The fixed mindset of the anti-vaccine activist

One of my interests in skepticism and critical thinking has been the similarity in the fallacious arguments, approach to data, and general behavior of those who are–to put it generously–not so skeptical or scientific in their approach to life. I’m talking about believers in the paranormal, quacks, anti-vaccine activists, conspiracy theory mavens, Holocaust deniers, creationists, anthropogenic global warming denialists, and cranks of all stripes. Indeed, it is this similarity in mindset that led Mark Hoofnagle to coin the term “crank magnetism,” a perfect description of how people who believe in one form of crankery often believe in other forms of crankery as well. Examples include Dr. Lorraine Day, who’s a believer in cancer quackery (indeed, lots of other forms of quackery, too) and is a rabid Holocaust denier as well; Melanie Phillips, who is anti-vaccine and doesn’t believe in AGW or evolution, either; Vox Day, who hits the crank trifecta of anti-vaccinationism, evolution denialism, and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denialism; Nicholas Kollerstrom, who hits the different crank trifecta of Holocaust denial, astrology, and crop circles; and Mike Adams, whose crank magnetism encompasses virtually all forms of pseudoscience except for than AGW denialism.

But crank magnetism is not the only aspect of the believer in pseudoscience, and that’s an extreme “us versus them” mentality. True, this is not a characteristic unique to cranks or even defining of cranks, but when you verbiage like this in combination with dubious science, chances are that you are dealing with a grade-A woo-meister, a crank par excellance:

I want to win the “Vaccine-Autism War.”

It’s probably why I spend inordinate amounts of my scarce free time watching History Channel specials on military battles and tactics. The books I read also tend to be about great historical struggles and what eventually happened.

And sometimes I simply can’t believe we haven’t already won.

These are the words of Kent Heckenlively, whom we’ve met multiple times before on this blog. He’s one of the main bloggers for the anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism and, over its history, has written some truly appalling posts, such as when he described borrowing $15,000 from his daughter’s grandparents to take her to a clinic in Costa Rica for a quack stem cell treatment for autism that involved injecting “stem cells” right into his daughter’s cerebrospinal fluid. Another example was when he enthusiastically embraced a model of autism in which he speculated that bacteria made toxic heavy metals that caused autism. His most recent appalling post came not long before TAM, when Heckenlively quoted a passage from Psalm 94 praying to God for vengeance upon the enemies of Israel. The implication was obvious; Heckenlively was praying for the Lord to bring vengeance upon those who support vaccine science. He also cited Stephen King’s novel The Stand, which featured an apocalyptic nuclear explosion in Las Vegas in its climax. Given that the post was written only a couple of days before 1,600 skeptics descended upon Las Vegas, the timing of the post was certainly concerning.

After proclaiming his love for all things military and regurgitating common anti-vaccine canards, such as confusing correlation with causation with regards to vaccines and autism and citing parental testimonials, Kent decides to get down to business trying to analyze The “Mindset” of Our Opponents. First, he cites a book by Carol Dweck entitled Mindset, which to him has special relevance to his study as a brave maverick anti-vaccinationist. Next, he absolutely obliterates yet another of my irony meters (and this was one that I wrapped in flame retardant protective armor, too!):

Sometimes it’s not enough to have facts on your side, you have to understand the psychology of the other side and use it to your advantage.

Seriously. If there’s a person on this planet with less self-awareness than Kent Heckenlively, I’ve never seen it. Kent and his fellow travelers in the anti-vaccine movement are the very definition of a group that clings to an idea regardless of evidence, facts, science, or reason. As I’ve learned over the last several years, while combatting the anti-vaccine movement, it is not enough to have facts on your side, which is why, ove the years, I’ve tried to understand the psychology of the other side. The problem is, that doesn’t seem to work, either. Anti-vaccinationists cling to their beliefs that vaccines are evil and cause autism with a ferocity that a fundamentalist would be hard-pressed to match.

Kent then tries to use the thesis of Dr. Dweck’s book to argue that those evil doctors are close-minded, arrogant clods, and that only he and his fellow anti-vaccine believers are open-minded and enlightened. While it’s true that there are doctors out there who are close-minded, arrogant clods (and, having had to deal with my fellow doctors on a daily basis for the last 25 years, don’t I know it!), it’s even more true that if there’s anyone off whom facts, logic, and science bounce as harmlessly as stones off a tank, it’s anti-vaccine activists like Kent Heckenlively. That’s why the meat of Kent’s post strikes me as revealing something else very integral to the crank “mindset” (to steal Kent’s terminology), namely projection. Time and time again, how often do we see cranks of all stripes projecting their mindset, their attitudes, onto defenders of science?

The relevance of Dr. Dweck’s book comes in where she identifies two types of mindsets among people, the “fixed” mindset and the “growth” mindset. The fixed mindset, according to Kent, involves a tendency to avoid challenges, to give up easily when frustrated, and to ignore useful negative feedback. One key aspect of the fixed mindset is a tendency to view criticism of one’s work or ideas as criticism of the person, and the reaction is invariably highly defensive. In other words, criticism of a person’s ideas, skills, or results of his work is all too often taken as a direct attack or an insult. Personally, again, I have a hard time thinking of another group of people possessing these traits in more abundance than anti-vaccine activists. Another aspect of the fixed mindset that Kent doesn’t mention is this:

Usually when others succeed, people with a Fixed Mindset will try to convince themselves and the people around them that the success was due to either luck (after all, almost everything is due to luck in the Fixed Mindset world) or objectionable actions. In some cases, they will even try to tarnish the success of others by bringing up things that are completely unrelated (“Yes, but did you know about his…”).

In other words, ad hominems are the rule of the day. Think of how the anti-vaccine movement deals with Paul Offit. Think of how anti-vaccine loons gleefully leapt all over the fraud investigation and indictment of Paul Thorsen.

In contrast, Kent tries to paint the “brave maverick doctors” producing autism pseudoscience and quackery as possessing the opposite of the fixed mindset, namely the growth mindset, while marveling that most doctors don’t view autism quackery the way they do:

By contrast, the person with a growth mindset is lead by a desire to learn and will therefore embrace challenges, persist in the face of obstacles, and try to learn from criticism. Those rare doctors you have met with this mindset are probably among your heroes, even if they haven’t yet been able to fully resolve the problems of your child.

