ON THE CRIME OF HERESY AGAINST THE VACCINE RELIGION
o question public vaccine policy is to commit the crime of heresy against the vaccine religion,
as illustrated by how any dissent is met by its defenders.
There is something wrong when you are not allowed to question public vaccine policy
without automatically being labeled as �anti-science�, a believer in �pseudoscience�, or even
a �conspiracy theorist�. The subject of vaccines is a serious one, and deserves to
be taken seriously. Concerned parents are asking legitimate questions, and they deserve
serious answers rather than dismissals. The public discussion about vaccines is essentially
non-existent. Instead, the message we are told is that there is nothing to discuss.
The mainstream media, for its part, has utterly failed to properly inform the public about
the subject of vaccines, and rather than engaging in respectful debate, there is a tendency
to try to bully people into silence and compliance. In this endeavor, the mainstream media has
useful partners in the blogosphere.
As someone who is openly critical of vaccine policy, I expect to be attacked and have such
labels mindlessly flung at me. So I wasn�t surprised to discover that one of the more
notorious apologists for public vaccine policy, an anonymous blogger who goes by the moniker
�Skeptical Raptor�, set his sights on me recently for an article I wrote in response
to a Washington Post op-ed by Dr. Daniel Summers. Dr. Summers took the usual dogmatic approach
to the subject, insisting there is nothing to debate, just get your damned shots. The
purpose of my rejoinder to his op-ed was to illustrate why this insistence is wrong. There
is a discussion to be had about vaccines, and it�s past time we started having it.
Raptor�s response to that article of mine provides me with the opportunity to reiterate
that same point, as well as to illuminate the kinds of tactics employed by those who
try to intimidate into silence anyone who dares to question public vaccine policy � rather
than seriously addressing the legitimate concerns being raised.
Naturally, Raptor�s post about my article is filled with such mindless attacks as:
�Jeremy R. Hammond � attacked Dr. Summers with � tropes, myths, and conspiracy theories.�
�Hammond uses pseudoscience�.� �Hammond�s criticisms of Dr. Simmons [consist
of] tropes, myths, conspiracy theories, cherry picking and, need I mention this, outright
misinformation.� �But if you want to believe the ramblings
of a right wing science denier, go right ahead.� It�s instructive, given such vitriolic rhetoric,
that Raptor fails to point to even a single error in fact or logic in anything I wrote
in my rejoinder to Dr. Summers. (Which might explain why Raptor didn�t link to my article
so readers could check to see for themselves what I�d actually written, as opposed to
his misportrayal.)
On Doctors� Confirmation Bias
In my article, I quoted Dr. Summers saying that if vaccines can cause autism, then pediatricians
like him must either be �too incompetent to discern the relationship between the two�
or �too monstrous to care�.
I observed that this gives us a useful insight into why doctors might easily succumb to confirmation
bias, accepting of science that confirms their belief that they are competent and good while
dismissing any evidence contradicting that belief. After all, how many doctors would
be honest enough to admit that they are either incompetent or evil?
So how does Raptor respond to this observation? He writes:
First of all, Hammond does not quite understand confirmation bias. In fact, most of us who
support vaccines use the scientific method � the evidence leads us to a conclusion.
Hammond uses pseudoscience � establish a conclusion, like vaccines cause autism, and
ignore all evidence that does not support his beliefs�. Frankly, Hammond is projecting
the problems with his own arguments onto Dr. Simmons.
In other words, Raptor is saying that I�m the one guilty of confirmation bias, and that
I don�t understand what confirmation bias is. So what is confirmation bias? Here�s
how Raptor defines it:
[C]onfirmation bias is simply the tendency for individuals to favor information or data
that support their beliefs. It is also the tendency for people to only seek out information
that supports their a priori, or pre-existing, conclusions, and subsequently ignores evidence
that might refute that pre-existing conclusion.
I�m perfectly content to use that definition to reiterate the point I made in my response
to Summers: that doctors will tend to have a confirmation bias because it would be difficult
for them to accept that something they did to a child with the intention of helping that
child might have ended up harming that child.
Note that Raptor does not actually address this point. He simply asserts that I don�t
understand confirmation bias without bothering to demonstrate in what way I don�t understand
it and meaninglessly declares that doctors �use the scientific method� � as though
having a medical degree meant that a person couldn�t possibly have such a psychological
conflict.
Compare this with Dr. Joseph Mercola of the leading health information website Mercola.com,
a physician who once vaccinated his patients and had to overcome this very inner conflict
himself; Dr. Mercola in a recent article on his website quoted my observation about this
natural tendency toward confirmation bias among doctors, then added:
As a doctor, I can empathize with this psychological conundrum. It�s a terrible feeling to realize
that, at some point in your life, you didn�t have the knowledge you should have had and
you led your patients the wrong way.
