Child Health Safety & The ‘Fake’ Measles Epidemic: A misunderstanding or wilful mis-information?

Its not often I get accused of making an…

“…..accusation of conspiracy by public health officials.”

….in fact it’s never happened. This accusation by Child Health Safety is something which I take very seriously and something which clearly deserves comment. Especially as it ruined my Friday afternoon session on the C64 classic Jack Charlton’s Match Fishing.

The background to this was an article published on May 3rd titled “The UK’s Fake Welsh Measles Epidemic – Only 8 Cases Confirmed For March – 302 Wrongly Diagnosed and “Notified” By Docs. The post itself has spread across the web like an infectious disease, being rehashed and reproduced with much delight on a number of websites including beacons of reason Gaia Health and David Ickes ‘Exploring the Dreamworld we believe to be real’ site.

The post itself is actually short, but it is highly inflammatory and makes some very major claims and accusations. The central claim is that

For the entire period 1 January to March 31, 2013 for the whole of Wales there were just 26 laboratory confirmed cases out of 446 notifications: 10 in January, 8 in February.  And in March just eight cases out of 302 notifications for the whole of Wales.  That is a percentage rate of over-diagnosis and over-notification in March of 3774% or just 0.027 of notified cases were actually measles

which in the mind of CHS is a smoking gun which can be taken as evidence that the measles epidemic was in fact fabricated.

It’s didn’t take too long before people started asking questions, and sure enough it turned out that CHS was wrong – spectacularly and comprehensively wrong. The assertion that all ‘notified’ cases are laboratory tested’ was shown to be false and thus no conclusions could be drawn on over reporting. It was also clarified by Public Health Wales themselves that the majority of measles tests are sent to UK labs for confirmation and are not reported in the figures for Wales.

In short CHS had relied upon incomplete figures and any conclusions, calculations and accusations which were made based on these figures were fatally flawed.

Now from time to time we all make mistakes, but if you are going to use figures to back up serious accusations against doctors and public health officials like these

The UK’s Fake Welsh Measles Epidemic – Only 8 Cases Confirmed For March – 302 Wrongly Diagnosed and “Notified” By Docs…[…]…There was just ONE laboratory confirmed case out of 183 notified cases in March – that is 18,200% over-diagnosed…[…]…That is a percentage rate of over-diagnosis and over-notification in March of 3774% or just 0.027 of notified cases were actually measles – and it is medical professionals who do the diagnosing and notifying.  Kind of knocks your faith in the ability of doctors to diagnose a basic childhood illness…[…]…Now you can see the extent of the scam being run by public health officials in Wales, UK.

and encourage widespread dissemination of these accusations

[ED’s REQUEST TO READERS: – repost link to this on Facebook, blogs, websites, Twitter, newspaper online comments please & email your families and friends – people are being scammed by health officials and the media – (added: 5/May/2013)

you’d be well advised to check and double check the figures.

And if subsequently you are found to be wrong I believe there is a responsibility to correct any errors you have made and acknowledge this fact. CHS however chose the dark side. They engaged in deflection tactics and claimed that I had made an

“…..accusation of conspiracy by public health officials.”

when what I actually said was very obviously directed at them

“The paragraph I quoted is relevant to the All-Wales Surveillance Laboratory-Confirmed Infections, which is a central part of your conspiracy.”

An opinion that I stand by. But arguments over who said what and about semantics  are only helpful in deflecting attention away from CHS’s errors in the interpretation of the data, something they still refuse to acknowledge

“Your problem is […] – you are saying the figures for tested are higher than those in the reports of tested and compiled and published by Public Health Wales – but you provide no evidence of that.

I’m guessing the following comprehensive and implicit statement from the Public Health Wales website – the very source CHS used in the first place – I provided wasn’t sufficient then?