In other words, it’s the DAN! doctors, the Andrew Wakefields, and the Mark Geiers of the world who are to Heckenlively the doctors with the “growth mindset.” Meanwhile, he likens doctors to the executives at Enron who drove the company into the ground:

Dweck points to Enron as an example. They believed in the “talent” rather than the effort theory of hiring potential employees. In a movie about the Enron debacle they were termed “the smartest guys in the room.” Nobody called them the hardest-working guys. Their brains were supposed to be their secret weapon, even if they didn’t use them. They believed in themselves so much they became convinced that if they thought of an idea which could make them money they could put that amount of money in their account books as income. Those of us who live in the real world know that just because we think of a potential money-making idea doesn’t mean the bank will put that money in our bank account.

Of course, this is not quite telling the whole story. The guys from Enron might have been the smartest guys in the roo,, but they were also the most deceptive guys in the room. They used highly unethical accounting practices to intentionally misrepresent the company’s earnings and debts. Its accounting practices were downright dishonest. In fact, if anything, many autism “entrepreneurs” remind me more of the “guys” of Enron than any legitimate scientist. Part of being the “smartest guys in the room” at Enron was to heap contempt for being “unimaginative” or “close-minded” upon other businesses and accountants who had the temerity to point out that their accounting and business practices were risky, unethical, and even illegal. Sound familiar? Perhaps like the way that autism quacks castigate conventional autism scientists for being close-minded and unimaginative? There’s also a profound anti-intellectualism and anti-science mindset embedded in these tirades against doctors and scientists. Note Kent characterizes them as acting far more out of a desire to appear smart than anything else, as viewing themselves as the “smartest guys in the room” (just like Enron executives!), or as arrogant.

The bottom line is that projection frequently is a major characteristic of cranks, every bit as much as crank magnetism and a fast-and-loose approach to scientific data. I can’t begin to count the number of times I’ve seen creationists, quacks, anti-vaccine activists, and other cranks castigate scientists for being “close-minded” and possessing characteristics of the fixed mindset without actually mentioning the fixed mindset. While it’s true that doctors are sometimes too dismissive of patient concerns and unwilling to listen, if you want to see rigid, “fixed mindsets” in action, check out the anti-vaccine movement.

And don’t even get me started on how Kent accused doctors and scientists of “magical thinking.”

ADDENDUM:

Another irony meter is blown by one of the commenters:

I think you are on to something here, Kent. It is the desire to “look smart” that is motivating many in this disaster. And unfortunately, the vaccine pushers know this. That is why the internet is over-run with vaccine-promoting bullies.

Verbal bullies intimidate their targets by name-calling and ridicule. Why do they do this? As I have told my daughter, who has sadly been a victim of bullying, bullies act the way they do because they are insecure about themselves. They call others names because somehow it makes them feel better about themselves to put others down. They are the ones who have mental and emotional problems–not the people they are bullying. Even though the effect of their horrible behavior is often to make those they bully feel bad or stupid or inadequate, the truth is that the bully is really the one who is bad, stupid, inadequate and most seriously in need of help.

Who later says:

So what do those who feel most threatened do? They react by calling their opponents names–ignorant, misled, anti-vaccine, baby-killers, etc. etc. etc. We have all read their bullying tirades on various blogs and comment streams. Rather than admit the limitations of their own knowledge and abilities, or of medical and scientific knowledge, they resort to bullying and threats. If you don’t do what we say, then we won’t treat you. (Blackmail.) If you don’t follow our directions, we’ll turn you in to CPS. (Extorsion) If you question vaccines, it must be because you are stupid enough to listen to a crazy Playboy bunny rather than a clearly more educated doctor. (Ridicule.)

You see, when it’s J.B. Handley threatening his enemies or calling them names, he’s fighting the good fight, and the anti-vaccine minions at AoA praise him for being tough, aggressive, and “giving as good as he gets.” When it’s a scientist criticizing J.B., that’s a close-minded reaction borne out of being threatened with not appearing to be the “smartest guy in the room.”

Comments

  1. #1 Krebiozen
    November 1, 2011

    Blackheart,
    Astonishingly you still persist in completely misunderstanding that HTMV study despite my explanation and quotes from it. You also failed to check if that DTP study had been followed up and if these results were valid. I suggest you actually read these studies:

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/3/665.long
    “there is no conclusive evidence that high titre vaccines are deleterious”.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01774.x/full
    “Eight of nine survival analyses with retrospective updating of vaccination status reported a beneficial effect. This beneficial effect of DTP increased with the length of the interval between data collection visits. Studies with long interval between visits had very high mortality rates among unvaccinated children, low mortality rate ratios for vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children, and strongly beneficial estimates of DTP.”

    Maybe once you have read them you will understand how wrong you are. Or more probably not.

  2. #2 blackheart
    November 1, 2011

    Krebiozen

    Astonishingly you still persist in completely misunderstanding that HTMV study.

    No problem here.

    This was your explanation …

    “it seems likely these results were due to a lack of efficacy of the vaccine”

    Would you like to clarify that position again ? It’s a bit more complex than that , which is your persistent and acute error.

    As I reminded Chris I don’t live in a linear world where A + B = C

    ————————————————

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/3/665.long

    “there is no conclusive evidence that high titre vaccines are deleterious”.

    Here’s another previous quote … 2011 not 1998 science moves forward Krebiozen.

    “One of the most important findings was that a new measles vaccine used in low-income countries was associated with a two-fold increase in mortality among girls. This discovery led to the withdrawal of the vaccine.

    Had it not been withdrawn, it could have cost at least ½ million additional female deaths per year in Africa alone.” Peter Aaby Bandim Health Project.

    —————————————————

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01774.x/full

    “Eight of nine survival analyses with retrospective updating of vaccination status reported a beneficial effect. This beneficial effect of DTP increased with the length of the interval between data collection visits. Studies with long interval between visits had very high mortality rates among unvaccinated children, low mortality rate ratios for vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children, and strongly beneficial estimates of DTP.”

    Full Quote

    Results  Seven studies using a case–control design or a landmark approach found a negative effect of DTP on child survival. Eight of nine survival analyses with retrospective updating of vaccination status reported a beneficial effect. This beneficial effect of DTP increased with the length of the interval between data collection visits. Studies with long interval between visits had very high mortality rates among unvaccinated children, low mortality rate ratios for vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children, and strongly beneficial estimates of DTP.