In conclusion, Raptor, rather than actually addressing my valid point, resorts to obfuscation.
As for his charge that I�m guilty of confirmation bias, here Raptor is simply resorting to strawman
argumentation, attributing to me logic that I did not use in my response to Summers�
op-ed. His protest against what I did say in my article on the subject of vaccines and
autism is instructive.
The Autism Question
In my article, I criticized Dr. Summers for repeating the trope that the hypothesis that
vaccines can cause autism has been �thoroughly debunked�. I pointed out that the government
has in fact acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage in genetically susceptible
individuals, and that this brain damage can lead to developmental regression, i.e., autism.
I quoted then Director of the CDC Julie Gerberding in 2008 admitting:
Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized,
got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you�re predisposed
with a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms
can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.
Then I commented: �So seems to me there�s some room for debate there. (Gerberding, incidentally,
left her government job to become head of Merck�s vaccine division.)�
So how does Raptor respond to this point? Raptor simply asserts that �there are hundreds
of studies that have debunked Hammond�s belief.�
But what �belief� of mine is Raptor referring to, exactly? Are there hundreds of studies
that have �debunked� that the head of the CDC acknowledged vaccines can cause brain
damage leading to developmental regression? Or does Raptor mean hundreds of studies have
�debunked� what Gerberding said?
Is this former CDC director and president of Merck�s vaccine division into �pseudoscience�?
We see once again all Raptor is doing is attempting to obfuscate the point. Raptor continues this
effort by writing:
Next, Hammond claims that the �government has actually acknowledged that vaccines can
cause brain damage, and that this vaccine-caused brain damage can result in developmental regression
in genetically susceptible individuals.�
The �Next� here is puzzling, since this point about the head of the CDC acknowledging
vaccines can cause brain damage was the one and only point I made in response to Dr. Summer�s
repetition of the usual dogmatic mantra about any association having been �debunked�.
Setting that aside, note how Raptor uses the verb �claims� � as though it wasn�t
a fact that the CDC director acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage leading
to developmental regression. This verb choice is puzzling, given how Raptor then proceeds
to share the statement of Gerberding�s that I quoted.
So how does Raptor address my point about that acknowledgment from the CDC director?
Raptor writes:
Sure, that�s an admission that vaccines can cause brain damage � in a child with
an extremely rare disorder.
Note that Raptor acknowledges that vaccines can cause brain damage in genetically susceptible
individuals.
Raptor nevertheless continues:
Hammond, in the purest sense of pseudoscience, grasps onto a very rare adverse effect, and
uses it to �prove� vaccines cause autism. It most certainly does not.
Now, this is also quite a puzzling argument, given the actual context of the quote from
Gerberding.
See, when she spoke those words, the CDC director was referring to the case of Hannah Poling,
who developmentally regressed and was diagnosed with autism after receiving five vaccines
at once at 19 months of age.
The Poling Case and Genetic Susceptibility
One of the legitimate concerns parents have about vaccines is how the government constantly
reassures them that vaccines are safe and effective while granting legal immunity to
the vaccine manufacturers, which was upheld by the Supreme Court on the grounds that injuries
from vaccines are �unavoidable�. Under the 1986 law granting this legal immunity,
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was set up to shift the cost burden
from vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical industry and onto the taxpayers.
Naturally, parents are confused by this, and it certainly raises some legitimate questions.
The Poling family is among those who have been awarded compensation under the VICP.
In the case of Hannah Poling, the government acknowledged that:
The facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations
CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder,
which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive
encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.
Now given the context of Gerberding�s admission, note what Raptor is effectively arguing: the
fact that vaccines can cause brain damage resulting in autism doesn�t prove that vaccines
can cause autism!
One could also argue that the fact you ran over a nail with your bicycle doesn�t prove
that the nail caused your flat tire � technically, it was the hole in the tire that did it.
Scientific American has commented on the Poling case by saying that �Theoretically, that
makes sense� (that the vaccines triggered the cascade of events resulting in her autism).
In Hannah�s case, her mitochondria, the �power plants of the cell�, were �already
underperforming, so when she developed a fever from her vaccine, the increased energy requirements
likely pushed them past their thresholds�, triggering her autism symptoms.
Evidently, Scientific American is into �pseudoscience�, too.
Another propagator of �pseudoscience� was Bernadine Healy, M.D., former director
of the National Institutes of Health and president and CEO of the American Red Cross. Before
her death, she had come to challenge the official dogma, writing that as a trigger of autism,
�vaccines carry a ring of both historical and biological plausibility�.
But what about all those studies Raptor mentions that supposedly have proven there is no possible
causal association between vaccines and autism?
