I’ve pulled three through, and buried two
Since then- and I’m past carin’
Henry Lawson 1899
I would like to make an a priori apology: I am about to make a good number of you feel very old. I am currently one rotation away from becoming an emergency physician, yet in all my years of training I have never shepherded a drooling, toxic child, nestled in a parent’s arms, for a gaseous induction in theatre. My lack of airway experience in the setting of paediatric bacterial epiglottitis is an unanticipated but quite delightful side effect of the introduction of the HiB vaccine to the Australian National Immunisation Schedule in 1993.
Immunisation is one of the great triumphs of the 20th century. If you are ever feeling a little despondent about the human condition, you could always remind yourself that you belong to a species that eliminated smallpox. For this reason I am deeply troubled by a farcical situation currently imploding within academia.
Dr Judy Wilyman is a tireless and determined anti-vaccination campaigner. She is also the proud holder of a brand spanking new PhD from the University of Wollongong School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, for her thesis entitled, “A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy.” It is currently available for download from the University of Wollongong Research Online Thesis Collection, replete with the University of Wollongong official logo. It was supervised by Brian Martin, a Professor of Social Sciences.
I have spent the better part of two days neglecting my fully vaccinated children while scouring her thesis, which rounds out at a whopping 390 pages, including appendix, bibliography and a tribute to a who’s who of the global anti-vaccination junk science community. (The only thing missing was a dedication to Andrew Wakefield) Please note this is intended as an opinion piece rather than a true academic critique. (Dr Helen Petousis-Harris, amongst others, is far more qualified than I for that task, and has already done so quite brilliantly). Rest assured I will not be submitting my ‘opinion’ for academic publication.
Her PhD opens with the statement, “Vaccination policies in Australia need to be scrutinised because the use of a medical intervention in the prevention of infectious disease has serious health and social implications.” I agree with Helen Petousis-Harris that this sounds very much like an a priori conclusion. After making a few other quite absurd and incorrect claims regarding international vaccine policy, she concludes her abstract with, “This investigation demonstrates that not all vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe, effective or necessary. It also concludes that the government’s claim that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks cannot be sustained due to gaps in the scientific knowledge resulting from unfunded research and inadequate monitoring of adverse events after vaccination.” Those are big statements that one would think would require some scrutiny of a scientific nature before being accepted for doctorate level publication. Apparently not though.
The kindest way I can describe her thesis is as a wordy opinion piece. A poorly written one. That’s not a crime though, as much as I’d like it to be. The real travesty, however, is that she wades heavily into the scientific fields of immunology, epidemiology and public health, seemingly without any expert scientific review or guidance.
Brian Martin, in his written defence of his student, describes her thesis as “long and detailed.” I cannot argue with him on this point, though I would not consider either of those words as virtues, unless accompanied by another descriptor along the lines of “factually correct.” He also had the following to say, “Some…apparently believe that the only people qualified to comment on vaccination policy are “experts” who have degrees and refereed publications in scientific journals, for example is immunology or epidemiology….Being an expert in immunology or epidemiology gives no special insight into vaccine policy. If anyone can lay claim to having special knowledge about policy, it is those who have researched policy itself, including critics of the Australian government’s policy such as Judy.”
I take his point. But it’s very obvious at even a cursory read that Wilyman strays well beyond the field of policy.
My conclusion: This thesis is the inevitable product of someone with an ideology based agenda, described by director of the National Centre of Immunisation Research and Surveillance for Vaccine Preventable Diseases Peter McIntyre as “not willing to entertain evidence” which contradicted her beliefs, spending the better part of a decade dwelling within an echo-chamber of misinformation. It is an admirably complete assembly of the arguments the global anti-vaccination lobby have been using for years, the majority of them irrelevant, deliberate or unintentional misunderstandings, or just plain wrong. Helen Petousis-Harris referred to it as “a PhD by stealth.” I see it, quite simply, as a junk thesis and a stain upon the university who accepted it.
Up to this point the whole situation is so bad it’s almost funny. Almost. I wasn’t laughing, however, at the official statement from the university in question, laden with platitudes towards academic freedom of thought and lacking any acknowledgement of the genuine concerns of the scientific community. My unease was not soothed with their reassurances of strict ethical and quality standards and I almost fell of my seat when they invoked the “unchallengeable knowledge in the field of study” of the two external examiners. Unchallengeable?? ” Who did they ask? God and Vladimir Putin?
There are two potential scenarios regarding the external review process. One is that neither reviewer had any expertise in epidemiology or immunology. Another is that at least one of them did but still considered her thesis to be of an acceptable standard. I am not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Let’s call it a draw and leave it at that.
I will not pre-empt the findings of a hopefully inevitable investigation into potential academic misconduct, but I will offer a plausible explanation for how such a situation could occur:
- A grossly unsuitable candidate for doctorate level study.
- A slightly rogue supervisor with a passion for dissent and a keen sympathy for the anti-vaccination movement.
- Handpicked external reviewers, perhaps experiencing a touch of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
- An institutional focus on academic freedom resulting in a lackadaisical attitude to academic rigour.
And there you have it. The classic swiss cheese effect.
Judy Wilyman has every right to hold and express these views (And believe me she does. Frequently.). What she doesn’t have the right to do is express them as a competing narrative to
modern science by ignoring any evidence which doesn’t suit her argument, nor be sanctioned to do so by a major Australian university.
Acceptance of such junk, belief-based pseudo-science into mainstream academic literature (albeit via the back door) cheapens all that responsible scientific research stands for, and has very real potential to do harm to the patients we provide clinical care for every day.
They say you pick your battles. This is one I’m prepared to fight.
The above post is solely the personal view of the author.
Thanks for posting this, Kristin. The idea that a diabtribe such as this, full of misinformation, could earn a PhD for the author is just outrageous.
Right from the introduction, errors are in evidence.