    ——————————————————

    “Maybe once you have read them you will understand how wrong you are. Or more probably not.”

    Fortunately I have undertaken a lot more readings than your simple cherry picking from a 1998 report.

    ——————————————————

    What is it about vaccines and skeptiks ?

    Solid scientific investigation of the many aspects of the work undertaken in this type of vaccine safety could bring positive benefits that might save several million additional lives per year than what is currently being achieved.

    Fixed Mind Set

  3. #3 Gray Falcon
    November 2, 2011

    Had it not been withdrawn, it could have cost at least ½ million additional female deaths per year in Africa alone.” Peter Aaby Bandim Health Project.

    That was a single specific vaccine. Using that quote against vaccines in general is like using the Pinto as proof that all cars are dangerous.

  4. #4 Gray Falcon
    November 2, 2011

    Three more notes for blackheart:
    1) For the measles vaccine: The new vaccine’s safety was in comparison to the existing vaccine.
    2) For DTP: Here’s the conclusion for the study: “The divergent results in observational studies of the impact of DTP on child survival are partly because of methodological differences. To assess the impact on mortality of routine vaccinations, observational study designs which minimize the effect of bias are warranted. Randomized trials should be considered.” So in other words, inconclusive.
    3) In general: Nobody said vaccines were completely harmless or that safety issues didn’t exist. What we did say was that the benefits vastly outweighed the risks, something you have yet to disprove.

  5. #5 Chris
    November 2, 2011

    Plus the Aaby study was on the timing of the vaccines, and in a very very poor country where child mortality was very high.

    Using that older study is really a stretch.

    Blackheart must be the second most idiotic resident on Htrae (the first being Thingy). Heed the sign!

  6. #6 Prometheus
    November 2, 2011

    Is “Blackheart” seriously yammering on about the dangers of the HTMV (high-titre measles vaccine) “prove” that vaccines aren’t safe? It’s been known for – I believe – about 20 years that HTMV is more dangerous than the standard (US/UK/EU) measles vaccine; the latest results are a significant improvement over the HTMV of decades past (again, if I remember correctly).

    Here’s a news flash – every medical intervention has risks! The real question is whether the risk of the intervention is less than the risk from the disease. “Blackheart” seems to be suggesting that a non-zero risk means that vaccines should be abandoned until they can be made “safer” (how safe? we may never know).

    The reason there is still work being done on HTMV is that the “standard” measles vaccine doesn’t work well enough on very young children, so – in places without widespread population immunity (i.e. “herd immunity”), such as Africa – they are dying by the thousands in the “gap months” between when maternally-derived passive immunity wanes (and these are generally mothers who had wild-type measles) and when the “standard” vaccine is effective.

    I assume that you’ve explained this to “Blackheart” – probably in triplicate.

    The way – so far – that researchers have found to cover the “gap months” is to use a high-titre solution of the usual vaccine strain (there was an attempt to use a more virulent vaccine strain, but it was more dangerous than the HTMV). The problem was and is that the high-titre vaccines lead to an immune response more like the wild-type and one of those effects is a transient immune suppression.

    In the “Westernised” world, this isn’t such a problem, but in countries where the water supply is more “natural”, high-titre measles vaccines led to an increase in illness and deaths from diarrheal diseases (the #1 killer of small children in Africa) over that seen following the “standard” measles vaccine.

    Keep in mind that not only are young infants in the “gap months” less able to develop effective immunity after the “standard” measles vaccines, they are also far more likely to die from diarrheal illness.

    Of course, getting the wild-type measles virus in the “gap months” leads to even more immune suppression than even the high-titre vaccine, which is why – even though the high-titre vaccine has higher morbidity/mortality than the “standard” vaccine – the overall effect is generally less serious illness and death.

    A serious “confounder” in many studies of high-titre vaccines is that the test (and control) population is often close to medical centres (such as they are) and thus more likely to survive the post-wild-type-measles diarrheal illness than the “general” population.

    All of these subtleties are, of course, lost on people with an anti-vaccination agenda, since – to them – any harm attributable to vaccines is sufficient justification to condemn them, even if the overall effect is a reduction in morbidity and mortality.

    In other words, to the “antivaccinationistas”, ten thousand deaths from measles are acceptable in order to prevent a single death from the vaccine.

    Prometheus

  7. #7 Krebiozen
    November 2, 2011

    Chris,

    Heed the sign!

    Sorry, but I find a certain amusing irony in someone who is so utterly inflexibly fixed in their mind set and resistant to overwhelming evidence accusing skeptics (first time I’ve been called that!) of having fixed mind sets. I’m starting to get bored with this, so I probably won’t persist for too long.

  8. #8 Chris
    November 2, 2011

    I do kind of understand. There is a weird kind of amusement at what kind of delusional thinking that blackheart and Thingy exhibit. Especially equating what happens in one of the poorest countries in Africa to the UK and USA.

    I just finished reading Pox: An American History. There was a very interesting character who was a “eclectic” doctor, Immanuel Pfeiffer. There is a description of him attending a lecture by an instructor of infectious diseases at Harvard. Pfeiffer got up after the lecture and did a Gish Gallop of questions that made the lecturer and audience quickly tired.

    Pfeiffer claimed that his clean living, diet, etc would protect him from smallpox. So he took up the offer by the chairman of the Boston Board of Health to get smallpox, and toured a smallpox hospital. Within two weeks he had smallpox, but attempted to hide it from the real doctors. It is touched upon in this article.

    (next in the queue is Dr. William Foege’s House on Fire)

  9. #9 Krebiozen
    November 2, 2011

    Blackheart,
    And still you persist in demonstrating your lack of education in this area.

    “it seems likely these results were due to a lack of efficacy of the vaccine” Would you like to clarify that position again ? It’s a bit more complex than that , which is your persistent and acute error.

    How else would you describe a vaccine that appeared to have no effect on mortality when compared with the unvaccinated? It was effective in that it prevented measles, but ineffective in that it didn’t reduce (but certainly didn’t increase) mortality as much as the regular measles vaccine. The regular measles vaccine used in West Africa reduced mortality by 50% compared to placebo not just by preventing measles, but in other non-specific ways as well. HTMV (combined with other vaccines) did in boys but not in girls. Is that complex enough for you? This is your example of a vaccine in which adverse effects exceeded the benefits, but that clearly isn’t true, even if a vaccine that was withdrawn 15 years ago was relevant to vaccines in current use, which it isn’t.

