Comments on: Desiree Jennings – The Plot Thickens

By: Science-Based Medicine » The Vaccine War

Science-Based Medicine » The Vaccine War — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:49:58 +0000

[...] taken the H1N1 vaccine said that the reason they didn’t take the vaccine was because they saw Desiree Jennings on YouTube. This makes me think, more than ever, that blogs such as this one and others are [...]

By: The Desiree Jennings Case, a Win for Skepticism « Gotham Skeptic

The Desiree Jennings Case, a Win for Skepticism « Gotham Skeptic — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:55:08 +0000

[...] The Desiree Jennings Case, a Win for Skepticism By Page, on February 23, 2010, at 7:03 am I don’t usually write a post that solely tells you to read another blog post, but in the strange case of Desiree Jennings, Steve Novella has become something of a primary reference. I recommend his post on this case penned at Neurologica. [...]

By: Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:15:42 +0000

“Her current symptoms seem to be speaking in a British sounding accent. ”

Hey, if that’s a disease, I’m a chronic case…

By: TsuDhoNimh

TsuDhoNimh — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:32:07 +0000

Wasn’t Buttar seeing her for free, out of the goodness of his slimy scum-sucking heart?

By: modoc451

modoc451 — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:29:14 +0000

The accent sounds like a combo of British and Aussie to me. Desiree is a victim, but she also seems like she’s playing the part of the victim, with her strange walking behavior towards the end of the video. Maybe she feels that she has to keep up appearances so that AOA keeps supporting her.

Steve, you looked great in the interview. When the producers talk to you about “doing doctory stuff”, such as putting the images on the x-ray viewing box, do they suggest what you do, or do you come up with that on your own? And, if you come up with it on your own, shouldn’t you get a little kickback, for doing their job for them?

Also, w00t for the site being back up!

By: Lenoxus

Lenoxus — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:30:25 +0000

The thing I always like to keep in mind about science versus anti-science is that, to its credit, science never takes on "Causes" as being more important than the evidence. So, for example, if someone claims a bad reaction from a vaccine, she or he is not, contra the antivaxers, hounded into silence, but patiently and empirically studied. There are plenty of known vaccine complications, just not at a high enough rate to make vaccination not worth it. I think it's somewhat "telling" (inversely speaking) that this is not some covered-up fact but admitted right up front, and that everyone in line for a jab has to look at and sign the waver discussing the risks. (If "Big Pharma" were as powerful as it's supposed to be, we would never hear about risks of anything, especially not anything with as low a profit margin as vaccines. Most alties simply take the list of all the scary complications at face value — look! scary! — and not pause to consider why they suddenly trust a source they never trust otherwise. If they were consistent, they would have to argue that stories of complications are some kind of "false flag" thing, meant to distract us from the true re-infection rate, or something.) Suppose that homeopathy somehow had a rate of complications similar to that of vaccination. Would homeopaths admit, study, and try to minimize it? Or would they deny them just as fervently as they affirm the remedies' "main" effects?

By: Marshall

Marshall — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:12:08 +0000

Woohoo, site back up!

By: weing

weing — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:16:14 +0000

It looks to me that she had true dystonia as much as she has a true Australian or British accent.

By: HHC

HHC — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:23:14 +0000

Viewed the Inside Edition video. The accent is not due to brain damage, but is a chosen cadence of speech which satisfies Desiree at the moment for self-expression.

By: B-Dawg

B-Dawg — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:45:42 +0000

Steve did an excellent job–in the 20 or so seconds they allowed him. He treated Desiree’s claim with respect, and refrained from speculating about possible motives for it. IE deserves credit, as well, for airing a followup that suggested their original coverage was not at all critical. Few media outlets bother.