Even the claimed ‘publications’ appear to be fallacious, such the one where she claims an article on an ABC website in her list of publications:
Wilyman J. 2011. Questioning the Evidence for HPV Vaccine. ABC online Health Report,
October 13. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/10/13/3337950.htm
(actually an article on the ABC Science website, which is written by Anna Saleh.
The many errors, examples of misinformation and false attributions in this dissertation should be seen for what they appear to be -- invalid, and certainly not worthy of a PhD.
Many other examples from the same dissertation are listed here:
https://www.facebook.com/Judy-Wilyman-PhD-thesis-critique-227627864236230/
and discussed here:
A science field examined through humanities lens should have sounded alarm bells. Unfortunately humanities can dismiss empiricism as a different epistemology not fit to analyse the topic and arrive at a pre-set opinion effectively dismissing expert opinion and facts. This really damages the reputation of humanities based research and supports misgivings of social sciences as “fluffy bunny” disciplines.
What specifically did Judy Wilyman write, that constitutes “dismissing empiricism”?
From what I’ve seen so far, her claims are more that scientists and doctors are unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies -- that vaccine research is corrupted by money, and there is “undone science” on vaccines, meaning research that isn’t done because the results might shake people’s belief in the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
Well written post Kristen -- good job. Glad to see you’re putting your time after study to good use!!
Thanks James. Thanks for your OSCE help also. Obviously paid off. 😉
Hey Kristen,I got a link to this article from a freind of mine and thought I would post my thoughts here as well. I have been following this a little I can understand some of the criticism that directed toward her. At the same time when has orthodoxy, in whatever field or what current time in history, been open to any anything that questions its legitimacy or authority? It seems to me at least when the health industry has the profit motive driving it, billions of dollars are at stake, our elected governments have become plutocracies, the danger of science and medicine being corrupted by the forces, isn’t theoretical rather just the reality of what happens. What industries, how and when these corruptions take place you assume are protected, lie about, concealed and covered over. So as result maybe crack pot theories thrive, invalid conspiracies get traction and so on. Yet it’s very hard to dismiss them outright when the system they are question is so obvious bought and corrupt. GSK can lie and suppress data just to further profit, what should they be trusted with vaccines? http://www.justice.gov/…/glaxosmithkline-plead-guilty… . If the regulators that are meant to protect consumers are filled with the same people from the industry, in a self-serving revolving door, when why should we assume we are really protected? So within that context, its not surprising these kind of critiques come out and its seems the scorn that’s directed toward them is never quite vitriolic and equally directed toward the companies and system that encourage these kind of invalid theories, if you know what I mean?She has audience and I don’t think just made up of stupid and ignorant people that spend too much time watching 9/11 truth videos. I did an article a while back examining this question, not about vaccines but capitalism’s role in medicine and the impact in has on health-care and what how gets considered legitimate science is influence. http://things-that-matter.net/2014/02/06/do-vaccines-cause-autism-how-the-wrong-question-stops-us-seeing-the-real-problem/
If you are interested in the truth, you could look at the published research on vaccines.
There are thousands of studies by many different organizations. The researchers are diverse enough that the conspiracy theories become absurd.
Science appears to be the best way to learn the truth. Even when science produces wrong results for a while, the corrections do not come from people outside of science, but from scientists, because one of the essential aspects of science is to question everything. Even if the majority of scientists do not question everything, there will be scientists who will and will find the mistakes that others have made.
Research is conducted by universities, private organizations, governments, and corporations, so there is no ability to control all of the research and shut out those who are not just interested in a paycheck (probably most scientists).
One of the best ways to become famous in medicine is to disprove orthodoxy. Andrew Wakefield wants people to believe that he was not engaging in fraud, but he is an example of capitalism at work. Wakefield was getting paid by lawyers to produce research to support a law suit. He was caught and struck off.
In “Bacteria, Ulcers, and Ostracism? H. Pylori and the Making of a Myth” Dr. Kimball Atwood explains how the scientific process worked as expected in toppling one flawed theory and replacing it over a decade with valid evidence of a more complete theory.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bacteria_ulcers_and_ostracism_h._pylori_and_the_making_of_a_myth
One of the greatest explainers of science was Richard Feynman, who explained about research in unconventional areas in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech --
“the chance is high that the truth lies in the fashionable direction. But, on the off-chance that it is in another direction -- a direction obvious from an unfashionable view of field theory -- who will find it? Only someone who has sacrificed himself by teaching himself quantum electrodynamics from a peculiar and unusual point of view; one that he may have to invent for himself. I say sacrificed himself because he most likely will get nothing from it, because the truth may lie in another direction, perhaps even the fashionable one.”
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html
You have seen scientists survive a well funded disinformation campaign by the energy industry, which is similar in size to the pharmaceutical companies. You saw very few scientists corrupted by the money from the energy industry, but you propose that doctors are less ethical than climate researchers?
You are not making a credible claim. You should be offering an apology to the scientists you malign.
.
One of the best ways to become famous in medicine is to disprove orthodoxy. Andrew Wakefield wants people to believe that he was not engaging in fraud, but he is an example of capitalism at work. Wakefield was getting paid by lawyers to produce research to support a law suit. He was caught and struck off.
In “Bacteria, Ulcers, and Ostracism? H. Pylori and the Making of a Myth” Dr. Kimball Atwood explains how the scientific process worked as expected in toppling one flawed theory and replacing it over a decade with valid evidence of a more complete theory.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bacteria_ulcers_and_ostracism_h._pylori_and_the_making_of_a_myth
One of the greatest explainers of science was Richard Feynman, who explained about research in unconventional areas in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech --
“the chance is high that the truth lies in the fashionable direction. But, on the off-chance that it is in another direction -- a direction obvious from an unfashionable view of field theory -- who will find it? Only someone who has sacrificed himself by teaching himself quantum electrodynamics from a peculiar and unusual point of view; one that he may have to invent for himself. I say sacrificed himself because he most likely will get nothing from it, because the truth may lie in another direction, perhaps even the fashionable one.”