“Please note that samples taken from patients in Wales are not always submitted to laboratories in Wales for confirmation of the organism causing illness. This is particularly true for suspected cases of measles and mumps where the majority of samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation. Confirmations made by labs from outside of Wales will not appear on the CoSurv All Wales Surveillance of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections reports as these only include data submitted by or via Welsh laboratories. As a consequence, totals of laboratory-confirmed cases of some diseases in Wales (such as measles and mumps) maybe higher than those published in these monthly reports.”

Despite the clarification statement on what is or isn’t in the reports CHS continue to make up their own interpretation based upon such sound logic as

If the reports were that incorrect there would be no point publishing them.

or alternatively just claim that the qualification statement shows they are right

 There is no point sending them for “confirmation” if the results are not sent back.  So Public Health Wales will have ALL the data.

based only on assumption. So the big question is who to blame? CHS has already got their arse covered

“And if they are wildly higher than those published by Public Health Wales without qualification we suggest you take it up with them.  They published them for everyone to read – without any qualification whatsoever – CHS did not publish them…[…]…Furthermore, the reports themselves published by Public Health Wales contain no such qualification and set out the figures as all of the laboratory tested cases.”

Now this is an argument which I would actually have some sympathy with except that CHS accept no blame for their own part in misusing the figures and they are playing semantics again. The fact that the reports previously had no qualification ignores that fact that the website hosting the figures now does , and that the most likely way people will miss the qualifying statements is by clicking directly to the pdf reports from CHS’s post. It also ignores that fact that this data didn’t force CHS to make wild and lurid accusations against public health officials, to misinterpret that data or to be too lazy to seek clarification. This was entirely of their own doing.

I don’t want an apology from CHS.

But I believe the doctors accused of over diagnosis and the public health officials accused of scamming the public do deserve a full and frank apology. Equally I believe that now CHS has been informed that the evidence does not support the claims they make, they have a duty to retract, remove, or clarify the post which contains the following misinformation:

  • That all notified cases of measles are laboratory tested
  • That only 26 measles cases were laboratory confirmed between Jan and March 2013 in the whole of Wales AND
  • That the All Wales Reports on Laboratory confirmed cases of measles, contains the results of all tests undertaken
  • That over diagnosis of Measles in March 2013 was 3774%

Unless they do, it goes from an understandable mistake to incompetence or wilful misinformation. And some might conclude CHS is perpetrating a scam* themselves.

* When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.

**********************

UPDATE 14/05/2013.

CHS continue to defend their post by citing dubious figures and then attributing these to anyone critical of their original post. These figures appear to have originated from CHS themselves (see ED response to Jerry’s post May 13 1:10pm) .

CSH has confirmed in the comments below that they will not be removing the claims they made which are based upon incomplete data contained within the All Wales Laboratory Confirmed Measles Reports. They claim the reasons are that

in February and March Public Health Wales started a scare when on their own admission they did not have the figures to back it up.

So there you have it. The way CHS deals with a lack of data is to counter it with poorly researched data and then stand by them even after this is pointed out to them. The fact that they claim

They [Public Health Wales] omitted to tell the public the truth.  That is gross and irresponsible conduct of public health officials who are civil servants paid from taxes of citizens of this country when they appear to be serving another agenda in acting as they did.

sounds almost like (whisper it) a conspiracy.

**********************

UPDATE 31/05/2013.

As promised in the below comments, I went over to CHS to discuss some of the ‘off topic’ issues that they raised. My comment was held in moderation and then deleted without being published. This seems rather hypocritical after the CHS had made a big fuss when they wrongly accused me of ‘blocking’ their posts so I dropped them a twitter message asking them why and they didn’t respond. I then noticed them tweeting this

So there you have it. Child Health Safety not only provide inaccurate information which they refuse to retract, but they will only debate in their echo chamber blog where they can control what is published and by who.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Child Health Safety & The ‘Fake’ Measles Epidemic: A misunderstanding or wilful mis-information?

  1. 1) @Slipp “That all notified cases of measles are laboratory tested”
    Nice try Slipp – you omit to mention the big red capitals – there since 4th May
    [ED: CHECK OUT COMMENTS AT END FOR LATEST FIGURES FOR APRIL AND DISCUSSION]

    Where is set out 1) all notifications are to be tested 2) and in fact 87% are tested over last 18 years.

