Thanks, John from Australia

You know, whenever I’m at a meeting or on vacation, I still sometimes feel the tug of the blog. Yet, I tell myself, I need a break. Usually, I handle the problem by setting up several old posts from at least a couple of years a go to repeat, you know, to see how well or badly they’ve aged. Sometimes, however, material is given to me. For example, this e-mail from someone named John who happens to have a .au (Australia) e-mail address:


To put your real name to this Blog—

its probably because you are not a Real person and don’t actually exist–

I have seen Direct evidence of Vaccinations as per Mouldens photos in
children around me, in my family.

Their parents get told by Doctos all sorts of excuses as to why they have
the problems they do—

someone would try and make you believe they were Born ‘WITH A LAZY EYE” but
they weren’t.

Any way if such Vaccinations programmes were so successful around the world
we wouldn’t see the problems we have today. The Medical system has failed

But you know if all your Science was so successful, and based on Truth, then
it wouldn’t need Defending—so


let us others make their own choice——

So have you taken the Swine Flue Shot yet?—based on your ponderings you
would have been the first one lining up for one…..

Infact why don’t you take 2 just for good measure……………..
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1970 – Release Date: 2/24/2009
1:35 PM

Oh, I really exist, John. Honestly and truly I do. And lots of people know my real name. It’s one of the worst kept secrets in the medical blogosphere. But thank you for playing.

I wonder if John saw my post from about a year ago about “Dr.” Moulden’s pseudoscience.

Come to think of it, if you haven’t been following this blog at least a year, that’s a good post for you to go back and read. Then consider that Age of Autism promotes Andrew Moulden.

Feel free to have some fun with both John and Andrew in the comments while I’m away.


  1. #1 Jud
    October 15, 2009

    Dr. Gordon writes: This new H1N1 is just another virus. No, I will not get the flu shot. I will support giving it to higher risk children and parents with underlying medical issues indicating it’s [sic] use.

    An analysis of the sickest swine flu patients in Australia, Canada, Mexico, and New Zealand suggests that relatively healthy adolescents and young adults are among the most likely to get very sick after an H1N1 infection, a pattern similar to that seen in the 1918 influenza pandemic.

    Almost all critically ill patients in the studies were sick for only a few days before rapidly progressing to more severe symptoms and respiratory failure, which required treatment with a breathing machine, according to three studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

    The mortality rate ranged from 14.3 percent to 41.4 percent, depending on the country. The findings may help shine some light on what the 2009 H1N1 flu season may bring, and who may be hit the hardest by the swine flu during the next few months.

    “These studies are telling us that young people are at risk for bad complications of H1N1 and under usual circumstances, [seasonal] flu does not cause acute respiratory failure in younger people,” says Dr. Neil Schachter, the medical director of the respiratory care department at Mount Sinai Medical Center, in New York City.

    All the information I have seen indicates that Dr. Gordon is exactly wrong – H1N1 is not a virus about which only the classically vulnerable populations need worry.

  2. #2 the bug guy
    October 15, 2009

    Dr. Jay apparently lives in a world where grant providers only want positive results and expect full compliance from researchers. Never mind the fact that these providers want real data to know if their new product actually works. Or know how well it works in comparison to other means. They also want to know possible adverse effects. They want researchers to give them solid information so that the company can make multi-million dollar decisions.

    Oh, and Dr. Jay, I have worked on projects that returned negative results to the granting corporation. That particular formulation didn’t work, so they discontinued it and moved on to testing different ones. Funny thing, it didn’t hurt our ability to get grants at all.

    Don’t think that things are all rosy. Some companies do get upset at negative results. But, they also get reputations and fewer researchers will try to get funding from them. Funny how things like that work. 😉

  3. #3 mattyv
    October 15, 2009

    Gah! Ashamed to be Australian at this moment. Unfortunately, as others have said, it’s all too common. My time in the ‘news’ section of one of Aus’s largest forums has taught me never to be surprised when it comes to people’s inability to rationally look at the evidence. The conspiracy theorists seem, for some reason, to automatically give greater credence to any site/post/opinion that challenges the establishment or implies a cover-up. Even people proclaiming (anonymously online) to have PhD in Toxicology. Have I seen you before, John?….

  4. #4 antipodean
    October 16, 2009

    Just to follow-up on the Big Guy’s comments.

    I’ve also published a clinical trial which was sponsored by a pharma company which showed the drug might actually have made the disease in question worse. A number of employees of that pharma company signed on as co-authors in the published paper.

    How’s that for an anecdote to completely refute all published scientific studies to the contrary? It’s a perfect example of why clinical reasoning and anecdotes have been replaced by scientific study.

  5. #5 Jay Gordon, MD, FAAP
    October 16, 2009

    antipodean, Bug and others. You are correct: There probably are quite a few researchers and pharma employees and funding sources with enough integrity to continue funding research even when the results do not benefit their company or their product.

    My statements implying “never” and “always” are incorrect, lazy thinking and I retract them.

    Thanks for pointing this out.



  6. #6 Luna_the_cat
    October 16, 2009

    legatee bhutan:
    luna- professionals who practice ‘cookie cutter medicine’ are not geniuses.

    Never claimed they were; they’re just going by best available evidence. (Note, also, that vaccinating all the recommended shots on the recommended schedule also does allow for taking into account individual patient needs, such as the example upthread of keeping it to no more than 4 shots on a day, or rescheduling when the child isn’t well.) That doesn’t take genius. That’s just being sensible.

    Please note, professionals who practice ‘unconventional’ or ‘unorthodox’ medicine based on personal bias and cognitive error and in defiance of best available evidence are not geniuses either.