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html
You have seen scientists survive a well funded disinformation campaign by the energy industry, which is similar in size to the pharmaceutical companies. You saw very few scientists corrupted by the money from the energy industry, but you propose that doctors are less ethical than climate researchers?
You are not making a credible claim. You should be offering an apology to the scientists you malign.
.
I want to thank “Things-that-matter” for making such great and often overlooked critical points. Capitalism drives health care in the US. Companies that manufacture vaccines are private for profit companies. Safety comes second.
Anecdotally as a mother of three ranging in age from 13 yrs old to 2 yrs old, there is a vast difference in the vaccination schedule I followed with my 13 year old and the one I follow with my 2 year old.
I think it’s very important as a parent to make an informed decision and what vaccination schedule is appropriate for your children.
Heath care is changing. Physicians need to be aware that there are many smart responsible critically thinking people out there whose opinions are valid on this subject,who do not have MDs or PhDs.
Safety comes first you idiot. Apart from the vigorous scientific review every vaccine undergoes, if you kill your target market, not only do you risk your profits but also the company itself. What an absolutely dumb and ill-informed comment.
“I think it’s very important as a parent to make an informed decision and what vaccination schedule is appropriate for your children.”
That is correct.
As you would not have your children fly in a plane flown by someone who is not an expert, not have your children use a parachute made by someone who is not an expert, you should not have your children’s medical decisions made by someone who is not an expert.
Put the health of your children ahead of your ideology.
The health of your children is too important to trust to people who don’t understand medicine.
.
I agree in principle Rogue Medic, I wouldn’t want my car’s brake cables being fixed by non-expert but human health is a more complicated discipline, with far more diverging views on how problems come into effect and what is the best way to treat them.
You are also assuming ideology doesn’t impact scientific community, as if the scientific method somehow shields them from bias, ignorance and prejudices. Greed, egoism, personal agendas, pride, corruption and compromise are all human foibles that anyone, in any field can, end up being blinded by, doctors and scientists included. Yet they also qualities that no ever thinks at the time they have. If you know about the ACE study showing that adverse childhood experiences impact health outcomes in later life, like heart disease,
https://www.ted.com/talks/nadine_burke_harris_how_childhood_trauma_affects_health_across_a_lifetime?language=en
there are maybe Doctors today that would say emotional trauma in childhood in no way could impact heart disease in an adult, without knowing they are basing their beliefs on ignorance and outdated information. Even though it’s now been shown scientifically that’s the case, the result challenges an entrenched view in orthodox medicine that there no such thing a mind body relationship. Before that study any mention of that would be consider totally Woo-woo. So there is an example of how real science and can come up against ideology , not in the quack-world but in the medical community itself.
I am not assuming anything. Science has enough people working on learning the truth that cases of prejudice and/or fraud are found out. The way we learn about these problems is from the scientists who uncover the problems.
Scientists are motivated to find flaws in the research of others.
You claim that the effects of stress on health is something that doctors deny, but you are wrong. This is what happens when you comment on things you do not understand.
This thesis is not based on science. This thesis is what is based on ideology and prejudice. You won’t find scientists supporting your flawed ideology, because there is no science to support your claims.
.
“Science has enough people working on learning the truth that cases of prejudice and/or fraud are found out. The way we learn about these problems is from the scientists who uncover the problems.”
Seriously I do not know what science fan-boy universe you inhabit but reality tells a different story. Maybe in certain fields of science that have less billion dollar economies centered around them, that may be the case. Yet having a health industrial complex that billions of dollars are directly connected to how science is policed, funded and supported you would have to be naive to think it’s all “just about the science”.
If you look at the biggest cases of fraud in the medical community over the last 10 years, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements it wasn’t lone rogue scientists valiantly uncovering the wrong doing of their peers, rather it was the department of justice building cases against these criminal enterprises, with often sales reps whistleblowing, not the company scientists or their peers from Harvard leading he vanguard. When scientists do expose wrongdoing they often punished and remain unprotected by the law. http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-scientists-harassment/protect-scientist.html
“Scientists are motivated to find flaws in the research of others.”
That may be the case for some, yet if doing so impedes their own careers, threatens continued funding, keeping their jobs, protecting their status, laziness and so forth that’s not going to happen. Some scientist may be motivated by their egos, greed, professional advancement and finding flaws in others research may not come into that. Scientist are not robots, they are governed by all humans flaws that we all possess and are just as partial to bias and ignorance. Also… “Scientists are motivated to find flaws in the research of others.” Do you have proof of this in healthcare? In the pharmaceutical industry? If you are a junior scientist are you motivated to find fault in your bosses fidnings? Do you have research to back this statement up? Who are you to say what does or doesn’t motivate any particular person? Doesn’t sounds very scientific, although nice to know you can read minds on behalf of all scientist , i guess that where you get your “Rogue” tite.
“You claim that the effects of stress on health is something that doctors deny, but you are wrong. This is what happens when you comment on things you do not understand.”
Honestly your facetious and dismissive tone is part of the problem when trying to have an intelligent discussion. I am not claiming “the effects of stress on health is something that doctors deny” What I was using the example of of the ACE (adverse childhood experiences) studies and studies on stress during childhood on the limbic system shows “science” just because its science, doesn’t immediately means its accept. In particular if its findings go against conventional/status quo belief systems. Is it accepted now, generally speaking among doctors that a certain degrees of emotional trauma children endure could impact their cardiovascular and Respiratory Health late on in adult life ? I am citing that that as an example of science being ahead of current conventional belief systems ie. There is no link between childhood trauma and a greater risk of emphysema being what many Doctor may think, even though science now shows there is. Are you telling me if went into my GP and told him I think my respiratory problems maybe connected to the abuse I suffered a child, he will think am talking about is some already scientifically proven? Really?