As Healy also said in an interview, �I think that the public health officials have been
too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational.�
When her interviewer pointed out that public health officials had been saying that �there�s
enough evidence and they know its not causal�, Healy�s response was, �I think you can�t
say that. You can�t say that.�
Healy then offered another explanation for how confirmation bias can become institutionalized:
There is a completely expressed concern that they don�t want to pursue a hypothesis because
that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.
Healy also noted the lack of studies into � and lack of interest in studying � the
possibility of some individuals having a genetic susceptibility to vaccine injury:
If you turn your back on the notion that there is a susceptible group� what can I say?
Hannah Poling�s father, Jon Poling, who happens to be a neurologist, has made the
same observation about both the institutional confirmation bias and the lack of studies
examining the question of whether vaccines can cause autism in genetically susceptible
children:
With regard to the science of Autism, I have no argument with the assertion that a single
case does not prove causation of a generalized autism-vaccine link. What the case does illustrate
though is a more subtle point that many physicians cannot or do not want to comprehend (ostensibly
because vaccines are too important to even question). Autism is a heterogeneous disorder
defined by behavioral criteria and having multiple causes. Epidemiological studies which
have not found a link between autism and aspects of vaccination do not consider the concept
of autism subgroups. Indeed, in a heterogeneous disorder like Autism, subgroups may indeed
be �vaccine-injured� but the effect is diluted out in the larger population (improperly
powered study due to inability to calculate effect size with unknown susceptible subpopulation).
I think former NIH Director, Dr. Bernadine Healey explained it best in that population
epidemiology studies are not �granular� enough to rule-out a susceptible subgroup.
Then there�s Dr. Frank DeStefano, who has acknowledged that �it�s a possibility�
that vaccines could trigger autism in genetically susceptible individuals.
Evidently, this CDC Director of Immunization Safety, who has coauthored several of the
CDC�s studies finding no link between vaccines and autism, is into �pseudoscience�, as
well.
The trouble is, DeStefano added, �It�s hard to predict who those children might be�,
and trying to determine what underling conditions put children at risk of vaccine injury is
�very difficult to do�.
Acknowledging the lack of studies in this area, he added that, �if we ever get to
that point, then that kind of research might be fruitful.�
And here�s the CDC�s website, current as of this writing, on the lack of such studies:
�More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial
disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.�
When I contacted the industry-funded American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently to request
them to provide studies that considered the existence of genetically susceptible subpopulations
to support their claim that any association between vaccines and autism had been �disproven�,
the AAP provided me with a list of studies. Not one of the studies provided by the AAP
considered the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation.
I pointed this out to the AAP, and I also pointed out that it isn�t logically possible
to say � as they had in their press release � that a hypothesis has been �disproven�
when it hasn�t even been studied. I therefore then once more asked whether they could produce
any studies that considered the existence of genetically susceptible individuals. The
AAP�s response was that they had already provided all that they were going to provide.
When I asked whether the authors of the press release would like to comment, I was told
by the AAP representative that she was going to hang up on me, which she promptly did.
Now, for good measure, let�s turn to the medical literature on this question and look
at a couple of papers written by individuals who can by no means be labelled �anti-vaxxers�
to see what they have to say about the hypothesis that vaccines can cause autism in children
who are genetically susceptible to vaccine injury.
Dr. Paul Offit and �Poor Reasoning�
In a September 2008 paper in the journal Paediatrics & Child Health, Asif Doja argues against a
causal relationship between vaccines and autism, yet acknowledges that �Mitochondrial disorders
represent a rare cause of autism� � as well as the possibility that vaccines could
cause fevers that in turn could cause encephalopathy (brain damage) and regression in individuals
with mitochondrial dysfunction.
Doja is careful to emphasize that it is the fever that causes the encephalopathy, �not
the vaccine itself�. (It was the hole in the tire that caused it to go flat, not the
nail, remember.)
Doja also argues that �it is unlikely that those with mitochondrial disease simply require
a vaccine �trigger� to set off the disease process because most patients with mitochondrial
disease do not have an onset of symptoms associated with vaccination.�
But this argument is a logical fallacy. It�s a non sequitur; the conclusion doesn�t follow
from the premise. It may be true that most patients with mitochondrial disease do not
have an onset of symptoms associated with vaccination, but it does not follow that it
is therefore �unlikely� that vaccines could be the necessary �trigger� in some
children.
The title of Doja�s article, �Genetics and the myth of vaccine encephalopathy�,
is a curious one, given how, despite his fallacious conclusion that it�s �unlikely�, Doja
ultimately acknowledges the possibility that �fever associated with the vaccine� could
provoke �the initial seizure� ultimately resulting in brain damage in genetically susceptible
individuals.