    2) @Slipp “That only 26 measles cases were laboratory confirmed between Jan and March 2013 in the whole of Wales.”
    That is what the official reports published by Public Health Wales state – without any qualification whatsoever.

    3) That the All Wales Reports on Laboratory confirmed cases of measles, contains the results of all tests undertaken

    LOL Slipp – @Slipp “It was also clarified by Public Health Wales themselves that the majority of measles tests are sent to UK labs for confirmation and are not reported in the figures for Wales.”

    Lame – dog ate my homework

    “majority” = 51%+.

    BUT – 73% of notifications were tested [figures given by Public Health Wales to media in May – 1,170 notified: lab confirmed 370: tested 850].

    So @Slipp = 123% of notifications are tested – great math Slipp – complete nonsense.

    850/1170 = 73% not Slipp’s 123%.

    4) That over diagnosis of Measles in March 2013 was 3774%

    That is what Public Health Wales figures show from their official reports published by Public Health Wales state – without any qualification whatsoever

    “Reported notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases. Other rashes are often mistaken for measles.”
    http://tinyurl.com/cq5blbp

  2. While its fun watching you flail about and squirm this has reached the stage where I am simply bayonetting the wounded.

    1. ‘That all notified cases of measles are laboratory tested’.

    The reason it is even necessary to clarify this is because you were always adamant that all ‘notified’ cases had to be ‘laboratory confirmed’ because of HPA National Measles Guidelines (October 2010). In fact you were so adamant you continued to slap down posters who disagreed (e.g: May 5th 12:18pm, May 8 7:55pm) well after this alleged correction you refer to on [4th May 10:30 GMT]’ was made.

    This erroneous assumption runs through your calculations.

    Example. You claimed “just 0.027 of notified cases were actually measles“, based on March 2013 figures of 308 notifications and 8 laboratory confirmed cases and claimed this was over diagnosis by doctors and health professionals.

    Your claims are now evolving to suggest 87% of notifications are tested based on historical data [I make it 66,199 notifications, 54, 819 tests = 82% between 1995-2012 but I’m happy to use your figure] but this now contradicts your earlier claim that all ‘notified’ cases had to be ‘laboratory confirmed’ because of HPA National Measles Guidelines (October 2010). In fact its good evidence that HPA Guidelines are not followed. So which is it?

    Perhaps CHS need to clarify all of these matters so no misunderstanding continues?

    2. “That only 26 measles cases were laboratory confirmed between Jan and March 2013 in the whole of Wales”

    Please read the post. Now Public Health Wales have clarified these are not all of the confirmed cases will you be amending your post? Simple question which has a yes or no answer.

    3. “That the All Wales Reports on Laboratory confirmed cases of measles, contains the results of all tests undertaken”.

    Thanks for confirming your understanding that a minimum of 51% of the ‘laboratory confirmations’ from Welsh samples do not appear in the All Wales Lab Confirmed Figures. [EDIT 15:45 – for clarity I’m not inferring these were positive just not included]. These are the incomplete figures you rely upon in your post. That you fail to conceded or clarify that your figures are not complete is reason enough for people to doubt your integrity and the validity of your conclusions.

    Please point out where I have claimed that 123% of notifications are tested.

    You give no source of the ‘media’ figures so how can I comment upon these? What happened to good old reliable CHS an their sources?

    4. That over diagnosis of Measles in March 2013 was 3774%

    Over diagnosis happens. But not at the rates you claim. The HPA figures you link to do confirm that not all notifications are subsequently lab confirmed. They also show that over diagnosis is not even close to the rates you claim.

    The obvious flaws in your figures make the claim of 3774% entirely unsupported and you have not provided anything to change that.

  3. 1. It was clarified a) directing readers in big red block capital letters at the top of the article to read the discussion – done over a week before you put this post up. And in the discussion it was clarified that 87% of notifications were tested.