“This thesis is not based on science. This thesis is what is based on ideology and prejudice. You won’t find scientists supporting your flawed ideology, because there is no science to support your claims.”
Also, what thesis is it you think I am claiming that’s not support by science? Where is the ideology and prejudice you are talking about? I honestly didnt’ even know I was purporting thesis in the first place to be flawed or unsupported, please explain. Seeing as you are the one priding yourself on the rigors of cold hard facts and science, yet you are the one making generalization and big sweeping statements. If you are going to claim I have a flawed ideology, what is my ideology and what is exactly flawed about it?
Wow if you haven’t read the whole thesis then you are missing out. After reading it I am more convinced that there are no real scientific studies on the safety and efficacy of drugs/vaccines. My father died from being on many drugs…. why…. because he didn’t know what was bad or good, he just trusted his doctor. What do they know?
If the “science” is based on incomplete info as the thesis states, then there is no science here. The science of drugs/vaccines is not science but “undone science”. I am pretty sure all those that oppose this thesis have not actually read all of it. Why are we OK with industry financed trials and studies when they are the ones making the money? If their product fails will they tell us? If they do, they lose money. Why should we trust them and their studies?
Yes, it is all a conspiracy. You are so smart, you have deciphered what is happening in the world. Big Pharma is poisoning us with their unwanted drugs just to make a profit. They don’t really work. Did you also discover that 9/11 was a government plot? I’m sure you also found out that JFK was assassinated by the CIA. You have finally discovered that the biggest enterprises on earth are all run on conspiracy theories. You egg head!
“Anecdotally as a mother of three”
You’ve conducted a survey of three people who have the same genetic, racial and probably age demographic and geographic background. I don’t think you can extrapolate reasonable data from such a small and limited sample set to apply it to a population of billions. Even non-life threatening issues such as television ratings demand a much larger sample set before jumping to conclusions.
Its interesting how “Big Pharma” seems to get blamed for anything wrong with medicine including vaccines, and that scientists are essentially the useful idiots of “Big Pharma”. Yes, pharmaceutical companies are motivated by profit and scientists are human. But the idea of “science and medicine being corrupted by the forces, isn’t theoretical rather just the reality of what happens” and “the system ……… is so obvious bought and corrupt” are incredibly naive viewpoints. It shows a total lack of how science, especially in an academic setting, is done. It completely ignores the thousands and thousands of scientists who have made and continue to make significant contributions to our understanding of biology without crossing paths with “Big Pharma” let alone being funded or influenced by “Big Pharma”. And yet many of those discoveries lie at the foundations of biology. Classic examples being the description of the structure of the DNA double helix by Watson and Crick, and the pioneering work of Macfarlane Burnet in bacteriology, virology and immunology. Yes, that would be the same Macfarlane Burnet cited so often by Wilyman in her thesis. Burnet, were he alive today, would be horrified by the likes of Wilyman.
I am not talking about the validity of science within an academic setting, although there is a lot being written now saying that more and more being impacted by corporate influences. http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PowerPoint/COIAcademicSci4.pdf
What I am saying is in particular reference to vaccines, is the same companies that make and sell them are the same companies that been prosecuted for massive fraud, bribes and criminal activities ect.. take a look at the DOJ list. So I think naive to think those same type of corporate wrongdoing could in no way impact how vaccines are made and marketed. If then the regulators such as FDA are more and more stacked with lawyers from the same companies they are meant to be police and end up in job for these same companies after their government work is compete
http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2014/09/15/the-fda-revolving-door-fosters-conflicts-on-advisory-panels/
(just like occur within the SEC) then I think people have right to be wary about what they are told. What’s so ludicrous about that? A Princeton study from 2014 states US is now an oligarchy
“Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
So when state and private wealth are fused at the hip which means citizen interested are not served. That is a corrupt political and economic system that will not work to the be interest of the general public .My point in this thesis maybe flawed but not happening in vacuum .Peoples distrust that not unfounded and it would be better to address that, then the symptoms of it.
Corporations have many employers. If there are some that are some staff members that are corrupt, does it mean every staff member is corrupt?
Furthermore, if one PhD recipient in a university is discredited, does it mean that every PhD recipient in the past should be discredited as well?
Gross generalisations are gross.
Kat Johnson, “If the “science” is based on incomplete info as the thesis states,”
The thesis is not credible. This article by Kristin Boyle is one of many to explain that.
“Why are we OK with industry financed trials and studies when they are the ones making the money?”
Why assume that drug companies do most of the research? Look at actual research on vaccines and learn.
.
Kat Johnson, “Wow if you haven’t read the whole thesis then you are missing out.”
Read some of the research that is done on vaccines, not a glorified opinion piece by someone who has no understanding of science, medicine, or vaccines.
“After reading it I am more convinced that there are no real scientific studies on the safety and efficacy of drugs/vaccines.”
Most of the vaccine research is paid for by organizations that are not drug companies.
It is sad that you choose political propaganda over reality.
.
Things-that-matter.net, You make it seem as if the fraud cases were research fraud, but they were almost all marketing fraud. Do you really think that scientists run the marketing?
Then you claim that it is in the financial interest of the scientists to engage in fraud and you know that scientists cannot be trusted because they are human. We don’t have to trust scientists, because we can read the research and other scientists will replicate the research. If you understood research, you should understand that.
The thesis I referred to is the subject of the article you are commenting on. Did you forget? Your ideology appears to be that vaccine research cannot be trusted, or did you intend something else? I already pointed out some of the misrepresentations you have used.
.
Dr STG, why do you resort to childish insults and condescending barbs? You are right and anyone that says anything other than what you think is stupid. So to think the multi-billion dollar industry that is healthcare and science, is open to corruption, means I think 9/11 is inside job? What kind of logic is that?
I resort to childish sultry because the views expressed do disservice to a 3 year old. Simplistic conspiracy theories sprouted by half- wits masquerading as pseudo intellectual guff shits me. If you don’t like do read it!