    As I reminded Chris I don’t live in a linear world where A + B = C

    No, you appear to live in a world where A + B = whatever you want to believe regardless of the evidence. I shudder to think what you might do if let loose in a real scientific laboratory.

    “there is no conclusive evidence that high titre vaccines are deleterious”. Here’s another previous quote … 2011 not 1998 science moves forward Krebiozen. “One of the most important findings was that a new measles vaccine used in low-income countries was associated with a two-fold increase in mortality among girls. This discovery led to the withdrawal of the vaccine.”

    The first quote is from the 1996 study, the second is the quote you originally found, I suspect, on Wikipedia. It came originally from the Bandim Health Project website and refers to the 1996 study that I linked to, and which we have been discussing, not a 2011 study which would represent science moving forward. Unless, of course, you are aware of a later study by Peter Aaby that found a two-fold increase in mortality among girls. If so, do share.

    You still seem to believe that this vaccine was killing children. When given before DTP it failed to protect children to the same extent as the regular measles vaccine. How many times do I have to repeat this before you finally get it? Here’s more on this from the Bandim Health Project, from the same passage that quote you keep repeating originated:

    However, we later discovered that excess female mortality was not due to HTMV per se. HTMV had been given at 4-5 months of age and most children got DTP after HTMV. The excess female mortality was only found among children who received DTP after HTMV, thus emphasising the consistent effects of live and inactivated vaccines. Hence, HTMV may have been withdrawn for the wrong reason, it still being a very good vaccine against measles infection.

    That is clearly referring to the review study co-authored by Aaby and published in 2003 that concluded:

    Hence, the raised female mortality might not have been attributable to HTMV as such, but to subsequent DTP or IPV vaccinations.

    So it didn’t increase mortality compared to placebo, and it was probably subsequent vaccinations, not HTMV, that led to the increase in mortality relative to regular measles vaccine. It’s not a great example of a vaccine which led to adverse events that exceeded its benefits is it?

    Had it not been withdrawn, it could have cost at least ½ million additional female deaths per year in Africa alone.” Peter Aaby Bandim Health Project.

    Because it didn’t reduce mortality like the regular measles vaccine did. If it had been given instead of the regular measles vaccine more deaths in females would have occurred, assuming these results were correct. You can’t claim that the risks of vaccines exceed their benefits by referring to a paper that showed that one vaccine was more effective than another, that’s just ridiculous. It’s like claiming that seat belts kill people because they save fewer lives than air bags.

    “Maybe once you have read them you will understand how wrong you are. Or more probably not.” Fortunately I have undertaken a lot more readings than your simple cherry picking from a 1998 report.

    It’s a 2006 report, and I didn’t intend to cherry-pick, I was highlighting the relevant part of the conclusion that points out that other methodologies found that DTP reduced mortality. The study you quoted was an observational study from 2003, this was a later review of 7 studies, including the rather poorly designed study you quoted, that pointed out their shortcomings. Cherry-picking would be quoting from an old study that found increased mortality from DTP without checking to see if this had been followed up with more recent studies that challenged those results, a bit like you did.

    What is it about vaccines and skeptiks ?

    What is it about vaccines that brings out the Dunning-Kruger effect in people? I spent years studying immunology (and statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, cell biology and several other less closely related subjects), had to write essays about it, and pass exams on the subject, so I have some idea how little I understand it. You seem to have studied at Google University and think you understand the science better than the experts. You keep demonstrating that you don’t.

    Solid scientific investigation of the many aspects of the work undertaken in this type of vaccine safety could bring positive benefits that might save several million additional lives per year than what is currently being achieved.

    Who is arguing against more research? There is always more work being done in this area, but not by idiotic anti-vaccine advocates who don’t understand basic science and think they know better than people who have spent decades studying this stuff.

    Fixed Mind Set

    Yes, I think you have demonstrated that already. A fixed mind set is when someone has made their mind up, and refuses to change it in the face of contradictory evidence. There is only one person here who fits that description.

  10. #10 Chris
    November 2, 2011

    Krebiozen:

    No, you appear to live in a world where A + B = whatever you want to believe regardless of the evidence.

    That is an apt description of blackheart, especially after he used the IOM report as proof the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles. Or something to that effect, I don’t even read his comments anymore.

  11. #11 blackheart
    November 3, 2011

    Gray Falcon

    That was a single specific vaccine. Using that quote against vaccines in general is like using the Pinto as proof that all cars are dangerous.

    The Bandim Health Project has found similar effects on morality both positive and negative that should alter the course of vaccine implementation.

    This could result in the saving of millions of additional lives.

    I would have thought any person with an interest in cutting edge scientific investigation would welcome this …sadly I am mistaken.

  12. #12 blackheart
    November 3, 2011

    Gray Falcon

    1) For the measles vaccine: The new vaccine’s safety was in comparison to the existing vaccine.

    Yes it wasn’t compared against – no vaccination. Thus an additional 500,000 deaths. Why would you compare it against NO vaccine unless you were seeking to mislead ?

    2) For DTP: Here’s the conclusion for the study: “The divergent results in observational studies of the impact of DTP on child survival are partly because of methodological differences. To assess the impact on mortality of routine vaccinations, observational study designs which minimize the effect of bias are warranted. Randomized trials should be considered.” So in other words, inconclusive.

    What they were trying to ascertain was the best methodology. No because there best methodology as reported in 2010 still states –

    “DTP will therefore increase total mortality if it causes even a small increase in mortality from pneumonia and sepsis, even though it reduces mortality from DTP. Compared to BCG and measles vaccines, there is less evidence that DTP has non-specific effects—but, by the same token, there are no randomised trials of the effect of DTP on total mortality, so we do not have adequate evidence that DTP is safe in high-mortality areas. When DTP was first introduced into Guinea-Bissau (a community with ‘high’ pertussis risk), mortality was 11.3 per 100 person-years among children given DTP, and 5.1 per 100 person-years among children who did not receive DTP (risk ratio 2.03, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.52).4 I know of no other study of the introduction of DTP in a high-mortality area that has sufficient power to test the effect on total mortality.”

    BMJ November 2010

    3) In general: Nobody said vaccines were completely harmless or that safety issues didn’t exist.