    2. No. And for a very simple reason – in February and March Public Health Wales started a scare when on their own admission they did not have the figures to back it up.

    The figures they did have are the ones in their unqualified official reports which had the figure of 26 for the entire quarter to the end of March.

    Instead of telling the public the facts Public Health Wales instead grossly exaggerated real measles cases – giving out the figures for notifications – and not confirmed cases and providing no qualification whatsoever to the media or public.

    And that is when their own information clearly states:
    “Reported notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases.”
    http://tinyurl.com/cq5blbp

    The figures they used were high above their own officially published confirmed figures of just 8 confirmed for each of February and March for all Wales.

    Further, if there is any difference – and no one will know for months according to Public Health Wales – it is unlikely to be anywhere near the figures they were claiming were measles cases – hundreds.

    They omitted to tell the public the truth. That is gross and irresponsible conduct of public health officials who are civil servants paid from taxes of citizens of this country when they appear to be serving another agenda in acting as they did.

    3. “That the All Wales Reports on Laboratory confirmed cases of measles, contains the results of all tests undertaken”.

    We have not as you suggested confirmed “a minimum of 51% of the ‘laboratory confirmations’ from Welsh samples do not appear in the All Wales Lab Confirmed Figures”.

    That is an assertion made by jdc on his blog without any substantiation – that the majority of the test results are missing – languishing in an English laboratory. It is an odd suggestion.

    He has been asked to publish in full the email or letter and giving the name of the official who he claims made that assertion and he has not done none of those things.

    The official reports published by Public Health Wales contains no qualification whatsoever that the figures are incomplete in any way.

    It is pure conjecture that any figures are incomplete – asserted by jdc.

    Whether the figures are complete or not is irrelevant – a scare was created on the basis of vastly inflated claims. Regardless of any further figures which are published there is a snowball’s chance in hell of them being anywhere near the figures bandied around with reckless abandon by public servants in Wales to scare citizens of this nation into taking action to suit an agenda which is not in the interests the children who will certainly suffer adverse reactions and unnecessarily so.

    So there is no reason for people to doubt our integrity and the validity of our conclusions.
    There is every reason to doubt the integrity of heath officials in Wales – some may have integrity but it seems clear they have been let down by others.

    That 123% of notifications are tested is the inevitable conclusion of your subscription to the claim you have published that “the majority of samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation. Confirmations made by labs from outside of Wales will not appear on the …. Laboratory-Confirmed Infections reports ”

    A “majority” is 51% or more.

    The totals given out in April to the media were: 1,170 notified: lab confirmed 370: tested 850 – which are for the year to date for Wales.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/02/measles-epidemic-swansea-teenagers-targeted-vaccinations

    The total notifications reported by NOIDs for the entire year to 28 April was 987 and 1062 to 5th May.- that is the absolute official total – no give or take.

    But if we still take the much higher figures given to the Guardian – even though wrong and too high – those figures show 73% were tested – 850/1170.

    [NOIDS would give 80-86% tested].

    So it is simply not possible for 51%+ of the test results to be languishing in England and not to be included in the figures published in the Guardian from Health Protection Wales.

    That would give a figure of 123% or higher – 73% + 51% = 123%

    So your reliance on the 51%+ excuse given on jdc’s blog is clearly not appropriate.

    As for: “You give no source of the ‘media’ figures so how can I comment upon these? What happened to good old reliable CHS an their sources?”

    Not only given above but also on CHS here:
    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/2013-uk-fake-measles-epidemic/#comment-121131

    and here:
    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/2013-uk-fake-measles-epidemic/#comment-122527

    and here:
    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/update-measles-2013/

    and here

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/update-measles-2013/#comment-122180

    “4. That over diagnosis of Measles in March 2013 was 3774% …. Over diagnosis happens. But not at the rates you claim.”