Dr STD, haha, you poor thing. I guess the corruption of academia by corporate interests outlined by Noam Chomsky is another example of ” Simplistic conspiracy theories sprouted by half- wits masquerading as pseudo intellectual” https://chomsky.info/20110406/
To just label anything that’s not what you think as “conspiracy theory” is a very intellectually lazy retort. The fact the NSA was listening on peoples conversations without warrants was conspire theory until it wasn’t. A paedophile ring within highest levels of the Thatcher cabinet was conspire theory until it wasn’t. The list goes on.
The corruption of our political and economic systems is not conspiracy theory, it’s the reality of what happens when neo –liberalism has been allowed to grow unfettered over the last 30 years. To think the worldwide phenomena has no impact on science and healthcare, is to be a half- wit masquerading as a pseudo intellectual. As you present no counter arguments, as you think you views are beyond defending to the moron masses. Childish name calling and insults are usually the reserve of Fox news pundits and Tea Party followers, so maybe you are a medical version of ones of those. . It must be very lonely at the top of your imagined intellectual superiority.
I wasn’t discussing the point of the thesis , rather the wider context its written from. Maybe it muted discussion, you have you way of seeing things, I have mine. I see we live with in society that corrupt, our political system, financial systems ect.. and just don’t see science being shielded from those broader corrupting forces. I put link to this same pdf in the comment above just sample of what I am talking about and how science is impacted http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PowerPoint/COIAcademicSci4.pdf Then what I referenced to the ACE study was just an example of how mindsets are not easy to change, even Doctors. Your thoughts on that study?
Things-that-matter.net, You seem to think that the paper supports your position. I already explained, researchers are also motivated to expose incorrect results and you provided evidence that researchers behave altruistically, even in the face of legal pressure.
Promoting conspiracy theories is also a way for people to make money and the anti-vaccine industry fills their sites with ads for all sorts of quackery, but you trust them?
Most vaccine research is paid for by organizations that are not drug companies, but you keep acting as if all vaccine research is paid for by drug companies.
Read the research. There are thousands of independent papers showing that vaccines are extremely safe and effective.
.
Thanks Kristin, My friends and I will not let this rest.
Kristin- a very good synopsis -- i am an old vet working in herd health -- herd immunity & hygiene & All In All Out are the key strategies for low antibiotic production -- I read some of the “thesis” and gave up after 1/2 hour -- pure crap
Unfortunately there are other Social Science ( why do they use science -- should be conversations) schools that do phd’s in conspiracy… unemployable .
I’m sorry for your lack of ability to look beyond your four walls and biased, misinformed education Kristin.
You need to support your comments with facts and evidence.
People like you will never win in a debate against me. I am not an MD. I do not have a PHD. I have a niece who is vaccine damaged.
She is now a young teeenager and we are managing, however our whole family is in agreement over what caused her condition.
Get off your collective high horses and research the facts. The health of our society relies on people like you. At least the uninformed portion of society… It should be be your responsibility to do your research and check ALL the facts before you treat anymore patients.
Now people like you and those that listen to people like you want to stop my child from attending pre-school. WHY? Because I do not want him to end up like his cousin. I am not playing Russian Roulette with my childs health.
Have you even looked at the inserts for the vaccines you are talking about? Most people don’t even know they exist. So where is the so-called “informed consent?”. You crooks want to take away all my forms of choice.
Show me the proof that vaccines are safe and that the trials have been performed in the same way as other pharmaceutical drugs and you might just get me interested.
http://amhistory.si.edu/polio/historicalphotos/images/imghistorical_01.jpg
I don’t remember polio or iron lungs either. I’m fairly sure they were invented by Big Pharma as bed time stories to frighten people.
Uncle Joe,
You wrote, “You need to support your comments with facts and evidence.”
All of the facts and evidence show that vaccines are the safest and most effective medications we have.
Smallpox is no longer a problem. Vaccines were the solution.
Polio is no longer a problem in the US, but anti-vaxers keep us from a complete solution.
--
You also write, “I am not playing Russian Roulette with my childs health.”
The laws you complain about prevent you from playing Russian roulette with the health of other children.
Your failure to protect your child from illness endangers other children, yet it provides no benefit to your child.
This article shows that vaccines have dramatically decreased illness and death from many illnesses.
https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=209448
.
Rogue Medic,
“All of the facts and evidence show that vaccines are the safest and most effective medications we have.”
Really? You must have told that lie so many times you’re actually believing yourself. Honestly… who is lining your pockets?
I await your proof, studies and double blind trial results. I do my research. Probably more than you! It is my passion, not my job.
Vaccines are not medications. They are not tested the same as other pharmaceuticals drugs. They are social experiments.
The number of Polio cases declined so much earlier last century, not by vaccines nor did the vaccines reduce the number of deaths. Look at any stats anywhere and you will find that Polio had fallen in numbers and almost disappeared before the introduction of vaccines. It was through improved hygiene and sanitation that got Polio under control. The last case of smallpox in Australia was back in 1921 and any vaccines used back then were very different to those manufactured today.
Thanks to the wonderful work being performed by Bill Gates and his foundation, Pakistan and India now have the highest rates of vaccine caused polio in epidemic proportions. Oh, but they will state they have the lowest number of natural occurrences of those diseases. The last known case of Polio in Australia was in 2007 after that person returned from Pakistan.
“Your failure to protect your child from illness endangers other children, yet it provides no benefit to your child.”
My three nephews are all fully vaccinated. One of them contracted chickenpox, then the other two also did within a few days. I had my unvaccinated daughter stay with them for a whole day, playing and being in contact with all of them. She did not show any symptoms at all to this day. Who has the better, uncompromised immune system?
I had chickenpox as a child and it didn’t kill me. I stayed home from school for a week while it passed. Today it is considered an “inconvenient” disease so lets create some profits by “attempting” to reduce its occurrence.