    Thank goodness for that …. but a safety issue that shows a vaccine was associated with 500,000 deaths mainly infant females seems to be a bit on the … gee whiz sides of safety.

    What we did say was that the benefits vastly outweighed the risks, something you have yet to disprove.

    So your logic dictates that if a new vaccine causes 500,000 deaths but measles deaths are 501,000 then that is a sufficient death benefit ratio.Perhaps you should quantify and clarify your death benefit ratio.

  13. #13 blackheart
    November 3, 2011

    Krebiozen

    And still you persist in demonstrating your lack of education in this area.

    This is what you said … later in your post 609

    “I spent years studying immunology (and statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, cell biology and several other less closely related subjects), had to write essays about it, and pass exams on the subject, so I have some idea how little I understand it.”

    Perhaps when you hit the books next time you’ll do a little better.

    —————————————————–

    How else would you describe a vaccine that appeared to have no effect on mortality when compared with the unvaccinated?

    Interesting… because initially studies showed

    “Several studies evaluating Edmonston- Zagreb (EZ) medium or high titre measles vaccine in infants as young as 4-6 months showed good seroconversion rates”

    From Child Mortality Following Medium or High Titre Measles Immunization in West Africa Knudsen , Aaby et al 1996 (my error previously).

    It was effective in that it prevented measles, but ineffective in that it didn’t reduce (but certainly didn’t increase) mortality as much as the regular measles vaccine.

    Vaccines are supposed to protect against other causes of mortality ? What was the biological mechanism behind that ? Or are there differing biological mechanism or factors in play ?

    “According to the current understanding, the immune system is characterised by specificity, i.e. the ability to recognise and respond to a specific infection with a very specific reaction. This means that a vaccine against a disease will establish immunity against just that disease – and nothing else.”

    Statens Institute

    It came originally from the Bandim Health Project website and refers to the 1996 study that I linked to, and which we have been discussing, not a 2011 study which would represent science moving forward.

    Obviously you have an overwhelming self belief (contrary to evidence – Dunning -Krueger moment) that your position in this matter outweighs the direct quote of the scientists and researchers involved who in 2011 are still presenting that quote on their website.

    Let them know … email , ring , fax ….tell them you are right and they are wrong.

    Because it didn’t reduce mortality like the regular measles vaccine did.

    Sort of a glass half empty argument is it ? Bandim Health should have said …

    One of the most important findings was that a new measles vaccine used in low-income countries was not associated with a two-fold reduction in mortality among girls. Thus we have nothing to say about 500,000 female deaths.

    This discovery led to … meh. Well nothing really.

    Wonder why they didn’t state it that way ? Perhaps they disagree with you and your science training.

    ——————————————————

    You can’t claim that the risks of vaccines exceed their benefits by referring to a paper that showed that one vaccine was more effective than another, that’s just ridiculous.

    You can show me where I have made that claim ? What is has done is moved science forward from your shared simplistic viewpoint on vaccines.

    It’s a 2006 report, and I didn’t intend to cherry-pick, I was highlighting the relevant part of the conclusion that points out that other methodologies found that DTP reduced mortality.

    The 2006 research article, not report, is trying to discern the best methodologies to bring to these and other questions in regards to vaccines and other health initiatives.

    Cherry-picking would be quoting from an old study that found increased mortality from DTP without checking to see if this had been followed up with more recent studies that challenged those results, a bit like you did.

    I did ? That’s a direct quote from a November 2010 article written by one of the world’s leading experts in this area.

    Who is arguing against more research?

    “In their commentary on my article about the non-specific effects of vaccines, Paul Fine and David Elliman state that we are dealing with ‘unproven non-specific effects’ and imply that these effects may not be of widespread importance because ‘much of the evidence’ comes from Guinea-Bissau.”

    “There is always more work being done in this area, but not by idiotic anti-vaccine advocates who don’t understand basic science and think they know better than people who have spent decades studying this stuff.

    Now it seems there are idiotic vaccine apologists (present company excluded I suppose) who don’t understand basic science and think they know better than people who have spent decades studying this stuff.Like the Bandim Health Project … or do you still disagree with their direct quote.

    “Had it not been withdrawn, it could have cost at least ½ million additional female deaths per year in Africa alone.”

    Peter Aaby Bandim Health Project.

    New science …new understandings … new ways forward.

  14. #14 blackheart
    November 3, 2011

    Prometheus

    “The way – so far – that researchers have found to cover the “gap months” is to use a high-titre solution of the usual vaccine strain (there was an attempt to use a more virulent vaccine strain, but it was more dangerous than the HTMV). The problem was and is that the high-titre vaccines lead to an immune response more like the wild-type and one of those effects is a transient immune suppression.”

    Wrong – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11228365

    “In the “Westernised” world, this isn’t such a problem, but in countries where the water supply is more “natural”, high-titre measles vaccines led to an increase in illness and deaths from diarrheal diseases (the #1 killer of small children in Africa) over that seen following the “standard” measles vaccine.”

    Wrong – The core of the project is a demographical surveillance system (DSS) which registers more than 90,000 people in 6 suburbs of the capital Bissau.

    Keep in mind that not only are young infants in the “gap months” less able to develop effective immunity after the “standard” measles vaccines, they are also far more likely to die from diarrheal illness.

    Wrong – This does not explain the sex differentials in mortality.

    Of course, getting the wild-type measles virus in the “gap months” leads to even more immune suppression than even the high-titre vaccine, which is why – even though the high-titre vaccine has higher morbidity/mortality than the “standard” vaccine – the overall effect is generally less serious illness and death.

    Wrong – This does not explain the sex differentials in mortality.

    A serious “confounder” in many studies of high-titre vaccines is that the test (and control) population is often close to medical centres (such as they are) and thus more likely to survive the post-wild-type-measles diarrheal illness than the “general” population.

    Wrong – This does not explain the sex differentials in mortality.

    All of these subtleties are, of course, lost on people with an anti-vaccination agenda, since – to them – any harm attributable to vaccines is sufficient justification to condemn them, even if the overall effect is a reduction in morbidity and mortality.

    Wrong – Nice hyperbole. This does not explain the clear evidence and continuing research undertaken by the very people that proposed using a high titre measles vaccine.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2491276/

    ————————————————

    In other words, to the “antivaccinationistas”, ten thousand deaths from measles are acceptable in order to prevent a single death from the vaccine.