Doja also cites another article, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, by
Dr. Paul Offit. So let�s look at that one, as well.
Paul Offit is someone whose credentials as a defender of public vaccine policy are impeccable.
He was sitting on an advisory board for the vaccine manufacturer Merck at the time he
wrote that article.
Offit is also a former member of the CDC�s vaccine advisory committee, a body that helps
determine public vaccine policy. As a member of that committee, Offit advocated that the
CDC recommend use of the rotavirus vaccine. He later profited handsomely from the sale
of a patent for a rotavirus vaccine.
Offit has made insane claims and is unafraid to brazenly lie knowing that, given the current
climate surrounding the vaccine issue, his colleagues in the medical establishment will
not hold him accountable for it. For instance, he is famous for once claiming that children
could safely handle 10,000 vaccines at once. Another time, he declared that �Aluminum
is considered to be an essential metal with quantities fluctuating naturally during normal
cellular activity. It is found in all tissues and is also believed to play an important
role in the development of a healthy fetus.�
Offit is the director of the so-called �Vaccine Education Center� at the Children�s Hospital
of Philadelphia, where he also holds the Maurice R. Hilleman Chair in Vaccinology, created
in honor of the former senior vice president of Merck, which provided a $1.5 million endowment
to �accelerate the pace of vaccine research�.
Offit also happens to be the mainstream media�s go-to guy when a comment is needed on anything
related to vaccine safety. When you read an article in the mainstream media about vaccines,
there�s a pretty good chance you�ll find a quote from Offit in it (which says a lot
about mainstream journalism). He�s been appropriately dubbed by Philadelphia magazine
as �Mr. Vaccine�.
In the New England Journal of Medicine, Offit describes what happened to Hannah Poling:
When she was 19 months old, Hannah, the daughter of Jon and Terry Poling, received five vaccines
� diphtheria�tetanus�acellular pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), measles�mumps�rubella
(MMR), varicella, and inactivated polio. At the time, Hannah was interactive, playful,
and communicative. Two days later, she was lethargic, irritable, and febrile. Ten days
after vaccination, she developed a rash consistent with vaccine-induced varicella.
Months later, with delays in neurologic and psychological development, Hannah was diagnosed
with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Hannah�s signs included
problems with language, communication, and behavior � all features of autism spectrum
disorder�.
For years, federal health agencies and professional organizations had reassured the public that
vaccines didn�t cause autism. Now, with DHHS making this concession in a federal claims
court, the government appeared to be saying exactly the opposite.
Offit goes on to argue that the government�s decision was �poorly reasoned�.
His first argument is that, while �it is clear that natural infections can exacerbate
symptoms of encephalopathy in patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies, no clear
evidence exists that vaccines cause similar exacerbations.�
Compare this denial of Offit�s to Doja�s acknowledgment in his Paediatrics & Child
Health article that �indeed febrile seizures have been shown to occur at an increased rate
after vaccination�.
Seizures are a recognized symptom of encephalopathy.
In fact, Offit himself just two paragraphs later acknowledges that �experts testifying
on behalf of the Polings could reasonably argue that development of fever and a varicella-vaccine
rash after the administration of nine vaccines was enough to stress a child with mitochondrial
enzyme deficiency� (emphasis added).
Offit�s second argument is that due to technological advancements, the combined schedule of fourteen
vaccines children received in 2008 (the time of his writing) exposed children to fewer
�immunologic components� than just the one smallpox vaccine from a century ago, �which
contained about 200 structural and nonstructural viral proteins�.
This argument, however, overlooks, among other things, that the immunologic components of
the target antigen (i.e, the virus or bacteria the vaccine is designed to prevent the disease
of) are not the only antigens contained in vaccines.
The smallpox vaccine did not contain aluminum or mercury, for example, both known neurotoxins
contained in CDC-recommended vaccines today. (Aluminum is used as an adjuvant in some vaccines
to cause a stronger immune response than the target antigen would alone, and influenza
vaccines that come in multi-dose vials still contain the preservative Thimerosal, which
is 50 percent ethylmercury by weight. Other vaccines may contain �trace amounts� of
mercury from the manufacturing process.)
As another example, vaccines can also contain contaminants, such as retroviruses. This is
not theoretical; numerous vaccines have been found to be contaminated with other viruses
or viral fragments. Polio vaccines used in the late 1950s and early 1960s, for example,
were contaminated with a monkey virus (simian virus 40, or SV40) that�s been associated
with an increased risk of some cancers.
In fact, the vaccine Offit himself helped develop, Merck�s Rotateq, was found to be
contaminated with pig virus DNA. GlaxoSmithKline�s rotavirus vaccine, Rotarix, was suspended
from the market in 2010 because it was found to be contaminated with a pig virus.