When the last of my three nephews was born, his whole family including my mother-in-law had the pertussis shot. The whole family, including the newborn contracted whooping cough. My mother-in-law had a major adverse reaction to the shot and was admitted to hospital. How is that safe? No-one talks about how the virus can shed and therefore spread to others after being given the shot.
Why are the vaccine manufacturers free from any liability? In my job I am fully accountable. Why are they treated differently.
Also, for the sake of Dr STG, my niece, who was developing normally, began to have seizures 6 hours after her 18 month shots. The MMR to be specific. Not a coincidence! Those seizures continued, many times a day for over a year while they tried to figure out how to treat her. Her parents were also told she would “never” walk or talk again. Fortunately, by the age of about three she was mostly seizure free but still immobile and non-verbal. She has not had any further vaccination since those 18 month shots. She now deals with a mild case of Aspergers at the age of 17 and almost physically normal through a lot of hard work and early intervention by the parents.
Don’t tell me vaccines are safe and effective!
So many families around me tell me otherwise through their own experiences yet the doctors keep denying the true cause. The only evidence we have in these cases is observation.
By the way, I have not seen my GP in over 6 years and I am the healthiest I have ever been in years. I have not had a sick day from work in that whole time. I have visited that GP since I was 5 years old. I am now 45.
Just as a test I went to see my GP 3 weeks ago for a minor rash on my arm. I only wanted advice. Instead I ended up with a script in less than 5 minutes and then she proceeded to tell me NOT to filter my water at home. “The fluoride is beneficial according to my dentist”, she said. I tore up the script and took a care of the rash myself using my Aloe Vera plant from my garden. My arm was fine the next day. What a joke!
I have friends who are doctors and dentists. We only stay friends because they know not to lecture me.
I have so little respect for the whole medical establishment.
Firstly where is the proof that Pakistan and India have “highest rates of vaccine caused polio”? Please provide the journal article that described that epidemiological study and evidence.
Can you please provide evidence that the MMR caused the seizure, if not then we will conclude that it is actually a coincidence.
Can you please also provide the journals where you have published your research, as you have stated: “I do my research”. Has your research been peer reviewed?
Here are a couple of publications that demonstrate vaccine safety, efficacy as determined in double blind trials. Vaccines are not social experiments as shown by these publications.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607609465
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673609620031
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673610610306
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673608605243
Need I go on?
I look forward to reading you research.
“Honestly… who is lining your pockets?”
I don’t make any money off of vaccines.
I read research and understand what works.
Here is some information on how the polio vaccine, which you claim was cured by improved sanitation and hygiene.
“The polio vaccine field trials of 1954, sponsored by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (March of Dimes), are among the largest and most publicised clinical trials ever undertaken. Across the United States, 623 972 schoolchildren were injected with vaccine or placebo, and more than a million others participated as “observed” controls. The results, announced in 1955, showed good statistical evidence that Jonas Salk’s killed virus preparation was 80-90% effective in preventing paralytic poliomyelitis.1”
“A calculated risk”: the Salk polio vaccine field trials of 1954.
Meldrum M.
BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1233-6. No abstract available.
PMID: 9794869 -- Free PMC Article
As for the rates of polio prior to the introduction of the vaccine, you are wrong. The rates of polio fluctuated, both increasing and decreasing, with no pattern. If there had been a steady decrease, due to improved sanitation and hygiene, then the rates would not have fluctuated, but the average rates of infection, paralysis, and death would have steadily decreased.
Anti-vax sites have chosen brief time periods to misrepresent the data. A look at longer time periods shows that the fluctuation in polio rates was consistent with the historical trends.
Dr. David Gorski has written on this specific misleading claim made by many in the anti-vax community.
“Vaccines didn’t save us” (a.k.a. “vaccines don’t work”): Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-didnt-save-us-intellectual-dishonesty-at-its-most-naked/
You claim that, “The last case of smallpox in Australia was back in 1921 and any vaccines used back then were very different to those manufactured today.”
The last case of smallpox in Australia was in 1938, not 1921. You expect that there will be no improvements in vaccines and seem to consider improvements to be a problem.
Do you use a vehicle from 1921, or 1938, for your everyday transportation?
Vaccines were already safe, but they are continually improved. Due you avoid motor vehicles because they become safer? Do you claim that the higher number of fatalities is due to seat belts and air bags, even though the fatality rate is much lower than it was prior to the addition of these safety devices to motor vehicles?
You seem to misunderstand risk management. You seem to believe people with stories of being victims of vaccines, but vaccines do not cause autism, no matter how much conspiracy theorists claim otherwise.
Here are recent studies that examine whether there is any connection between vaccination and measles. The results are the same as all of the many previous studies. There is no support for the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism.
The first two papers are from Japan, which would not be part of any US CDC conspiracy theory.
Early exposure to the combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines and risk of autism spectrum disorder.
Uno Y, Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Aleksic B, Ozaki N.
Vaccine. 2015 Jan 3. pii: S0264-410X(14)01689-2. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.036. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 25562790 [PubMed -- as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25562790
--
The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: the first case-control study in Asia.
Uno Y, Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Aleksic B, Ozaki N.
Vaccine. 2012 Jun 13;30(28):4292-8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.01.093. Epub 2012 Apr 20.
PMID: 22521285 [PubMed -- indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22521285
--
This is from Canada, which also has nothing to do with any US CDC conspiracy theory --
Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations.
Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean-Heywood D.
Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):e139-50.
PMID: 16818529 [PubMed -- indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818529
The title may mislead a conspiracy theorist, so here is their conclusion about whether vaccines cause developmental disorders --
“The findings ruled out an association between pervasive developmental disorder and either high levels of ethylmercury exposure comparable with those experienced in the United States in the 1990s or 1- or 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations.”
--
This is from Australia, where Wilyman claims to do research --
Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies.