    No. True. It can be much higher 73 in every 74 notifications. [Laboratory confirmed cases of measles, mumps, and rubella, England and Wales: October to December 2004 – CDR Weekly, Volume 15 Number 12 Published: 24 March 2005]

    And on the figures for March – 8 confirmed out of 297 notifications [4-31 March] and February 8 confirmed out of .82 notifications [4 Feb to 3 March].

    So it is inappropriate to suggest that “The obvious flaws in your figures make the claim of 3774% entirely unsupported and you have not provided anything to change that.”

  4. ” And in the discussion it was clarified that 87% of notifications were tested.”

    CHS, that figure of 87% refers to historical data, as you yourself pointed out here: http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/anti-vaccine-blunders/#comment-16556

    In that comment, you wrote: “Over the past 18 year 87% of notifications are tested.”
    Just in case you need to be reminded – your original post related to figures for the Welsh outbreak in 2013, not the figures for an 18-year period prior to the outbreak in question.

    If you attempt to defend claims you have made about the first quarter of 2013 by reference to the data for the 18 years prior to that, then don’t expect anybody to take what you say seriously. You need to refer to the data for the period in question, not a completely different period of time.

    Good grief.

  5. Ah, I see we have the inferential evidence mechanism at play.

    Some data mining and distortion enables CHS to twist figures and come up with a supposed figure of 123% of cases are tested (which is quite ridiculous anyway, but he seems happy to say that this is what his calculations yeild). CHS then attributes this phantom figure to someone he is arguing against, using every logical fallacy in the book to do so, and can accuse his opponent of claiming “123%”, and CHS uses direct quotes as if they had actually made that ridiculous claim.

    Assuming we can use the same argumental MO then, may I say that it is nice to see that CHS “admits measles is a very dangerous and often fatal disease”.
    Logic is as follows – CHS says that there are hardly any cases of real measles. Yet we know there have been at least 2 deaths confirmed as being due to acute measles in the last 20 yrs in UK (plus another 15 or so from the longer term effects of measles). He told us this himself. But that works out as a fatality rate of at least 1-2%, an astonishingly high proportion for a 1st World country. So CHS will clearly be a strong MMR vaccination supporter, since if he wishes to promote child health and safety, he would obviously wish to stop 2% of kids dying from measles. He couldn’t be so heartless and cruel as to not do this, surely.

    I think the media needs to be alerted that death and disability is the real legacy of measles, and that CHS has verified this is the case. Well done CHS!

    REQUEST TO READERS: – please alert the BBC. Repost the link to this on Facebook, blogs, websites, Twitter, newspaper online comments please & email your families and friends – people continue to be scammed by antivaxers and the media. Measles kills. CHS has said so.

  6. @CHS

    1. The clarification CHS provided on the post clearly isn’t adequate and you have sidestepped the issue of why you continued to assert that that all ‘notified’ cases were ‘laboratory confirmed’ even after you added this ‘clarification’. Looks like the desire to be right got in the way of accuracy to me.

    Also, as JDC points out the 87% figure is the figure for historical data. It cannot be used in the context of your specific claims on 2013 data. As I have shown you ignored it anyway when doing the maths and assume 100% anyway!

    2. Thank you for confirming that Child Health Safety REFUSE to amend incorrect figures given for laboratory confirmed cases, even though they now know from Public Health Wales that these are not the full figures and the majority of lab tests are not included. You are now into the bounds of wilful misinformation.

    The fact you claim some ‘agenda’ justifies this shows a degree of malice in your actions and also, dare I say a hint of the accusation of a conspiracy?

    No conjecture is needed to show the data is incomplete this is a PRATT – PHW have now confirmed that it’s incomplete although it regrettable this is on the webpage only – thus giving you the claim the ‘reports’ have no disclaimer – anyone with a degree of sense will see this for what it is – more semantics.

    I’ll look into the NHS Wales figures you cite when I have time [Note the difference, I go away and check the source before responding].

    3. You claim that “850/1170 = 73% not Slipp’s 123%.”

    I’ll ask again – where have I made any reference to 123% of notifications being tested? I haven’t. Again your dishonesty is apparent.