Offit�s third argument is that �Hannah had other immunologic challenges that were
not related to vaccines�; namely fevers and ear infections. �Children typically
have four to six febrile illnesses each year during their first few years of life; vaccines
are a minuscule contributor to this antigenic challenge.�
Offit�s logic here rests essentially on the same fallacy as Doja�s: it does not
follow from the fact that most fevers in children are not caused by vaccinations that therefore
it can�t be that, in some cases, vaccines are the trigger that sets off the cascade
of events leading to developmental regression.
Offit further argues that Hannah�s autism was caused by her mitochondrial disorder,
not the vaccines she received.
This is like arguing that celiac disease is caused by a patient�s HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8
genes, not by gluten consumption. Just as having the genetic predisposition �is necessary
for disease development but is not sufficient for [celiac] disease development� (Genomic
Medicine), so it is that having a mitochondrial disorder does not necessarily mean that the
child will develop autism; one or more environmental triggers are also required.
Amidst his protests against the conclusion that the vaccines Hannah received caused her
autism, Offit nevertheless acknowledges the �theoretical risk� of �exacerbations�
from vaccines in children with mitochondrial disorders andthe absence of �data that clearly
exonerates vaccines� in this respect.
As Hannah�s father, Jon Poling, and three co-authors wrote in a case study published
in the Journal of Child Neurology,
It is unclear whether mitochondrial dysfunction results from a primary genetic abnormality,
atypical development of essential metabolic pathways, or secondary inhibition of oxidative
phosphorylation by other factors. If such dysfunction is present at the time of infections
and immunizations in young children, the added oxidative stresses from immune activation
on cellular energy metabolism are likely to be especially critical for the central nervous
system, which is highly dependent on mitochondrial function. Young children who have dysfunctional
cellular energy metabolism therefore might be more prone to undergo autistic regression
between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same
time.
Now recall Raptor�s admission �that vaccines can cause brain damage � in a child with
an extremely rare disorder�. In other words, despite his best efforts to obfuscate my point,
Raptor tacitly acknowledges that what I wrote is true.
On �the cancer-preventing HPV vaccine�
Another statement I quoted from Dr. Summers� Washington Post op-ed was:
Despite ample evidence of its safety and efficacy, many parents choose not to give their children
the vaccination against the carcinogenic human papillomavirus, leaving their sons and daughters
at increased risk of several different cancers.
In response, I wrote:
Can Dr. Summers point to any studies in the medical literature that have shown that the
HPV vaccine reduces the risk of developing cervical cancer (or anal or mouth/throat cancers
in men)? When the FDA approved its use allowing the vaccine manufacturers to advertise it
on the grounds that it can prevent cancer, had this been proven in clinical trials?
The answer to both questions is �No�. Dr. Summers� assertion is an assumption,
not a demonstrated fact. Room for debate on that one, too, then.
Raptor writes that here I am �relying upon all of the tenets of pseudoscience and science
denialism� to �trash Gardasil� (Merck�s HPV vaccine).
Raptor then declares that he �can point to several� studies in the medical literature
that have shown that the HPV vaccine reduces the risk of cervical cancer. In an attempt
to support this claim, Raptor then provides five links. Turning to Raptor�s very first
source cited, we find a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Does this study show that the HPV vaccine reduces the risk of cervical cancer, as Raptor
claims?
No, it does not.
The FDA and �Surrogate Endpoints�
On the contrary, Raptor�s source confirms what I wrote originally: the FDA approved
Gardasil for licensure on the grounds it could prevent cancer despite no clinical studies
having demonstrated the truth of this claim. As Raptor�s source observes (emphasis added):
Both vaccines have been shown to be highly effective against HPV16/18�associated cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN2/3) and adenocarcinoma in situ, endpoints accepted
in trials for vaccine efficacy against cervical cancer.
That is to say, the FDA used what is called a �surrogate endpoint�, defined as �a
biomarker that is intended to substitute for a clinical endpoint�.
As Thomas Fleming explains in the journal Health Affairs (full text here; bold emphasis
added),
Establishing that an experimental drug can provide quality-of-life or survival benefit
in a newly diagnosed patient with prostate or breast cancer, or that a vaccine can reduce
the spread of HIV, or that a device can reduce risk of serious illness or death from cardiovascular
disease could require trials that are large, long term, and financially costly.
In many instances, sponsors have proposed alternative endpoints (that is, �surrogates�)
for these clinical endpoints, to reduce the duration and size of the trials�.
Unfortunately, demonstrating treatment effects on these biological �surrogate� endpoints,
while clearly establishing biological activity, may not provide reliable evidence about effects
of the intervention in clinical efficacy measures.