Taylor LE, Swerdfeger AL, Eslick GD.
Vaccine. 2014 Jun 17;32(29):3623-9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085. Epub 2014 May 9.
PMID: 24814559 [PubMed -- indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559
--
There are many more, from governments, universities, private organizations, et cetera.
No research has found any support for the claim that vaccines cause autism.
.
Who diagnosed your vaccine injury and what form does it take. Reading vaccine inserts is not equivalent to research.
Oh and by the way, vaccines are one of the most research medical products on the market. How many studies do you want me to show you? How many publication of evidence based science do you need to see? How many peer reviewed publications do you wish to read? Let me know I am happy to provide as many as you require to satisfy your confused ideology.
If it hadn’t been for my niece being vaccine damaged I probably would’ve been naive enough for vaccinate my kids. I am glad I know now what I do. The truth.
See my reply to Rogue Medic for detail on my niece.
Enough said. You people play your little game and dishonesty, deception and creating a repeat (chronically ill) customer base. I now know better and you’ve all just proven it.
Uncle Joe we are willing to help educate and inform you, however if you are unwilling to look at the evidence then there really is no point in progressing with this discussion. From your comments it is quite clear that you are a lame brain conspiracy idiot that has a closed mind to any actual evidence. We are not playing games, we have scientific evidence to support our claims and your stupid little rant has effectively proven you are an ill educated illiterate. Please go away.
OK. Answer me one question. I’ll keep it simple, referring only to one type of vaccine.
Why is a newborn given a HBV shot in the first hours of life?
Why is it good? Are there any studies on the efficacy when given at birth?
What are the known possible side effects?
Can you back your comments with verified independant studies (not by the manufacturers)?
Why is a newborn given a HBV shot in the first hours of life? That is the recommended way to provide the best immunological response and also prevent maternal transmission to the newborn if the mother is infected. 3 further vaccinations are required to produce long lasting immunity. Early childhood vaccination is required to wipe out HB in the population
.
Why is it good? See above.
Are there any studies on the efficacy when given at birth?
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/184/7/905.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X99001784
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/1/126.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347695703985
http://origin.glb.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5516a1.htm
What are the known possible side effects?
Below is a study of the adverse events from HBV vaccination, quite old
Frequency of adverse reactions to hepatitis B vaccine in 43,618 persons. The most common adverse and severe event was muscle soreness. Recorded rate of adverse events was 0.09%.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000293439290073K
Can you back your comments with verified independant studies (not by the manufacturers)?
All these studies are independent peer reviewed.
Dr. STG,
As stated in your 5th link, Figure 4 states Australia has less that 2% of the population affected by HB. I do not understand why 100% of the population needs this vaccine if the mother has not been infected.
Also, is it true that an infant at birth does not have an effective immune system? That this is something that is built up gradually over the first months of life. If so, then how are you supposed to get an immune response?
I’m simply trying to understand how the HBV works in an infant and how they be effective at such a young age.
Reference to 2% of the population: we need to ensure all the population is immunised to ensure 2% do not get infected. If that is what you mean. Otherwise, how do you identify the 2% that is going to be infected?
You are correct that neonatal immunity is built over time. But it does not mean infants are not capable of mounting an immune response. If children were so immunocompromised at birth the death rate would be significantly higher. The HBV at birth provides immunity to prevent infection at birth. Note that HBV vaccinations required later to ensure full immunity.
As a pro safe vaxxer which vaccines do you feel are safe to provide?
The problem with people such as Uncle Joe is they are uneducated and unwilling to change. With lines such as ‘People like you will never win in a debate against me. I am not an MD. I do not have a PHD.’, you know that facts won’t change them. Your superior intellect and education are an affront to them.
I am a veterinarian (pigs) and find vaccines ( off the shelf & autogeous) are essential for most production systems- The biggest problem with vaccine use is the ad hoc changes made by staff based on “evidence” which usually is some tenuous association with no determination of cause and effect -- it is human nature -- The Dunning–Kruger effect -- those with the least knowledge have the strongest beliefs.
I waded through some of the Wilyman PhD and it reminded of conversations with managers who would never see reason and always have many reasons why the performance of their unit was well below expectation and the units performing as or better than expected did it by luck.
If we are short of education funds then nuking Uni Woolongong seems a good solution.
Uncle Joe above says “Can you back your comments with verified independent studies (not by the manufacturers)?’ Such a comment demonstrates the ignorance of the anti-vaxxer of how the world works. All products are the result of research and development conducted by the company; vaccines are no different to aircraft. Boeing and Airbus, for example, conduct their own research and development. overseen by their national regulators, such as the FAA. In the case of vaccine manufacturers, they are overseen by national regulators such as the FDA. If that is not good enough for ‘Uncle Joe’ then he should never again board an aircraft, drive a car, walk across a bridge, etc.
Uncle Joe also says “You people play your little game and dishonesty, deception and creating a repeat (chronically ill) customer base.” Wow! A conspiracy theory unlike any other! All those doctors and nurses studying for years and working all hours not to aid the ill but to enlarge their number. The he says “I now know better and you’ve all just proven it.” All you have proven, Joe, is ignorance and conceit that registers on the Richter scale.
Ken McLeod… I have my cars independently tested before purchasing (including brand new ones). If it doesn’t pass the test, I ask that the defects by resolved before going any further.
We all know how trustworthy the FDA is. Enough said on that topic.
By the way, I am not an “anti-vaxxer”, I am pro-safe-vax yet I am finding it difficult to find someone to convince me of the safety of many of the ingredients being injected into (especially) infants through to adults. Particularly in light of the vaccine schedules being loaded up more and more over the years.
I have not found information showing how multiple vaccines given at the same time react with each other. There may also be individuals receiving shots where a “one size fits all” model is clearly not the best approach. Why are so many practitioners reluctant to seperate the shots so that they can be tolerate better by those who may be at risk.