    Your criticism is meaningless.

  7. #7 Dangerous Bacon
    October 16, 2009

    Thanks to the poster who put up the link to Steve Novella’s article on Science Based Medicine – the one calling attention to Dr. Jay’s idiotic “open letter” on the H1N1 vaccine.

    It’s noteworthy how Dr. Jay’s comments here differ from what he says in his “open letter”. In his comments here, Dr. Jay indicates he will follow at least part of the CDC’s recommendations for giving the vaccine to patients at risk:

    “I will support giving it to higher risk children and parents with underlying medical issues indicating it’s use.”

    But in his open letter, Dr. Jay makes clear that as far as he’s concerned, the number of his patients that will get vaccine protection is vanishingly small:

    “I also won’t be giving the flu shot to the kids and parents in my practice unless there are extraordinary risk factors. I anticipate giving none at all this year.”

    So, Dr. Jay is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. Will he actually support giving the vaccine to those of his patients with underlying medical problems, like asthmatics and others on immune-suppressing drugs, or to parents caring for young children? His own remarks for maximal public consumption indicate not.

    Dr. Novella does a nice job of shooting down Dr. Jay’s other misconceptions about H1N1, including the argument that it’s “just another virus”, and the suggestion that one is better off getting sick and achieving some fantasy lifetime immunity to influenza, as opposed to gaining immunity through vaccination.

    As to our supposedly having “invented” criteria for the scientific method and downgrading “experience”, Dr. Jay is much like many alties I’ve had discussions with. They get bewildered and hurt when testimonials are rejected as insufficient evidence for one of their “cures”, and act as though I’ve invented evidence-based criteria merely to put down their pet beliefs. I expect more from someone like Dr. Jay.

    Dr. Jay: “would you like to fly on a plane designed by an experienced aerospace engineer who integrated life’s experiences with research or one designed by an inexperienced engineer who relied exclusively on what he’d read?”

    Let’s clean up this example and make it relevant to the issues at hand.

    Let’s say my choice is between, on the one hand, flying on a plane designed by an experienced aerospace engineer using well-tested principles accepted by the vast majority of colleagues in his field — and on the other hand, boarding a plane built a draftsman without design experience, who rails against established principles of design, claims his own unpublished anecdotes are superior to research, and attacks the distinguished designer as untrustworthy because he makes money from developing superior aircraft.

    I’d say that choice is a no-brainer.

  8. #8 Todd W.
    October 16, 2009

    @Dangerous Bacon

    On the “just another virus” front, Dr. Albietz just put up a post on SBM that addresses that, in a response to a Mercola article on Natural News. Worth reading, because it addresses some common misconceptions that have been popularize, and some which Dr. Gordon appears to believe.

  9. #9 gaiainc
    October 16, 2009

    Dr. Jay, please read Jennifer B. Philips’s post at 188. Please. Afterwards, please explain to me how I misread you because I don’t see it at all. Even on re-reading, I just don’t see how I misread you.

    You do have the choice not to get the seasonal flu or H1N1 vaccine. Personally, I think that is irresponsible in terms of patient care. As health-care workers we see and are exposed to and are great vectors for disease. If I can do something that has minimal risk to me in order to minimize the risk of me passing on a bad disease to a patient, then I do it. Hand-washing is great, but it’s not enough. However, your mileage may vary.

  10. #10 bob
    October 16, 2009

    Jay, thank you for you kind comment at #205. I hope you stick with it, unlike past admissions.

    Of course, there is an obvious follow-up question: How do you determine which studies are “tainted” and ought to be rejected, and which do you accept? I suspect you cherrypick based on your own preconceived notions, but I’ll happily correct my statement if you demonstrate otherwise.

  11. #11 titmouse
    October 16, 2009


    Dr. Jay at 183: “I do vaccinate my patients on the same schedule I would use for my child or loved ones’ children. You misread me. “

    Maybe Dr. Gordon is saying that he doesn’t encourage his family members to get vaccinated AND he doesn’t encourage his patients to get vaccinated either. Ergo, he is consistent.


    Dr. Jay at 163: “I will repeat for the third time: We do not vaccinate our children on the same schedule we recommend for our patients. “

    So Dr. Gordon’s colleagues are rat bastards who knowingly subject babies to something they wouldn’t allow for their own children.

    This must mean that Dr. Gordon is MOAR TOTALLY AWESOME DEN UDDER KID DOCS!!

    The AAP need to answer these accusations from one of their members for the sake of public confidence. I think this is imperative.

  12. #12 D. C. Sessions
    October 17, 2009

    Speaking with less haste and hyperbole than above, I have to correct the my statement about dismissing these studies. Research should not be funded by those who have a financial interest in the outcome. I assume that’s not a controversial concept.

    So who can we find who doesn’t have any financial interest in public health?

  13. #13 D. C. Sessions
    October 17, 2009

    I’ve met engineers who think that their experience trumps science and best practice, they’re the ones who make mistakes and get people killed.

    Met them? I’ve worked for them, and have spent a good bit of my professional life cleaning up after them. Fortunately these weren’t life-critical applications but they could certainly sink vast amounts of money into making a buggy product late and unprofitable because they always “just knew” that they were Sierra Hotel engineers who didn’t need to do any of that Bravo Sierra methodology.

    Egos like Jay’s are a dime a dozen. If you want an example from my field, look up Intel’s “Digital Home” initiative, AKA “viiv.” Hundreds of millions down the tubes thanks to some egos who were too 1337 to have to do things the way that lesser mortals do.

    I just wish Jay were working for my competitors instead of killing children.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.