can Do About It. In it, she catalogued evidence of reduced fertility, developmental issues, and diminished brain function in our children, and pointed to many possible reasons. 30 years ago, teachers who had been working with children for more than 20 years were reporting serious concerns, YET to be addressed.

    In 1997, Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival?—A Scientific Detective Story by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peter Meyers, came out, again raising the alarm. Instead of demonizing people with doubts and concerns, let’s be sure they get a fair hearing, because often in science, the spark of innovation often comes from connecting unlikely events that run counter to our assumptions.

  13. Michael Minor

    Michael Minor GoComics PRO Member said, about 5 years ago


    No sure what statistics you are citing, but under any circumstances you need to realize that “up to about 20%” could mean 1%, or 2%, or on and on “up to about 20%”.

  14. Refresh Comments.