Why is it so hard to have a conversation with those “in the know” when I you get is shot down and labelled as an “anti-vaxxer”. I’m just looking for ‘recent’ studies and material that show some relation to the current vaccine schedules which have so many more shots than when I was a child. There is seemingly little study on how the shots are combined.
Uncle Joe,
You write -- “We all know how trustworthy the FDA is. Enough said on that topic.”
Apparently, you do not. You promote the anti-vaxer conspiracy theories about the FDA. That is why I listed a bunch of studies from outside of the US.
Your FDA conspiracy theories do not work in the real world.
You write -- “By the way, I am not an “anti-vaxxer”, I am pro-safe-vax”
That is the new claim of the anti-vaxers.
People realize that your claims are not supported by reality, so you try to make your claims more appealing to those who do not understand medicine.
Vaccines are safe.
The evidence is clear on that.
Anti-vaxers are dangerous.
You want to bring back diseases that kill, because you do not understand that diseases are dangerous and vaccines are safe.
Measles kills.
Mumps kills.
Whooping cough kills.
Hepatitis kills.
Even chicken pox kills.
Your opposition to safe vaccines kills.
.
Rogue Medic,
You have just stated your ignorance. “Vaccines are safe”. What an idiotic statement. Are you aware that vaccine injections are just another form of medicine. Everyone knows that any kind of medicine or medical procedure is not 100% safe!
Conspiracy theories are only theories until proven as fact.
Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Is it fact or theory? It’s in the name… it is a theory, yet it is taught in school as a fact! I’m not saying I don’t believe it could be true. I reserve my judgement for when it is proven.
If you think vaccines are so perfect, have you not heard of William Thompson of the CDC and his story that was told to the U.S. congress by Bill Posey?
What about the billions of dollars paid out by the U.S. courts for vaccine damage? We do not have that luxury in Australia. So it must be a conspiracy… or is it fact if they are paying out???
I do not pose a danger to anyone if I do not vaccinate my child. Everyone else is vaccinated so they should be safe…. oh, hang on, no they’re not coz’ they don’t work!
Why are all the vaccinated kids around my area the sickest kids around? Most of them have allergies, asthma or some other illness. My kids have no allergies and no chronic illness.
Take your blinkers off for a moment and just consider whether you have studied the truth or even that you might be just a little wrong. I have! I may be wrong, but at least I research and make my own mind up as every parent should have the right to do.
I just hope that all parents take a more informed approach and consider what is being injected into their children’s arms. I certainly know that most doctors I’ve spoken to have not volunteered any additional information or inserts for my reading pleasure. Probably because they know I would run a mile if I did read it.
So, keep your petty name calling to yourself.
You have not convinced me of anything but your ignorance and arrogance.
Once again… enough said. I leave you in peace to contemplate your next target.
Talking of showing ignorance.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19
“JUST” A THEORY?
“Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown “it’s just a theory.” This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not “just” a theory.
Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch. Many technical fields have similar vocabulary problems — for example, both the terms work in physics and ego in psychology have specific meanings in their technical fields that differ from their common uses. However, context and a little background knowledge are usually sufficient to figure out which meaning is intended.”
Uncle Joe, You wrote, “You have just stated your ignorance. “Vaccines are safe”. What an idiotic statement. Are you aware that vaccine injections are just another form of medicine. Everyone knows that any kind of medicine or medical procedure is not 100% safe!”
If I had written “vaccines are 100% safe,” you would have a valid point.
I did not write that, because I did not make that claim.
There isn’t anything that is 100% safe.
Anyone claiming that there can be 100% safety is selling something.
Anyone demanding 100% safety in the real world is not living in the real world.
Safety is a relative term.
Vaccines are safe.
Vaccines are safer than the other medicines that are available -- and they prevent illnesses.
Vaccines are so safe that doctors, nurses, and paramedics inject their children with vaccines tio prevent dangerous illnesses.
Vaccines are not perfect, but they are better than everything else.
--
You wrote, “Conspiracy theories are only theories until proven as fact.”
Are you claiming that all conspiracy theories are going to be proven?
Are you claiming that you have some information that would prove the conspiracy theories you promote?
Why do all of the relevant medical organizations in the world agree that vaccines are safe?
--
Following that, you deny science, because you do not appear to understand even a little bit of science.
--
You followed that up with one of the repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories -- “If you think vaccines are so perfect, have you not heard of William Thompson of the CDC and his story that was told to the U.S. congress by Bill Posey?”
Again, you misrepresent my comments about vaccines as “perfect.” Why can’t you stick to the truth?
From an article on the fake controversy over Dr. Thompson --
‘Vaccines protect the health of children in the United States so well that most parents today have never seen first-hand the devastating consequences of diseases now stopped by vaccines.’
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-cdc-whistleblower-saga-updates-backlash-and-i-hope-a-wrap-up/
--
You follow that with a vague and misleading statement.
--
Then you compound your error on the “perfection” of vaccines with -- “I do not pose a danger to anyone if I do not vaccinate my child. Everyone else is vaccinated so they should be safe…. oh, hang on, no they’re not coz’ they don’t work!”
There are two things you clearly do not understand.
1. Not everyone can be vaccinated.
2. Not every vaccination produces immunity.
Vaccines are not perfect, but they are better than everything else.
--
You follow that with more vague and misleading statements.
You should protect your children, and yourself, from illness the same way that people who understand medicine do.
They understand what they are doing, while you promote conspiracy theories.
.
Can you please provide evidence that supports your claim that vaccines don’t work (coz’ they don’t work!).
You also have claimed you are not antivax but pro safe vax, so which vaccines do you consider safe and why?
“Conspiracy theories are only theories until proven as fact.”
This statement is incorrect. You have forgotten a third possible state: disproved.
Of course, in this day and age, people only argue harder rather than concede to facts.
Maybe your initial statement reveals more about your intentions than anything else.