Fleming provides the remarkable example of the drugs encainide and flecainide. Since
these drugs were shown to be �very effective in suppressing� ventricular arrhythmias,
which are �a known risk factor for sudden cardiac death�, the medical establishment
assumed that patients who took these drugs would have a lower risk of that outcome.
Fleming continues (emphasis added):
In fact, they were so persuaded that between a quarter-million and a half-million patients
each year in the United States alone were receiving these drugs for this purpose. Many
were so confident that the drugs provided important therapeutic benefits that they thought
it would not be ethical to withhold these drugs from patients in the control group of
a randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to reliably evaluate their effects on overall
mortality. (Similar arguments are made today by advocates for continued widespread use
of antibiotics in children with acute otitis media, even though we lack scientific evidence
to establish that antibiotics meaningfully decrease complications or reduce the time
to resolution of symptoms.)
Fortunately, a controlled trial of encainide and flecainide was conducted. The Cardiac
Arrhythmia Suppression Trial provided results that astounded cardiologists. These two anti-arrhythmia
agents, while suppressing arrhytmias effecively, not only did not provide an improvement in
survival, but actually tripled the death rate. Encainide and flecainide may have produced
some benefit though [sic, �through�] suppression of arrhythmias, yet they also had unintended
and previously unrecognized mechanisms that ultimately led to an adverse effect on overall
survival, mechanisms that would not have been detected if there had not been a trial to
directly assess the effects on the clinical-efficacy endpoint of overall survival.
This raises an important point I overlooked when writing my rejoinder to Dr. Summers�
Washington Post op-ed: just as important as the question of whether the HPV vaccine actually
reduces the risk of cervical cancer is the question of whether the vaccine reduces mortality.
After all, if the vaccine, say, reduces the risk of cervical cancer while increasing the
risk of death due to some other cause, then, obviously, it does not follow from the fact
that it reduces the risk of cervical cancer that therefore it is a good idea to get the
vaccine.
Also, while Fleming cites the example of pediatricians routinely resorting to antibiotics for ear
infections, he might just as well have cited the argument given by the medical establishment
and public policy defenders for why it would be unethical to do a study comparing autism
rates (or other health outcomes, for that matter, such as autoimmune disease) for children
vaccinated according to the CDC�s schedule with children who remained completely unvaccinated.
No such study has been done because to withhold the vaccines from children, the argument goes,
would be unethical since it would deprive children of the vaccines� benefits.
Just as those who believed that encainide and flecainide must be effective at lowering
mortality based on a surrogate endpoint, so does this argument against doing vaccinated
versus unvaccinated studies beg the question. It assumes in the premise the very proposition
to be proven (the petitio principii fallacy) � namely, that vaccines given according
to the CDC�s schedule are safe and effective.
The DTP Vaccine and Mortality
A stark example of this fallacy is found in the case of the DTP vaccine (which has been
replaced in the US with the acellular pertussis vaccine, DTaP, but is still widely used elsewhere
around the globe). Since receipt of the vaccine has been shown to reduce the incidence of
diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus, the assumption has been that therefore mass vaccination with
DTP will reduce mortality.
In fact, however, what studies show is that the DTP vaccine increases mortality.
The most recent of these, a study published in February of this year in the journal EBioMedicine,
stated researchers� findings bluntly (emphasis added):
DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated [with DTP]. No prospective
study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. Unfortunately, DTP is the most widely
used vaccine, and the proportion who receives DTP3 is used globally as an indicator of the
performance of national vaccination programs.
It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality
was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine
may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.
Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase
susceptibility to unrelated infection.
To return to Raptor�s claim that the Journal of the National Cancer Institute study showed
that the HPV vaccine prevents cancer, recall that it in fact confirmed what I had written
about the FDA, which relied on a surrogate endpoint in its licensure of Gardasil.
Furthermore, this study in fact confirms what I wrote about why Dr. Summers would be unable
to point to any such studies: because none exist.
As Raptor�s own source states, �it may be many years before the effect on HPV vaccination
on the incidence of cervical cancer can be assessed.�
Hence we can see that Raptor�s claim that this study showed that the HPV vaccine reduced
the incidence of cervical cancer is a bald-faced lie.
It would be superfluous to examine the remainder of the Raptor�s links.
On the Measles Vaccine
�I�m rapidly becoming impatient with Hammond�s arguments�, Raptor informs readers as we
come to the next matter I raised in my rejoinder to Dr. Summers: the measles vaccine.
Summers had pointed out that one rare complication of measles is encephalitis, or brain inflammation,
and then asked why any parent would risk their child becoming brain damaged by measles �when
there�s a safe way of of protecting their children� (referring, of course, to the
measles vaccine).