    Please point me to where this figure is mine, or retract that claim. I didn’t use this figure in my post, or comments and neither do the other ‘Badscience bloggers’ (presume you mean JDC and I’ve checked – he doesn’t).

    This ‘inevitable consequence’ of 123% seems to be the result of some incompetent maths on your part rather than anything I have said. This where we differ CHS, when I don’t know I say – I don’t know I’ll try and find out. You however bluster and make assumptions and do appalling maths.

    That you pull figures like 51% = majority out of the air and use them incorrectly is your own problem and one which only swells the internet footprint of your incompetence.

    4. I’ll look into the citation tomorrow but I note you still claim 8 notifications out of 297 notifications.

    You accept the NOIDS and COSurv roughly agree on all wales notifications on your blog. I’ll accept that figure too, but as above lab confirmed cases figure we now know are under-reported (as the majority of samples are not included) the true figure for lab confirmed is very likely to be higher.

    1. 1. “The clarification CHS provided on the post clearly isn’t adequate”.
      Yes it is. Readers were duly advised to read the comments and discussion. It was clearly set out in big red capital letters.

      2. “the 87% figure is the figure for historical data. It cannot be used in the context of your specific claims on 2013 data.”

      Yes it can.

      3. There is no explanation from you. Accordingl to you 370 out of 850 tested is missing half the samples – but according to NOIDS the maximum number of reported cases was was 987 and 1062 to 5th May.

      So will you explain how that is? Do you agree or not that the 370 must contain figures from England and cannot possibly be figures hidden in lab in England as jdc claimed on 19th May and you repeat here?

      The Welsh published figures for confirmed was about 186 to 28th April.

      So how can the 370 not include figures from England?

      And if that were the case then the 850 tested must be tested in England and Wales.

      So there cannot be 51%+ of the notified cases missing sitting in England as you suggest.

      4. The public were being told there were large numbers of cases as if real measles cases when the actual number of cases were much lower and that was done to create a panic. And done when as you now seem to agree Public Health Wales did not have the figures in February or March to justify their claims. The point of the CHS article.

      Do you agree the 370 reported in the Guardian include figures from England? If they do, then the public were being told there were over a thousand cases when there were not.

      Do you agree?

      And it started in Wales like this:
      February 2: Parkland Primary – suspected measles outbreak.10 cases at Sketty Park – part of a sharp rise.
      March 1: 189 cases of measles diagnosed in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board area.
      March 7: 209 cases across Swansea and Neath Port Talbot.
      March 19: cases rising to 252.
      March 27: Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board public health director Sara Hayes said 432 cases had been reported,
      March 29: Crisis measures introduced.

      1. 1. “Yes it is. Readers were duly advised to read the comments and discussion. It was clearly set out in big red capital letters”.

        The clarifications you should be making are listed at the end of my post. These should be in a prominent location so people get the correct information. Where calculations are wrong they should be removed or amended. This unfortunately might mean most of the post needs to be removed.

        2. “Yes it can”

        You keep banging on about 87% being tested but your calculations assume 100% of notified cases were sent for laboratory confirmed and that all confirmations were accounted for monthly reports. Either you knew these figures and chose not to use them, or only became aware after the initial post had attracted criticism. Neither explanation reflects well on you CHS.

        3. “There is no explanation from you”.

        For once you are correct. I haven’t made any comments about the ‘Guardian’ figures http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/02/measles-epidemic-swansea-teenagers-targeted-vaccinations
        because as I noted above I didn’t have the source at the time. I see this hasn’t stopped you giving the impression that I have done and making up stuff though.

        “Accordingl to you 370 out of 850 tested is missing half the samples”

        I haven’t made any such claim, or even commented on the ‘Guardian’ figures (which contain the 370 and 850 figures). According to me an unknown ‘majority’ of measles samples which are sent to Englishs Labs for confirmations do not appear in the All Wales Lab Confirmed Report. Any wider interpretation of the Guardian figures has therefore originated from CHS, or another source.

        “So there cannot be 51%+ of the notified cases missing sitting in England as you suggest.”

        I haven’t made any suggestion about a specific proportion of cases sitting in English labs at all. As I have already stated I haven’t made any comments regarding the Guardian figures – my concerns relate to the All Wales Lab Confirmed Report – something you find impossible to grasp. Any wider interpretation or calculations based on the Guardian figures has therefore originated from CHS, or another source.

        Dingo is correct. You are left creating figures and then claim that anyone critical of you subscribes to these figures. I don’t. And you continue to look rather foolish.

        This is my blog and you are a guest here discussing my topic. The topic in question is problems with the All Wales Lab Confirmed Measles Data and also the claims that all notifications are tested. I’ll be happy to discuss the Guardian figures on CHS.

        Rules for posting are above – get back on topic and answer the questions raised.

  7. 2. “the 87% figure is the figure for historical data. It cannot be used in the context of your specific claims on 2013 data.”

    Yes it can.

    I’m sorry but the only appropriate response to that is to point and laugh. You’re claiming that because something happened in the past it must be happening now. You are using an average figure for an 18-year period prior to the Welsh outbreak and applying it to the Welsh outbreak. Prior to this, you were using a figure of 100% rather than 87% – based on nothing more than your assumption that the guidelines stating that notifications should be tested meant that all notifications were tested. You’ve shifted from a position where you were using one wrong figure to a position where you are using a different wrong figure. Keep shifting, you might inadvertently hit on the correct figure at some point. Or you could try finding out what the correct figure is – something that you perhaps should have done before publishing your original post.

    You don’t even have an argument to defend your use of this figure and have opted instead for simple contradiction.

      1. I guess we’ll have to take that as an “I am wrong but refuse to admit it so I will take immediate evasive action” type of response from CHS then.

  8. “Rules for posting are above – get back on topic and answer the questions raised.”
    That appears a bullying approach does it not? And particularly jdc and dingo have a problem with being civil.
    So on what basis can you possibly expect anyone to accept your kind invitation put in such terms?
    Furthermore, as stated ad nauseum – stating that there is a scam over the figures does not equal an accusation of conspiracy – but that is how you start your blog. You are determined to infer it does.
    Do you accept that PHW have made claims during March and April in particular of hundreds of confirmed cases when they did not have the figures to back that up? And particularly
    If you do accept that then it is fair to say it appears to be a scam or is a scam. But that is not levelling an accusation of conspiracy against anyone. How that situation over the figures has come about is yet to be determined. And it is does not even come close to accusing two or more people of entering into an agreement to that end. It could be concerted behaviour where one or more people act towards a common design sharing common goals to achieve an end result. It could be that some people do what they are told. It could be some people acting on their own initiative – it could be many things. But without the facts of how it has come about one cannot come to a conclusion that one person saying there is a scam is the same as that person saying there is a conspiracy.
    The chains of reasoning turning to dictionary definitions and suchlike is a reductionist approach to saying if a + b + c then the answer must be d.
    Saying you infer there is an accusation of conspiracy is your inference – it does not put words into anyone’s mouth that are not and were not there. It is pure inference and nothing more. If you claim that the accusation of a scam is in truth the same as an accusation of conspiracy you have to first exclude all other possibilities – which you have not done – and some possibilities have been indicated above.