    Hmmm…Having a Danny DeVito moment are we ?

    Fortunately some of the worlds leading experts and I would like to uncover both the positive and negative benefits of vaccine and other health implementations.

    Such research could potentially save millions of lives and benefit countless other children.

  15. #15 Krebiozen
    November 3, 2011

    Blackheart,

    do you still disagree with their direct quote. “Had it not been withdrawn, it could have cost at least ½ million additional female deaths per year in Africa alone.”

    You are either deliberately being obtuse, and arguing for the sake of it, or you are an idiot. I don’t know which it is, and frankly I don’t care. Arguing with an intelligent opponent who makes clear statements and backs them up with evidence is enjoyable. Arguing with someone who avoids making any clear statements, twists my words, sets up countless straw men, ignores evidence and constantly moves goalposts, misinterprets the science and displays, but won’t admit, his ignorance at every turn is just irritating and frustrating.

    By the way, almost everything you wrote in your last three comments is either simply wrong, or you have completely misinterpreted what you have read. I can’t be bothered to keep pointing out where you have got it wrong as you never accept you have made a mistake, and either keep insisting you are right, or change the subject.

    I won’t be continuing this pointless discussion.

  16. #16 Gray Falcon
    November 3, 2011

    Blackheart, do you have a point to your ranting?

  17. #17 Chris
    November 3, 2011

    That is easy, Gray Falcon, he thinks it is entertaining to lie.

  18. #18 Gray Falcon
    November 3, 2011

    Good point, Chris. His last two comments to me seems to be addressing somebody that only exists in his mind. I should probably just let the two of them sort this out.

  19. #19 blackheart
    November 4, 2011

    Krebiozen

    “The non-specific effects of measles vaccine have been a main focus of research at the BHP since the very beginning even though it took 15 years to formulate the idea that vaccines may have other than the targeted
    effects, presumably due to some form of immune stimulation.

    The high-titre measles vaccine (HTMV) was protective against measles but associated with two fold increased mortality for girls.

    Hence, such non-specific immune stimulatory effects can be very important for child survival. However, the research community did not pursue these observations, but instead searched for a new and better measles vaccines. However, if a licensed vaccine could have such dramatic effect it can probably happen again unless we understand the specific immunological mechanisms. We have therefore aimed to document the importance of non-specific effects not only for measles vaccine but for all of the routine vaccines.”

    Peter Aaby 2010 Bandim Health Project

    “Second, the HTMV incident suggested a marked sex-differential effect of this vaccine.

    In the pre-vaccination era in West Africa, there was no important sex-difference in post-neonatal child mortality .

    Hence, if vaccines have strong sex-differential effects on mortality it suggests that non-specific immune stimulatory effects are important for child survival. As it turns out, all routine vaccines have sex-differential effects suggesting that boys and girls might in fact benefit from different vaccines or different vaccination schedules.

    Conducting randomised trials, we have found major nonspecific effects.

    However, they have not always been the ones we had expected. The immunological interactions have been more important than initially envisioned. Testing, for example, early measles vaccine, we changed the sequence of vaccinations and that has fundamentally changed the impact on survival because more children received DTP after measles vaccine.

    We have also experienced several times that supplementation with micronutrients amplified the immunological effects.

    Randomised trials will be continued but it is becoming clear that it will be increasingly difficult to test the impact on survival because once we intervene and provide services to the community we are also reducing mortality. We need to measure the impact on indicator infections and immunological parameters which are associated with survival and which will indicate whether the immunological profile induced by a vaccine is beneficial or not.

    This is becoming urgent as more and more new vaccines are being introduced.

    Non-specific effects are very important for child survival in low-income countries. From what we know now, live vaccines are beneficial – at least in individuals without immunodeficiency – whereas inactivated vaccines may have negative effects on other than the targeted diseases. Both beneficial and negative effects are strongest for girls. Effects may change fundamentally when vaccines are combined or the sequence inverted.

    Furthermore, vaccines interact with other forms of immunomodulators like micronutrients and season.

    ____________________________________________________

    “You are either deliberately being obtuse, and arguing for the sake of it, or you are an idiot.”

    Apparently there are lot of “idiots” like myself, promoting the safe and efficacious use of vaccines.Making sure that we continue to develop our depth of knowledge about the importance of such factors as immune system stimulation.

    Thank goodness for us “idiots” that can put aside our prejudices and look at vaccines objectively. Who push forward the science …

    Several million lives per annum could be at stake.

  20. #20 Chris
    November 6, 2011
  21. #21 blackheart
    November 7, 2011

    Sex differences in the vaccine-specific and non-targeted effects of vaccines

    Vaccine
    Volume 29, Issue 13, 16 March 2011

    Vaccines have non-specific effects (NSE) on subsequent morbidity and mortality from non-vaccine related infectious diseases.

    Thus NSE refers to any effect that cannot be accounted for by the induction of immunity against the vaccine-targeted disease.

    These effects are sex-differential, generally being more pronounced in females than males.

    Furthermore, the NSE are substantial causing greater than fifty percent changes in all cause mortality in certain settings , yet have never been systematically tested despite the fact that millions of children receive vaccines each year.

    the relative impact of NSE of vaccines on mortality is likely to increase , raising important questions regarding the future of certain vaccine schedules.

    A diverse group of scientists met in Copenhagen to discuss non-specific and sex-differential effects of vaccination, and explore plausible biological explanations.”

    Representatives from the following organisations –

    MRC Laboratories, PO Box 273, Fajara, Gambia

    Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Department of Growth and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Institute for Medical Immunology, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium

    University of Massachussets Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

    University Health Network & Department of Immunology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    MRC International Nutrition Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    MRC International Nutrition Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keneba, Gambia

    Bandim Health Project, Statens Serum Institut, Artillerivej 5, 2300, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Bandim Health Project, Indepth Network, Apartado 861, 1004 Bissau Codex, Guinea-Bissau

    —————————————————

    It’s just embarrassing how much ‘skeptiks’ know about their chosen subject. Better hit the books a bit harder next time …

  22. #22 Krebiozen
    November 7, 2011

    I hope you’re enjoying your big bonfire of strawmen Blackheart.

  23. #23 blackheart
    November 7, 2011

    Krebiozen and Chris

    It’s not easy to accept change to the schema one has built up over the years. Especially if that schema is only supported by one’s own intellectual prejudices forged by those like minded.

    Nor is it easy to overcome one’s ignorance if one does not take time to understand , research and study the world around him.

    It is easier to deny, obsfuscate, fight or flight.

    When one’s last intellectual debate is to name call then the debate has been lost.

    The man who promises everything is sure to fulfill nothing, and everyone who promises too much is in danger of using evil means in order to carry out his promises, and is already on the road to perdition.
    Carl Jung

  24. #24 Chris
    November 8, 2011

    It is the end of the line.

  25. #25 bl
    November 9, 2011

    There is no coming to consciousness without pain.
    Carl Jung

  26. #26 Chris
    November 9, 2011

    Heed the sign.

  27. #27 Krebiozen
    November 9, 2011

    Chris,
    I don’t wish to encourage Blackheart, but I do find it hilarious that he has somehow mutated from a Wakefield apologist into a supporter of real scientific research into autism and safer vaccines, the sort of real scientific research this blog has been promoting for years. I’m glad we have succeeded in prompting this miraculous conversion through the medium of reason and evidence.

  28. #28 Chris
    November 9, 2011

    Sorry, I didn’t notice, since I stopped reading his blatherings ages ago.

  29. #29 Prometheus
    November 9, 2011

    Blackheart (#614):

    “Wrong – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11228365

    Curiously, neither of the measles vaccines used in that study were “high-titre”. Did you have a point?

    “Wrong – The core of the project is a demographical surveillance system (DSS) which registers more than 90,000 people in 6 suburbs of the capital Bissau.

    And this pertains to the issue of contaminated water and access to medical care because…? You are aware that the suburbs of Bissau are not like the suburbs of Chicago or Zurich in that respect, aren’t you?

    “Wrong – This does not explain the sex differentials in mortality.” [repeated 3 times]

    I don’t believe I was trying to explain the sex differentials in mortality. As I recall, I was trying to explain why the high-titre vaccines were being tried and why they are inherently more dangerous, especially in areas with potentially contaminated water supplies.

    Do you have an explanation for the sex differentials in mortality? Severeral come to my mind, but I’d love to hear your thoughts.

    Prometheus

  30. #30 blackheart
    November 10, 2011

    Prometheus

    Some 6 days for uptake and reply is there some explanation for your tardiness ?

    Curiously, neither of the measles vaccines used in that study were “high-titre”.

    That would be because they were using another strategy ‘two dose’ standard titre.

    Did you have a point ?

    Yes indeed I did … you were and remain substantially wrong.

    And this pertains to the issue of contaminated water and access to medical care because…?

    You said … but in countries where the water supply is more “natural”. Perhaps you’d like to redefine, urban centre and municipal water supply so that it can be incorporated into ‘natural’ rather than “man made”

    You are aware that the suburbs of Bissau are not like the suburbs of Chicago or Zurich in that respect, aren’t you?

    … you are aware a waterfall is not a tap connected to a water filtration plant. 83% of the urban population has access to clean drinking water.

    I don’t believe I was trying to explain the sex differentials in mortality.

    You weren’t ? Well you should have been, because that’s a major finding, which you disregard in your theory.

    As I recall, I was trying to explain why the high-titre vaccines were being tried and why they are inherently more dangerous, especially in areas with potentially contaminated water supplies.

    That’s not working out to well is it.

    Do you have an explanation for the sex differentials in mortality?

    Have I investigated and researched this area ? Yes

    Have I come to a conclusion ? No

    Severeral come to my mind

    Of course they do, perhaps you should phone fax or telephone someone who cares.

    Here I started a letter for you …

    To Whom it may concern

    I have uncovered the explanation for sex differentials in vaccines.

    your faithful servant

    Prometheus Dunning-Kruger

    —————————————————–

    By the way do any of your explanations mention …

    “In the context of susceptibility to infection, a genetic association with autism, linked to a null allele of the complement (C) 4B gene located in the class III region of the major-histocompatibility complex, has been recorded by Warren and colleagues.24 C4B-gene products are crucial for the activation of the complement pathway and protection against infection: individuals inheriting one or two C4B null alleles may not handle certain viruses appropriately, possibly including attenuated strains.”

  31. #31 Krebiozen
    November 10, 2011

    It’s interesting that the score sheets used to assess the children in Wakefield’s Lancet study for enterocolitis I mentioned above #435 have turned up. They confirm that autistic enterocolitis was invented by “a non-expert pathologist such as Wakefield”, for that study.

    For all but one child blood markers of inflammation were negative, colonoscopies were negative and biopsies were negative, which was inconsistent with the autistic enterocolitis hypothesis. In what looks like an act of desperation Dr. Dhillon had to go back and re-examine the normal biopsy results, scoring them on a non-standard score sheet of his own invention. The mild inflammation recorded, which was consistent with the chronic constipation seen in several children, led to scores that were then misinterpreted by Wakefield to show that the children had enterocolitis.

    There’s a good summary of this on LBRB.

  32. #32 blackheart
    November 11, 2011

    Krebiozen

    Finally your chance to shine tell us exactly the causation and clinical findings that underpin your diagnosis for each and every child.

    You are a pathologist are you not ?

    ps Don’t forget

    “First, a highly selected group of children with developmental disorder (many with regressive autism) exists, who have an unusual gastrointestinal abnormality characterised by ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia and non-specific enterocolitis that is not classical inflammatory bowel disease.”

    “this mucosal abnormality has been apparent in 47/50 children within the autistic spectrum, whether or not there is any perceived link with immunisation. Thus the lymphoid hyperplasia/ microscopic colitis changes were found in over 90% of the autistic children studied. Even if there is no immunodeficiency, the lymphoid hyperplasia in many cases is remarkable, with germinal centres showing higher numbers of proliferating (Ki67 positive) cells than we have detected in any immunodeficient controls with lymphoid hyperplasia. We are very familiar with the detection of lymphoid hyperplasia in children with minor immunodeficiency, as are Lindley and Milla, and have published several reports on this topic. We were thus ideally placed to detect the exaggerated lesion found in many of these children. The colitis itself is variable, but may feature crypt abscesses, increased macrophage infiltration and unregulated class II major histocompatibility complex expression.
    Second, we have noted important behavioural responses in several of the children when their intestinal pathology is treated. Plain radiography confirms severe constipation with acquired megarectum in almost all affected children, despite many receiving treatment for constipation. Most parents note a honeymoon period of behavioural improvement after the bowel preparation for colonoscopy and this is maintained if recurrent constipation can be prevented. Further cognitive improvement has occurred in response to aminosalicylates, provided that constipation is prevented.”

  33. #33 blackheart
    November 11, 2011

    Krebiozen

    I don’t wish to encourage Blackheart, but I do find it hilarious that he has somehow mutated from a Wakefield apologist into a supporter of real scientific research into autism and safer vaccines, the sort of real scientific research this blog has been promoting for years. I’m glad we have succeeded in prompting this miraculous conversion through the medium of reason and evidence.

    Posted by: Krebiozen | November 9, 2011 1:41 PM

    I’m sure you and other ‘skeptiks’ will try to reinvent yourselves as ‘vaccine safety advocates’ … and I’m sure I’ll find that position both highly ironic and implausible.

    You should be reflecting on how you ended up up in this very compromised position.

    Posted by: blackheart | October 26, 2011 1:02 AM

    —————————————————-

    I’d like to admit to some of the ‘psychic’ powers so loved by my scientific rational friends … but simple elementary deduction on the aberrant psychology and behaviour of ‘skeptiks’sufficed.

  34. #34 Krebiozen
    November 11, 2011

    Blackheart,

    I don’t have anything to add to what I have said already. The evidence that autistic enterocolitis was invented by Wakefield and others regardless of normal blood, endoscopy and biopsy results is persuasive. “The existence of a gastrointestinal disturbance specific to persons with ASDs (eg, “autistic enterocolitis”) has not been established.”

    Clearly if autistic individuals have gastrointestinal disorders they should be investigated, diagnosed and treated as they are in anyone else.

    No one in their right mind would advocate anything other than safe vaccines, but you have to consider risk versus benefit. If we refused to use any vaccine that has not been proven to be 100% safe, no vaccine would ever be used and infectious diseases would return with their attendant morbidity and mortality. No one in their right mind wants to see that either. I think that research that is published in peer-reviewed journals, RCTs and post-marketing surveillance are the best way we have of assuring and improving vaccine safety and effectiveness, and that most of the time this works very well.

    I have not seen any suggestions from you or anyone else for a better system, or even ways in which this system could be improved. I don’t see that “safe vaccine proponents” (who in reality appear to be anti-vaccine zealots) have made any contribution to vaccine safety, apart from spreading irrational fears and implausible unsupported hypotheses that have led to the waste of enormous amounts of time, money and resources to the detriment of all involved.

  35. #35 Beamup
    November 11, 2011

    It’s particularly relevant to note that resources devoted to dealing with unfounded scare stories are correspondingly NOT devoted to dealing with real issues. Which means that the supposed “safe vaccine proponents” are actually making vaccines LESS safe and effective by diverting funds away from improving them.

  36. #36 blackheart
    November 11, 2011

    Krebiozen

    I don’t have anything to add to what I have said already.

    I’m disappointed this was the time when you could have used your professional understandings to assist the wider autism community. Parents, caregivers and of course children themselves.

    Clearly if autistic individuals have gastrointestinal disorders they should be investigated, diagnosed and treated as they are in anyone else.

    Particularly if those gastrointestinal disorders may be central to severe autistic behaviours that effect the quality of life of Parents , caregivers and vulnerable children. I would imagine that simple safe procedures such as colonoscopies to investigate these severe diseases and symptoms would be an obvious clinical tool.

    No one in their right mind would advocate anything other than safe vaccines…

    Did not medical professionals from the UK Department of Health and government approve a vaccine that they were clearly warned had serious adverse effects.

    Was not a high titre vaccine approved for use in the developing world that increased mortality by a factor of two potentially putting at risk 500,000 female lives per annum.

    Is there not substantial evidence that the DTaP family of vaccines can effect overall mortality in the developing world ?

    Is there not substantial evidence of severe adverse events in the combination of micronutrients such as Vitamin A and vaccines ?

    Is it not true that the government of Japan has still not reintroduced the MMR vaccine ?

    but you have to consider risk versus benefit.

    What is the number crunching for this exactly ? Is there a figure on collateral damage obviously 500,000 made the WHO a bit uncomfortable.

    What number is WHO placing on VAS intervention with neonates knowing the following ressearch…

    “Having received VAS tended to be beneficial as long as
    BCG was the last vaccine to be received.

    However, once children received DTP vaccine,
    mortality in girls who had received VAS at birth
    was significantly 2-fold higher compared with
    girls who had received placebo at birth.”

    Of course there is the flip side. If we investigate and find a safer vaccine schedule, which seems to be at the heart of the Bandim Health Projects’ research, although the exact mechanism of why this is so remains out of our reach, we could potentially save millions more lives per annum.

    I think that research that is published in peer-reviewed journals, RCTs and post-marketing surveillance are the best way we have of assuring and improving vaccine safety and effectiveness, and that most of the time this works very well.

    One would think so, but the UK Government and public health officials ignored that advise and research. Just as the WHO has controversially done.

    It is also clear that surveillance systems did not pick up a two fold increase in mortality or that it has shown the more complex interactions of vaccine administration. Including the clear indications that males and females react differently to vaccines.

    I have not seen any suggestions from you or anyone else for a better system, or even ways in which this system could be improved.

    You haven’t because you prefer to ignore the matters I have raised. It would be obvious to anyone that there are real large gaps of knowledge in the way vaccines work.

    There’s a number of multilayered strategies that could be implemented. One would hope that there is a clear health and research strategy that sets out to investigate the very clear evidence of non specific effcets and sex differentials in vaccine administration.

    But of course you would have to clear yourself of prejudice.

    apart from spreading irrational fears and implausible unsupported hypotheses that have led to the waste of enormous amounts of time, money and resources to the detriment of all involved.

    Obviously the lives and disease burden of several million developing world children has been criticised as an enormous waste of time and money.

    But I am more of the humanitarian.

    I know you are to Krebiozen you need to find some common ground, the grey areas if you like to move this science forward.

    Set aside your beliefs and look objectively.

  37. #37 Wheel Chair Vans
    March 19, 2012

    I totally disagree with you about anti vaccine people. A lot of what they say makes a great deal of sense actually.

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