I pointed out that Summers� statement wrongly implied that encephalitis is not a possible
adverse effect of vaccination. I cited a couple of studies in the medical literature that
have indicated that encephalitis is a rare outcome of measles vaccination, and I also
pointed out that it�s included on the list of possible adverse events on the product
insert for Merck�s MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine.
Raptor�s response to my observation is to assert that I�m guilty of creating �a
false dichotomy � either a vaccine is 100% safe or it�s unsafe�.
It�s Raptor, however, who is here guilty of the fallacy of strawman argumentation.
Of course, I neither said nor suggested any such ridiculous thing. I merely observed � accurately
� that Dr. Summers was characterizing the vaccine as though it was 100% safe.
Next, Raptor asserts that I think �that package inserts are some sort of infallible
document� � another ludicrous strawman. Raptor notes that �a package insert is never
evidence of correlation or causality�. That is true, and of course I hadn�t suggested
otherwise. I simply observed the fact that encephalitis is listed under the section listing
possible adverse events on Merck�s product insert.
So we can see how the very act of stating a fact in a context of questioning public
vaccine policy automatically renders the person stating the fact a believer in �pseudoscience�.
It�s through such tactics that defenders of public policy attempt to stifle any form
of dissent.
Raptor�s next point is a valid one: assuming the three cases of encephalitis reported for
every three million doses of MMR given were actually caused by the vaccine, �the risk
of encephalitis from measles is still substantially higher than the vaccine�. That is true.
It�s also true that adverse reactions to vaccines are for numerous reasons widely underreported
in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which was also established under
the 1986 law granting vaccine manufacturers legal immunity (The National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act).
But both of these facts are beside the point I was making, which is that it is dishonest
to characterize vaccination as though it was a medical intervention that entails no risk
of any serious harm.
Raptor rightly frames it as a question of weighing benefits versus risks. But this just
bolsters my whole point, which is that the public ought to be properly informed of what
those risks are rather than told they don�t exist.
In Raptor�s calculation, the benefits of the measles vaccine far outweighs any risks.
But that�s a decision that every parent should make for every child with every vaccine.
And there are countless other variables to consider to be able to make an informed choice
that the public just isn�t being informed about.
For example, parents aren�t being informed that, just as studies show that the DTP vaccine
has �non-specific effects� (that is, consequences that are unintended or unexpected) resulting
in increased mortality, so have studies long found that natural infection with measles
has non-specific effects that are beneficial. Natural infection with the measles virus not
only confers lifelong immunity against measles, but also seems to be an important childhood
disease that primes the immune system to help protect against other diseases, as well.
Benefits of Getting Measles
�In the 1970s,� as Science Daily notes, �measles infections were observed to cause
regression of pre-existing cancer tumors in children.� This observation has led Mayo
Clinic to experiment with using measles virus to treat brain cancer.
A study published in The Lancet in 1985 found a negative history of measles to be associated
with an increased risk of developing �immunocreactive diseases, sebaceious skin diseases, degenerative
diseases of bone and cartilage, and certain tumours.�
A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology the same year found that infection
with measles is associated with a reduced risk of Parkinson�s disease, suggesting
�a truly protective effect of measles�.
More recently, a study published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2013 found �a protective
role of childhood infectious diseases� � namely measles � �on the risk of CLL [chronic
lymphoid leukaemia] in adults�.
A study published in the journal Atherosclerosis in 2015 found that �Measles and mumps, especially
in case of both infections, were associated with lower risks of mortality from atherosclerotic
CVD [cardiovascular disease].�
Dr. Summers naturally fails to disclose this kind of information in his op-ed so parents
could do a proper cost-benefit analysis to determine whether vaccination is right for
them.
One begins to see why studies have shown that parents who are choosing not to vaccinate
their children, far from being unintelligent or �anti-science�, tend to be well-educated
and affluent.
It�s the parents who choose not to put blind faith in an observably corrupt medical establishment
that, rather than address their legitimate concerns, has shunned and ridiculed anyone
who dares to question public policy, including parents of vaccine-injured children.
It�s the parents who understand how bias can become institutionalized. (No �conspiracy
theory� is required to explain how the medical establishment could be wrong, though when
it comes to �tobacco science�, there is certainly an element of willfulness. Older
generations may recall how advertisements for cigarettes used to feature doctors�
endorsements, and it is not as though there wasn�t an abundance of other examples where
the medical establishment has gotten it wrong.)
It�s the parents who are doing their own research, including by doing something most
doctors and journalists can�t seem to be bothered with: digging into the medical literature
(which can be searched at PubMed.gov) to see for themselves what science actually has to
say about vaccines.
Measles and Mortality
Raptor emphasizes that �measles can be a serious illness requiring hospitalization�.