    The only correct part of the first three lines of your blog are “in fact it’s never happened”. Correct – there has been nothing said which alleges two or more people have engaged in a conspiracy. Neither you nor I know how it has come about that PHW has claimed substantially more confirmed cases than they had the confirmations to back up. When the figure of 370 was recently issued via the media it is clearly very much lower than the numbers being claimed as confirmations.
    One might argue the media misinterpreted what they were told but the confirmation was has been used at least once weekly and many more times over many weeks. That appears uncorrected by HPW.
    So the first premise you open your blog with is in matter of fact and logic wrong.
    How can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously when you open your blog like that? And in the rest of what you say there are so many errors and hostages to fortune – coupled with the prospect of a total absence of civility – as already ably demonstrated by your associates – that the prospect of any dialogue looks like a long haul.
    The loop has been gone over and over on your conspiracy point that it is tedious with the prospect of more of the same with all the rest.
    Here is another example “You keep banging on about 87% being tested but your calculations assume 100% of notified cases were sent for laboratory confirmed and that all confirmations were accounted for monthly reports. ”
    They don’t – they are total notifications including discarded vs tested. The assumptions you claim were made were not. 87% gives an indication of what can be expected based on what has before. To that extent it can be used for 2013 as a guide – there is no rule book that says that cannot be done – one can calculate deviations and the like if one wishes but wholly over the top when seeking a guideline. It is certainly a guideline to say that it is likely more than 50% of notifications will be tested.
    So such a confrontational approach is unhelpful. Dingo particularly demonstrates his attitude and approach. Oh dear, you will claim that is an accusation of a conspiracy. Sigh.

    1. The rules apply to everyone and they are not for bullying. I post on topic on CHS blog and expect you to extend the same courtesy here. I also expect you to stop posting inaccurate statements and attributing them to me. I have pointed these out and you just deflect and move on. Dialogue fails because you fail to engage and take the time to understand the points being made.

      Nothing JDC or Dingo have written here is not civil in my opinion. If they do otherwise they will be warned.

      I’m not arguing definitions but Scam as I understand it involves deceit. Where multiple people are doing this to an agenda – the very essence of what your comments suggest – then that’s the conclusion people may draw.

      There is a lesson here for CHS – be more circumspect and tone down the inflammatory accusations. As previously stated, I actually agree that the All Wales Lab Confirmed Reports were misleading but I can’t have sympathy for your mistake when you fail to acknowledge it. PHW have now clarified matters on their website. It’s now an error you actively choose to make if you do so. It is your actions alone that have ensured that YOU rather than the incomplete PHW testing figures have become the story

      I am more than happy for you to comment here – after all this is a story I will continue to follow and will be blogging about it again as it develops.

      1. ” I actually agree that the All Wales Lab Confirmed Reports were misleading”

        Not the question.

        “Do you accept that PHW have made claims during March and April in particular of hundreds of confirmed cases when they did not have the figures to back that up? “

        1. That depends, in my opinion, on the credibility of the 370 laboratory confirmed figure quoted in the Guardian does it not?

          At present we simply don’t know how this number was arrived at so can’t draw any firm conclusion.

          What have you done to attempt to clarify this?

    2. CHS, you claim that PHW stated that there were “hundreds of confirmed cases of measles” in March/April.

      Can we see a citation for that please, since all the press reports I have seen released by PHW through this outbreak refer only to “reported”/”notified” cases of measles, which is quite a different barrel of budgies.

    1. Your comments have not been ‘blocked’ at all.

      The settings I use on the blog have always been that comment can be post without moderation once a posters first comment is approved.

      1. I doubt anyone would wish to block CHS’s comments.
        They provide a supreme example of the muddled thinking that afflicts so many obsessive antivaccination propagandists that the more he posts, the better IMHO.

    2. Not that you would ever block comments on your blog, no siree.

      So not only are you wrong about your comments being blocked here, you are also hypocritical in complaining about your comments being blocked here, given that is exactly what you do on your blog.

      I also see there has been no apology for getting it wrong about PHW being involved in a scam, but also no apology about the comments you have incorrectly attributed to others. Do you not care about being at least moderately accurate?

  9. Where have I been uncivil?

    I just made some observations, one to point out that CHS has declared measles is indeed a nasty disease with a significant mortality (and so is worth preventing through vaccination, no matter how many or how few clinically suspected cases there might be), and another comment that CHS seems to evade answering tricky questions. I guess that is because he hopes readers will not notice he has failed to answer them, and he also seems to want to persuade people to go to his blog to continue the discussion (where he can control and censor the comments posted, and all the while they are bumping up his visitor stats).

    If CHS has any disagreement with my opinions, he can let us know what he really thinks. Here, on this blog, not his own.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s