That is true. It is also true that the mortality rate from measles had already plummeted prior
to the introduction of the vaccine. This can be seen in the CDC data presented in the below
graph (note that the vaccine was licensed in 1963, after the last year shown on this
graph).
In fact, as an article in the journal Pediatrics notes, �nearly 90% of the decline in infectious
disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines
were available.�
Moreover, the risk factors for complications from measles, unlike the risks from the vaccine,
are quite well understood � such as malnourishment and, most specifically, vitamin A deficiency.
This brings us to the next objection of Raptor�s to my reply to Summers�s op-ed. Summers
had written:
Preventing measles isn�t a matter of avoiding some minor ailment. The disease killed over
100,000 people in 2015.
I replied:
Summers notes the the deaths of over 100,000 people in 2015 as a result of measles infection
as though the mortality rate in the US, absent mass vaccination, would be no different than
in third-world countries in Africa.
Raptor asserts that I�m �just plain wrong� here; �Dr. Simmons [sic] wasn�t trying
to imply that 100,000 children would die in the USA, he�s speaking worldwide.�
But that was precisely my point. Dr. Summers was citing a statistic suggesting a mortality
rate that would apply to other countries, but not to the US � a fact which Raptor
here tacitly acknowledges.
Raptor claims Summers �wasn�t trying to imply� that the mortality rate of measles
would be the same in the US as it would be in developing countries. One might wonder
how Raptor can read Summers� mind, but it makes no difference because it isn�t a question
of intent. Whether intentionally or not, Summers did in fact imply just that.
In fact, it was in this very same paragraph that Summers noted that there is a risk of
brain damage from measles and asked, �Why on earth would parents opt for that risk when
there�s a safe way of protecting their children?�
Summers was, of course, directing his question specifically toward American parents when
he wrote that.
Raptor�s next comment is, �Of course, Hammond�s point sounds vaguely offensive
that somehow only Africans will die of measles, and not privileged white Americans. Sigh.�
So now, in addition to it being �anti-science� to point out the acknowledged fact that the
mortality rate in the US would not be the same as in developing countries, it is also
�offensive� to point out that Americans enjoy a higher standard of living.
Sigh.
Unintended Population Effects of Mass Vaccination
Among other factors that aren�t taken into consideration in the risk-benefit analysis
underlying public policy are unintended effects at the population level. For example, one
effect of mass vaccination for measles is that in the event of an outbreak today, the
risk burden has shifted away from children in whom it is a generally mild disease onto
those for whom it poses a greater risk of complications: infants.
This is because in the pre-vaccine era, most women experienced measles infection as a child
and developed a robust cell-mediated immunity. Frequent reexposure to the virus also kept
antibody levels high. Since antibodies are passed from mother to baby via breastmilk,
breastfeeding provided a strong passive immunity to infants, who do not yet have a developed
immune system to be able to handle the infection on their own.
Now, however, thanks to mass vaccination, mothers aren�t as well able to confer immunity
to their infants via breastmilk. This is because the immunity conferred by the vaccine isn�t
as robust as that conferred by natural infection and wanes more quickly over time, and by reducing
the circulation of the virus, the natural boosting of antibody titers from frequent
reexposure no longer occurs.
Thus, because mothers in the era of mass vaccination aren�t as well able to pass protective antibodies
on to their infants via breastmilk, in the event of an outbreak, infants are at a higher
risk.
Conclusion
Raptor closes by describing my response to Summers� op-ed as consisting of �tropes,
myths, conspiracy theories, cherry picking and, need I mention this, outright misinformation.�
It is fitting that Raptor should close with such words because, in the end, having failed
to identify even a single error in fact or logic in anything I wrote, such empty rhetoric
is all Raptor has got. Rather than reasonably addressing my points, Raptor resorts to misrepresentation,
strawman argumentation, obfuscation, and ad hominem attacks.
I am perfectly content to let intelligent readers decide for themselves, therefore,
who is more �anti-science�.
Such efforts to bully and intimidate people into conformity will ultimately fail, but
there�s a lesson in it: to dare to question public vaccine policy is a sin for which one
must be rebuked.
It is to commit the crime of heresy against the vaccine religion.
The heretics, however, will not be intimidated.
We will not be silenced.
For more infomation >> Army Races to Build Strategic Roads to China Border - Duration: 4:32. 
For more infomation >> What is Bitcoin Mining for Beginners Short and Simple - Duration: 2:06. 
For more infomation >> This election is about the future of the NHS - Duration: 2:50. 
For more infomation >> Coronary Heart Disease - Relationship with spleen and stomach - Duration: 2:41. 
For more infomation >> What Is Awakening — An interview with Sri Mooji - مقابلة مع شري موجي - ما هي الصحوة ؟ (رائع!!!!!) - Duration: 58:11. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét